|
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 - cthoman
Pages: 1 ... 15 16 17 18 19 [20] 21 22 23 24 25 ... 145
476
« on: July 15, 2014, 14:39 »
Agree with you that it could be fixed but it won't. The only reason I am seeing increased revenue is mostly from video. Otherwise I would be in the downward slide. Agencies, especially public ally traded agencies, can't give raises without justifying those raises to their stockholders on how that provides margin leverage or revenue lift. Istock is you know will never give raises and neither will Fotolia. These agencies are good at creatively cutting our royalties. I am not telling you anything you don't already know.
Actually, iStock went back to 20% for illustrators, so there is some hope. For the most part though, I agree. They aren't budging and don't have much pressure on them. I got lucky and have moved a lot of my business to smaller illustration sites. Still, I find it hard to completely eliminate the big players (even if they account for a smaller percentage of my earnings).
477
« on: July 15, 2014, 13:50 »
I just read a short article in Popular Photography about microstock. Sean Locke has a quote in it. In a nutshell, good for students who want beer money, but a killer to the serious contributors royalties. Sad.
That's kind of where I disagree. The money is definitely still there and can still be made. It's just harder because it is being funneled away from contributors with poor pricing and poor royalty rates. These things are all fixable, but there isn't much incentive for them to be fixed.
478
« on: July 15, 2014, 10:20 »
I lost interest in both when they started moving numbers around and making new "deals".
479
« on: July 15, 2014, 10:19 »
It seems about normal, although it is the summer. So, there isn't any limit to how terrible things can go.
480
« on: July 15, 2014, 00:08 »
On the upload page, you check the box to select them all. Then, use the actions at the bottom to set the price.
481
« on: July 14, 2014, 19:54 »
5. The market is over-saturated with agencies. They compete with mostly the same images, based on lowest price. (we get less as a result) We need some to close down before the remaining ones will become healthy and profitable.
I'd say the opposite. There are definitely not enough good agencies out there. I tried to leave a lot of the ones I thought weren't offering the best deals, but ended up signing back up at some of them because I couldn't find enough good places to sign up at. I'd love for a better agency to either emerge from the existing ones or be created. It could put pressure on the other places to offer better deals.
482
« on: July 13, 2014, 20:06 »
MSG is completely toothless as a tool of leverage. Its good at informing of royalty reductions dodgy deals and partnerships but it doesn't have any purpose other than howling at the wind.
I don't know about that. Yes, there are a lot of discussions that are just talk, but there is also a lot that happens here as well. You aren't going to win every battle, but it's still worth occasionally fighting them. I can't say that I started this thread as a rallying cry for change though. I just thought it would be an interesting discussion.
483
« on: July 13, 2014, 13:43 »
The MSG community really has lost its way if it thinks a royalty raise is coming from any of the agencies.
we can have a dream right 
Yeah, nothing will probably come of it, but there is something to be said for taking that first step of "What do we want?". That was sort of the point of this thread, although less about a far off dream and more about something that is achievable. To have a more firm goal that you think you might actually be able to accomplish if you get enough people behind it. Even if that goal is only a couple cents extra on subs.
484
« on: July 13, 2014, 11:12 »
I'd love for iStock to give me a raise from 20% to 25%, which would still be lower than what Shutterstock pays out, and for Shutterstock to at the very least offer a higher subs tier for people who make a certain amount. I'd prefer that over the expensive Christmas card I got from them last year.
But really, in the real world reps take 20% and the artists get 80%, so even 50% is pretty sad.
Yeah, it is definitely sad that asking for at least 50% seems like an unreasonable and unrealistic request. I suppose any move in a positive direction is an amazing accomplishment these days.
485
« on: July 12, 2014, 15:43 »
We talk a lot on this site about money, royalty rates, raises and more money. That said, we don't always have a clear vision of what those raises or royalty rates should be. If we are going to ask for a raise, shouldn't we have a clear vision of what we want and what we can realistically get? So, I thought I'd take a look at it and try to start a conversation. Warning: There will be MATH!
Let's say you make $1500 a month from agencies that pay you on average 30% (you probably wouldn't include agencies that already pay you 50%). I know these aren't necessarily your numbers, but they are fairly round numbers to work with. So with those numbers, that means the agencies get $3500 and you get $1500 for a total of $5000 in sales a month.
It also means that for every extra percentage point you get, it's an extra $50 a month. So at 31%, you make $1550. At 35%, you make $250 more a month (or $1750 total). Not bad. What about subs? If you get 30% of the sub price paid as well, then that is about 1 cent for every percentage point increase. (It was about $.008 for 25 cent subs and $.0125 for 38 cent subs. 1 cent seemed like a good average). I know subs aren't a firm percentage, but SS seems to average out to something similar.
OK, so there are the basic numbers. The bare minimum raise would be 1 percentage point and a 1 cent raise on subs that results in $50 extra a month (from the example). The maximum would probably be getting 50% royalty which would be a $1000 more a month with subs that cost 20 cents more (again, from the example). That last one sounds awesome, but I might have better luck getting them to throw a free unicorn in.
With all that said, what do you think is fair and realistic to ask for?
486
« on: July 12, 2014, 11:03 »
Wait, the existing agencies are curated?  Seriously though, I'm not sure it is a huge deal, but there are going to be challenges whether you are heavy handed or whether you let everything in. It is really about what you are trying to build for in the long run.
487
« on: July 10, 2014, 09:06 »
Anything in the world does OK from some, that's saying nothing.
I guess you've never been a contributor at Crestock.
488
« on: July 09, 2014, 18:39 »
No, stocksy is a very poor seller - and not just "personally for me". They posted numbers on site -of course labeling them great-and-whatever (kickass?)- trusting their audience not to bother or be able to do even a back-of-the-envelope calculation. I can and did. The numbers are poor, and of course confidential to stocksy members. I think stocksy is loaded with enthusiastic talented amateurs who are still in a hooray mode and just flattered by someone actually paying for their shot.
All this doesn't apply to you if are magically exempt from their hipster curation, able to upload usual stock images that are proven to be of the selling type 
Must be doing OK for some people. It seems to be at the top of the unranked sites every month (up there with Clipartof and self-hosted). I know it is a smaller voting group, so there is some bias. Still, some people are getting sales and voting for it every month.
489
« on: July 09, 2014, 13:55 »
It's a democracy. You vote with your images, but so will everyone else.
490
« on: July 08, 2014, 14:46 »
In my view the buyer wants an "agency feeling" with a large selection not many sites in a network. The things have to be simple for buyers...
.....
If having one single account is a hassle to some buyers, having an account at every Symbiostock site they want to buy from is a non-starter. They won't do it.
Symbiostock never stood a chance unless the lack of a single point of entry to the network was resolved somehow.
there are a coupla approaches that might work:
1. when a new user registers give them a chance to register with the other sites at the same time (or to choose which sites to register with)
2. have an option that would automatically add the person as a new user to all the other sites
3. create a central depository were people just sign in once, then on the login screen have an option to use that instead of the individual site login
other considerations: privacy issues, security of passwords, different treatment of 'spam' on individual sites, etc
This was discussed briefly on the Symbiostock forums, and the issue with blanket logins or registrations (other than security issues) is marketing your individual site. Having my own site allows me to finally see who's buying my images and to contact them directly, so hopefully over time I'll build a mailing list and a stable of customers. If there's one registration for all 180 sites, who gets to see who that customer is? You can't let everyone see, because then that buyer might be swamped with emails, etc. from 180 people. And if you let nobody see, then we've lost that ability to build a customer base individually.
I agree registration should be easier...I'm just not sure what the solution is, honestly. But I do think one thing that would help is not having to use PayPal, just direct credit card purchases. Not sure how to solve that either.
That's always going to be the question with sharing. Is it equal? Are you the person bringing in tons of buyers or are you the other person just piggy backing off other people's success. I liked the Picture Engine concept of you pay for access to their buyers/network. Unfortunately, they didn't seem to actually have any of that stuff they said, but the concept seems sound. If you can find someone to fill that role, then I think more people will line up to pay for that service.
491
« on: July 08, 2014, 11:29 »
I hadn't uploaded to most of these places for a few years until this year, and I found most of them seemed more lenient than they did before. I don't know if they realized they were wrong about rejecting for certain reasons or they just want more content.
492
« on: July 07, 2014, 14:04 »
You might have more luck approaching people whose work you admire/would mesh with yours privately.
That's probably the best way to do it. I've often thought that might be the next step if my personal site ever gets large/successful enough. I'm not sure if I'll ever get to that step to seriously contemplate it though.
493
« on: July 07, 2014, 13:15 »
So it sounds like you're not really wanting to compete with Stocksy. You just want to emulate it without a USP.
Yes, "competition" might not be the right word. Lets talk about an alternative for photographers :-)
I'm out then, since I'm primarily an illustrator.
Probably better not to join a coop with photographers anyway. Nothing against them. It just seems like you want as much of a narrow focus as possible to have less friction between everyone involved.
494
« on: July 07, 2014, 10:04 »
Stocksy launched about the same time as the Symbiostock software. Look at the difference.
From the contributor side, there probably isn't much difference between the two. A few people are making money and getting sales and everybody else isn't making anything or isn't involved.
495
« on: July 06, 2014, 21:30 »
I was just reading on another forum about a buyer who is annoyed to have to sign in to the site at all. They don't want an account anywhere, not even at an agency site where they do most of their buying. They just want to pay and go. I personally think that's sort of silly (having an account saves time, helps track purchases, etc), but I think it speaks loudly to some buyer sentiment.
If having one single account is a hassle to some buyers, having an account at every Symbiostock site they want to buy from is a non-starter. They won't do it.
Symbiostock never stood a chance unless the lack of a single point of entry to the network was resolved somehow.
You don't have to sign up for an account on my Ktools site. People still do (I try to encourage it), but most of the sales probably come from people that don't. I think people that buy from me aren't always seasoned stock buyers, although most of them know how to use a vector. There is such a large market out there that it is hard to figure out who your customers really are. They exist though and I'm happy for that.
496
« on: July 05, 2014, 15:42 »
not true -- reports from those who have/had other sites like photoshelter,smugmug etc, is that their symbio sites have done better than those other sites
My Ktools site outperforms my Symbio site by quite a bit, but it is older and the hosting is a little more dedicated. So it has some advantages that the Symbio doesn't have. I've thought about bumping up the hosting, but I wasn't sure if anybody had any experience with that. I guess I'll have to ask about it when the forums reopen.
497
« on: July 05, 2014, 13:46 »
As an illustrator this is a slowly dying business. As a developer, all the more so. If we are talking about "business decisions" I believe at this point the best business decision would have been to never make Symbiostock. If others thought it was a great business decision, I would have had qualified developers or financiers clawing their way in, but everyone knew what a profitless burden it is.
I'm not sure. I was disappointed when some of the affiliate marketing suggestions got shot down by the community. I thought that was a great area to expand profits and let marketers mix with artists. There are still a lot of ideas floating around the ether, so I'm still hopeful one will strike gold for at least a few of us hungry micro monkeys.
498
« on: July 05, 2014, 13:37 »
The model explains that when someone invents new technology or product that consumers want, the market takes off and more and more businesses jump onto the bandwagon, and soon the market becomes over saturated, and eventually this forces down the price. But with the falling prices, eventually the price gets too low for anyone to profit, and the bulk of businesses either go broke, shut down or do something else.
Interesting. I'd say the only flaw is that it doesn't take all that much to run a bare bones micro agency. You don't even have to compete or pay any attention to/with Shutterstock or any of the big 4 to be profitable.
499
« on: July 05, 2014, 13:32 »
I know of no other business where you will find contributors who will argue against raises and ardently defend destructive business practices. Only in microstock; maybe one day you will wake up to the reality of the situation, I am not holding my breath. There are plenty of greedy business in this world and many who are the polar opposite. I am not a fan of the former and hate to see the assets derived from hard working people absorbed by the former, because of pure greed.
I'm sure I've made this point before, but it seems like everyone has the right to protect their turf. SS works really well for some, and it may actually be the best model for them. I wish that wasn't the case because I know it isn't the best thing for me, but I can't fault them for defending that. That said, my hope is and continues to be that more agencies realize that they can exist outside that influence and focus on the contributors that actually want something closer to the mythical midstock.
500
« on: July 03, 2014, 20:03 »
I'm also guessing Yuri wanted special treatment and SS wouldn't give him what he wanted.
I assume it was for him and not us, but I guess if you get your foot in the door others might be able to sneak through too.
Pages: 1 ... 15 16 17 18 19 [20] 21 22 23 24 25 ... 145
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
