I think it needs to be very clear to buyers why images command a higher price - I don't know what "more creative content" means, but I can see that an image on a plane with 20 models would cost more to produce than an isolated apple. Given some of the utter rubbish that iStock has imported into Agency from Getty, it is even less clear than it ever was why items are priced the way they are.

As someone I know said, "I like cash" isn't a business strategy, and Getty's drive for cash has muddied the waters on iStock from a buyer's perspective. For those who enjoy the higher priced sales, that's fine while it lasts, but I can't see long term success coming out of what iStock's doing these days. DT seems to be as lost as ever with its multi-tier pricing and I can't see anyone would want to emulate what they've done.

The other issue for any high price collection, is I'd think it would have to be image exclusive - you can't have it selling for less elsewhere. Other than possibly SS, who would you trust with an expensive-to-produce exclusive image in a new high price collection?

I see the column in the download summary, but looking at the license page here, or on the page of one of my images, I don't see it.

I also looked at the blog and don't see anything.

I'd love to hear from a buyer/designer about how these mobile images would be used. First Pocketstock and now iStock saying that this is something buyers are after.

I think it's probably true that microstock has morphed into something much more polished and slick than it was at the beginning and probably buyers have mentioned wanting more "authentic" images. Does that translate into wanting images created on an iPhone? It seems highly arbitrary unless you start tracking the camera with which all images are made - why tag an iPhone image as MobileStock but not something from a slim point and shoot? The image quality is very similar.

Perhaps I'm missing something, but where are all the web sites or print materials using this sort of imagery? And if there is a market for casual-looking work that appears like walk around snaps, why not make that the category regardless of how it was created?

signed,

Confused in Washington

Quote from: ruchos on August 28, 2012, 09:02

Quote from: stan on August 28, 2012, 08:46

So they're earning more and more and still that isn't enough for them, so they have to take money from our own cut. Does he know he doesn't make any sense? Does he even care if it does, since he knows the vast majority won't quit.

Sounds just like iStock, report increasing and fantastic profits, but to help us survive, we're going to need all you contributors take a pay cut.

But at least IS announced it right away, unlike 123RF that was misleading us with grandfathering everyone with over XY DLs. Meh, I don't even know why I bother complaining about it. I'll just delete my account at the end of the year.

But iStock didn't just announce it right away. iStock said first that they'd double the levels to get to diamond (I'm not sure if all were double, but I think so) - 50K downloads vs. 25K. At first they said they'd grandfather everyone at their current level, but at the time I was gold approaching diamond and would effectively have had further to go in late 2009 to get to diamond than I did when I started in 2004.

Then they made many people (including me) happy by grandfathering you at the next level - i.e. golds could get to diamond with 25K and silvers get to gold at 10K etc.

Then they changed their mind and did the RC scheme. In between they had a scheme to let people become exclusive past their grandfathering deadline if they committed to become exclusive by some date in the summer of 2010. A number of people took them up on that, became exclusive by August and then in September they announced the RC scheme, effectively removing the reason people had been promised. It was totally, 100% despicable, underhanded, unethical behavior. And the "change anything any time" ASA let them do it.

I haven't pulled my port from 123rf but I haven't contributed anything new since they announced this cash grab. Sales bump along at much the same level as before for me. But I'm not supporting an outfit with new images that behaves that way - and given the standing in the polls, I don't think their happy talk about doubling sales is anywhere near happening. They just see other agencies grabbing more cash and think they should get them some too. Shame on them.

Quote from: jsnover on August 26, 2012, 17:45

I can't see it anywhere (Chrome  21.0.1180.82, Mac OSX 10.8.1). Is there some preference I have to enable to see it?

It has a small + sign on the top left and the words "Rate This Post". If you click on the + it opens a area with 5 stars. I just rated your post 2 stars=OK. Can you see that?

I tried Firefox, Safari and Chrome. Logged in, I can see neither the rate this post message nor the stars. Logged out, I can see the stars - I assume you can't rate if you aren't a member, so that makes sense.

Perhaps it's the type or status of certain members that determines who can see these items and who not?

I can't see it anywhere (Chrome  21.0.1180.82, Mac OSX 10.8.1). Is there some preference I have to enable to see it?

DT has been way down this month and I just checked my last 20 sales - 14 are subs. I don't think I've seen that high a ratio of subs to credit sales since I came back last June. I think this month will end up slightly more than half July's total at DT

I live in a state (Washington) which has no state income tax, but as someone filing jointly with my husband, my Federal income tax bracket is much higher (36% on earned income) because of his earnings. Anything I purchase for props or equipment is subject to sales tax of 8.6% (and that varies state by state; New Hampshire's "good" in that regard with no state income tax or sales tax). I also have to pay the employer share of social security and medicare taxes (employees pay half, employers the other half).

So if I divorced my husband and moved to the Cayman Islands (tax haven) I could have lots of exotic beach pictures and no taxes. My only burden would be buying lots of sun block

Many posters here have said you need a 'big' portfolio to draw any conclusions, implying there is some 'magic number' beyond which you start to get a boost in rankings; but that's impossible to prove, and  I've seen no convincing reason why 200 images wouldn't be a statistically valid sample.

If you have 200 really commercial images, the volume of sales may be enough to make a useful sample. However for many of us (I include myself in this) we have modest sellers for the most part, and to get the overall volume of sales, we need more images.

If portfolio size means nothing at all, then how is it that I sell in  day what the OP does in a month? I don't have one or two huge sellers in my portfolio that are carrying the load; just a reasonable quantity of images that sell consistently.

I can't see your SS portfolio (perhaps later once the forum updates have settled down I will be able to) but unless you have some extraordinarily commercial subjects, with your small portfolio, you really can't draw any conclusions at all. Seasonal variations - for example, I'm selling Christmas images now as well as Halloween and some beach pictures - plus the quiet time of year (August is vacation time almost everywhere) play a role in sales. If you just uploaded fireworks shots in July, they won't sell much in August (but may later), for example.

If adding to your portfolio did nothing, then my sales would be the same as yours, and they aren't Adding keywords only matters if you've missed important ones - if you look at the sales keywords in the darkroom tool you'll see that it's the obvious stuff that leads to sales most of the time. Beach for beach shots, office for workplace shots and so on.

For now, focus on growing your portfolio and once you're over 500 or 1K solid commercial images, then worry about sales trends

...The strength behind ICP, and I think fundamental difference, is we're not borrowing thousands/millions whatever the amount to set this up. So in six months or a year if it isn't performing to spec according to the "business plan" or investors... we won't need to bail.

At bare minimum this site will always be our portfolio site where we sell our stuff. We're not going to shut it down. Repeat... we're not going to shut it down.

Will it be successful? We think so. What we have is time. If it takes a year or five or ten it makes no difference to us. We are the turtle in the race, we're slow but we won't stop...

We already have a site that fits this bill and that many of us uploaded to because the guy who started it - no big debts but we'll let it grow over time - had started a successful site, StockXpert, that got sold twice (Jupiter which was then swallowed by Getty) before it was shut down. It's a lovely site with decent features and search and other than for a few vector contributors who seem to be doing well, Stockfresh isn't producing after several years. You can read threads about it here, the most recent of which is here.

I completely understand the upload and wait idea, but there has to be some chance of it producing a reasonable income to make it worth the time to upload (and for large portfolios, 30 minutes is unlikely). I am sorry to be negative, but you asked for feedback, and having been around the dance floor a few times, those reasons don't seem to me to be compelling enough to upload.

I would go for one of the Intuos models - I have the Intuos 3 in the 6 x 11 size which I love (my earlier intuos was the larger 12x9 and was really a bit big).

I had thought of upgrading to the 5 series because of the touch capabilities (not for Photoshop or Illustrator) as I often find myself doing that on my tablet and wondering why nothing's happening! I saw some negative reviews for it, so I shelved that idea for the moment. You might check that out before buying,

I'd echo most of the comments above - the name, the pricing and the need to be serious to invest time and money if you want to be an agency vs. just selling your own work.

I'd also add a comment about the one price for everything approach, regardless of whether that's $6 (which is way too low IMO if you're including even the largest images; if I shoot with an expensive 21 MP camera, you'll sell my images for the same price as those shot with an 8MP point and shoot). Pricing vectors at a single level is a non-starter, IMO. You need to allow for very complex work commanding a higher price or you'll not get anyone to give you complex vectors. It would get even more complicated if you added video - who's going to give you a high def video clip if you sell it for the same price as a point and shoot photo?

Being fair to contributors is about much more than offering 50%. If your sales are zero (or close to it), 50% is irrelevant. Generating income for contributors - which is what we care about - requires volume as well as a reasonable royalty. Volume doesn't just happen.