|
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 - gostwyck
Pages: 1 ... 17 18 19 20 21 [22] 23 24 25 26 27 ... 210
526
« on: September 14, 2013, 11:45 »
Gift Horse?
Boy oh boy it sure looks to me that the lot of you see Stock Photography as a Gift Horse.
Remember the old saying "Don't look a gift horse in the mouth"
Seriously
What did you do Before you started selling Stock Photos?
Are you really that tied into what you earn on stock photos or do you (like me) enjoy the income as one of your Multiple Income Streams?
I see so many people crying about sales down or non existent, but they never do anything about it.
Try going out and TAKING MORE SELLABLE PHOTOS!!
I have Over 11,000 Fantastic Quality Images that Sell like Hot Cakes!
But then again I am the Best!
Is this post supposed to be a joke? Hard to believe it is intended to be taken seriously.
ETA: Just checked out your "Fantastic Quality Images that Sell like Hot Cakes" on Shutterstock. http://www.shutterstock.com/portfolio/search.mhtml?gallery_username=mikeledray&page=1
Now I know the answer to my question.
Look and learn Lisa. Look and learn!
527
« on: September 11, 2013, 19:48 »
So lets see you have a football team right?
If so there is an idea for you and I am not talking about shooting the NFL players cause that is a no go pretty much everywhere.
But you can shoot something else like the stadium?
Lambeau Field Stock Photos, Illustrations, and Vector Art
(1-42 of 42 results)
The courthouse.
Brown County Courthouse Stock Photos, Illustrations, and Vector Art
(1-10 of 10 results)
Bay Beach Amusement Park Stock Photos, Illustrations, and Vector Art
(1-26 of 26 results)
Start by looking in your own backyard.
Can you give an example? I think we tried this before on the SS forums and maybe I missed it, but you showed some keyword searches that were extremely specific, but in the broader search, the area was covered.
Come on, show me the left handed widgets that need to be shot or some area that's lacking.
Don't give away any top secrets, just one example of an under covered, marketable subject?
I can shoot green tomatoes because red and yellow are all covered 17,000 times. But how much demand is there for that color variation? I'm interested in one subject or object that isn't well produced already.
And the point isn't anything against you, it is, with 26 million images, going on 27 million, pretty much everything that buyers want, has been shot and covered. And I would agree, if anyone can find something that's not, it would be in their best interest to fill that void.
So show me just one? (and everyone here will bury it!) LOL
SHUTTERSTOCK STATS:
29,167,816 royalty-free stock images
And what I am talking of is marketable.
... and this contributes to the OP's question and the topic exactly how? We really do need a system that precludes idiotic numpties from the SS forum from contaminating MSG with their incessant miss-informed drivel. Ok, I've had a beer __ it's my birthday!
528
« on: September 11, 2013, 15:48 »
Him saying "...iStockphoto is the extreme example for that. We've put 13 people who had never been on the iStockphoto website before in a room and we watched them. At the end of a hour, they had no idea what we were actually doing..."
I have a hard time believing that not one out of 13 could figure out how to buy something on an ecommerce site. After "an hour".
Let me speculate: were those 13 persons by chance high ranked Getty officers?
Apart from Mr. Klein, there are actually 13 of them:
http://company.gettyimages.com/officers.cfm?idT=EA
and they certainly also "have no idea what they are doing".
They could have asked their janitors. I'm pretty sure after 1 hour most janitors would have no problems to figure out what a site is about.
I think that the most unconventional and "not customer focused" issue for a new potential image buyer on Istock is the stupid CV-based search system. If Google, Amazon and every other web-based retailer allows you to search in your own 'normal' language then it should be good enough for Istock. Every other site gathers huge amounts of useful data about their customer's needs from the actual keywords that they use to search with. The business is supposed to learn from their customers __ not the other way around. Am I alone in noting the irony that Istock's ridiculous CV-based search facility ... was a 'gift' from Getty themselves?
529
« on: September 11, 2013, 14:22 »
Dear Getty,
You destroyed the community spirit at iStock. You yanked customers around with prices and raised them to high to fast. You kicked out one of your most helpful artist, remember Sean? You mocked us when we said sales are slipping and you said all is good.You are not up front and honest with how you did cash prices. Now take all the artist you shafted and their collective blogs and the forums they visit like this one and there you have it, business is not booming anymore. It's not your site!! iStock was doing just fine before your so called great changes for the customer! Stop blaming SS and site design for your own demise because you did this to yourself! Now Drop RC's pay a decent % to the artist... oh did you realized a lot of artist were buyers as well or maybe they knew a lot of buyers? SS has content and buyers don't care who owns it! they advertise on podcast and in the mail. They don't call my house offering me credits! they advertise in other countries and are pushing forward with their brand! Now you can figure it out can't you?
^^^ Excellent summary. I'd have given you 2 hearts if I could!
530
« on: September 11, 2013, 14:02 »
Diversification is the key.
The more you supply in the same subject the more you decrease your sales per image ratio.
A portfolio with 5 apples, 5 oranges and 5 bananas will probably beat the portfolio with 15 apples.
Diversification may be the best way to increase sales ... but not necessarily to simply maintain them. Take a niche subject like 'widget pins' for example. You happen to know that there exists a reasonable market for pictures of wiget pins as you own say 10 out of the 100-odd images that exist on stock libraries ... so you might have 10% of that market (or possibly more if some of yours are the best-sellers). Over time other contributors will continue to upload more pictures (and probably better pictures) of widget pins so, unless you keep uploading more widget pin images, your share of that market is likely to decrease. Personally I have a deliberate policy of trying to maintain 'my share' of niche markets by endeavouring to maintain a certain percentage of my own images within the top 100 best-sellers in that subject. You also tend to get better at shooting the same subject over and over and with minor variations each time. 'Hitting the wall' is almost a mathematical certainty for virtually all contributors after 5-6 years. I've explained the reasons why in detail a few times before. Essentially the growth of your portfolio each year, in percentage terms, will inevitably slow whilst the age of your portfolio and the higher number of competing images continues to increase. At some point the reducing revenue from the slow death of your older images will equal the increase in revenue from new images. When that happens ... you've 'hit the wall'. The only ways you can avoid hitting the wall is to; a) significantly increase your output of new images each year b) ... or significantly increase the quality of your new images each year c) ... or both.
531
« on: September 11, 2013, 11:18 »
"You see businesses like Shutterstock that are doing extremely well with no content. Their pictures are available on pretty much every other website, but they are doing extremely well because it's so easy."
I don't even know what "no content" is supposed to mean.
It's poor proof-reading. There were quite a few obviously missed words in there. I'm sure what Klein actually said/meant was "... Shutterstock are doing extremely well with no exclusive content."
532
« on: September 10, 2013, 12:38 »
Removing images from iStock will increase sales on other agencies, I have no doubt about that. I am waiting to see the totals for the next couple of months (September/November) to make a decision, which would be purely business. If the totals are meager, and it looks like they will be right now, removing files would make sense, since I'd have nothing much to lose and a little to gain. It's simple arithmetic.
Even since Istock introduced exclusivity, I thought - the day will come when they start pushing out non-exclusives. And that's what they're doing right now, by practically giving away our work.
It's not so much that Istock are giving away our work ... it's mainly that they keep over 80% of the proceeds for themselves.
533
« on: September 06, 2013, 13:51 »
The simple fact is that most people will not take the extra steps to investigate how to ignore topics and take the action to do so.
That means people who might have real insights to offer will come to this forum, see dozens of Symbiostock threads that mean nothing to them, and leave.
I have seen the thread about people complaining about Symbiostock overtaking the forum, and the replies of the Sy-embracers saying we just have to hide it if we don't like it, and I myself didn't take the time to follow those steps. Call me lazy, but the fact is, most people will not jump through those hoops, and they will end up thinking there's little discussion of value here.
Them's the facts. It's not about snobbery. To the average visitor, this forum is now nothing but instructions on setting up a Symbiostock site and how to try to make it actually sell.
Leaf, there needs to be a better answer than making people hide topics if you want this forum to continue to thrive. Maybe Symbiostock will be a dead issue a year from now and this won't be a problem, but at that point, you may have already lost us for good.
You surprise me with this one. I've noted how intelligently you have approached microstock, always analysing how to make the biggest buck with your time ... yet you seem unable or unwilling to undertake the couple of clicks it requires to make best use of your time on MSG?
I ignored Symbiostock threads months ago, as soon as they started to take over the front page. Until you started complaining about them I had no idea that they were still going strong.
Hi Gostwyck,
I think you and I are a mutual admiration society. You seem to be the one with whom I agree the most in the forum. I think I would have a similar reaction to seeing someone post a complaint like mine. The only reason I haven't ignored Symbiostock threads is that if it ever starts paying off for people, I'd like to see those threads and then reevaluate my decision to sit out on Sy. Of course, with each passing week that seems less likely to happen, so I might hit that Ignore button sooner than later.
But I'm most concerned about the casual visitor who doesn't know that ignoring is an option. These people may have really useful insights that could benefit you and me. I really do think the overall usefulness of the forum is threatened when an important new thread is immediately buried (at least for the 95% of the audience who is not ignoring Sy threads).
Someone with valuable microstock experience but an infrequent visitor here might stop in, see dozens of Sy threads, and decide, "nothing for me here" and never come back. They lose by not seeing the relevant stuff, and you and I lose by not reading their thoughts on things that really matter to us. A lot of those folks won't bother with investigating how to hide certain topics. They just won't come back.
Ouch __ I see what you mean! I've just Unignored the Sybiostock forum and found that 32 of the 50 front page posts were all about SY. That is indeed ridiculous and undoubtedly means all other topics suffer as a result. Something needs to be done!!
534
« on: September 06, 2013, 13:12 »
Oh the irony that a thread about Fotolia is dominated by discussing Symbiostock
Oh the irony that an Istock exclusive clicked on a thread about Fotolia. Getting itchy feet are we?
535
« on: September 06, 2013, 13:06 »
It's not inconceivable that when Carlyle Group eventually lose patience with their irksome 'investment' ... that SS might become the next owner.
Lol. And in a universe of infinite possibilities, it's not inconceivable that a consortium from the Microstock Group might one day own it. Or maybe the people who run the mini-mart along the road from here. But this is certainly also equally as unlikely  Shutterstock and Getty are completely different businesses on completely different scales. Also - Getty is the same business no matter who owns or operates it.
The idea of SS taking over GI is nothing like as absurd as you think. The scale of the 2 businesses is not too far apart and the gap is narrowing every day. SS has annual sales of $220M and growing, GI is $900M and reducing. SS has a market capitalisation today of about $1B. Getty's market value, just before H&F took them over, was under $2B (Getty's sales were higher then too and they didn't have all that debt either). Smaller businesses launch takeovers of bigger rivals every day. They can borrow money based on the value of the greater business if their bid is successful. SS have stated their intention to become the biggest player in the stock image industry. The quickest way to grow in a competitive market is via the acquisition of rivals. Imagine how dominant a combined SS/GI business would be and how much more control of pricing they would then have. If you were Oringer, wouldn't a takeover of Getty be your ultimate goal? He's now in touching-distance of achieving it. All it needs is a willing seller.
536
« on: September 06, 2013, 10:41 »
Here's a quote from Bloomberg's report;
"Randall Whitestone, a Carlyle spokesman, declined to comment and referred questions to the company. Jodi Einhorn, a Getty spokeswoman, didnt return a telephone call seeking comment on the Moodys action."
I can't help thinking that Getty would do better by fessing up to what's gone wrong and stating what they are going to be doing about it. By staying schtum they are allowing the story to keep rearing it's ugly head. It's a racing certainty that the next quarter's results will be even worse (as it will include Istock's price reductions) so it is surely to Getty's advantage to go public now and let the story die a natural death before then.
537
« on: September 06, 2013, 10:30 »
The simple fact is that most people will not take the extra steps to investigate how to ignore topics and take the action to do so.
That means people who might have real insights to offer will come to this forum, see dozens of Symbiostock threads that mean nothing to them, and leave.
I have seen the thread about people complaining about Symbiostock overtaking the forum, and the replies of the Sy-embracers saying we just have to hide it if we don't like it, and I myself didn't take the time to follow those steps. Call me lazy, but the fact is, most people will not jump through those hoops, and they will end up thinking there's little discussion of value here.
Them's the facts. It's not about snobbery. To the average visitor, this forum is now nothing but instructions on setting up a Symbiostock site and how to try to make it actually sell.
Leaf, there needs to be a better answer than making people hide topics if you want this forum to continue to thrive. Maybe Symbiostock will be a dead issue a year from now and this won't be a problem, but at that point, you may have already lost us for good.
You surprise me with this one. I've noted how intelligently you have approached microstock, always analysing how to make the biggest buck with your time ... yet you seem unable or unwilling to undertake the couple of clicks it requires to make best use of your time on MSG? I ignored Symbiostock threads months ago, as soon as they started to take over the front page. Until you started complaining about them I had no idea that they were still going strong.
538
« on: September 05, 2013, 20:19 »
;
539
« on: September 05, 2013, 17:54 »
SS might indeed have the money to buy getty, especially in two or three years when they have grown even more and also have a flourishing high end creative business. But to make those business cultures compatible would take a lot of work. Much easier for them to slowly win over customers and artists and just do their own thing.
The advantage with online customers and digital assets is that they can move around very fast.
Which also leaves Getty the chance to achieve a turnaround and head back for growth if they really want to.
Fair comments Jasmine. It has to be said that the recent changes at IS are indeed bold and extremely painful financially, both for them and for us, so maybe Getty does have what it takes to turn their ship around. I doubt it though. As bold as the move might have been, it was largely reactionary in that they were most likely forced into it by the sales patterns. It was a move to stem the losses rather than one to grow the business. Of course the financial assessments by Moody's don't actually take into account the last couple of months since IS introduced the changes. The 3rd quarter results from IS, and therefore the impact on Getty's bottom-line, might be much worse than Moody's realises right now.
540
« on: September 05, 2013, 17:04 »
Thanks for the quick reply - nothing amazing as a niche but just wonder how reviewers handle series I guess
So for example if I had a series of 5 images of Bread (for example) all individual but obviously a series would a reviewer get the 'idea' more than a random photograph of bread displayed on a shelf
This assumes that all of the images are of acceptable quality etc
I guess I am asking how the review process works a little? Does one reviewer look at all uploads from a contributor or do they just tackle them one by one
Just try things and learn from what happens. The best definition of 'an expert' I ever heard was 'one who has made most mistakes'.
541
« on: September 05, 2013, 17:01 »
Meanwhile Shutterstock has millions in the bank........
It's not inconceivable that when Carlyle Group eventually lose patience with their irksome 'investment' ... that SS might become the next owner. I reckon that the SS management team are probably the only people with the detailed knowledge of the industry to make Getty work. The only problem is that their valuation of Getty's true worth is likely to be a lot lower than those with less knowledge of the industry.
542
« on: September 05, 2013, 16:54 »
Upload new images immediately they are ready __ always. That's especially true as a newbie as the feedback from sales will be useful knowledge on which subjects to spend your time (or not as the case may be). It is also better to spread the uploading of images from the same series as they are less likely to be rejected for 'similars' and the series also has more chances to catch the eye of buyers who scan the newest images.
543
« on: September 05, 2013, 13:18 »
Has anyone else noticed that Getty's falling revenue (and discounted debt) all seems to have occurred in the last few months ... since a certain Yuri Arcurs went exclusive?
PDWP!
544
« on: September 05, 2013, 13:12 »
To me the most telling statistic is how leveraged the company is. As I understand these things, first H&F and then Carlyle saddled Getty with increasing amounts of debt to finance their purchases of the firm. So Getty goes from a leverage of 1.5 before the H&F acquisition to 3.2 afterward, and then from 6x when Carlyle buys it to 7.1 in June. That's less and less sustainable, and is a combination of declining revenues and increased debt. I'd say both are self-inflicted; SS and others are just getting the benefit of disastrous decisions by Getty and its past and present owners.
Great post. Of course, as most of us here on MSG are currently owed money by IS/GI ... then we too are amongst their creditors (whose position is considered insecure). That's a reminder to make sure you always cash out as soon as you can. Just think how much IS/GI owe Yuri & Co from week to week. Just as well 'Professionals deal with professionals'.
545
« on: September 05, 2013, 13:03 »
They say that the price of Getty debt fell to 95c on the dollar. Doesn't that mean that the market is pricing in a default?
I may have misunderstood, as I am not a money-man, perhaps someone who understands the arcane byways of high finance could clarify that.
It means that you can buy Getty debt, from those who currently hold it, at a discounted rate (reflecting the risk it entails). I think when you buy the debt you are also buying any income from interest on the debt. It basically means the lender has already accepted that it will likely lose money on the debt and is willing to accept a small loss now to avoid risking a bigger loss in the future. You can currently buy Greek debt for about 40c on the Euro ... but you might get a 'haircut' instead! http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323297504578579111798293062.html
546
« on: September 05, 2013, 05:53 »
If I even attempt to upload an image to Istock nowadays I get an error message in my brain that says "What on earth are you doing that for?".
The new reduced prices combined with the lowest royalties in the industry killed off any incentive to upload new content to Istock. New stuff hardly sells at all anyway.
547
« on: September 05, 2013, 05:17 »
^^^ Ancient thread alert.
549
« on: September 04, 2013, 15:35 »
Any tips for the swimsuit competition?
Bring hairspray.
... and make sure you're tidy 'down there'.
550
« on: September 04, 2013, 04:57 »
I have no clue what stocksy really wants but just had to chime in here and say your stuff is gorgeous. The animals are particularly fine and would seem IMHO to fit their style in terms of being well-crafted for stock without feeling so stocky. Difficult to explain but the animals have the kind of feel I get from looking at the site.
Lots of your other stuff has that same feel - I'd say make a gallery with the stuff you think they'd like - you have a sense of what they're looking for I'm sure - trust your instincts - and send them that link in October. Good luck. Their loss if they say no again - really fine work.
Well said, I couldn't agree more. I'm confused too. I'd have thought Pete's work was spot-on for Stocksy. I struggle to accept Sean's theory of Stocksy's 'look' being so ultra-defined. It seems to me that if you happen to be an ex-Istock exclusive 'good old boy' you can get plenty of weak rubbish accepted that in no way conveys the precious 'look'. I'm staggered that Stocksy appear to be so far up their own arse that they turn down outstanding portfolios like Pete's. It's not as if Pete is demanding his entire portfolio be accepted ... Stocksy won't even accept him as an artist. Ridiculous.
Pages: 1 ... 17 18 19 20 21 [22] 23 24 25 26 27 ... 210
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
