|
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 - gostwyck
4426
« on: December 09, 2009, 14:10 »
How many independents might now consider going exclusive on istock?
It's difficult not to at least consider it. My projections suggest that it could lead to as much as a 30% increase in revenue. It's not a decision I'm looking forward to making though. Up to now it has been easy as the independent route was inherently more stable, less risky and you earned 20-25% more. All of a sudden that seems to have been turned on it's head. I just hope that the other major agencies can react accordingly to keep us interested.
4427
« on: December 09, 2009, 13:46 »
There has always been a bias toward exclusive files in the best match, but up to now IS has had some incentive to keep non-exclusive content visible because they make more $ on it.
Now, by more than doubling the price of exclusive content, they stand to make more profit on it. There is now NO incentive for them to give any kind of decent search placement to non-exclusive content at all.
If they plan to jerry rig the best match against non-exclusive content then we can all kiss the volume of our sales at Istock goodbye.
That's a very good point. Having said that I think the real focus here is all about the average percentage commission, not just the bottom-line, which must have been steadily rising as more exclusives attain higher levels. Sales from independent contributors help drive the average commission downwards hugely so maybe we don't have too much to worry about.
4428
« on: December 09, 2009, 12:49 »
Not only are you not showing us the images involved, which makes it impossible for us to know 'how we would feel', you haven't actually stated whether or not you did copy the concept from others. It might be one thing using the idea but quite another if the execution has also been closely copied too.
Let's try your question the other way around __ if you came up with a useful genuinely new concept, which started earning you plenty of money, how would you feel if others just copied it?
4429
« on: December 08, 2009, 19:08 »
Out of interest Ivan how did you discover the use of your work in this way?
4430
« on: December 08, 2009, 18:40 »
"the average number of downloads per contributor has also risen significantly since 2006"
Wonder what that means.
I guess it can mean whatever they want it to mean. My own DL's this year will be about 25% higher than they were in 2006 (with about 1/3 of the portfolio size). Maybe 25% could be described as 'significant' ... but over a 3 year period?
4431
« on: December 08, 2009, 18:13 »
Why not Getty, Corbis etc have exclusive images and yet do not require photographer exclusivity, the buyer doesn't care whether the photographer is exclusive or not, but having exclusive images is a huge advantage to iStock and that is their trump card, I can understand they would be concerned that some contributors may be tempted to bend the rules which is why the term "strongest talents in stock today" would be very apt, many of us who do this for a living and have a proven sales record are not the kind that would breach the agreement.
Give wholly exclusive photographers 40%, non-exclusives get 20% on normal images and 30% on exclusive one's. Simple and everybody wins even the iStock exclusives because it will bring more buyers through the door.
Because they don't want you feeding their competitors, that's why. That is also why you can be exclusive but still sell RM anywhere else.
4432
« on: December 08, 2009, 18:04 »
Hopefully we will make it up in volume as the more cost-conscious buyers choose the cheaper non-exclusive files over exclusive ones.
If I were exclusive I would want to option to choose which of my exclusive images were put in the various collections. I might want to keep my more commonplace ones in the "main collection".
I'm not sure that this is going to be significant __ is there much evidence of FT's customers avoiding the images of Emerald+ members which are higher priced? Also a very high % of IS's images are exclusive so a cheapskate buyer would be limiting themselves to a relatively small collection from which to choose. If they were that price-concious they wouldn't be at IS in the first place.
4433
« on: December 08, 2009, 17:55 »
... but one part of the statement I did find interesting was this:
"We're also hoping to encourage the strongest talents in stock today to consider bringing their best work to iStock exclusively."
Good catch Richard. I missed that. Definitely sounds like the door to image exclusivity may be opening a crack.
Not a chance __ all they are referring to is the opportunity to earn more via the higher prices for exclusive files. They know well enough that the people they are referring to generally report IS to be about 35-40% of their total earnings and this has been pitched perfectly to ensure they would get a fairly significant increase in revenue from exclusivity. My only surprise is that they didn't do it sooner. Of course the 'strongest talent' they'd really like to snare would be a certain Mr Arcurs and his mighty portfolio.
4434
« on: December 08, 2009, 17:46 »
Getting screwed with the cannisters, just like with fotolia.
Oh, h*ll, it's a cartel. 
Not exactly. At least IS have given a couple of months notice and are open to helping out those on the verge. FT didn't even have the decency to make an announcement let alone negotiate on the issue. Having said that IS's wailing that "the current canister levels are unsustainable" is patent nonsense as all it affects is how little commission they pay out (and only to some of their exclusive contributors) and much more profit they get to keep themselves. IS are already eye-wateringly profitable and still growing at a staggering rate. To say they can't continue to pay the same levels of commission is simply absurd and downright greedy.
4435
« on: December 08, 2009, 17:26 »
Typical FT "support", unfortunately. 
I wonder if IS's little bombshell (and the potential exodus of top contributors) might encourage them to pull their finger out and start communicating and providing some 'support'.
4436
« on: December 08, 2009, 17:19 »
Wow __ this is HUGE news. Thanks for the heads-up Sean.
My average sale price on IS as an independent contributor is currently about $1.20 (ignoring EL's, etc for the time being) which means the average sale price is $6 or a little less than Medium size.
Under the new exclusive prices the average sale price should rise to about $10 which would be worth $4 commission. If over the last couple of months my IS sales had averaged $4 a pop then I'd have made 20-25% more money than I did from all the sites.
This has to be serious food for thought.
4437
« on: December 08, 2009, 10:26 »
Why was I thinking they were only paying 25. Did they change it?
The 25c only applies to Independent contributors. Exclusives get 30-38c on canister level.
4439
« on: December 08, 2009, 06:33 »
Shame but it was never going to work or generate significant revenue in comparison to stock sales. If IS couldn't make it work then DT had no chance __ the only surprise was that they attempted it.
4440
« on: December 06, 2009, 06:28 »
I am a loser at this uploading images. I am sure it is simple but I don't get it. Tried posting to a separate url and pasting in the url and hitting image button but no picture. I know it is me, as long as I have blamed computers I find 99% of the time its me : )
Try Imageshack to host your images. It's very simple and they give you a variety of links with which you can experiment for the actual use you need. Even I can do it with them.
4441
« on: December 06, 2009, 06:22 »
DevianArt is basically hobbyists messing about with PS and enjoying the accolades of their fellow hobbyists isn't it? I can't imagine there's many, if any, people seriously trying to earn significant sums let alone a living from it. Let's face it, it is hard enough earning a living from conventional stock sales as it is and most DA work is not particularly commercially oriented and the site is not targetting stock buyers.
I think we are probably better off being grateful for the few sales we do get from DA members rather than hammering them with emails demanding to know whether they are complying with the intricacies of the license.
In the event that one of them produces a masterpiece which actually ends up on posters/calendars/whatever, and it includes microstock-sourced elements, then it might be worth taking action. Until then you are probably better off expending the time & energy into producing more stock than chasing the tails of these hobbyists.
4442
« on: December 06, 2009, 05:45 »
Bought one Huey pro two years ago and it works. Same as the look see or the compare or fly it by eye, but for the $69 or whatever it was, it adjusts to room light as it changes and makes things reasonable close, which beats the look and guess method. After three monitors and looking at old pictures from before, it does make a difference. Maybe a small difference, but it's worth the investment. (still a CRT guy keep that in mind)
Other reason that people keep touching on. Even though the buyer and people looking may see what they see because their system is not calibrated, for reviews it will help, for someone using it, it will be better and if someone wants to print, it will come out correct, not all strange. Meeting standards makes things more "standard"  and easier for the end user. Do you buy cheap lenses and the cheapest cards and used flashes from a bin? Why take all that effort, expensive equipment and time to make great photos and in the end, just have sloppy color correction?
Do you cook all day, making a special dinner and then serve it on paper plates with plastic forks too? 
Great post Race. You've convinced me!
4443
« on: December 05, 2009, 06:09 »
Interesting thread and great to hear everyones' views on this as I've been umming and ahhing about buying a calibration device for months.
I use a LaCie 22" CRT monitor 'calibrated' by the Mark 1 eyeball. When I recently had to replace the monitor (with an identical model bought for pennies off eBay) it needed adjusting but I just used my existing portfolio as the reference.
From a business point of view I'm struggling to justify the costs as I can't see how they would be recovered (through additional sales) as in 5 years I don't think I've ever had a rejection for dodgy colours or anything similar. Having said that, from a business perspective, the cost is minuscule in comparison to earnings and surely it is 'unprofessional' to have an uncalibrated monitor when you earn your income from photography?
Up to now I've been using RT's method of simply assessing how my own images appear when displayed alongside those of others' on each agency and that seems to have worked fine so far. When I'm away from home and/or using other displays to view my portfolio then I'm generally happy about how they appear (making allowances for some of the horrendous monitors you can get in internet cafes).
To be honest if I used a calibration device and it changed the way my images appeared compared to others then I'm sure I would trust my own judgement more than that of the device.
Regarding the Spyder/Huey debate, on Amazon UK the Spyder scores significantly higher than the Huey with a similar number of reviews __ but again I would personally value Lisa's experience, in doing what we do, far more than that of the unknown reviewers.
4444
« on: December 04, 2009, 15:45 »
Surprisingly good for me too __ a bit below last month's BME but overall 41% higher than Nov 2008. I spent the entire month on holiday in Thailand too so no boost from new uploads.
Percentages as follows (with 2008).
IS 37 (30)
FT 22 (18)
SS 22 (29)
DT 11 (14)
StockXpert 5 (6)
Rodeo 2.2 (n/a)
BigStock 1.5 (3.6)
FT just beat SS into second place for the first time ever.
Rodeo confirmed themselves in 6th place relegating BigStock further into oblivion (and with only about half the number of images uploaded there too). I'm somewhat sceptical that BigStock can be resuscitated by SS or indeed whether it is in our interests for them to do so given the low commissions paid there.
4445
« on: December 01, 2009, 22:54 »
Are you sure? Why you didn't tried Corbis or Alamy? I love them ;-)
Actually, based on the last quarter they published, Alamy generates about 1/10th of the commission (paid to the contributor) per image/year compared to IS. The revenue graphs are going in dramatically different directions too. How much longer can Alamy survive with it's current business model? All Corbis ever admit is that they've lost more of Bill's money every year that they've been operating and it's reasonable to assume that they're not immune to the current economic climate.
4446
« on: November 04, 2009, 08:39 »
Not only cars it seems. I had a few of mine removed in october from a series of Manhattan cityscapes :
And yes, all potential trademarks, ad signs or whatever had been edited out from the picture. Maybe it's because I tell in the caption that it has been shot from the top of the Rockefeller Center ? Is the RFC considered a trademark or copyrighted ?
It might be because of the location from where you took the shot i.e. from private property.
4447
« on: November 03, 2009, 16:46 »
I think they changed it on their graph didn't they? Originally it was vertical outselling everything by 2x.
4448
« on: November 03, 2009, 16:00 »
Isn't the internet already available everywhere? Or does this just mean it's in a different language?
I presume they're also opening an office there with a local telephone number answered by someone who speaks the jolly old lingo. That's been the formula so far and it's working well everwhere else. Turkey's got a population of over 70M and a localized marketing plan could generate a lot of business.
4449
« on: November 03, 2009, 12:55 »
^^^ Wow __ that's happened in just the last few hours!
4450
« on: November 03, 2009, 12:44 »
Last month my earnings at BigStock were 20% less than I earned with them in March 2007.
Over the same timescale my earnings at IS have risen by nearly 4x and at FT (who back then were only marginally ahead of BigStock) they are more than 7x higher.
I don't see any point in uploading further images to BigStock unless there's some fairly drastic changes.
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
