|
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
4651
« on: September 12, 2009, 19:56 »
Dude, listen, I'm here for you anytime you need, OK? If it makes you feel better to go on some sort of psychotic rant against Alamy just to get it out of your system, I'm fine with that.
But Einstein, are you seriously implying that if Alamy ever fails (and Dingo couldn't care less if they did), that the only other option is microstock?
Just joshing with you old buddy! Unfortunately the malaise that will eventually do for Alamy will also do for most of the others too. Even with your brain befuddled through lack of food though you must appreciate this surely? Funny how you were singing Alamy's praises just a few posts ago __ mind you, loss of short-term memory is always one of the first signs of malnutrition. Dingo's traditionally feed on scraps but in this climate it must be tough for you. When you need a bit of help to pass the technical standards for microstock (as you will) then you just have to ask. How are you getting on with the doggy-paddle practise?
4652
« on: September 12, 2009, 16:38 »
That blog rather exagerates the actual situation. Yes, there were a few incidents of UK police attempting to use anti-terroist laws to challenge a photographer's rights to do his job but it has been quickly stamped on after significant outrage from the industry and the public. Here are the Met Police's published guidelines; http://www.met.police.uk/about/photography.htmIt's the same in the US too. When visiting the US a couple of years ago I was reported to the police for 'suspicious behaviour' for walking down a Maryland town street taking photographs. I was stopped by the police because "You can't be too careful with all this terroism around ...". I had to explain what I was doing, handed over a business card and off he went happy that he'd investigated the situation.
4653
« on: September 12, 2009, 16:15 »
... why you think nothing of calculating and then comparing per image revenue from an UNEDITED portal like Alamy with an EDITED library like Istock.
By 'unedited' (or more probably accurately 'self-edited') it generally comes to pass that 90% of the library is either multiple similars and/or rubbish. Why would a customer want to plough through 90% crap and then have to pay a very hefty premium for the priviledge of doing so? Most of the upmarket agencies pride themselves on how tightly edited their collections are __ that's what their customers are supposed to be paying for. IMHO Alamy's business model is tragically flawed so many respects __ losing customers and revenue every quarter despite chasing image prices ever lower. I not entirely sure that they could compete even if they dropped their prices to microstock levels. I know a couple of Alamy devotees who basically ended up there because they couldn't actually hack it in microstock; the technical standards were too high if they couldn't 'self-edit' and their stuff didn't sell much if it did actually get accepted. Judging by a few searches it would seem that plenty of Alamy photographers can't even achieve a basic isolation-on-white, they think it means having a grubby sheet as a background. That's self-editing for you __ nobody told them that their images are crap. HERE Doggy, Doggy, Doggy! Come to microstock __ there's good boy! You're on a rapidly sinking ship my friend so you'd better start practicing your doggy-paddle (geddit) if you want to survive. The future is stock __ not micro, not macro, just stock.
4654
« on: September 12, 2009, 14:38 »
I agree with you ,
although the policy of rejecting an image for having a model release for part of a body is annoying as you sometime don't know where they draw the line.
Oh yes __ they can be absurdly pedantic at times!
4655
« on: September 12, 2009, 14:05 »
The only thing I hate is subs. Everywhere.
Sub's would be absolutely fine if only the various agencies had increased package prices at the same rate as have for PPD sales. They're slashing their own throats as well as ours by not doing so. When SS started they were paying out the same per sale as we were getting for a medium-sized sale at IS (20c). Now we're getting 38c on SS (at most) whereas at IS a medium sale (non-exclusive) pays between 1.14 - 1.80.
4656
« on: September 12, 2009, 13:42 »
Just my quick list:
1. 6 months of holding images
2. increased amount of subscription sales
3. falling RPI
4. new pricing policy
5. disabling images not deleting them
6. slowest disabling process for images, having to put a reason for each one
7. getting images rejected for having a model release
8. locking keywords on basically every image
9. giving away free images
Rather a silly statement isn't it? 'Hate' is a very strong word. Why would they have locked your keywords anyway? It usually only happens when someone is trying to screw them around when they suddenly decide they no longer like the lock-in period. Personally I think they're an excellent agency who treat their contributors with respect and have always paid the highest % of commission compared to any other significant microstock agency.
4657
« on: September 12, 2009, 10:54 »
Typical Pavlovian microstocker analysis. Success = no. of downloads. This is why 99% of you are failures in actually making a profit. You have absolutely no idea of how to analyse a business situation and make the best choices.
Let's look how a successful stock photographer might look at things:
Total downloads on Istock = 6,700
Average paid out to Istock contributors per download = $0.30
Total paid out to Istock contributors = $2,010
Partial number of licenses sold on Alamy = 47
Average paid out to Alamy contributors per license = $70
Total paid out to Alamy contributors = $3,290
Ratio of contributors at Alamy vs. IStock = 1 (Alamy) : 2 (IStock)
So not only does Alamy pay 64% more to contributors than IStock, Alamy also has at least half as many contributors competing for those dollars.
Wow Dingo __ you really don't have a clue about the numbers do you? You have some homework to do my friend. Read and enjoy; http://www.alamy.com/contributors/statements/default.aspAs can be seen Alamy's sales figures are steadily heading southwards but in the last year they generated about $27M (from 14M images) of which roughly $15M was paid out in commissions. In the same year IS generated something like $150m of sales (from about 5M images) and paid out roughly $50m in commissions. That works out at about $1 per image/year paid out by Alamy compared to about $10 per image/year paid out by Istock. Istock sales are still growing strongly and are projected to be $250M+ by 2011 if I remember the statement correctly. If Alamy's graph continues in the same direction they'll probably be paying little more than 50c per image/year in about 12 months. The writing is on the wall for you my little doggy friend. It will soon be 'Game over' for all but the very best and most unique macro contributors.
4658
« on: September 11, 2009, 15:24 »
I think its a good time for you microstockers to pause and thank heavens that youre part of an industry where high-quality contracts that reward you handsomely for your work are the norm, an industry where 99% of you do not work for free, an industry where getting published without a credit is so rare, an industry where agencies are so fair and sensitive that its truly hard to understand why anyone would want to be someone elses photography slave, an industry
Always so much to say about everyone else's business, but nothing to say about his own ...
4659
« on: September 11, 2009, 13:18 »
To Helix, Tubed, LisaFX, Paulie Walnuts and Others: You do realize that 95% of fashion editorials are done without contracts?? Usually a verbal agreement, phone or email from the magazine is all that is necessary for this type of gig.
Also, regarding not getting paid, 99.99% of all magazines of this caliber never pay a dime to any photographer. The work is strictly for tearsheets and promotion. The photographer spends money to make the shoot look good, just as they would printing promo cards every year and sending them to potential clients... Its advertising....
^^^ I'm astonished to read this and, like Sean, have no plans to offer my services for free shoots any time soon. I'm struggling to have much sympathy for Melissa either to be honest __ if she was doing the shoot to 'advertise' her services then writing that blog, naming names and specifying the magazine, etc must surely have just trashed her reputation within the industry forever. I'm no expert on 'fashion shoots' but isn't the main point to actually show off the clothes? The images might be very moody and arty, if you like that sort of thing, but I can't see much detail of the clothes at all __ they're virtually silhouetted in most of the images. Maybe the editor used fewer of them because of this? Of course Melissa herself has an 'intern' too, which seems to be the modern term for 'slave'. I wonder how many interns are able to reflect positively on their experiences sometime later and consider that they were appropriately rewarded or benefited with training/opportunities for their services?
4660
« on: September 09, 2009, 15:44 »
^^^ I'd agree but did you get any information of exactly what happened?
Was it a mistake, a glitch in the system or was it a genuine hack? If the latter was it your own PC that was compromised or Shutterstock's system?
4661
« on: September 09, 2009, 06:31 »
It takes posts like yours, giving actual microstocker figures, to illustrate just how naive you bunch really are.
You completely ignore than in less than a year, your monthly microstock revenue growth has stalled (and even turned negative once) several times already and is now in the single digits.
Ok, ok, you can twist the figures quoted any which way you like to make your point. You are of course choosing to ignore the fact that the work done up to now will also produce revenue well into the future. If you're so emphatic that we're all wasting our time, and presumably costing you money, why don't you state what these 'other avenues' are that you keep keep referring to? How about providing some of your own revenue figures to illustrate the error of our ways and steer us away from micro? With over 40 posts in little more than 3 weeks, all on the same theme, you're putting a huge amount of effort into persuading us. Unfortunately, unless you provide any evidence to reinforce your points, it is difficult to give you any credibility __ you come across as yet another loser from the macros who cannot compete in the vastly more competitive digital age.
4662
« on: September 08, 2009, 20:29 »
The best way to get 'noticed' is via the quality of your images. You can blog until you're blue in the face (or have a severe case of RSI) but all that actually makes a difference is your images. If you happen to become as succesful as Yuri or Sean then it might be time to consider having a blog.
4663
« on: September 08, 2009, 15:20 »
Thanks for the input.
I guess I am frustrated that my sales are less than they were a year ago and my dl/image figure has dropped to pre-exclusivity numbers. I have increased the size of my portfolio considerablly in that time too (and some of those images have done well). I guess we all wonder if the grass is greener.
I am unsure on the partner program and vetta and I am not taking part in either. Maybe this is a bad idea?
Why would you not take part in Vetta? I don't see any downside to it all and I'd like to be part of that if I could (but exclusivity would be too high a price to pay). Trust me, if your sales stagnate at IS then in my experience they tend to stagnate also pretty much everywhere else too. The only real cure is an improvement to the portfolio.
4664
« on: September 08, 2009, 15:14 »
"Not bad"?
Dude, how . can you tell whether a business is "not bad" by only looking at the estimated revenue figures?
Or do you conveniently forget to quote profit figures out of microstock habit? Is this how you and your microstock hamsters keep up their delusional microstock aspirations going for so long?
No 'Dude'. I was simply using MBI as an example of an evidently highly successful and business-savvy individual who seems to be putting a lot of effort into microstock. Maybe you could learn something from her and others instead of whining constantly about microstock.
4665
« on: September 08, 2009, 09:02 »
- Those who actually do make money at microstock after properly accounting for their expenses and labor but who are too dumb, too naive, or too arrogant to realize they could be earning much more outside of the microstock realm.
In other words, these bozos lose money just for being involved in microstock when other avenues would reward them more handsomely.
Out of interest how do you account for the pro's who have spent years within the stock industry, like Iophoto or Monkey Business Images for example, but who now have several thousand images on micro? Why don't they put their images on the 'other avenues' you speak of instead? MBI sold Banana Stock to Jupiter for $20M a few years ago so she probably knows a bit about the industry. Anyway she's been uploading nearly 1000 images a month to micro for the last 18 months. From her sales in her first year on micro it would appear that she made about $200K, not bad from a standing start, and that will most likely be doubled or trebled in the second year.
4666
« on: September 08, 2009, 06:11 »
Personal I would go with the 2 monitors....I am running 3 monitors on my system right now! 
Wow __ how do you do that?! Obviously as a bloke I can't multi-task so I don't see the point in having more than one monitor. I can only look and concentrate on one thing at a time. I can understand the idea of having more than one monitor if events are being updated in real time, like financial market traders for example ... but not for photography.
4667
« on: September 07, 2009, 10:13 »
Wonder what the law is in Italy, where the images were taken?
I'd guess it would be governed by where the 'contract' originated rather than where the work was undertaken.
4668
« on: September 07, 2009, 10:06 »
Of course we don't know her side of the story. When the photographer took the images he was being paid by Liebovitz and acting under her brief __ it might be questionable who does own the copyright.
It seem to be almost unique to photographers that even when they're being paid by others and acting on their instructions they seem to still think that they should retain copyright of the images they take. I can't think of any field where this happens. For example when Warhol used other artists to produce art on an industrial scale (as other artists have done before and since) there was never any question that he owned the images and the copyright even if he'd never actually touched them.
4669
« on: September 06, 2009, 16:15 »
I feel your pain. My brother has reported exactly the same thing to me and it appears to be something unique to DT. Even with only one person in the image, whether recognisable or not, DT might decide the image doesn't need an MR and therefore reject the image if it has one.
4670
« on: September 06, 2009, 13:59 »
4671
« on: September 06, 2009, 11:28 »
^^^ Thanks for that anonymous. A good read and very interesting __ that has to be worth a Heart!
4672
« on: September 06, 2009, 07:33 »
I'm sorry but you completely over-estimate the difficulty in earning 'a living' at this.
You don't need a studio (other than a corner of a room in your house), you don't need any models or assistants, you don't need 5-10,000 images in your port and you don't need to be uploading 1000 new images a month.
You do need to have a bit of talent in photography (but nothing special), you do need a $1000 camera and lens, you do need to find your niche of what you can shoot well and economically, you probably need an existing portfolio of 2500+ images and to be uploading 50-100 new images a month depending on the saleability. If you keep your overheads low then that should generate at least the average wage in most of the developed world (ok, maybe not Norway or Switzerland!).
I know several microstockers who are doing precisely this or sometimes much, much better. You do need to work reasonably hard at it, keep yourself motivated and keep thinking up new ideas for shoots __ but it's not that difficult.
NB: Off topic but being as you mentioned the cost of living in Ireland - I toured Ireland a couple of years ago and one thing that really struck me was the extraordinary property market, both the bizarrely high prices and also the scale of new-builds of (often massive) houses in progress. Apart from the 'silicon valley' of the Dublin area I couldn't see any evidence of where the money to sustain this market was coming from __ there was precious little industry, large-scale agriculture or anything obvious at all. When I discussed it with a local man (in Cork) he said "Oh, they're all on 35-40 year mortgages around here. You don't leave your house to the kids any more __ you leave them the mortgage!". That was about 18 months before 'the crunch'. It'll be interesting to see where Irish property prices are in 5-10 years time.
4673
« on: September 05, 2009, 09:24 »
Yes, older images will continue to sell if they're unique enough to compete with the others. I've got 2 images with ID's between 40000 & 45000 that are still within the top 60 on my port sorted by 'Most Popular'. Over 4 years on and 3500 images later they're still amongst my best sellers. I guess that shows that I haven't improved much. 
4674
« on: September 04, 2009, 16:51 »
Are you including SS sales in this analysis. I ask because SS usually has so many more sales than all of the other ones combined. And it might be that your SS sales have slowed down, but your other sales have increased.
Yep, it includes SS, IS and DT. My sales numbers at SS for the month of August were roughly as follows; 2006 - 1200 2007 - 1400 2008 - 1700 2009 - 1500 I actually peaked on SS in Feb 2008 with 3000 sales (after two months of 'uploading like f**k'). Happy days but I doubt if I'll see such numbers again unless I increase my output by about 5x. With 4-5M new images coming on-line every year at SS it is getting increasingly difficult just to tread water!
4675
« on: September 04, 2009, 09:51 »
Anyone else notice that download stats page is blank? Other commission pages work fine...
From their Forum;
"This particular page was causing some problems throughout the site and the techs had to take it offline. It will be back shortly. Thanks for your patience."
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
