|
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 - derek
Pages: 1 ... 15 16 17 18 19 [20] 21 22 23 24 25 ... 36
476
« on: November 24, 2017, 04:10 »
After a good October, November has been poor to say the least. The stability their search engine once had seems to have gone. SS went through a period when there search was radically changing every couple of weeks. Their's seems to have stabilised to a degree while FT AS has taken the same characteristics as the old (bad) SS search. Makes me wonder if that has something to do with Scott being over there now. Either way, it's no where near as good as it once was.
Yeah well why do you think they hired Scott?? hohoho! in any event the search at the moment is really bad. It surprises me when Adobe is such a fantastic programming/software corp. If theres anything that should be spot on its the search. Also many suppliers feel they are getting blocked for hours on end. My future there is bleak its gone from my second best agency to number 5. I havent got the time anymore supplying agencies that cant produce an output according to my input. I'll give Ft and Dt until new year?
477
« on: November 24, 2017, 02:20 »
Too bad it's going to take that long. I would have been happy if the list on the right, anyplace below 10 should be gone already. I'm not supporting them. I'm still surprised that so many people do. That just hurts our own interests and the general market, mostly our earnings.
Why? Some of those are the best ones. Small agencies that actually cater to a smaller number of contributors. Some of them are down there because they don't get 50 votes (or whatever the minimum is).
And while the ranking order is more or less right, the returns from different site will vary from contributor to contributor. If you've spent a decade putting thousands of files on Dreamstime why close your account there, just because of a ranking list? If you're on the "bridge to bigstock" why close your account when you get files added to that site with no effort at all and pick up a few payouts a year from it?
Added to which, I'm not on Adobe because of the problems I had with Fotolia, I'm not increasing my portfolio on iStock because I don't like what they're doing and, in any case, new files there weren''t even getting seen, Pond 5 is for video, not stills, so I'm not on that, and my stuff on 123 doesn't sell as well as what I've got on Bigstock, probably because 123 rejected all my best-sellers as low commercial value because they didn't think the Middle East was a market. So if I were to dump all the sub-10 sites I'd be left with SS, Alamy and nothing else.
The bigger they are the harder they fall! The smaller ones are happy go lucky and perhaps dont care too much. I was actually thinking more of the big ones and they often fall because of internal problems politics etc. After what I've heard SS is full of that and you wake up one day and find its gone. One of my smaller Boutique agencies RM only constantly outsell SS and Getty and have done so for the past 4 years. Size of agency dont matter the slightest but as you say it varies from contributor to contributor. Quite right so.
478
« on: November 23, 2017, 05:14 »
Stock photography have never been a sustainable business and micro-stock is probably the least sustainable of them all. Micro-stock today is a numbers game and quantity rules. Agencies dont care if 100 photographers leave today they are replaced within 24 hours even less. Quality will only matter untill its disappeared back in the search.
One day last year I was up to one of the five main agencies visiting an old friend and in the lunch-room I heard one guy say to another " no we are just getting the same old crappy pictures all the time and lots of sister pictures"...now that proves to me that some workers at agencies are just as frustrated and fed-up as many of us in this thread. I presume the guy that spoke was some sort of content-worker and it cant be fun sitting all day looking at just crappy stuff can it.
Not sure what you mean by sustainable. I have seen consistent gains over the last 10 years and my income is still increasing year on year. It is a full time job like any other though, so if you are doing it as a side line then of course you aren't going to see gains, you're going to be out-competed by people who are doing this full time and taking it seriously.
I am careful about the agencies I work with and understand that 38c is 19 times more than 2c. Those who don't care/ don't complain/ don't pay attention anymore are obviously not going to make it pay no matter how good their content is. How is this any different from any other business? even if you have good products you wont turn a profit by not paying any attention to how your market works, who you partner and so on.
example: Getty has been in business since 93 thats 23 years. Takings have fallen DRASTICALLY and I mean that just ask anybody from the old school. In microstock todays earning is nothing compared with 8-14 years back. Of course as in everything there are exceptions but they are very very few. My hunch is that in another 5-10 years most of the agencies you see in the right column wont even exist. Same with the traditional agencies before the digital era came about there was like 50-60 agencies just in the UK! today well I think there's about 12 proper ones that is. Very few businesses involving Arts, creative and freelancing is ever sustainable. 
479
« on: November 23, 2017, 02:42 »
Stock photography have never been a sustainable business and micro-stock is probably the least sustainable of them all. Micro-stock today is a numbers game and quantity rules. Agencies dont care if 100 photographers leave today they are replaced within 24 hours even less. Quality will only matter untill its disappeared back in the search.
One day last year I was up to one of the five main agencies visiting an old friend and in the lunch-room I heard one guy say to another " no we are just getting the same old crappy pictures all the time and lots of sister pictures"...now that proves to me that some workers at agencies are just as frustrated and fed-up as many of us in this thread. I presume the guy that spoke was some sort of content-worker and it cant be fun sitting all day looking at just crappy stuff can it.
480
« on: November 22, 2017, 13:30 »
Same here uploading when nothing else to do and no more high commercial content with releases and everything just ordinary mediocre stuff.
481
« on: November 22, 2017, 08:54 »
haha! no I cant! I havent got a clue how to make buyers visit. I only supply existing clients from commissioned work with fill-outs etc, etc annual reports company profiles etc and it all happen off-line. Only clients from commissions.
Oh I see, I thought you had found a way to be a private stock agency all on your own haha! To be honest, I think the only way that would work, is to have a true niche in an area you have access to because of your job or hobby. Like a pilot who sells areal city views, or a zoo keeper who sells birth images of all animal species ... As a Belly&Baby photographer, I don't have a niche, as everybody has access to babies!!!
Forming your own stock-agency? its been tried here over the years and its failed every time. Setting up your own platform have also been tried here and also failed. Now we have supplied established agencies for almost 15 years since Istock first came about and I recon its all too late to go on your own.
482
« on: November 22, 2017, 07:18 »
I dont really care anymore I earn more then enough from my own library and the RM-agencies but its a pity its gone this way. Although not surprised.
Derek, can you tell me (if you want to) about your own library? Which images do you put there (your very best exclusively, or the same as microstock?). And how do you get clients to visit your site (or better said : to buy from your site) ? Do they buy licenses or something else (like prints) ? Sorry, but you made me curious. Always thought having your own library would cost a lot in marketing (effort and money).
haha! no I cant! I havent got a clue how to make buyers visit. I only supply existing clients from commissioned work with fill-outs etc, etc annual reports company profiles etc and it all happen off-line. Only clients from commissions. I thought one of the main reasons for joining a stock-agency is to let them stand for all advertising promotion and pay for it. Very expensive. I know the guys starting visco-images and they had one of the best experts helping them and yet got nowhere.
483
« on: November 22, 2017, 04:42 »
That's why I've always treated it as side income. Although the idea seems nice, I'd hate to be dependent on a couple of agencies who only listen to their shareholders (and not to their contributors). It's an unstable road.
Exactly! spot on! treat it as a side income because thats really what it is! in effect all stock shoots. Add it to commissions and asignments and the total can be very good!
484
« on: November 22, 2017, 02:30 »
Been doing stock since 88 and micro since 2006! the old Rm agencies are quite stable actually but Micro-agencies are just going down and down. Problem is obvious. They dont care so why should we?? ever since the bean-counters moved into SS its been a matter of just keeping the shareholders happy and screw the contributors and pretty much the same with Adobe/FT.
I dont really care anymore I earn more then enough from my own library and the RM-agencies but its a pity its gone this way. Although not surprised.
485
« on: November 21, 2017, 12:56 »
Jonbull! I havent got a clue and dont really care but rumor has it that they have broken the search ( happened to IS some years back) for those who remember!...IS was never the same after that and everything went wrong!
As I said this is what I've heard from a couple of sources but dont take my word for it. In any case Adobe is hardly movimng at all!
486
« on: November 20, 2017, 02:27 »
Was doing excellent with old FT as an Emerald rank until Adobe took over. It went right down!....One would have thought that with the huge name of Adobe takings would just sky-rockett for everybody but not so. The opposite really.
487
« on: November 15, 2017, 13:58 »
The hatred towards Getty started long before microstock. Microstock just created a new opportunity for Getty to show their true colors to a new audience. In the traditional stock world, there are plenty of people who regard Getty with the same contempt that many microstock artists do, and plenty who left Getty because of the mistreatment they received.
Microstock was better off without Getty getting involved. Everything they touched here turned to garbage. They wrecked istock and closed great sites like StockXpert, sites where contributors used to make good money. When they have this history of doing things that almost always hurt contributors far more than they help us, it's not hard to see why there is such negativity directed towards them.
Add in the disparaging comments they've made over the years, as well as perpetuating lies and myths about the industry to keep contributors earning as little as possible (like the myth that paying contributors more than 20% is impossible), and you've got a pretty good picture of a culture of greed and deception that has done nothing but hurt the stock image industry as a whole.
As soon as they purchased TonyStone Worldwide and The Image Bank back in 94( the two premiere stock-agencies) at that time the problems started! Stones and TIB had been very choosey in accepting photographers then suddenly we found ourselves with a massive bunch of werird photography not at all associated with commercial content.
The they started to buy everything in sight photodisc Ernest Haas collection, news agencies, just about everything. Of course the sales started to fall drastically.
However Mark Getty was a heck of a lot better then todays bunch thats for sure.
Acceptance into Tony Stone Worldwide and/or The Image Bank was an accomplishment and a milestone in any photographers career. If you could make it into either one of those then I think it is pretty safe to say you can make it in microstock and have a very solid working knowledge of the stock industry. Can you imagine if most of today's photographers had to go through such a process? The first thing they would do is use the "it was a closed shop" card. I don't think a majority of today's shooters know what it is like to have to work so hard to get into such agencies like those two.
Ditto! I joined them in 88 they used to have a large white villa in st-johns wood. London. later they moved to a huge offices in Camden town. Brilliant outfit!...I havent seen many portfolios in micro-stock but of the ones I've seen maybe only a handfull would have gained entry. It was different it was an achievment just getting the right exposure in those days. You got no second chance of adjusting anything.
488
« on: November 15, 2017, 01:54 »
The hatred towards Getty started long before microstock. Microstock just created a new opportunity for Getty to show their true colors to a new audience. In the traditional stock world, there are plenty of people who regard Getty with the same contempt that many microstock artists do, and plenty who left Getty because of the mistreatment they received.
Microstock was better off without Getty getting involved. Everything they touched here turned to garbage. They wrecked istock and closed great sites like StockXpert, sites where contributors used to make good money. When they have this history of doing things that almost always hurt contributors far more than they help us, it's not hard to see why there is such negativity directed towards them.
Add in the disparaging comments they've made over the years, as well as perpetuating lies and myths about the industry to keep contributors earning as little as possible (like the myth that paying contributors more than 20% is impossible), and you've got a pretty good picture of a culture of greed and deception that has done nothing but hurt the stock image industry as a whole.
As soon as they purchased TonyStone Worldwide and The Image Bank back in 94( the two premiere stock-agencies) at that time the problems started! Stones and TIB had been very choosey in accepting photographers then suddenly we found ourselves with a massive bunch of werird photography not at all associated with commercial content. The they started to buy everything in sight photodisc Ernest Haas collection, news agencies, just about everything. Of course the sales started to fall drastically. However Mark Getty was a heck of a lot better then todays bunch thats for sure.
489
« on: November 14, 2017, 02:03 »
Yeah the prevailing philosophy from some is to keep bending over and taking it
How weak an argument is that?
Weak, or realistic? Better to get some money, or none at all?
If you don't like it, don't use Getty. Getty is far, far bigger than any individual contributor, and there's no shortage (yet) of people wanting to sell their pictures to take your place. So, as a contributor, you have no bargaining power.
Rather than fighting a battle you will never win, make a strategic withdrawal and concentrate your energy on the agencies you do like.
Such a pathetic reason to keep feeding this outfit
I dumped them back in February
A colleague who was a Getty exclusive dumped them last year for the 1 cent royalties.
You keep feeding into this abusive relationship along with others and you just end up encouraging them.
Well said!! its basically the same with SS you keep feeding them and you can have 20K top commercial files there but theyre only as good as until the next search change! I know an old guy there was with them from the word go with a port of 50K files and thats a lot! just after new year he was slammed down over 50% SS was the only micro he belonged to! Few months later he took his portfolio and placed it all into some RF agency.
490
« on: November 13, 2017, 10:01 »
Jeez! I been with them since 95 with over 8000 images and many scans from trannies etc in fact back in the old days when they made 4x5 inch dupes of LF trannies the sales were 100 times more! with the "house" collection and in two accounts. Their selling power is nothing to what it used to be. They have wrecked the market completely by slashing prices and commissions and they are an extremely arrogant bunch.
Said it before companies like SS and Getty would do best in just go away. Both of them stand for price reductions and commissions and constant troubles. One is the imbecile of subscriptions the other one suffering from Napoleon complex!
They aren't going away and the times have changed, now what? I say adapt to the situation instead of spending years complaining about the good old days of film before the internet. It's the 21st century not the 80s.
Nah you're reading it wrong and yes its the 21st century and they should really be better organized then shouldnt they.
491
« on: November 13, 2017, 01:53 »
Jeez! I been with them since 95 with over 8000 images and many scans from trannies etc in fact back in the old days when they made 4x5 inch dupes of LF trannies the sales were 100 times more! with the "house" collection and in two accounts. Their selling power is nothing to what it used to be. They have wrecked the market completely by slashing prices and commissions and they are an extremely arrogant bunch.
Said it before companies like SS and Getty would do best in just go away. Both of them stand for price reductions and commissions and constant troubles. One is the imbecile of subscriptions the other one suffering from Napoleon complex!
492
« on: November 10, 2017, 13:36 »
Yada wrote....."Are you surprised anymore when your computer locks and shuts down? When the web goes dead? When you get a site not found or 404 error?"
I dont know. It has never happened to me and if it did I can fix it or with a Phone call have a guy here in 20 minutes..My wife also, she runs the Box Office around the world for all the major studios and If something isint right. It's fixed in a heartbeat. Doing Microstock is pretty low on our Joint priority Business Income List.. you can pretend you Love the Place all ya want. they could care less about you or anyone else. All I want is a site to be time and cost effective because I am.. all else is whining in My book.
And if it's on there side, then fix it, * it. I don't need anyone "Advocating" for me and change. I want them to do the Job "WE" pay for. * It. And I want smart people working for us. People that should have known to test this first.....Period. Yada,Yada.
I think what we're seeing is that Oringer was able to take advantage of a model that made him rich. However, running a company is not his strong point. Good leaders know how to build a strong infrastructure, build a positive culture, has excellent integration of the business platforms and has a robust annual operating plan and also a long range plan. Just read everything that is spelled out on Glassdoor, the stuff we see happening now, etc. That is poor leadership. Agree that downtime is simply part of business, but everything I see tells me that there is horrible leadership at SS, no plan that includes anything other than hitting numbers at any cost. Good companies also build people, they build relationships, they build capability, they diversify. I bet their KPI's are different for each group within SS. And those KPI's are in conflict with other departments. An example of a mismatched KPI is I need to build more widgets that the customer asked for because it lowers my cost per widget (my KPI). The distribution center need less widgets because it is really expensive to store those widgets; they have to have the real estate to store, and have to pay taxes on those finished goods. Those are conflicting metrics. When that happens, companies become chaotic. Stack horrible people management on top of that, allow cliques to form and have control, and no processes to form good SOP and cross-platform integration and you are going to get something tantamount to what we see at SS today.
Old staff gone, Alex was the last. Best guy ever but gone!...the suits and bean-counters moved in and thats it.
493
« on: November 10, 2017, 01:44 »
Well SS are always telling us they are constantly working on the site, constantly updating. So much for that. What a cockup!
494
« on: November 09, 2017, 04:20 »
Yes the old but also lots of commercial good sellers. This should be Ok for many?
495
« on: November 06, 2017, 13:58 »
I for one wish I could just have stayed with Ft since I had ten times more sales then before this merger with Adobe. I recon I know why. Two week back I suggested to an AD at an ad-agency to look for four of my shots at Adobe and he said " adobe?  why? its a programming company"!
I dont think its sunk in that they are also dabbling in stock?
Sounds like that art director isn't keeping up with Adobe products. Anybody who uses the creative suite should know that images are integrated in from the apps.
Are you saying, you still believe stuff he's saying despite been caught making stuff up many times?
Oh come on dont be like that! I'm a nice guy, I swear to god! oh well Allah then. 
496
« on: November 05, 2017, 08:54 »
I for one wish I could just have stayed with Ft since I had ten times more sales then before this merger with Adobe. I recon I know why. Two week back I suggested to an AD at an ad-agency to look for four of my shots at Adobe and he said " adobe? why? its a programming company"!
I dont think its sunk in that they are also dabbling in stock?
Sounds like that art director isn't keeping up with Adobe products. Anybody who uses the creative suite should know that images are integrated in from the apps.
I am fan of Adobe and its creative cloud suite but I hate what it's doing with Fotolia...
Fotolia already is a well-established stock photo agency and it's among the top ones I really don't understand why they are trying to stop or remove it
From where did you get the new that Adobe wants to stop or remove Fotolia? Some sources?
They automatically encourage all traffic on route to FT to go to Adobe Stock instead. No more new accounts can be set up at Fotolia and Alexa Rankings show a continued (large) decline in traffic to FT due to their traffic management. No need for sources, they're own actions tell you that they are trying to suck the life out of FT and divert it to Adobe Stock.
Yep! theyre draining FT completely!
497
« on: November 05, 2017, 02:03 »
I for one wish I could just have stayed with Ft since I had ten times more sales then before this merger with Adobe. I recon I know why. Two week back I suggested to an AD at an ad-agency to look for four of my shots at Adobe and he said " adobe? why? its a programming company"! I dont think its sunk in that they are also dabbling in stock?
498
« on: November 03, 2017, 08:48 »
Been with GI since they took over in 93 and the film days. The first 4 years was the best I've ever had in stock. it was really fantastic. Nowadays nothing to shout about. I cant complain about Istock for some strange reason I am doing exeptionally well and I am independent of course.
Seems that when some of us got cut down 50% just over night at SS then along comes Istock and makes up for it. I know sounds crazy but thats it.
About their email I didnt even bother with it. Getty is what it is.
Just a tip! In order to earn some money with Getty you have to get into their RM-House collection made up of their original from Stones and Image-Bank.
499
« on: November 02, 2017, 02:47 »
DP. brilliant close to 4 figures.
That's incredible. I made $50, lol.
You made 50 quid?? haha! are you serious and with your content?? so how many files have you got there? I been there since their start maybe that helps but yes they can also produce crappy days thats for sure.
You know who that is?
Yeah its Sean! known him since Bruce started Istock!! some 15 years back! so??
500
« on: November 02, 2017, 01:53 »
DP. brilliant close to 4 figures.
That's incredible. I made $50, lol.
You made 50 quid?? haha! are you serious and with your content?? so how many files have you got there? I been there since their start maybe that helps but yes they can also produce crappy days thats for sure.
Pages: 1 ... 15 16 17 18 19 [20] 21 22 23 24 25 ... 36
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
