|
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 - PaulieWalnuts
Pages: 1 ... 16 17 18 19 20 [21] 22 23 24 25 26 ... 120
501
« on: July 14, 2015, 06:50 »
Long time ago I used to work for a company that had almost identical model but for different products. Mainly commodities which is different than stock photos but with all of the copycatting stock is becoming a commodity. Buyers would mainly use the system to get prices and then use that to go beat up their trusted suppliers during negotiations. Or just use it as a price check. Buyers rarely moved forward with accepting bids and when they did it was normally offline and not through the system. We had to regularly call buyers and ask them why they were placing bids and not moving forward. The business model was flawed and the company eventually went away when investors dryed up.
The problem with the model was that buyers had no vested interest or incentive in the system and already had contractual relationships with other suppliers. They didn't pay anything for the service so they didn't care. And there was no incentive to buy other than on price. And why would they buy from a new seller when they could just use the bid to negotiate with a trusted supplier.
In my opinion it needs an incentive/penalty system for both buyers and suppliers. Maybe like buyers can place so many bids for free without accepting a bid. Buyers who constantly place bids without accepting any receive a penalty. Buyers who regularly accept bids pay nothing and also get incentives. If they continue to allow buyers to place bids and not accept them, suppliers will eventually dry up and the system will collapse.
From the comments here I'm seeing a lot of the same issues I saw at that old company. It's a clunky business model. Maybe with some changes it could improve but when I look at this as it is now I don't see it as a good use of time for me. Maybe I'm missing something though.
502
« on: July 14, 2015, 06:21 »
I read that the premium stuff like E+/Vetta still stays at Gettyimages.com
Just to be sure you understand this: As far as I know this is not how it is planned to be. It is more a technical issue they couldn't get solved (yet), so don't be surprised if at some point your images disappear from Getty. I had to ask for them to be removed (since I wanted to submit some of them elsewhere), though.
What was "semi-officially" said is that images don't change collections (probably also due to technical issues). So your past images will remain in the Signature collection and 3 credits will be charged to the customers (yes, with the claim of being exclusive...  ) but you will only receive the independent royalty of 15-20% depending on your level.
I will be curious to know what happens with iStock Subs and Partner Program payments. As I have read between the lines from others, I think you will only get paid non-exclusive royalties as soon as the crown is gone, even though the sales still happen during your exclusivity. So expect a lot of $0.28 to be paid towards your account in August for the July PP and subs sales.
Good luck and all the best. It's a tough market. 
Everything Michael says is correct. I also abandoned exclusivity some months ago. Automatically all subs (even if sold when you still were exclusive will get the non exclusive rate). Now the opposite is also true if you ever want to recover the crown. The higher price of your now non exclusive images will make the transition to non exclusive not so rough and the images in Getty will also help. Your images will eventually get mirrored to Thinkstock too if technicalities allow it.
I wish you good luck. I went back to exclusivity because independence didn't work out for me. Although the revenue you get is similar if you are in many agencies ( I was in the top 11 ) there is more work involved supplying images, collecting and checking the money, deal with bugs at 11 site instead of 1. At the end I calculated it was same revenue for at least double the work. But it has some advantages too. Your portfolio is much more visible because your best match images are different at every outlet, acceptance rate was never a problem for me as I was at 95%+ on every site but some files that didn't get through for whatever reason at one spot did so at the others many times.
I think that to make a living becoming independent now (where you don't have the advantage of good search position of your portfolio like long time independents ) is too hard if you are not in macro or/and medium stock options like Offset, Stocksy, etc. If you produce now high quality work I would definitely not feed those images to the microstock beast.
Thanks and totally get what you're saying. I'm sure exclusivity still makes sense for plenty of people. There are a lot of opportunities out there and I've reached a point where the restrictions outweigh the benefits.
503
« on: July 14, 2015, 06:08 »
I read that the premium stuff like E+/Vetta still stays at Gettyimages.com
Just to be sure you understand this: As far as I know this is not how it is planned to be. It is more a technical issue they couldn't get solved (yet), so don't be surprised if at some point your images disappear from Getty. I had to ask for them to be removed (since I wanted to submit some of them elsewhere), though.
What was "semi-officially" said is that images don't change collections (probably also due to technical issues). So your past images will remain in the Signature collection and 3 credits will be charged to the customers (yes, with the claim of being exclusive... ) but you will only receive the independent royalty of 15-20% depending on your level.
I will be curious to know what happens with iStock Subs and Partner Program payments. As I have read between the lines from others, I think you will only get paid non-exclusive royalties as soon as the crown is gone, even though the sales still happen during your exclusivity. So expect a lot of $0.28 to be paid towards your account in August for the July PP and subs sales.
Good luck and all the best. It's a tough market.
Thanks! Yeah that's kind of what I figured. There's more info here but I'm still not clear on a few things. http://istockfaq.gettyimages.com/what-happens-to-my-content-when-i-cancel-my-exclusivity/
504
« on: July 13, 2015, 20:15 »
I had a contract with getty through the getty invite program in 2006/7? and that contract didnt end when i ended my istock exclusivity. there is also nothing in the contract that says it terminates in relation to istock.
Interesting. Do you still submit to it?
No, I terminated the contract after the getty/microsoft deal, I was very disappointed the way it was handled. With over 1.3 million free downloads of my files I expected a professional reaction to solve the problem together not what was done instead.
I now have files on getty via eyeem, but these are simple smartphone files, usually snapshots with a filter, I dont care too much what happens to them.
But eyeem is my partner for them, who they work with for distribution is their own decision. Since they are a German agency, if there was an issue it would fall under German copyright law which is very strict.
And my main interest is their own smartphone marketplace that they are just beginning to build this year.
But if you want to go mostly macro, then probably keeping the contract is worth it, because getty also distributes your files via corbis,masterfile etc...there are many indies with a getty contract.
Good to know thanks!
505
« on: July 13, 2015, 12:17 »
Don't know what his plans are for that, just saying he doesn't seem to hold SS or Fotolia or 123RF in very high esteem.
It's not that I don't hold them in high esteem. They're businesses and like any business they're going to do whatever it takes to grow revenue and profits. Totally understand that and it's my/our choice to support it or not. I'm focusing on producing higher end work and micro just isn't a fit for most of it. And I think prices have gotten way too low in general so I'm changing my business and doing something about it.
506
« on: July 13, 2015, 12:14 »
I had a contract with getty through the getty invite program in 2006/7? and that contract didnt end when i ended my istock exclusivity. there is also nothing in the contract that says it terminates in relation to istock.
Interesting. Do you still submit to it?
507
« on: July 13, 2015, 12:13 »
Maybe you haven't read Paulie's previous posts but I don't think he's going to be uploading to SS or Fotolia or the other micropayment sites.
So is he deleting his portfolio on istock as well? [/quote] I deleted probably 3/4 of my stuff at Istock. Not out of spite or anything but I'm focusing on producing new higher value images and I can't charge hundreds of dollars for an image on my site that's on Istock or elsewhere for a few dollars. The images I have left there are more generic older stuff and some of it is still mirrored at Getty so I may leave it there for now. I may also use some of those older images to experiment at other sites but it's not a priority at the moment.
508
« on: July 13, 2015, 11:56 »
Welcome to indielife!
It will take a while to understand what sells best where and to get to know the different agencies, but I am sure you will be glad you did it, because you have so many more options and if one agency upsets you, just forget about them for a while and focus on another one.
If you have a seperate contract to getty, then this doesnt get cancelled. And since Getty takes exclusive images, you can continue to build a portfolio there if you want to. It is a macro agency, unless you get a contract with offset, corbis, or stocksy or one of the many smaller macro houses it is probably good to have at least one macro agency in your port. And I am sure the marketing for Getty itself will always be a priority.
If you havent done video yet, look into it because it is a new market with average downloads of 18-22 dollars per file.
If you upload to fotolia/adobe, try adding some exclusive images to see if it will help portfolio visibility.
There are new smartphone trends/ agencies, so have a look at the smartphone apps (fotolia/eyeem) and maybe also specialist agencies like stockfood, spacesimages if you have content that would work for them. Most of all, dont just look at the big three or four micro agencies, there are many, many smaller agencies out there that can add significant income to your portfolio.
It all takes time, just keep uploading, experiment and ask around your peers what works for them.
Everybody will have a different mix of agencies and themes that bring an income, but that is the beauty of indielife, whatever you produce, there will be a place for it somewhere. There is no bad photo, just the wrong environment.
The other agencies are no angels, so you might run into problems as well, but nearly everywhere you will find more modern interfaces and upload systems than on istock.
I had a great time with istock and certainly being exclusive was good for me for many years, but I dont regret being indie now, the freedom I have, I will never give it up again.
Exclusive images yes, artists exclusivity never again.
Thanks for all of the info! My contract was separate but I was invited through Istock's Getty program so I didn't apply independently to Getty. I'm guessing this Istock/Getty contract will be cancelled. Dd you have the same type of contract or a Getty contract independent of Istock?
509
« on: July 13, 2015, 11:53 »
Welcome to the fray!
Somewhere I remember reading a post recently, about this stays here, that goes, this won't change... But I can't remember where it was.
Thanks Sean!
510
« on: July 13, 2015, 08:43 »
I turned in the crown. I appreciate the opportunity but since I joined in 2007 things have changed. It's time to move on to be free to pursue other opportunities.
I know there are at least a few people here that also cancelled (Jo Ann Snover? Cobalt?). I read that the premium stuff like E+/Vetta still stays at Gettyimages.com. But I was offered a separate Getty contract through Istock so any idea what happens to that?
511
« on: July 11, 2015, 11:54 »
I like it when I can work out who an anonymous person is here and then I always have the option of outing them if they annoy me too much 
That just reminded me my time is probably better spent working on producing images and less on the social community stuff. Best wishes with your outings.
512
« on: July 09, 2015, 17:23 »
they will all come back with a new nick.
i don't know why for many it is so hard to tolerate different views, must be a sign of the times.
Different views seem to go fine as long as there's respectful debate. Here, the respectful part seems to go away quickly which understandably a lot of people find hard to tolerate.
513
« on: July 09, 2015, 17:17 »
Can there ever be a post in this place that doesn't stray into mindless bickering? And people wonder why others are leaving.
514
« on: July 07, 2015, 17:25 »
Shutterstock lets Facebook advertisers use "free" images in their Facebook ads. The licensing cost is built in to the advertising cost. We get paid for a sub sale every time an image is used, and FB allows several images to be used in one ad, which means we can be paid multiple times each time an ad is run. The images are thumbnail sized and cannot be downloaded or used by the advertiser...it only appears in the FB ad. That's what everyone was so excited about a few days ago, when they were getting dozens of sub payments in one day as FB reported everything.
Yes. Exactly. WE GET PAID in the Facebook deal. I am confused why some are unable to understand we want to be PAID for use of our images. Why else are we in this business?
Out of the goodness of our hearts to provide big companies with the resources to make even more money without giving us anything. What an honour! And you want PAID as well!
LOL! Yes, I am so greedy that way. Like to pay my bills and feed my kids. Shameful!
Just take comfort in that your deducted donations are helping fund needy executives' swagger, swank offices and long list of employee perks.
515
« on: July 07, 2015, 16:29 »
Here you go... http://www.microstockgroup.com/newby-discussion/how-much-should-new-contributors-expect-to-earnThis was more toward figuring out hourly earnings but also covers earnings per image per month. I'd say if you get 500 images accepted across the top 10 sites listed to the right in the Microstock Poll Results you'll probably start off earning between $0-.10 cents per image per month. So $0-$50 per month across all sites. So, on average
About 5% of the images you shot will be sellable
You spend 30 minutes per image in an image editing program like Photoshop doing post-processing, keywording, etc
You start with about a 20% acceptance rate, 80% rejected
You earn .10 cents US per accepted photo per month
So let's say...
You spend two days, about 16 hours, shooting 2000 images
You select 100
100 images x 30 minutes processing each = 50 hours
Because of poor focus and other issues you find only 80 are usable
You submit 80 images
16 images get accepted (20% acceptance rate)
So for your 16 approved images
Youve worked 66 hours that month and 16.5 hours per week
Youve earned $1.60 for the month and .40 cents for the week (.10 cents per accepted photo per month)
Based on a 40 hour work week, youve earned .10 cents US per hour for your efforts
516
« on: July 07, 2015, 07:07 »
In my experience free stuff only attracts more people looking for free stuff
517
« on: July 02, 2015, 08:52 »
And for that I can still be thankful, but you can't win with Getty or anyone of these agencies, they don't need us as much as we like to think.
They absolutely need us or there would be no them unless they hired people to create owned content. But they totally leverage the lack of solidarity as much as possible. Any smart business would.
518
« on: July 01, 2015, 10:22 »
There's probably more money in infringement lawsuits than in licensing the images.
Is this your expectation or have you been successful in retrieving money for misuses of your images?
I haven't pursued anything yet but with my new RM work I will definitely review any infringements on a case by case basis with an attorney. Infringement of copyright registered works in the US can have statutory damage compensation of up to $150,000 per work. For images that aren't registered with the copyright office you still own the copyright but can only sue for actual damages which for a micro image is a few dollars and no contributor is going to pay an attorney thousands to sue for a few dollars. So folks in the US, register your images with the copyright office.
519
« on: July 01, 2015, 09:30 »
It's the new thing. All of these companies are now in a mad rush to put images in the systems buyers use.
I get the idea but is Fiverr the right partner? $5 to design logos and websites?
And I'm not seeing what images they have access to. Getty macro? Istock Exclusive? Istock Indy?
520
« on: July 01, 2015, 09:22 »
Lately SS and Canva are absent from the forum, when they were the most regular ones to communicate here. Most agencies had a rep here communicating with us. It all seems to have dried up.
Do yo think the tough MSG community has driven away Agency reps?
The sites seem to have a pattern of sending someone here when they want to announce something like a major change and then the person disappears until the next announcement or the person's replacement does an introduction. But yes, if I was an agency rep I wouldn't want to spend any time here. Things usually start off with decent semi-professional communication and quickly go to keyboard warriors with heated debates, bickering, and insults. When the bickering gets to be too much I give this place a break and check in once in a while.
521
« on: July 01, 2015, 09:09 »
I find a ton of my stuff reused by people. Blogs, event pages, file share sites and you name it using images that are either watermarked or are questionable if they paid for a license or just copied it from somebody who did pay. But with RF there's no way to tell if it's a paid license unless you ask them. And with all of these partner deals it could have come from anywhere. I think most of it is just people who don't understand most images are copyrighted and you need permission to use them. A small percentage knowingly steal stuff thinking nothing will be done about it.
That's why all of my new premium images are being registered with the US copyright office and will only be sold directly as RM. So when I find images that aren't on my customer list it will be easy to know who's a client vs thief. There's probably more money in infringement lawsuits than in licensing the images.
522
« on: June 30, 2015, 17:22 »
How about No-Longer-Royalty-Free? Ok ok I'd say something like Rights Enhanced.
I'd prefer if it was done away with. An unrestricted right license should cost a ton more but is actually the cheapest license.
Who invented it? I dunno. No sane business person would ever create a product that costs money and uses the name free in it. "Hey everybody come check out my new Chevy Cost Free" or "My Nikon Price Free".
I'm using a hybrid license on my site. It's Rights Managed but i'm simplifying it to make using it easier.
523
« on: June 30, 2015, 07:47 »
Getty need to get with the times. The world has past them by and they just refuse to accept it.
NO ONE is going to pay for 1000X the price of an image when they can get it for 1/1000 of the price. It's simple economics. Maybe they should make Getty upper management buy water that's priced at $1000 a bottle instead of $2. Maybe then, they'll get their heads out of their asses and realize the predicament they're in.
They shouldn't blame Google, they should blame their idiot CEO and their entitled idiotic upper management.
Not quite simple economics. People will pay more for the right image. I just sold a single use RM license for $300. And I get 100% instead of 20% of $2. How many of those $2 images could be selling for hundreds? So while Getty hasn't done a lot of things right for contributors lately, trying to preserve higher costs benefits a lot of us.
It depends on budget constraints, usage and savvy. Mom and pop bloggers want free or next-to-nothing images because they make no money. Large corporations have big budgets and can afford RM to protect their brand. And everything in between. Microstock opened up new markets, but also created opportunity for pros to make a killing, both of which led to pressure to bring down prices across the board, unfortunately.
I don't agree with the idea that prices should be lowered because someone can't afford something. If bloggers couldn't afford images maybe they should have done without them or been limited to a thumbnail size single use license. A new product offering? Sure. But offering them full size high resolution images for a couple dollars benefits all buyers and the agencies but the value to us is questionable. We need to start getting back to a higher cost but simplified pay-per-use model rather than cheap all-you-can-eat subscriptions.
I just saw a Facebook ad for the new Adobe stock and somebody commented "your prices are way too high and you should consider lowering them". What? Wow.
It would be great if raising prices meant people would go on buying images and just pay more. But I doubt that would happen. Ending subs just means everyone gives up a big portion of their income.
A big portion of what income? Maybe the people that are making crazy money are staying quiet but seems like most people that have been doing this for a while are reporting overall income is stagnant or dropping year over year regardless of how many new images they submit. The wall. The hamster wheel. If pricing model changes continue to head in the same direction what will your micro income look like in five years? Higher? Lower? Non-existent?
524
« on: June 30, 2015, 07:06 »
Getty need to get with the times. The world has past them by and they just refuse to accept it.
NO ONE is going to pay for 1000X the price of an image when they can get it for 1/1000 of the price. It's simple economics. Maybe they should make Getty upper management buy water that's priced at $1000 a bottle instead of $2. Maybe then, they'll get their heads out of their asses and realize the predicament they're in.
They shouldn't blame Google, they should blame their idiot CEO and their entitled idiotic upper management.
Not quite simple economics. People will pay more for the right image. I just sold a single use RM license for $300. And I get 100% instead of 20% of $2. How many of those $2 images could be selling for hundreds? So while Getty hasn't done a lot of things right for contributors lately, trying to preserve higher costs benefits a lot of us.
It depends on budget constraints, usage and savvy. Mom and pop bloggers want free or next-to-nothing images because they make no money. Large corporations have big budgets and can afford RM to protect their brand. And everything in between. Microstock opened up new markets, but also created opportunity for pros to make a killing, both of which led to pressure to bring down prices across the board, unfortunately.
I don't agree with the idea that prices should be lowered because someone can't afford something. If bloggers couldn't afford images maybe they should have done without them or been limited to a thumbnail size single use license. A new product offering? Sure. But offering them full size high resolution images for a couple dollars benefits all buyers and the agencies but the value to us is questionable. We need to start getting back to a higher cost but simplified pay-per-use model rather than cheap all-you-can-eat subscriptions. I just saw a Facebook ad for the new Adobe stock and somebody commented "your prices are way too high and you should consider lowering them". What? Wow.
525
« on: June 30, 2015, 06:14 »
Getty need to get with the times. The world has past them by and they just refuse to accept it.
NO ONE is going to pay for 1000X the price of an image when they can get it for 1/1000 of the price. It's simple economics. Maybe they should make Getty upper management buy water that's priced at $1000 a bottle instead of $2. Maybe then, they'll get their heads out of their asses and realize the predicament they're in.
They shouldn't blame Google, they should blame their idiot CEO and their entitled idiotic upper management.
Not quite simple economics. People will pay more for the right image. I just sold a single use RM license for $300. And I get 100% instead of 20% of $2. How many of those $2 images could be selling for hundreds? So while Getty hasn't done a lot of things right for contributors lately, trying to preserve higher costs benefits a lot of us.
Pages: 1 ... 16 17 18 19 20 [21] 22 23 24 25 26 ... 120
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
