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 - RapidEye
51
« on: January 21, 2012, 18:57 »
What really bothers me about it is that so many people seem so eager to create a cult figure to look up to. That's not about JJRD or iStock in particular (it would be less disturbing if it were).
One of my reservations about iStock from my beginnings in '06 was the never-ending Kool-Aid party. I had to rub my eyes in disbelief the first few times I read the forums. And the first cult figure was, of course, Bruce. But it was all more comprehensible back then, because the company seemed pregnant with possibility -- even another Apple in the baking. Everyone's earnings were on the up and up, quality improved by the month, there was an established hardcore of mutual backslappers, and morale rose so high that some people went dilly. The present cloud over iStock may have a silver lining -- the new level of Getty hegemony may finally get everyone behaving like grown-ups instead of excitable (and often gullible) children.
52
« on: January 20, 2012, 08:40 »
No, 20% wouldn't make any sense at all. It's even debatable whether it's a sane position at 40%, when you factor in the eggs-in-basket risk. Any further royalty cuts and I'm out of there.
53
« on: January 20, 2012, 07:32 »
So it is still iStock, Captain, it's just not iStock as we knew it.
We come in peace...
Resistance is futile...
55
« on: January 20, 2012, 05:56 »
It would seem to me that if anyone is going to argue that iStock has voided the contract, then they would also be arguing that they are not entitled to the higher commission rates. I don't see how you could have it both ways.
And in any case, even if you won the argument, they'd just make you sign another contract.
56
« on: January 20, 2012, 05:54 »
Interesting that one of ThinkStock's selling points is "simplicity". Wonder who they're trying to differentiate themselves from?
If I had to guess, this is insider thinking from some Getty folks - it's simpler than RM license pricing or their main site with both RM and RF plus a pile of collections. This ignores the fact that there are a bunch of other micro sites out there that are equally simple. If you were comparing SS and TS, I don't think you'd find TS "simpler".
No, I was wondering if they were trying to lure iStock customers who were baffled by the myriad options there.
57
« on: January 20, 2012, 02:19 »
Interesting that one of ThinkStock's selling points is "simplicity". Wonder who they're trying to differentiate themselves from?
58
« on: January 20, 2012, 01:53 »
As things start to go wrong, the big boss doesn't think ", I screwed that up", he thinks "I always knew it was a stupid idea that couldn't work, haven't I been warning them about the risks of grandiose plans and overspending?" And when the big-big boss asks why his investment isn't delivering the expected return, the big boss says: "The trouble is, it's a pretty amateurish management we inherited there. What we need to do is bring the managerial functions under the wing of some experienced people at head office, and just have the nuts and bolts jobs done by the technicians there. We'll soon sort things out."
I've worked under exactly that kind of regime and its a nightmare.
Add to that a layer of 'too cool for school' self backslapping cronyism and you have the perfect storm for corporate self sabotage.
I've never met the legend that is jjrd so have failed to fall under his gallic charms but found his impenetrable ramblings and his coterie of familiar faces in all the 'lypse reports as divisive and demotivating as the getty dictated changes.
You actually managed to get me chuckling in the midst of all this doom and gloom.
59
« on: January 19, 2012, 09:54 »
As an indie, the only noticeable declines my portfolio and income have witnessed come from Getty-owned agencies...IS and StockXpert. I'd say I made a pretty good bet.
The declines that indies are seeing could well result from changes in their best match position rather than underlying sales decay. I've seen no erosion yet, although like Sean my earnings increase has lagged behind portfolio growth. Having said that, I'd prefer to be in your shoes right now.
60
« on: January 19, 2012, 09:26 »
Interesting indeed, considering he just relocated all the way to New York this past September or October.
Yes. It's rather poignant. If you look at his Facebook page, you'll see he posted on December 11 saying that his son wouldn't be joining him in New York for another month. He obviously wasn't expecting to leave a week after that.
62
« on: January 19, 2012, 09:18 »
63
« on: January 19, 2012, 08:11 »
Good luck if you are hanging your hat on that particular strategy to preserve your income.
Thanks. Not exactly hanging my hat on it; just an observation.
64
« on: January 19, 2012, 05:36 »
"Another pint of Kool-Aid for my two friends here please"
It's going to be a real shame for these two when they sober up in a few months time __ because Istock's significance as a major player is now measured in months not years. Only the most die-hard, swivel-eyed apostles of Istock will still be exclusive come 2013.
If exclusives do desert in droves, a new factor will come into play. Reduced numbers of exclusives will make the exclusive best match boost more significant for those that remain. This may prolong the viability of exclusivity for some.
65
« on: January 18, 2012, 01:47 »
Doesn't bode well. Looks as if the doomsayers have been right all along.
My sympathy to the victims.
66
« on: January 07, 2012, 09:08 »
Stock is a funny business. I've given no end of advice to all sorts of people, including a couple of news photographers with international reputations, but none of them has managed to make more than a pittance out of it and not for want of trying. Microstock looks like a pretty simple proposition. Apparently, however, it isn't.
67
« on: January 03, 2012, 07:25 »
Actually, M(asculine) exposure is overrated, except when it's necessary. This spoof is one very laborious joke.
68
« on: January 01, 2012, 17:26 »
..
69
« on: January 01, 2012, 17:14 »
Don't let it get to you RapidEye. You know what you know, and we were all young enough to throw around wild assumptions at some point. As my Mum used to say "I've BEEN your age, but you haven't been mine yet".
There's also an old saying that "Every generation thinks they invented sex". So true.
Just as another point of interest. At university in the early 90's, our programming lecturer and head of programming was a retired engineer of about 62. Our computer graphics lecturer was in his mid-50's. So these guys are 80+ and 70+ respectively now.
True, true, and there's me harrumphing like an old curmudgeon. Must be the scotch. Though actually I am starting to feel the need to defend older people against the wrong assumptions of the youth. It's a cultural investment in a possibly less exploited and despised old age.
70
« on: January 01, 2012, 16:45 »
The reason why I expected ppl to be younger is not only there are virtually no photographers older than 50, since the boom of digital photography (the number of 50+ togs is probably the same, it just that so many younger ppl started doing it in the last 5-7 years) and also because you need more than just basic computer skills, which this group age usually lacks.
Truly, 50 is setting the bar pretty young. I did comp sci on a Univac mainframe, moved on to CP/M personal machines, jumped to the Apple II, did some coding on Commodore PETs and VIC 20s, then on to the first IBM PC clones, then to Macs, then to Amigas, then back to PCs and Macs and so on and so on. All this time I've been hammering the audio and imaging capabilities of those machines. So I feel a little devalued and despised if some kid thinks I'm an old man who can't possibly know anything useful. An acquaintance of mine must be well over 60 now and he's produced a couple of impressive bits of tech in the past 20-odd years. Very few of my ageing friends need to take their computers to the shop if something goes wrong with them. Your stereotype has no legs in my world.
71
« on: January 01, 2012, 16:33 »
It's so much harder to make them comfortable, relaxed. It's also a lot harder for then to connect with younger ppl, to keep conversation interesting for her, relaxed, make jokes. It's just so easy for me, it's the same generation, we have the same kind of jokes (sarcasm, dark humour, I can even get away with some profanity lol, imagine a 50 year old pulling stunts like that, she'd leave in a heart beat), the same interests etc. How odd that you think that. I'm 50 but possibly have arrested development because I try to keep things absurdist and hilarious with my models, younger or older, and they keep coming back. I don't exactly watch my mouth either and nobody heads for the hills.
72
« on: January 01, 2012, 04:49 »
It's probably time to move on.
It is, but please let me mention my favourite before we go: "Strangled at birth." Brutal. Nasty. Unspeakable for the parents. No *-footing around the literal meaning. But, as a metaphoric expression, the phrase is ubiquitous and casual. Nearly 300,000 hits on Google.
73
« on: December 29, 2011, 02:45 »
Seems to me that people are hypersensitive about certain analogies, probably having to do with the unthinkability of a crime that represents not only violation of the person but also a transgression of Judaeo-Christian sexual morality. Plenty of metaphors are bandied about having to do with death and murder, arguably a worse crime, and nobody turns a hair.
74
« on: December 27, 2011, 03:04 »
This best match will give a boost to exclusives but also will makes life harder who plans to throw their crown.
If there is a cunning plan behind this, this could be it. Anyway, whatever it means, my sales seem normal for the time of year. Go figure.
75
« on: December 22, 2011, 03:04 »
Exclusive here, sales rather normal. Could be seeing a bias towards newer files, but there's a fairly even mix between 2011 and 2010 images. Not much older stuff moving though.
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|