|
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 - heywoody
Pages: 1 ... 15 16 17 18 19 [20] 21 22 23 24 25 ... 58
476
« on: October 17, 2013, 16:13 »
but they can not copy the quality.
If you stand out from the crowd with quality, your content will be more popular, which will bring you more sales, no matter of the price (hint: Vizerskaya) (hint 2: go for exclusive, you will not regret it).
The people who copy other peoples work mostly don`t have that certain quality, if they have, they would not copy. 
Sure they can have the same quality. BTW, I was never talking about someone directly duplicating an image. Just that you have hundreds of guys who are really good at "home interiors", etc.
I think it's clear what you meant. As far as I know ikea are now mostly using 3D interiors rather than photos in catalogues and the skills are widely used in non-microstock arenas. SS stopped accepting this material sometime ago so exclusivity could be attractive on this basis but, if I were in the OP's shoes, I'd wait until it's clear what getty are up to.
477
« on: October 17, 2013, 15:52 »
About a third of PP this month were non-sub so 3 times as many DL averaging twice the RPD of IS proper - I've had the occasional non-sub but nothing like this and quite a few are reporting similar. I also had my first censored post over there having voiced the opinion that buyers were now moving to the PP and that I wouldn't be surprised if exclusives were shortly given the option to put main collection stuff over there. Must have touched a nerve.  I'm convinced that is gonna be Getty for RM, PP for all main collection and IS to be re-positioned in the stocksy / offset space with the pricier exclusive collections at which point the "re-branding" will mean something and most of the site performance problems etc will go away.
478
« on: October 16, 2013, 15:20 »
Was going to make a similar observation. Not alone are volumes better but RPD is now in the same ballpark and I still think this is the end game for the main collection.
479
« on: October 14, 2013, 15:07 »
There's an "infinite" collection at FT which seems higher priced and no subs. The work looks fairly indifferent but big ports. No idea about criteria for entry but better than average chance they'd be glad to get you on board.
480
« on: October 13, 2013, 15:15 »
Subtlety sometimes doesn't work  I meant it the same way gostwyck did. Photog A claims sales 10 times more than photog B on SS, yet photog's A's sales on DT, IS, FT etc tend to be in the same ballpark as photog B
481
« on: October 13, 2013, 11:58 »
So it's their flavour of offset? I can see your post generating this generating a flood of applications Your're right, the search, as described, makes absolutely no sense.
482
« on: October 13, 2013, 05:41 »
483
« on: October 12, 2013, 18:59 »
When Yuri brags about his income in the various interviews, being "way ahead of $5M and now heading towards $10M", I believe he is actually referring to total earnings since he started microstock. Funnily enough if he was earning about $1.5M annually before he went exclusive then I would absolutely expect his total earnings to be above $5M and below $10M.
I was thinking about the same thing while writing my post here today, as always Yuri playing the show-off act
To be honest I'm slightly sceptical about the accuracy of 3-4K downloads per day too! His sales ratio, compared to mine, would have to be double on SS what is actually is on DT. Both of us stopped uploading to DT for a couple of years too so we both had much larger portfolios on SS.
Everybody's sales ratio compared to everyone else is much higher on SS than DT - strange isn't it
484
« on: October 12, 2013, 05:36 »
You know what they say - "past performance is no guarantee of future earnings". Getty are up to something with IS and not clear what their end game is...
485
« on: October 11, 2013, 17:05 »
I think that is better to wait for you, I don't like exclusivity but this isn't my point.
I think that you must pay attention to the present moment. You asked something that it's early impossible to answer at this time, and davidgoh answer is a good example of what I mean to say. Before to take your decision you need some reliable data and at this time there isn't. Istock this year continues to change the rules. It isn't something about if are good or bad everyone can think what he wants, the point is that the new rules can completely change the results and this happened whit the new search and new prices in example. Worst, more are coming, this was promised by iStock and no one can say how the impact for contributor will be. Whatever will be your decision to me this isn't the right time to take it, you can't get reliable data.
One or two relevant answers, including this. Where is the conversation on what a quality render is or photography vs 3D coming from? He's doing x amount of business and wondering if exclusivity will produce 2x. Who can say but looking at the sales threads over there I wouldn't be optimistic whatever type of content.
486
« on: October 10, 2013, 16:52 »
I agree and I don't think it would be too hard to find a couple hundred contributors willing to throw a few thousand in if the project looks promising.
Yes, it would. You're talking about the people that want "100%" royalties.
People have to be realistic, there are costs associated with starting a professional project. I'm not looking to join a do-it-yourself, ad hoc co-op that runs on pre-made software. It has to be something serious, 100% royalties isn't a serious suggestion. [/quote] Oh God, I'm agreeing with tickstock. This is exactly right though. One of the reasons for the success of the crowd sourced model is the fact that there is zero investment needed other than producing product and they would be doing photos or whatever anyway (the type of photos probably changes as they realise what sells and doesn't). Successful startups need entrepreneurs and investment. I hope Leo is making some money from symbio because it's important that the guy with the vision stays involved.
487
« on: October 08, 2013, 16:49 »
Kinda wondering who decided your post deserved a minus 
488
« on: October 08, 2013, 16:43 »
No, a room full of ferrets in exercise wheels.
or ball bearings....
489
« on: October 08, 2013, 16:41 »
Symbiostock is probably the best and closest to this model. There are 2 practical drawbacks.
1) Not really an option unless one has a reasonable amount of marketable product - earning say 3 figures a week. This excludes a lot of where the sites draw their crowd sourced material from.
2) What is in it for the buyer unless the big contributors move their portfolios in there and away from mainstream sites? Without unique product, it has to compete on price.
How is stocksy an option? Nice model but a co-op that is only open to a select few doesn't help much.
490
« on: October 08, 2013, 15:27 »
Isn't that the entire point of ball bearings?
You can't see through a 2" plate of steel either (not in the visible EM range anyway). Technically, that is "physics" too but I'm not sure how useful a concept it is to ponder.
Frantically looking for page 1 of the thread  I haven't a breeze what this is about but ball bearings or cogs or anything related don't power anything - an energy source of some kind does that.
491
« on: October 08, 2013, 15:17 »
I started out doing istock and shutterstock but I feel like those sites are so over saturated that I would make like one sale a month. I tend to like the smaller sites, they do more targeted marketing which still draws in a lot of people but you dont have the intense competition.
I'm just going to mention these guys because I told them I would since they have been awesome to me, they give you 50% and even though they are small I am getting more traffic there than I was on istock and shutterstock. They are called www.Stockopus.com
Great guys, small, but then again I kind of like that. Plus 50%! Who wants to make just pennies off of a sale?
Cheers
50% / higher prices maybe. More traffic than IS / SS doesn't really compute. In fact one sale a month on these sites with more than a single digit port size would be pretty rare I'd imagine?
492
« on: October 07, 2013, 16:04 »
The site performance is a killer argument like they really don't care about the buyer experience at all. There is probably a certain logic in using IS as a feeder for TS and Getty - I have no info on the relative size of the revenue streams but suspect this is where the money is for them.
Funny about ThinkStock.... I never made $$ there only enough to pay a few road tolls .
And, I about fell off my chair when I herd others did! I've always looked at TS as stealing revenue from my istock port.
I'm trying to look at this from the point of view of Getty - just looking at my own volumes, I wouldn't be at all surprised if TS was selling as many subs packages as SS.
493
« on: October 06, 2013, 10:44 »
I think the question is best answered by someone who does have a sys site
How is someone with a sys site best placed to answer "What's holding you back from joining Symbiostock?" ?
494
« on: October 06, 2013, 10:39 »
The site performance is a killer argument like they really don't care about the buyer experience at all. There is probably a certain logic in using IS as a feeder for TS and Getty - I have no info on the relative size of the revenue streams but suspect this is where the money is for them.
495
« on: October 06, 2013, 07:53 »
You know, I've being doing these guys an injustice calling them stupid because I haven't been looking at the big picture. People who reach the top of the corporate ladder often have fairly flexible morals / ethics but are rarely stupid. Revenues at IS. have to be down after some of the crazy "initiatives" over the last year but I wonder how much IS contributes to the corporation compared to TS and Getty and what the knock on effects have been there. It's beginning to look like like IS is just there to triage images for other parts of the organisation. In terms of telling them everything that's wrong, they are either doing it deliberately or don't care but, in any case, they KNOW ALREADY.
496
« on: October 06, 2013, 07:42 »
I wouldn't expect it to be too challenging technically but there does seem to be a bit of work involved and, even if it generated the same money as all my MS sites put together, probably wouldn't be worth it.
497
« on: October 06, 2013, 06:05 »
Pirate software, movies, music are all obtainable so naive to think images are any different. The legitimate businesses (our paying customers) who want stock images are unlikely to go down this road and, unlike software, movies and music, our product doesn't have much appeal as personal use.
498
« on: October 06, 2013, 05:56 »
It's a matter of being practical. If you have a large commercial portfolio, smaller sites would provide a return, otherwise stick to the bigger earners that will provide a regular payout.
499
« on: October 05, 2013, 13:12 »
@ fritzfox,
We're still talking about stock, yeah? So, all about product that is marketable, not art or however you measure quality. These guys (and the stocksy guys) aren't dumb and if they think they can sell this stuff at these prices, then they probably can. The world is full of people prepared to spend over the odds based on a label rather than the product.
500
« on: October 05, 2013, 09:58 »
Much as we would all like it to be, this is not really statistically valid in the same way the number for IS exclusives is not valid. The ranking over on the right is generally reasonable because it represents the same cross-section of contributors across the sites. Both the IS and self-hosted numbers represent a relatively elite subset of contributors whose numbers are not diluted by the great unwashed. A more accurate result would be obtained by, for example, extracting the SS and self-hosted numbers for those who report earnings on both and deriving the self-hosted result based on the resulting % of ss performance. Not an option for exclusives unfortunately.
exclusives are different, but self hosted also use agencies for the most part
The kingdom of heaven is like... Ok what you say is true and understood. As an analogy, the average 100 m sprint time of all the athletes participating in the olympics (would include weight lifters, archers as well as long and medium distance runners etc) is still going to beat the average sprint time of all the athletes + all the spectators.
Pages: 1 ... 15 16 17 18 19 [20] 21 22 23 24 25 ... 58
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
