|
MicrostockGroup Sponsors
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - cobalt
4226
« on: September 17, 2013, 18:00 »
To me it sounds more like the influence of people who are not familiar with online communities and social network marketing is getting dominant. I cant believe that people who have lived online and seen SS grow would recommend such a policy.
It cannot be enforced and creates very negative buzz.
How is that good for an online business?
Anyway, we will see what they do. But it sounds scary.
4227
« on: September 17, 2013, 17:54 »
This is what happens if you ignore the customer.
4228
« on: September 17, 2013, 17:27 »
Great post Jo Ann. May be the apparent lack of transparency on the prices paid for SOD's, etc is mainly to do with commercial sensitivity (i.e. they don't want their competitors knowing what they're doing)?
Any competitor could easily have an employee, friend or relative shooting for SS to find out. But like policing the sort of conditions that say you can't use an image bought on subscription after the subscription has finished, it would be nigh unto impossible to police what someone tells their boss, friend or relative in private.
SS publishes their own earnings in incredible detail. It makes absolutely no sense to forbid their contributors to talk about their results if they publish everything themselves. I also dont see how a competitor can deduct anything from me posting that I have earned 350 dollars, or when I celebrate that I have moved up to 33 cents instead of 25 cents. On the contrary, it is the very detailed information shared by contributors that got me interested in working with SS in the first place. This is how online communities work. People share results. I really cant see the logic in this decision and the idea that SS is paying admins to scout the internet to check if we talk about our results is...creepy? This sounds like a very negative move. What on earth is coming next?? Why do we need to start hiding our results?
4229
« on: September 17, 2013, 13:38 »
It is important for artists to share information to see which sites are worth contributing to. If I hadn't read how successful people are at SS I would not have even considered working with a subscription site.
If they really start policing us on external forums or people get their accounts closed because they decided to share what they earn, if they reached a new royalty level etc...then it will probably be necessary to use an alias for the sales threads.
But maybe this is also related to people like Yuri who have huge volumes of sales and can actually track how SS is doing overall. Nobody can gain any insight into how SS is doing from my data.
But I really can't believe they are suddenly worried by the sales threads on msg, blogs or facebook groups.
4230
« on: September 16, 2013, 15:17 »
4231
« on: September 16, 2013, 10:44 »
Very interesting, thank you!
It will be interesting to see what I can share end of next year!
4232
« on: September 16, 2013, 09:31 »
Isnt "the wall" more related to how the agency itself grows or shrinks and loses customers?
You can upload as much as you want, but if they are not expanding their customer base or convincing the ones they have to spend more, there is nothing you can do.
And sites that rely on yearly targets are particularly vulnerable because the artist has absolutely no influence on the marketing of the site itself. Fighting dilution and incoming new competition is a challenge you can handle as an artist, but if the management decided that agency X will now be their favorite and all their advertising money and attention goes there, there is absolutely nothing you can do.
And with smaller sites, I would think they are restricted by the budget they have or simply by reaching a critical mass that is enough to feed the owner and his or her team. they dont need to double and triple their revenue every year, if they reach a certain target range and just stay in that size because this is where they feel comfortable.
4233
« on: September 16, 2013, 07:20 »
So you are suggesting that Editor's pick is a label that indicates "super secret getty deal" if it was slapped across the entire portfolio? It's possible. An easy way to identify those loved more...
What I really don't get how they try to pretend that Getty is such a tiny outfit they cannot go over millions of files to pick the best content. When in reality Getty has a huge team of editors scouting through billions of files on flickr to find the best work. It would probably take that team of very experienced editors just a few weeks to comb through the istock exclusive content, especially because the Vetta and agency collection already gave them an idea in which portfolios to look first.
I thought the remark about not being ready to find "the best handshake" spoke volumes of the low apprciation of the quality of the istock exclusive contributors.
It's important to remember when Getty communications mentions exclusive contributors, they don't mean the regular istock or getty contributors, but only the select few or their wholly owned content. Editors pick just makes it more visible, that is all.
4234
« on: September 13, 2013, 12:44 »
4235
« on: September 13, 2013, 12:03 »
Fotolia pays 30% and you can opt out of subs if you want to. But they dont sell anywhere near as much as SS or pond5. About the same volume as istock, which dropped a lot even before I went indie for videos.
4236
« on: September 13, 2013, 04:02 »
Good luck! I can imagine how agonizing and difficult that decision must have been.
4237
« on: September 12, 2013, 22:02 »
I am not a video pro but for me SS and pond5 are by far the most consistent sites. After that fotolia, and once every few months istock. I have stopped uploading to other sites.
4238
« on: September 12, 2013, 19:15 »
While Getty is trying to find different ways to license photos like youtube ads ShutterStock is find customers who actually buy video's and images. How about plain old fashioned selling of our work instead of new ways to shaft the artist with pennies for views garbage!
Yep, the customer is out there, just go and find them...and when you have them treat them well so they keep coming back to you. There is "no magic bullet" where you just piggy back your files on other businesses and just feed of their success automatically. Just normal business relationships, building years of trust with hard work. By the way have a look at the comments below the article. Quite interesting. Didn't know the photographer with Klein is not "contributing" to Getty.
4239
« on: September 12, 2013, 15:15 »
Im not against being successful and negotiating your own contracts. But it is not something I would "aspire" to in business. I look for business partners who have the same goals like me.
Hard work, tolerance and discipline. Nothing secret or special in the end.
Yuri did negotiate his own terms. I don't really see the point in being jealous about it, I think it shows that contributors still have some value and leverage in this business. Wanting him to have a contract with worse terms because you don't like special deals sounds petty to me.
Where exactly did you see me write that I am jealous of Yuri? Or that I want him to have a contract with worse terms? I gave up my Getty House contract out of my own free will because I believe there is a better future for me by working with other teams. But I dont hate Getty,even if I am stunned by how they have destroyed istock. I simply dont believe that it is necessary to run after people (or agencies). If you are good at what you do and keep an open mind you will meet the right people at the right time. The industry has a lot more options than just "high prices on getty" and the luxury life of the Getty House artist and " pennies from the micros" for the unwashed masses. There is a lot more out there.
4240
« on: September 12, 2013, 14:21 »
Im not against being successful and negotiating your own contracts. But it is not something I would "aspire" to in business. I look for business partners who have the same goals like me.
Hard work, tolerance and discipline. Nothing secret or special in the end.
4241
« on: September 12, 2013, 14:14 »
So this is what we are supposed to "aspire to"? The "special" secret deal with Getty??
I'd like a special secret deal, wouldn't you?
No, thank you. I like transparency and openness in business. It may not always be possible, but the more transparent, the better the business. At least this has been my experience. The whole "secret handshake" private club mentality isnt me.
4242
« on: September 12, 2013, 13:14 »
So this is what we are supposed to "aspire to"? The "special" secret deal with Getty??
4243
« on: September 11, 2013, 19:07 »
Then maybe his interview wasnt convincing enough in the way he conveyed those thoughts. People here are interested in their immediate prospects for making money. Reading here, can give a good analysis if any targets for marketing and corporate pr have been achieved.
4244
« on: September 11, 2013, 07:12 »
I guess this is the fastest way to increase their earnings - transfer the customers to the site where they pay out lower royalties  And on Thinkstock the customers cant even click on an artists portfolio - because there is no artists name next to the image. Depressing read.
4245
« on: September 10, 2013, 08:55 »
Yes, I get paid in euros,makes a big difference. And the difference in German and English keywords can be staggering. It is even more drastic with very special words that dont really exist in English,so the english speaking contributors wouldnt even be able to add an equivalent.
Instead of competing with 60 000 files, in some searches I am suddenly in a comfortable club of 600.
It must be the same for French or Spanish speakers, huge language specific buyer base.
And of course like this Fotolia attracts a lot of local content, they certainly have the biggest choice in local German files.
4246
« on: September 10, 2013, 04:24 »
I am still a newbie to many sites,but Fotolia has a much higher return per download than SS at the moment and sells really well. Maybe keywording in German gives me an advantage, but they are performing much better than I expected.
4247
« on: September 06, 2013, 04:09 »
I agree that winning back customers and trust will be very expensive and need at least two years. But if they really want to, they can do it. Is the current strategy the right one? I don't know and we will see how long the new manager lasts under pressure from investors. But at least some visible attention is being brought to istock after years of neglect.
Of course SS and Fotolia and all the others will continue to press forward.
So I will continue to upload where I expect the money to be in the forseeable future....and I certainly feel safer working with several agencies than just one. It helps me to focus on my work and just enjoy what I am doing without having to worry whatever disaster might strike next.
It's also great to see new uploads sell. Looks like the customers that like my work have moved on as well.
4248
« on: September 05, 2013, 17:24 »
Meanwhile Shutterstock has millions in the bank........
It's not inconceivable that when Carlyle Group eventually lose patience with their irksome 'investment' ... that SS might become the next owner.
I reckon that the SS management team are probably the only people with the detailed knowledge of the industry to make Getty work. The only problem is that their valuation of Getty's true worth is likely to be a lot lower than those with less knowledge of the industry.
SS might indeed have the money to buy getty, especially in two or three years when they have grown even more and also have a flourishing high end creative business. But to make those business cultures compatible would take a lot of work. Much easier for them to slowly win over customers and artists and just do their own thing. The advantage with online customers and digital assets is that they can move around very fast. Which also leaves Getty the chance to achieve a turnaround and head back for growth if they really want to.
4249
« on: September 05, 2013, 14:15 »
Has anyone else noticed that Getty's falling revenue (and discounted debt) all seems to have occurred in the last few months ... since a certain Yuri Arcurs went exclusive?
PDWP!
Since they kicked out Sean, Rob, Alex and encouraged others to leave after the Getty Google Drive disaster??? Maybe the public outrage among the artists, who also happen to be buyers is affecting the bottom line? Just a little bit???More than a little bit? Lost social network marketing and personal recommendations? Of course not...it is all SS and Fotolia...who else...
4250
« on: September 05, 2013, 13:16 »
If instead of paying out "special dividends" they had actually made a huge investment in the company itself - technology, marketing and hiring the best team - where would they be now?
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
