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 - cobalt
4876
« on: November 25, 2011, 17:02 »
Well, I am photo exclusive, so I can only upload RM anyway.
I wonder if locations from Germany are interesting at all, or if they mostly have customers for the UK/US market.
But if they accept things with hard or suboptimal lighting, it might be interesting to just slowly and patiently build a port there, especially if these are images that usually wouldnt get into istock as RF.
Alamy doesnt show download numbers and I have become very appreciative of the companies that dont advertise to thieves what makes me money. I believe it is an important component of my success on getty - nobody knows what I sell, so noone copies it. So my files seem to have a better shelf life.
Alamy also takes editorial from what I see. Hm. I like the way editorial is beginning to sell on istock. But I might try putting a few into RM.
@karimala: thank you!!
4877
« on: November 25, 2011, 16:33 »
Very interesting, thank you. So I could upload normal content and just wait and see what happens. This might be easier to leave in RM.
I think Ill browse through the alamy collection a bit more. I think if someone has thousands of images there, they must know what they are doing.
4878
« on: November 25, 2011, 16:01 »
I am interested in RM as an alternative to RF.
I only have two RM files on getty, but only got a normal "RF level" payout so far. I think I uploaded the wrong material.
I might give alamy a go and just slowly build up another portfolio there.
is it difficult to delete single images, if you want to? For instance if a file hasnt sold in two years, I might want to move it into RF and into my portfolio on istock (I know it can never go back to RM) Or shuld one give RM files more time? 3 years, 5 years?
Thank you for the numbers, this is certainly a decent level.
4879
« on: November 25, 2011, 15:34 »
One sale per 100 images per year?
What is the average payout for these sales?
The payouts must be extremely high, otherwise surely nobody would bother uploading thousands of files?
If I had my 3000 images there and only got 30 sales at 10 dollars...I mean you can earn more than that in 2 or 3 days on istock.
4880
« on: November 25, 2011, 15:14 »
deleted - why waste my time...
4881
« on: November 25, 2011, 14:26 »
I hope it gets fixed tomorrow, it is really frustrating that I cant see my last downloads.
And yes, i do worry what else will break while they try to fix this bug...
4882
« on: November 25, 2011, 10:10 »
my ipad does not allow me to scroll down, so I'll add it here:
only with my own site do I have full control. As soon as I decide to work through an agency, I give up control. I will only do this if it makes financial sense. And of course I have to always follow what the management does and if I believe that their decisions will bring me more money.
If I believe they're decisions will not bring in more money, I have to think of a different solution, or finally open my own store. Of course opening your own place and driving customers there will take 3 years, like any new business.
But it is always my choice.
Obviously if for instance Shutterstock or any other site reached a level that made it clear they have reached the earning power of istock, I might move my portfolio.
Many others are moving now. Their decision.
But again nobody knows if the growth of ss will last.
4883
« on: November 25, 2011, 09:43 »
"I don't think we can say that the sale of iStock is irrelevant. the details of the sale between Bruce and Getty may no longer be relevant (maybe that's what you meant Jasmin?). but the sale has completely shifted the iStock infrastructure. "
I meant that it is the decision of the CURRENT management that is giving us the results we see. They could have decided to continue it along the path Bruce set up.
And most of the people I know are earning a lot more now than in 2006 and those who are good at shooting vetta and agency are doing extremely well. And I don't see any site out there that can replace istock's earning power. If you go independent, you still have to sign up with at least 4 agencies to replace what you got from as an exclusive. If the other business managers are so much better, why haven't they overtaken istock? They've had 5 years since the sale...?
I see a lot of blame being shifted to Bruce, which IMO deflects from the responsibility of the current management.
They, and they alone are responsible for how the business is being run.
I am sorry, but all that nostalgia about Bruce wont get us anyhwere. And again, nobody knows if he really would have continued to be successful with istock if Getty had bought a different stock site. He wasnt the only player in the market and getty was out to buy a company. You cannot just take a point of time in the past and "extrapolate a better present". That is wishful thinking.
Also for me being part of Getty is a very positive thing, because I really enjoy how well my portfolio is doing over there. This is money and an opportunity that I would not have had, if this sale had not taken place.
Again - those in charge NOW are responsible. Noone else.
I also dont buy into this "but Getty always behaves like that"- getty is a business. It has owners. It has managers. Nobody is stopping them from evolving as a company, bringing in new technology, hiring new managers with a solid background in growing a business on the internet. Every single day those managers take decisions. Every day they have to realign their business with the current market situation.
It is not a law of nature for getty "to behave in a certain way"
They can take their company any direction they like. Or any directions the owners want it to go. It is a free enterprise, not a state run bureau.
So that is why for me, the past is over, and whatever Bruce did or did not do makes no difference to me.
I focus on the here and now, always.
4884
« on: November 23, 2011, 22:43 »
"Do you think Oringer will ever be an employee of anyone ... ever, ever again? Not a chance. Brucie blew his chance of becoming a true 'baron'."
You seem to have a very bizarre view of people in general. A "true baron", really? Which computer game promotes such nonsense? And being a business manager is more "valuable" than other types of work? Next time you visit your doctor or go to a hospital, please remind the people there what failures they all are...
If Mr. Oringer actually talks and acts the way you write, he doesnt sound like someone I would want to do business with. I sincerly hope he is a real businessman and not a little boy who needs a Ferrari at his doorstep to give him self confidence.
I am sorry, but I am too old for the games of "mine is bigger than yours" fantasies.
I wonder what Mr. Oringer thinks, if he reads what you write about him. Or Shutterstock. Because this kind of talk is not good for the reputation of their company.
They have representatives who read here, dont they?
4885
« on: November 23, 2011, 22:30 »
actually I know quite a few people who joined ww and never got the weight back. however controlling body weight is a complex issue. if it was easy to solve with a solution that worked for everyone, the whole world wold be slim.
I was not judging the ww program, just that anyone in charge of a franchise business that had mostly small time entrepreneurs as business partners would have useful, comparable experience to supporting digital entrepreneurs who are connected globally through the internet and usually work alone or in very small teams.
This is different from say a business manager who was in charge of the Mc Donalds franchise, where the franchisees are running larger businesses, up to 40 employees, the business was dependent on the local market etc...
I mean if you want to hire an outsider to lead a microstock operation - where do you find a suitable manager?
anyway...
However I disagree with you that all microsites and their relationships with their business partners are the same.
The quality of a business partner I work with can be tremendously influenced by whoever is in charge of the place. A highly successful company can be ruined in a few months by an incompetent manager. Or it can blossom with the right one. So I believe this thread, if it looks at the behaviour and experiences contributors have had with the different agencies is very valuable.
But to differentiate into "evil or good", that makes no sense to me at all. After all - are the photographers all good and never "evil"? Do they not do everything they can to maximize their profit?
Just because they are small businesses doesnt make them "victims" of "large cooperations" or makes them more ethical in any way. They are not even more vulnerable, their small size makes them much more flexible than the agencies. They can sell wherever they want, to whomever they want - globally.
Their success just depends on the skills of the digital entrepreneur himself (herself).
But I dont want to move too much off topic, Ill let you guys continue and watch from the sidelines. I have very limted experience with agencies outside of istock/getty.
4886
« on: November 23, 2011, 21:44 »
What exactly makes you think that Bruce thought this was the best offer he could get? Or that money was even his biggest motivation in selling the business at that time?
Maybe Bruce bought a few successful stocks and now has 1000 times more money than before? Maybe he lost it all at the roulette table. Maybe he gave it all to charity? Again - who cares??
You adore Jon Oringer, youve had personal experience with him and find him inspirational - fine.
But you didnt build a stock site and somehow I think, that if you had made even 10 million dollars with any business deal you would not be selling stock images today.
Bruce went right on to market another place for artists and that place seems to be booming. Maybe he will do this for the next 20 years. Maybe he will leave tomorrow and go back to singing? Who knows?
It is just a strange thing to be so judgemental about someone who apparently knows how to succeed with what he wants to do.
Bashing Bruce doesnt make Jon Oringer look good, or clever, or "better" to me. Different people, different lives, different choices. It doesnt make me "trust" or believe in the Shutterstock business model.
If you are really Jons friend, I think you are doing him a disservice by constantly attacking Bruce. IMO, of course.
The sale happened 5 years ago, it is completely irrelevant today. Because nobody knows how the market had developed if Bruce had kept istock, and if Getty had bought another site.
Only what the current managers of istock and Getty and ss etc...are doing is what is affecting the market now and us as photographers.
Business people live in the here and now. "What if he had done this or that..." doesnt pay my bills.
4887
« on: November 23, 2011, 20:18 »
Actually the fact that the President was at weigtwatchers for over 8 years, makes him a good candidate for leading a microstock site. Weightwatchers is based on thousands of small time, very local entrepreneurs who although they work at their own risk have the support of an international franchise behind them.
So if he was successful at growing the weight watchers business (was he?? - I have no idea?), he should have very good operational experience with an international freelancing sales team.
But this is just from looking at his CV on the internet. I have no idea if he has had any impact on the SS business.
The concept of "finding and growing the sales warrior diamonds" is something he should be familiar with.
4888
« on: November 23, 2011, 17:25 »
gostwyck,
it is always easy to play the armchair CEO. It is even easier if you do it with hindsight. By the way, you can always outdo him by building your own stocksite and doing a better job ;-)
I met Bruce shortly after the takeover and he genuinly believed it was a good decision for istock and to ensure the longterm success of the business. Unless he was a first class actor, I take his word for it. And as long as he was at the helm, the company was thriving, for all I can tell.
I think the question is - why did the current owners change the business model. What road are they taking the business? And is this in synch with our own business plans as photographers.
At least to me that is all that matters.
I am really curious to see what JJ and the team have been working on and hinting about. It must be a lot better than the "world changing referral program". I look forward to being impressed.
lagereek - thank you for the kind words! I am not a "traditionally trained photographer" and still amazed how far this career has taken me. And it is so much fun! Best job I ever had!
4889
« on: November 23, 2011, 15:41 »
That was a fantastic, coherent, informative post! Who are you and what have you done to Christian?
4890
« on: November 23, 2011, 14:56 »
Thank you! But dont worry, I am not intimidated by silly comments.  I only have 120 "real" house images on getty plus 20 Vettas. But I am impressed that such a small portfolio generates very reliable sales. There are huge differences in the sales results though, anything from 1 dollar to over 100 dollars is possible. But I didnt see such a strong downturn on Getty as I see on istock. However, I know many photographers who are not happy with their getty experience although they have uploaded fantastic content. It doesnt work for everyone. Maybe for someone like Sean, who has such a very large customer base on istock, it is simply better to upload there where he already has a loyal buyer group. But for 2012 my strategy will be: upload the best on Getty, regular, normal content for istock and a big focus on video to learn about the market. Because it will take me two years to become a good videographer, I wish I had started earlier. And then we will see. Of course, Ill keep watching the site, are the bugs getting worse, what will the next RC levels be (and will they come out in early January) and will finally someone from the management start an open thread to discuss the falling traffic? Will Rebecca ever step out from under the invisibility cloak?  But the traffic stats that everyone is watching together with the monthly sales threads here and on istock will be my main indicators of how istock is doing in the market place. One thing I learned from the microstockexpo: istock is not alone, there is a huge industry out there and they have so many different projects and ideas, they dont seem to be looking to istock for leadership. It cant hurt to keep your eyes open and to look for industry trends.
4891
« on: November 23, 2011, 13:54 »
No doubt he will!
And tell me about the good old days when he and his buddies had to drag their cameras through snow and mud, defend themselves against werewolves and dragons to get their pics delivered to stone in time...
4892
« on: November 23, 2011, 13:40 »
If you now send a file to the House editors and opt for RM and RF your images will also be inspected with RM in mind. I know photographers who had images taken for RM. But you have to select the RM option when you upload.
Personally I only used two PC RM slots and dont submit for RM otherwise. Did that change at some point, or was it different in the beginning? I must be getting old, I cant remember.
Did you want to cancel your getty contract? Did they offer to keep you after you contacted them?
4 months sounds reasonable, I thought it would be much longer, at least 6 months like many of the other agencies.
ETA: youre right, originally we only had access to RF. When they stopped the program they divided us into house and PC contracts. I was lucky I got the house contract. Sorry about the confusion.
But without istock or Bruce I would never have gotten into Getty.
4893
« on: November 23, 2011, 13:04 »
The house contract is a contract with gettyimages directly. Apparently the "Holy Grail" in stock photography that thousands of photographers the world over would love to have.
Thanks to Bruce, now many istockers are "in".
The program was stopped, because for many it was enough to work with the Vetta collection. All V/A files are duplicated on Getty.
But a house contract gives you acces to Getty RM division and many other collections.
It is not a license to print money, but my own results are very good, better than on istock. Others are disappointed and after trying it went back to uploading to istock.
It is an opportunity that other agencies cannot offer you. Unfortunately, if you give up your photo exclusivity with istock, you also lose the Getty contract.
It has no effect on your RCs with istock. It is just an opportunity to build a second portfolio on Getty itself.
4894
« on: November 23, 2011, 10:09 »
I agree, if you want to work for a business registered with your partner, I would clear it with istock first.
4895
« on: November 23, 2011, 10:03 »
If you do that then the company in the name of your spouse is the legal copyright holder. Which means you need a stable marriage ;-) or at least excellent contracts in case you fall out. And obviously it cannot have a small print saying that basically everything is owned by you, because then you are breaking exclusivity...youll definetly need a good lawyer if you want to go that route.
4896
« on: November 23, 2011, 09:59 »
Internet marketing is extremely expensive, istock simply didnt have enough resources, or the expansion would have taken much, much longer than doing it together with getty. Getty also has a huge legal department with international experience, they have unusual content that was added to istock etc...
And Getty sales reps apparently sell a lot of large volume istock credit packs (5000+) to customers who can afford higher prices. We have all benefitted from the much higher price level, since the takeover.
It is only in the last year that we are seeing such a serious drop, I think until 2010 most people I know were doing well.
So it is easy to blame Bruce now, but the reality is when he was in charge, his plan worked. At least from my perspective. Community morale and enthusiasm was also much higher.
4897
« on: November 23, 2011, 08:56 »
The other thing to consider is the holding time for images on getty.
If you are really giving up exclusivity, I think you will lose your house contract. But getty has much longer holding times than istock, you cannot sell those files anywhere else as long as they have exclusive rights to them.
Of course you will still get paid on any sales, but you can't take them with you after 30 days.
I have no idea how long their lock up period lasts.
Maybe your portfolio is good enough and they keep you, might be worth negotiating directly with them.
4898
« on: November 23, 2011, 08:50 »
The portfolio is just for fun, I never sold a print there. But I teach at an artistic school for photography and I include Saatchionline in my talk on internet self marketing. I think saatchionline has a very good interface for artists and it seems to have an extremly active community. I was contacted by more than one gallery and asked if I wanted to be part of a project.
Definetly a lot going on over there.
4899
« on: November 23, 2011, 07:26 »
I think it is important to look at what happens in January/February. Last year there was a terrible drop after the New Year, presumably buyers who didnt renew their contracts and went elsewhere.
Then youll need the new RC targets, are they staying at 150k or lowering them significantly or proportional to the perceived loss in traffic.
Are they announcing any new initiatives (better than microstock...ahem...)?
And what do the monthly sales threads look like beginning of the year?
Do you have good sales on getty? Do you have a house or PC contract? The you could try to weather the storm by uploading more to them, at least that is what I am doing.
I would also wait to see the "next stage" of uploading that Kelly talked about.
But in the end, it is your decision. It all depends on how painful things are.
I really dont believe that microstock is dead, absolutely not. The needs for images is steadily growing, because more and more markets are maturing, i.e. paying their staff enough that buying from a stock site is cheaper than spending hours searching the internet to steal one...
And of course you can think of adding a new and different subject theme to your portfolio to attract different customers.
On the other hand, many people here have gone from being exclusive to independent, then back and and again independent. So it is doable. UL systems also seem to be easier on most sites.
Whatever you decide, I wish you all the best.
4900
« on: November 23, 2011, 06:51 »
Bruce genuinly believed that selling to Getty was the best way to take the company global. Getty had the international offices, the international CV, experience and contacts with big budget clients. And he negotiated the famous "quit your day job" offer that brought House contracts to high ranking istock exclusives. I am one of the many grateful contributors who got one. The offer was independent of style of portfolio, you just had to be at the right level to get in.
He did lead the company for another 3 (?) years and then moved on, took a break, bought a nice house and certainly enjoys his money. But then he took on a similar job at Saatchionline and is now promoting a marketplace for non commercial art. Again he is so successful at online marketing, that when I google my name the first thing that shows is my Saatchiportfolio with 20 images and not my istock portfolio with 3000+
He genuinly loves interacting with artists and is an excellent communicator and leader.
Whatever is happening now, is not his fault. Getty owns the istock marketplace and it is their responsibility to grow the business. I keep hearing people who blame Bruce for "leaving them", but again, the current managers at istock or Getty are responsible for what is going on now.
And since we dont have any numbers, it is entirely possible that with the focus on high end content that maybe istock is more profitable now than a year ago, who knows?
It just doesnt seem to trickle down to the artist like it used to.
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|