|
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 - cthoman
Pages: 1 ... 17 18 19 20 21 [22] 23 24 25 26 27 ... 145
526
« on: June 20, 2014, 08:45 »
The way you have quoted that it looks like I wrote it. I didn't. If you read his site he defines his use of the terms. I think his definition of midstock goes back to the piece in which he was extrapolating iStock sales from assumptions derived from credit agency report about Getty corporate funding.
My mistake. Modified. I'm not sure I remember that definition. It just seems like one of those terms thrown around a lot without many agencies defining themselves or being defined as that.
527
« on: June 20, 2014, 07:39 »
I thought Midstock was just a made up term to describe microstock with higher prices. Does it really exist in any formal capacity?
528
« on: June 19, 2014, 13:41 »
Not everyone who sets up a storefront is a good partner for your business.
And some of them are pure evil. Fresh squeezed (not from concentrate). 
529
« on: June 19, 2014, 10:24 »
I don't split out my subs from my micro earnings, so I'm not really sure.
530
« on: June 18, 2014, 20:12 »
It's really disappointing that the intellectual merit of what was said is not being debated here.
As an illustrator, I usually feel left out when I see most of these guys speak. What they are saying usually doesn't have a lot of relevance and kind of concerns me that I'm not part of the conversation. I'll admit that I didn't watch the whole video, but just a general observation.
531
« on: June 18, 2014, 14:15 »
What about those of us who do both? We would have to separate the earnings into two separate categories. It is doable but might change the photo results because we have reported total sales (of both photos and ilustrations) in past polls.
I would assume you'd just have check boxes that said: Illustration, Photo, Video, Etc. Those that checked multiple ones would just be included in the Main poll as it is now and Specialized ones (Photo or Illustrations only) would be included in Specialized polls. I don't know if people just shoot video though.
532
« on: June 18, 2014, 11:13 »
I wouldn't mind seeing an illustration poll. It's entirely possible successful sites are different for illustrators. Maybe we could try it this month and see if we get enough votes for decent results?
I always say I'd love to see the poll without the 50 voter minimum. Idle curiosity where some of these sites would land. I think it would be nice to have a few different ones to look at though and an illustrator only would be nice to see too.
533
« on: June 18, 2014, 10:34 »
Everything to the right is a mixed summary. Breaking out specific format types would not yield much in the way of data because there are far fewer people doing vectors and illustrations than photographers, especially on this particular forum.
We are like beautiful snowflakes. 
534
« on: June 18, 2014, 10:32 »
If we were talking about your own site, then you could always make your own fonts and include them as part of the design (and price). I have a couple fonts that I made that I include with some of my files for sale. I flatten the text, but the files are more of a style sheet than a ready to go design. I could see unflattened text being useful though. Seems like a good way to differentiate yourself from the agencies and have some exclusive/unique content.
535
« on: June 18, 2014, 09:42 »
Looks nice. I'll keep it bookmarked to see how it develops.
536
« on: June 16, 2014, 11:16 »
I would guess, based on their history, that they tested different price points until they found the one that gave them the best returns. If you price too high you might lose customers, too low and you don't make enough profit.
I'm not sure if I believe that based on what the micro landscape looks like, but it could be.
537
« on: June 16, 2014, 09:06 »
Don't you think it is about time to start demanding fair compensation?
what % should Jon pay us? 50%?
Actually, he might be poor if he paid us that much because the company wouldn't be making a profit. They could always raise prices though. I guess that is a question to ask yourself. If a company can't afford to pay you 50% with their expenses, are they charging enough to their customers.
538
« on: June 15, 2014, 15:39 »
we expect to be paid a fair rate for our images and this should be linked to the quality of content.
And who is to gauge the 'quality' of our content?
It is 'most sales' so an apple isolated on white or a business handshake might be 'top quality'.
Or rarity of subject?
Or cost to take (how would anyone know?)
Or ... ?
That question has an easy answer. The market will decide. If your image is of such high quality that it can't be reproduced by someone more cheaply, then the market will pay you what you think you deserve for it.
Football players make a lot of money because they're the only ones who can play their sport at such a high level. They have a rare ability. Image makers who can make images on such a high level have nothing to worry about when it comes to microstock.
I thought that was the whole argument going on here that the market is not doing this and just selling images for whatever these companies decide is fair.
539
« on: June 15, 2014, 15:20 »
And let's not forget the total hypocrisy of complaining about how Shutterstock works when you guys are just as happy to cash in the earnings you're getting. Put your money where your mouth is.
It's not so much being unhappy. For me, it's more a realization that I'm probably making 50% of what I could or should be making. It took some experimenting to find the sweet spot in pricing and volume. Now that I have a general idea of what that is, I see how far off some agencies are from that. Maybe, it is unrealistic to expect or hope that these agencies will care and do better. At the same time, I realize that it isn't very likely that the market and demand for my images will continue to grow. So, getting the agencies to change seems like the more achievable of two unachievable goals to increase my income.
540
« on: June 15, 2014, 14:03 »
Here's a fact. If it wasn't for Shutterstock, I wouldn't be making any money from stock photography. Not one single penny. That's where I started, and that's where I've grown. If it wasn't for that model, I'd be $24,000 a year poorer. And that amount will continue to get higher.
It doesn't matter what they do, Gbalex, I wouldn't have that money if not for Shutterstock and only Shutterstock. It doesn't matter if that money came from other photographers somehow. Because that's money I wouldn't have otherwise.
SNIP
"Robbing macro peter to pay micro paul less; further degrades multiple existing stock photography segments, which many photographers count on to make a living. "
SNIP
I'm fine with that because I'm micro Paul!
This type of thinking is consistent with the decisions you report in various forum threads and explains why you have no problem staying opted into DPC.
The penultimate quote to your previous one (cthoman) sums up RH perfectly. FYIGM.
Part-time snapper happy to screw all others in order to make a few pennies more for himself.
I was sort of halfway kidding. We definitely tend to cannibalize each other, but at the same time certain business models work better for some contributors. That said, there's something to be said for continuing to push the industry to improve itself and not just being content with whatever bone it throws your way.
541
« on: June 15, 2014, 13:02 »
Here's a fact. If it wasn't for Shutterstock, I wouldn't be making any money from stock photography. Not one single penny. That's where I started, and that's where I've grown. If it wasn't for that model, I'd be $24,000 a year poorer. And that amount will continue to get higher.
It doesn't matter what they do, Gbalex, I wouldn't have that money if not for Shutterstock and only Shutterstock. It doesn't matter if that money came from other photographers somehow. Because that's money I wouldn't have otherwise.
SNIP
"Robbing macro peter to pay micro paul less; further degrades multiple existing stock photography segments, which many photographers count on to make a living. "
SNIP
I'm fine with that because I'm micro Paul!
Yeah! FYIGM! I guess there is still the question of whether you think there is or could be a better game in town. I know what my answer is.
543
« on: June 12, 2014, 11:24 »
this voting system is ridiculous.
for example, someone recently asked "what do you see in 3 years from now"
well, i personally see 10x multiplied revenue in 3 years. but i didn't even bother to post it, coz i know in advance this positively-realistic expectation will gather negative votes.
and then i will not be able to fool myself with "i gave my answer because most of people here ARE NOT #%$#s".
of course, i still remember the way people treated Yuri here when he said he went exclusive, if i would need any reminder THEY REALLY ARE. but voting system works as a constant reminder anyway.
very, very unpleasant community.
most likely it's my last posting here.
I don't think there is anything wrong with being positive when everyone else is negative or being negative when everyone else is positive. I know I've been on the wrong side of the fence in some of these conversations, but I think it is important to get the opinions or your own story out there anyway. There can be a certain presentation or tact to saying those things though. It never helps your argument when you look like your rubbing your success in other people's faces. I think Yuri came off that way in his exclusive deal. I'm not sure if that is what he meant to do, but that's what ended up happening. I usually don't take those things personally because inappropriateness is usually hilarious.
544
« on: June 12, 2014, 00:00 »
I've always seen it as an honest representation of a diverse group of people. Characters come and go and opinions are some times wild and occasionally offensive. I try to take it all in stride, have an open mind, but still express my opinions. At the end of the day, I consider this forum just a way to have a little fun, get some info, and break up part of the day.
545
« on: June 11, 2014, 21:39 »
with all due respect, starting your career in the micro world was pretty much starting from zero cause it most likely meant you did not have the skills to get accepted in any of the many macro agencies at the time. - this is where you can use the closed door clause if it makes you feel better.
I can't speak for photos, but it didn't really seem like macro was doing what I do. So, I saw micro as a more relatable model. Besides, does it really matter where you started or how you got there?
546
« on: June 11, 2014, 18:39 »
As far as I now SS started with a baseline subs business model. They have not (unless someone can tell me differently) done anything but go in the right direction in terms of pricing and commissions. If you look at Istock, backwards. Fotolia, backwards, RF123, backwards, etc. Just stating the obvious. Subs are here to stay, unfortunately but SS has done a good job of working to benefit the contributors, FAR MORE THAT ANY OTHER MICROSTOCK AGENCY.
Some of my issues are more about ME than the agencies. As I've learned and evolved in micro, what I've come expect/want has changed. It frustrates me that agencies have changed more with me. I can't really blame them for that, but it still is frustrating none the less.
547
« on: June 11, 2014, 17:27 »
Exclusivity might be the next big thing. If all the FOTOLIA DPC's of the world keep cheapening the market further, it might force other agencies like SS to offer a more lucrative system for its contributors, its exclusive contributors. The grand assumption is that they can lure in those who could hurt the quality of the collections for the cheap seat agencies like FOTOLIA (DPC). Lots of gaps to fill here, but I can see exclusivity being more heavily pushed if they can show it provides a competitive collection edge. Finally, I say exclusive because if the core of the MS industry just gives up and pulls content that can be more destructive to the agencies. I bet the photo mills would jump on a lucrative exclusive agreement if commissions start yielding consistent 10 cent returns. There will be an "adjustment" somehow.
I agree with what Mike said and that sets up a strong likelihood for "voluntary exclusivity". Basically, no formal agreement, but contributors feel it is in their best interest to submit to some places because they have such a higher RPD and earnings potential. I do this now, and if more lucrative places come online, I could see more contributors going this route.
548
« on: June 11, 2014, 13:34 »
MSG posters predicting the imminent demise of the industry and saying its a waste of time while still uploading pictures.
Shutterstock still dominant I-stock clinging on. RPI declining nano stock level pricing for Facebook and as yet unknown opportunities.
Something totally unexpected!
My income is fairly spread out over several agencies and more dependent on smaller places, so I still hope I'll survive the possible apocalypse. I worry about people that have most of their apples in the Shutterstock basket. If 50%-80% of your income comes from one place, what happens if that agency falters? We've all seen sites take an overnight drop in income of fairly large percentages. Some from new policies, some from dropping sales and some from both. It just seems like a disaster waiting to happen. Maybe, it won't though. You never know when or if that big disaster will hit.
549
« on: June 11, 2014, 13:21 »
What is the purpose of the + and - system anyway. We all know when we agree or disagree with some ones views. I don't post on here very often. I've been bashed for things I've said, but that is because of varing views. I don't understand why there isn't more respect for those who don't think the same. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion.
I like it, but I guess that is the point. Liking things without actually commenting on them. I rarely use the minus, so I could probably do without that. Maybe, I'm just a positive reinforcement kind of guy (except when I'm arguing with people over stupid garbage).
550
« on: June 11, 2014, 10:34 »
So are we all saying "it's essentially dead" ? 
I could see anything happening, but I think it has to get worse before it gets better. Like I said in another thread, SS seems to be tenuously propping up most people's earnings. If they falter, then the panic button will start to get pressed.
Pages: 1 ... 17 18 19 20 21 [22] 23 24 25 26 27 ... 145
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
