|
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 - gbalex
Pages: 1 ... 16 17 18 19 20 [21] 22 23 24 25 26 ... 64
501
« on: May 29, 2014, 19:18 »
Good luck to you and congratulations for trying to make a change
There are two choices in life: accept conditions as they exist, or accept responsibility for changing them.
502
« on: May 29, 2014, 17:14 »
This notion that the forums (and I assume by extension the people posting in the forums) are inherently negative is steaming horse pucky.
If people are suspicious or flinch after a long series of outright lies, underhanded takebacks from previous contract terms and changes that overall decrease the income the creator of the artwork receives, is it really those people who are negative?
Really?
It is the actions by agencies that are the problem(s), not the attitudes of participants in this forum.
And asking for freebies with the promise of future exposure, future expansion of the market etc. is like all the lies told in a bar around closing time - you stop believing them after you've been fooled a time or two.
Exactly it is like blaming a group for bleeding after someone has stuck them squarely in the face multiple times with a large 2X4 board. It is not much different than telling them, you have no right to bleed all over the place.
503
« on: May 29, 2014, 10:13 »
I'm not sure mine is really closed. It's blocked, and my images are gone. I do not know if this is permanent or not, as I have not received any message from Fotolia yet.
If there's no message in the next few days, I'll contact support.
I'm so sorry - both for you and Ron - but I'm not surprised.
I know I've said several times that Fotolia threatened to close my account back in June 2008 for organizing contributors to protest the lousy deal when they introduced subscriptions. They backed off then but closed it after I went exclusive and refused to have me back - actually wrote in an e-mail that they did not want to do business with me - when I returned to independence in 2011. They shut down Bobby Deal's account too (he was pretty blunt in his public criticism of them).
Things are different now - largely iStock's free fall - but even without Fotolia, by the 4th quarter of 2012 I had matched my 4th quarter 2010 exclusive income. It's no consolation in the short term I know.
Back in 2008 when Chad passed on the threat from his bosses, he said in an e-mail that he was a nice guy, just trying to give me the lay of the land. But here he still is, putting his names to letters that are trying to bully everyone by harming a few chosen individuals. I find the attempt to separate personal nice-ness from the actions of one's employer done under his name pretty hard to swallow.
What Fotolia reminds me most of are the businesses a century ago hiring Pinkerton's thugs to beat up union organizers and fire at strikers. And Getty's public hanging of Sean and Rob Sylvan.
Fotolia should be ashamed of itself. They know no shame, but they've scraped off any remaining veneer of respectability and ethics with this move.
http://tinyurl.com/owg724tHmmm. I wonder why would they risk alienating a lot of their existing contributors to go after what appears to be a fairly small group of new contributors?
And the fact that maybe only a small percentage of that small group will bite.
Why the would risk alienating ther existing contributors?
That's simple.
Because they have done time and time again in the past without any noticeable impact on their bottom line. Sure, there will be some ranting and complains in the forums, maybe even a few contributors may leave, but after a few weeks it's back to business as usual...
That's why they'll do it.
SOP for Fotolia is if you complain loudly about the way they treat you as a contributor they delete your account and deny you any further referral earnings even when you still have 2 years of referral earnings left from referring top contributors to them.
Fair and honest treatment of the contributor base has never been part of the company credo. I spent many hours consulting (for free) back and forth with Oleg when he was first launching FT and in my personal opinion in the end as in the beginning he never showed any true concern for anything other then his own profit position in the operation. The contributors are simply a means to an end for him and that end is personal profit. Of course we all get into business with profit as the goal but in the case of FT it would seem to be the only true aspiration of the company. I expect that were I to sit down and extrapolate my potential earnings at FT over the past year had I not been railroaded off the site for standing up for contributor rights that I have lost out on $12,000 or more in royalty and referral earnings that would have come as the result of the elevated ranking which I was denied in the last ranking fiasco. Fotolia has a long and well documented track history of mistreating their contributor base yet the staus quo is maintained there. This change will no doubt go forward as has every other change in the history of the agency. In the end a handful will suffer the closing of their accounts and involuntary deleting of their portfolios and after a short time the roar will quiet and it will be business as usual at Fotolia until they announce their next scheme meant to further trample the rights of their contributor base.
504
« on: May 29, 2014, 09:27 »
Lets keep this about Fotolia and the DPC
Your comments are always on the side of shutterstock protectionism. I would expect this from a shutterstock ambassador. Notice you had no comment for cobalt who is praising shutterstock. None of these sites exists in a vacuum. Their business moves affect the entire market and to ignore this fact is analogous to sticking your head in the sand.
505
« on: May 29, 2014, 09:22 »
Is DPC really so much more important than Fotolia???
It may well be. The business model seems to indicate that they are willing to sacrifice Fotolia's sales by transferring them to DPC at a loss. That only makes sense if they are calculating on taking a huge number of customers off other agencies.
Shutterstock is much larger than Fotolia but it still has only a surprisingly small share of the overall market - a few percent, I think, I can't remember exactly what they reported - so Fotolia might have only 1% or 2% of the overall market. If DPC could trawl in 10% of the market it might give a huge boost to its earnings, making the loss of Fotolia insignificant.
That's why it is so important to try to stop them. I've long since left Fotolia but they could well take away my earnings from Shutterstock and iSTock if this works.
Anyone getting booted out of Fotolia for fighting this can console themselves with the thought that, with luck, the loss from that will be less than they would have suffered if they had just gone along with DPC and allowed it to turn iStock and SS sales into DPC sales.
I've read that Shutterstock has 4% of the potential market, but I'm not sure what market share it has vs. its competition. That would be interesting.
It would be interesting to know what Shutterstocks and Getty/Istock's actual market share is VS promotional info that comes from press releases or Earnings Conference Calls.
506
« on: May 29, 2014, 07:24 »
What I can't understand: Fotolia is a strong brand name, at least in Europe and
especially in the German-speaking countries. Why this strong brand is devalued to such activities like founding the dpc?
This is the part I really dont understand. Fotolia is such a huge agency and strong brand in Europe and especially here in Germany. Why would you risk the reputation of Fotolia with DPC? The internet has no borders and the contributors are often buyers (designers,ad agency people..)
I just read what happened to Ron and Anyka. I really dont understand what they want to do. Is DPC really so much more important than Fotolia???
This is all really scary. I just dont understand the logic at all. Just like I didnt understand how istock handled the Getty Google deal.
Looks like istock and Fotolia are doing all they can to increase the trust factor of Shutterstock. Cant they see that a major driving force of SS success is their excellent understanding of how internet communities work?
No dramas - better business - more money..
To understand this you need to look to who is navigating the ship. These moves are driven by pure greed and egocentrism. This does not increase my trust in shutterstock, in fact it makes me more nervous for our future. I think in the end we will see them make similar moves, after all they have been undercutting the competition for 9 years now as an admitted business strategy to garner market share. Not raising sub prices for 9 years is base on pure greed and you do not see this happen in any other business model. They are in good part responsible for the desperation we now see at other agencies who have lost market share as a result. These agencies will take profits at our expense as long as we willingly allow them to do so.
507
« on: May 29, 2014, 06:47 »
They are probably scared that under American law if they give you a reason then they might provide you with ammunition for a court case. I believe it is quite standard in US businesses not to get specific.
I think it does show that they are really feeling the effects of the opt-out campaign, which is good. I'm not really surprised that they acted like this, if you look at the real (non-Internet) world, most companies would not continue their relationship with a product supplier who was actively campaigning to undermine their business strategy. After what happened to Sean I'm a little surprised that people are surprised by this, especially with Fotolia's past record of responding nastily to critisim on MSG.
Certainly, if you want to keep your Fotolia account active and you want to campaign here you would be wise to be anonymous - I don't know if it is possible to open a second account to overcome this.
+1 I have received considerable criticism on these boards for anonymity. Much of that criticism has come from Ron and friends. My reason for anonymity is in good part due to the fact that I have watched this same scenario play out in the past at various agencies. In my opinion there are very good reasons for anonymity. We need to be able to discuss business honestly without fear of retaliation on the part of the micros.
508
« on: May 28, 2014, 16:07 »
It is getting to the point I am afraid of what I will find here when I sign in. DT has always treated me well. But hell no you can not give my images away for free.
I opted out!
509
« on: May 22, 2014, 12:24 »
I makes me sick to the gills that Gbalex uses this thread about FT/DPC for his own agenda to rile up the troops against SS where a lot of people in the Russian community are happily selling their work.
Being anonymous talking about having Russian balls. Are you fecking joking me.
You are entitled to your own honest opinion, just as I am entitled to express my own. You spend an inordinate amount of time worring about who I am and making comments that vilify my point of view. I would expect this from a gatekeeper shill. As usual your comments coinside with your agenda to vilify, distract, discredit, refruit and suppress the facts.
510
« on: May 22, 2014, 12:09 »
Oh my - thank you 
That was unexpected - I thought there'd be some new agency scam and that your title was a little gallows humor. Fotolia's new Cents Photo Club...
I think that MSG works because of all of us as a group - that's why I try to contribute to it and why I get a lot from it. We can keep track of agencies, image thieves, new opportunities and people not getting paid.
I think that Tyler has given us a way to operate a global water cooler-union hall-news wire. It takes a village and all that
+1 I appreciate so many voices here, yours being one of the most objective and sensible. Lisa was also a voice of grounded reason and she worked hard to help us with the problems @ IS. I miss her point of view at MSG, I would encourage her to return.
511
« on: May 22, 2014, 12:03 »
We need a publicist. Someone to send out press releases to techcrunch and the nytimes (?) "Artists Revolt". There is a story here. (And a backstory with Istock Dday) They just need to know that they want it!
DPC has been using prnewswire, the cost are minimal. It is common for companies to use it to spread company promotional info. https://ireach.prnewswire.com/orders/price-options.aspx
512
« on: May 22, 2014, 09:05 »
I wonder what's the take on this situation in other companies. If people are able to boycott a site and take a significant amount of images down that should give them something to think about and how to avoid a similar fate.
Yes, but do the other sites know about DPC and the deactivation from the contributors?
I'm sure they are following it.
Also there is a long thread about it on Shutterstock's forums.
I think it is safe to say they are following the situation. http://tinyurl.com/pfhp2fvhttp://www.whois.com/whois/boycottistockphoto.comYou wonder why they feel the need to procure these domains. Dreamstime has not followed suit.
513
« on: May 21, 2014, 17:42 »
We forget that Jon built and maintained the shutterstock site himself until just a few years ago. He did much of the enterprise marketing himself so it would be unwise to discount small but driven teams...
I didn't forget, it's just not a relevant point anymore. No one can break into this market today without significant marketing spend. If anything, Stockfresh proves that. They have had a good thing going for a while now. Decent prices, simple credit system (no variable dollar-to-credit schemes), nice 50% royalty. There is a lot to like. But that stuff alone isn't enough. The missing piece is marketing.
Jon could do a DIY operation in the past because, well, it was the past; a time in this business where you really could start with nothing and make something out of it. Today, no company, no matter how creative or industrious, is going to compete at a high level if they're not spending on marketing.
I hate to bring up DPC again, but...
That back-cover Shutterstock ad I mentioned earlier? Guess who is on the inside of that back cover...
DPC isn't just a threat because of what they offer. They're a threat because they are putting that offer in front of a lot of potential customers. Stockfresh doesn't do that, so they're not taking a bite out of anyone else's business.
The DIY approach gets you set up. To really compete, though, it doesn't work. Competing in this business comes down to spending money.
To a degree I agree with you it is harder now. However shutterstock was successful because they kept it simple and kept pricing very low. Jon is an absolute tightwad, just ask some of the folks that work for him. This is exactly DPC's strategy now and they are throwing dollars out for marketing. The net is filled with PR about DPC. Marketing prices have dropped and shutterstock has in house sales people to target large enterprise customers, which is one of the largest growth areas. When you put these expenses into perspective, advertizing cost have dropped substantially over the last few years, it does not take much to get front and back covers these days. Sites that innovate and market creatively at low cost and via existing contributors will gain more traction than you might imagine. When you put micro advertizing cost's into perspective, micro sites spend very little to secure new customers compared to most other industries.
514
« on: May 21, 2014, 14:52 »
From their track record I get that they have no interest and maybe no ability to spend money to market their site. That tells me they have no potential to be more than a flyspeck in this industry. "If you build it, he will come" works great as a movie catchphrase. In the real world it hardly ever works out.
I agree. I suspect they have little or no marketing budget and in general they are operating on a pretty slim budget. I made a comment in their forums about the upcoming site redesign and it sounds like Peter is actually working on the design himself, as well as doing some other updates to the current site. Probably a lot of their operation is shoestring DIY kind of stuff. Unless they ramp things up significantly, they're not going anywhere.
Still the question here was about potential and they certainly have it. Especially as it relates to contributor earnings. Decent pricing, very limited subscription offering, 50% royalties, etc. I'd gladly trade all of my SS sales for equal sales at Stockfresh and I'd be sitting on considerably more money as a result.
We forget that Jon built and maintained the shutterstock site himself until just a few years ago. He did much of the enterprise marketing himself so it would be unwise to discount small but driven teams. Building up to the IPO Jon started to spend more on marketing. However most of shutterstocks growth came before shutterstock kickstarted the IPO, beefed up the search and started the marketing spend machine. Shutterstock is successful because they: 1. Did not manipulate their searches, they let customers decided which images were successful so the cream of the crop rose to the top and buyers could see this. 2. They kept pricing stagnant and their low pricing attracted customers that did not have a good experiences at other sites. Many of these were IS contributors hit with reduced royalties/sales. 3. They did not pull the underhand tricks from the likes of IS & Fotolia, therefore they did not lose existing contributor/buyers.
515
« on: May 21, 2014, 11:40 »
Discussion moved from the Boycott DPC thread.
A fair trade agency, with fair royalties is nothing without buyers. There are plenty of honest agencies, problem is they dont have enough buyers and not enough money for marketing.
Before they can sell the files they need the files. Not that hard for us to do these days. At least then they would have a chance to compete with the corporates.
Please show me the massive marketing campaigns? I don't see a massive effort. Why would they need to they are very well established thank you very much. What I see is dozens of millions of dollars from our image value going to a few corporate execs!
We forget that we are the buyers. IS lost many of its contributor/buyers when they slashed royalties. SS gained a large portion of those buyers and they gained a huge chunk of the market because they kept pricing stagnant for 9 years. I buy far more images than I produce and I am not alone, I know many dual buyer/contributors. Stocksy is a perfect example of a site that is set up to take advantage of this dual relationship. We do support fair business's especially when it is in our own best interest. Buyer/Contributors helped bring IS success before IS sold and things went south and we bailed on them.
516
« on: May 21, 2014, 10:43 »
Once again we need to thank those who had the courage to facilitate this change, it just goes to show a few people can and do make a difference.
I am sick to the gills with the mantra we can do nothing to change the micro situation, we have been telling this to ourselves so long we believe this business fallacy. It is absolutely not true. More of us need Russian balls, the entire industry would change for the better.
More change is needed and we should not stop until pricing and royalties are sustainable for contributors. Shutterstocks long term pricing strategy brings about changes like DPC, because it is the only way other sites can compete. We need to put pressure on all sites to raise prices. The 9 years at shutterstock without price increases is having a very negative effect on the industry. And they fully admit that they are doing it to gain market share.
I agree, but what do we do? People seem too reluctant to transition to fair trade agencies because they lose so much of their present income. Simply advocating for better terms seems a weak strategy. Boycotting a nasty Fotolia may hurt and hopefully cripple them but in the end doesn't really improve our circumstances, since other lowlife agencies will try to fill the gap. Somehow... we have to come up with our own solution if we want to stay in this game.
Fatalist thinking put us in this situation to begin with. There is always something we can do. To start we can quit putting our best work on the micros. Let them get what they pay for.
517
« on: May 21, 2014, 09:05 »
The fact that the numbers continue to shrink means even more people are opting out than we realize, because the non-opted-out contributors continue to add new images. That means the opt-outs outweigh the growth from all the other contributors.
Exactly why we need to keep information about the opt out visible for people who do not visit the forums often. We need to continue to inform our micro friends and encourage them to do the same.
518
« on: May 21, 2014, 08:53 »
Once again we need to thank those who had the courage to facilitate this change, it just goes to show a few people can and do make a difference. I am sick to the gills with the mantra we can do nothing to change the micro situation, we have been telling this to ourselves so long we believe this business fallacy. It is absolutely not true. More of us need Russian balls, the entire industry would change for the better. More change is needed and we should not stop until pricing and royalties are sustainable for contributors. Shutterstocks long term pricing strategy brings about changes like DPC, because it is the only way other sites can compete. We need to put pressure on all sites to raise prices. The 9 years at shutterstock without price increases is having a very negative effect on the industry. And they fully admit that they are doing it to gain market share. The first quoted figure I seem able to find in this thread is for about six MILLION more images than this, which means that almost a quarter of the collection has been pulled out, maybe more than a quarter given that they have been adding new approvals at the same time images are being taken down. That's a huge achievement and shows how strongly the creative community rejects this scheme, particularly as there must still be a large number of contributors who are still unaware of it - along with those who have abandoned small portfolios that just sit there, and there will be a lot of those.
Given that at least 80% of earnings is reckoned to come from the top 20% of the files, the disappearance of 25% of the work of the most active contributors has got to be a huge blow to this project.
Latest changes in the number of images on DPC (Moscow time) (the current number is on top of the list):
Date and time Images on DPC Change
21-05-2014 16:08:59 21,708,365 -1,097
21-05-2014 14:08:56 21,709,462 167
21-05-2014 13:08:56 21,709,295 113
21-05-2014 12:08:54 21,709,182 -243
21-05-2014 11:08:58 21,709,425 -1,477
21-05-2014 10:08:54 21,710,902 -97
21-05-2014 09:08:59 21,710,999 -3,550
21-05-2014 07:08:53 21,714,549 -67
21-05-2014 06:08:59 21,714,616 -3,074
21-05-2014 05:08:53 21,717,690 -23
21-05-2014 04:08:55 21,717,713 23
21-05-2014 03:08:56 21,717,690 281
21-05-2014 01:08:57 21,717,409 -633
21-05-2014 00:09:00 21,718,042 -133
20-05-2014 22:08:59 21,718,175 171
20-05-2014 20:08:57 21,718,004 -16
20-05-2014 19:08:54 21,718,020 197
20-05-2014 18:08:57 21,717,823 -102
20-05-2014 16:08:53 21,717,925 -534
20-05-2014 15:08:58 21,718,459 -15
20-05-2014 13:08:57 21,718,474 -984
The numbers are falling, but it's still nothing compared to the 21 million they're left.
519
« on: May 20, 2014, 08:47 »
Ironically SS are spurning whole new business models compounding the problem with the likes of the 'Dollar Photo Club' as this is the only way other agencies can compete.
Agencies are never too concerned as their income always increases, eventually though the business model for contributors will snap and a McJob will be far more lucrative.
Shutterstock openly admits that as a strategy to gain market share they strategically chose to not raise prices in 9 years, while they also acknowledge that images quality has risen dramatically. By using long term price undercutting to successfully gain market share over other agencies; they leave other micro sites no alternative but to accelerate the race to the bottom in an attempt to compete. As you mention they could have used alternate strategies, but it is no skin off their back if they devalue our assets. They still make bank even without the IPO which also gives them the option of printing money in the form of granting themselves free stock options worth millions. For instance on the date 04/24/2014 the Shutterstock board granted Jonathan Oringer 100,000 shares of shutterstock stock at a cost to Jon of $0 per share. Automatic Sales: These are planned sales of their personal stock position as part of their personal financial strategies to liquidate some of their stock positions. Option Exercise: These are options that are awarded to high-level executives and board members (i.e., Directors) as incentives to remain with the company, especially in leaner, difficult times. Every "Option Exercise at $0 per share" is essentially a grant of shares at the $0 value level. Therefore, if they sold these shares, they could do so at the full market value on the day of sale. Basically, these are part of these insiders' compensation packages that were negotiated for their participation and contribution to the company. If you take a look at the link recording insider trades http://www.marketwatch.com/investing/stock/sstk/insideractionsYou can easily see how much key insiders at shutterstock paid for their stock and how much they sold those shares for. Thilo sells 5000 shares every month as Automatic Sales. Insight Venture Partners V L P SSTK Stock Sales Totaling $193,200,000 Paid $0 for its sharesOringer Jonathan SSTK Stock Sales Totaling $144,969,000 Semmelbauer Thilo (President & COO) SSTK Sales Totaling $3,934,150 Paid $0 for his shares He auto trades 5,000 shares each and every month and when they run out they grant him more @ $0 Chou James (Chief Technology Officer) SSTK Sales Totaling $987,000 Paid $0 for his sharesBERNS STEVEN (Director) SSTK Sales Totaling $499,350 Paid $17.5 for his shares To see how much key stake holders paid for their granted stock options look under "Other Transactions": Sort by clicking on the columns "Average Price" & "Total Amount" Paid for the SSTK shares to see the stock share transactions each person was "Options Awarded" Or "Other Share" Granted. They must love to see those lovely $0's http://www.secform4.com/insider-trading/1549346.htm
520
« on: May 20, 2014, 08:21 »
I am fed up with their reviewers bs, what I have online is about 20% of what I've ever submitted, I work with a tripod,very often with artificial light at high speeds, I take my good time processing, I view my images at 100% on a 24" HD Dell Ultrasharp screen calibrated every week with an X-rite device (and would really like to know what gear is on the other side...) in a controlled environment and get all sort of odd reasons about noise, focus, lights, you name it.
Reviewers get in a megalomaniac omnipotence syndrome, frankly stopping submissions and looking for other markets is making me feel much better, ms just kills creativity.
My 2 cents
Reviewers are hired without seeing the equipment they will use to review images. They all work out of their homes and the sites have no way of knowing if they use color management, keep their eye glass prescriptions up to date, have adequate functioning equipment etc. The reviews at shutterstock have always been erratic, I think they assign reviewers regionally and who you get to review your images is the luck of the draw. Some of them are great and others are dot. If they are rejecting your images, they need to review the reviewers. It is a long standing fact that they don't bother.
521
« on: May 19, 2014, 17:44 »
A forgone conclusion that should have been addressrf long ago. As long as we put up with it, they will continue to demand more from us without commiserate compensation.
My god, how do you find the time to produce any images? You seem so busy constantly digging up quotes.
I will assume you are not capable of quick keyword searches. For a reality check, you have posted 4 times more than I have in total over the last 8 years and yet you have been a member here for only one year. Yes some of us notice that you talk out of both sides of your mouth. Ron Date Registered: June 06, 2013 Posts: 3920 (11.297 per day) Gbalex Date Registered: March 20, 2008, Posts: 1090 (0.484 per day)
522
« on: May 19, 2014, 10:52 »
Its a lot of work and worries for 38 cents per image. If any agency demands such quality they should up the royalties.
A forgone conclusion that should have been addressrf long ago. As long as we put up with it, they will continue to demand more from us without commiserate compensation. http://www.microstockgroup.com/shutterstock-com/success-lessons-from-a-marketplace-master-%28jon-oringer%29/125/My word, this is not about not wanting a raise, this is about a Manhattan office. You say there hasnt been a raise, I say there were plenty.
You are complaining your work isnt valued, but you value your own work when putting it on a sub site. You started out by getting 20 cents, and now you get 25 cents to 120 dollar.
If your work is that good, and high valued, how about applying to OFFSet?
I honestly dont see why you keep bringing it up, YOU devalue your own work.
Give it a rest. Here is Yuris favorite photo in his gallery in 2005. I think the bar has been raised a bit since then and you are talking apples to caviar. The discussion is not even apples to oranges. There is no comparison in the quality of 2005 image standards to those sold today.
Yuri's 2005 response to the question - What's your favorite picture in your gallery?
http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=58793&highlight=#58793
Another example of image quality from one of microstocks most successful contributors at that time
http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=56402&highlight=#56402
And here are Yuris 2005 thoughts on SS's new image quality bar.
Snip
This sites image standards has to balance with payout prices for quality pictures.
As it is now, criteria for getting images approved have accelerated to a much stricter level but the payout is the same as before.
Development in picture quality standards should guide payouts pr picture!
http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=54821&highlight=#54821
524
« on: May 17, 2014, 21:11 »
I'm just not interested in wasting time trying to get the jokers shut down.
We don't need to shut them down. We just need to remove a significant portion of the important (high sales) images. It can limp along with whatever images it can get without harming any of those of us who are opted out or not/no longer on Fotolia.
What we don't want is Shutterstock like growth out of a company with such a toxic business model - for contributors (I can see why buyers would love this)
Stock agencies haven't been hurt by those freebie sites with tons of images because there is a vast difference in the quality of the content they offer. As long as DPC looks more like the freebie sites and less like Shutterstock, I'd consider this effort a huge victory.
And I saw this morning that someone I contacted on Thursday has opted out of DPC - 14,000+ images gonzo
The key thing seems to be that so many contributors don't know about this. If they know and choose to opt in then that's their choice, however much I wish they wouldn't.
That's how we can make a difference - letting contributors know. I wouldn't waste time on buyers as I'd guess only a small portion would walk away from a great deal because it wasn't fair to suppliers.
Completely agree, I think they are losing some of their best HCV images and over time that will make a difference. There is a large portion of junk on all sites and they count on the top 20% of HCV images to make the lions share of profit. If we just keep spreading the word, we will send a important message to all of the sites.
525
« on: May 17, 2014, 11:21 »
I do not agree, I think that if we continue to spread the word to our friends we will continue to make progress. Almost everyone I have contacted personally has opted out and many have deleted their ports.
Keep spreading the word, it is as simple as this. If we think we cant make a difference we make it a certainty that we won't make a difference.
Thanks to those who are and were willing to bring about change in this industry, you have proved that we are not powerless.
I don't for a minute believe that we are doomed. It is time for us to step up to the plate and take care of our assets.
Pages: 1 ... 16 17 18 19 20 [21] 22 23 24 25 26 ... 64
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
