|
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 - dirkr
Pages: 1 ... 19 20 21 22 23 [24] 25 26 27 28 29 ... 56
576
« on: September 30, 2013, 04:23 »
That's his money now, nothing of that goes into the company.
577
« on: September 27, 2013, 03:40 »
But you may be able to optimize your taxes when you can move payouts into the next year...
578
« on: September 24, 2013, 15:05 »
I had the same happen to me the last days. I decided to just go to bed and submit them the next day. Annoying, yes, but does not matter too much to me.
579
« on: September 23, 2013, 13:27 »
In this case a simple opt-out does the work. I just hope that the vast majority of contributors recognizes this, than Yay can start their streaming product without content.
580
« on: September 23, 2013, 06:38 »
I don't know for sure that streaming is the best solution for our industry, but it's the best we at YAY could think of. It gives the copyright holder control on where an image is used and how many views it has.
Linda, can you explain that part? I don't understand how a streaming service will give me more control. Thanks, Dirk
581
« on: September 20, 2013, 04:51 »
Linda,
maybe I was not specific enough:
What I would like to see:
1) Please separate the opt-outs of the streaming thing from the regular subs. It is quite likely that contributors will have different opinions on the two.
2) Please set a minimum payout for the regular subs, that we don't end up with very small commissions if your assumption of subs usage does not turn out to be right.
Those are small changes that should be easy to accomplish.
I fully agree that the opt out in general is the right way to go - it let's contributors decide to what extent they want to take part in new offerings. That's good.
Thanks for listening,
Dirk
582
« on: September 20, 2013, 04:33 »
Your answer tells me you understand my concern but you're doing nothing to address it.
Not good.
583
« on: September 19, 2013, 15:52 »
Linda,
some comments.
The streaming thing sounds terrible. It will do nothing else but take current buyers away. Those who don't pay today won't pay tomorrow. Current prices are low enough for everybody. And the expectation of 4 or 5 cents per download may be far too optimistic. As I understand it it is unlimited images for $9,90 per month. So the real result will be fractions of cents per download.
The "regular" subs don't sound too bad, but that is just an existing market where you don't seem to offer anything new - at least not that I could see that from the newsletter. If you believe in the stated average royalty of around $0.49 then please set that as the minimum payout.
And please do consider separate opt-outs for the two different plans.
All in all you're going in the completely wrong direction with this plans. You should look for ways to increase prices, not decrease them. We have enough cheap sites out there. You don't have the volume. I'd like to continue to support you, but you're easy to drop...
584
« on: September 19, 2013, 02:17 »
Some content is very similar, all content is not. Do you believe Stocksy stock images are covered by the sub sites since nearly every niche is already covered? I think going forward everyone indie or exclusive needs to make their work relevant and unique, it's not just a problem for exclusives at iStock..
But there is still enough content around that is not unique but rather generic. And that sells in masses. For such content the price differential - only because it is "only on iStock" - is not sustainable. Sor for anybody who wants to sell such content, exclusivity at iStock does not work - because it's artist exclusivity, not image exclusivity.
585
« on: September 18, 2013, 07:36 »
Agencies with fair percentage not mentioned yet:
Zoonar
Clipdealer
Pitopia (I believe you are from Germany, so a German site would be fine).
586
« on: September 18, 2013, 07:31 »
With regards to the unwatermarked comp images this is what Shutterstock says:
"Some of our most trusted large accounts request unwatermarked preview images (also called comp images) in exchange for paying higher rates and as a result of that, royalties when they purchase a license. "
While there is no detail as to what these higher rates and royalties are, at least it may be that contributors benefit from such a service.
It 'may' be; but wouldn't you prefer to be given that information?
It 'may' also be that like iStock's currency hike (etc.), the contributor gets no benefit.
Of course I would like to have more information, but even without more details that point sounds worth discussing.
587
« on: September 18, 2013, 06:44 »
With regards to the unwatermarked comp images this is what Shutterstock says:
"Some of our most trusted large accounts request unwatermarked preview images (also called comp images) in exchange for paying higher rates and as a result of that, royalties when they purchase a license. "
While there is no detail as to what these higher rates and royalties are, at least it may be that contributors benefit from such a service.
588
« on: September 09, 2013, 16:14 »
I find a few of mine too, under two different names. Looks like it's Zoonar AND somebody else. If they are coming via age fotostock the other one is in my case possibly not Yay, as I have disabled age as partner on Yay.
589
« on: September 06, 2013, 13:59 »
Guess what, I never ever looked at the home page of MSG. I only ever look at the "Forum home page" or whatever you call it - when you click on the button labeled "Forum" in the top row. So I see on one glance where new (unread) posts are and go directly to the sub-forums I'm interested in.
On topic: Anybody knows anything more? (because I agree, sounds like a topic that needs more information and most likely discussion).
590
« on: September 05, 2013, 15:55 »
I find it really hard to grasp: They take 83% of all my sales... where do they put that money???
It's all in the links that Jsnover has quoted above. The money went to Hellmann & Friedmann. They took up a loan to pay themselves a dividend. Now Getty has to use your money to pay interest on that loan (and to pay it back eventually).
591
« on: September 04, 2013, 07:34 »
If they are giving away tiffs made from my large RAW files (I shoot with a D700 and a D5100) then I may want to remove the RAW files from the site.
You may want to do that independent of how they create the TIFFs, as they sell the RAW files as subscriptions as well...
592
« on: September 03, 2013, 17:09 »
I have no experience with that lens but just from the specs I would assume that it will not work well with any extender.
What do you need it for? A different lens might be a better solution...
593
« on: August 27, 2013, 16:57 »
See here. Not Credits, but either subscriptions or packages ("images on demand").
594
« on: August 27, 2013, 03:54 »
Interesting concept, but 35% of 1$ per licence? Doesn't really make me jump up and down out of joy...
595
« on: August 27, 2013, 03:39 »
but they must lose a lot when people remove their images or only upload to their rival sites?
Why would this make any difference to IS? The number of files being uploaded daily far exceeds any removed, plus there are 10 million files ( or whatever the number is) already in the database. Why would a few thousand files, or tens of thousands, being removed, make any difference to buyers? The only person affected is the person removing the files. The buyers search for a subject, find thousands of images that are more or less relevant to their search, and buy one. They don't know yours are no longer there, assuming you have removed some, they just buy someone else's.
I agree that nobody (=buyers) cares if a few thousand images are deleted. There's still enough alternatives up there. And it looks like the majority of contributors continues to upload. The conclusion is, that almost everyone will continue to upload even if they cut commissions down to 15%, 10%, 5%, 1%? Because when stopping to upload or removing portfolios "The only person affected is the person removing the files"? It's a classic version of the prisoner's dilemma.
596
« on: August 24, 2013, 17:41 »
A large buyer signs for Shutterstock 1 year subscription plan, a $199/month 25-image downloads/day adding 750 photographs and illustrations each month to their own in-house image library.
That's 9,000 images per year or 99,000 images in 11 years. Total cost for amassing this royalty-free collection was a mere $27,500.
Now they can cancel their subscription, the inhouse library will supply most of their needs.
For special projects they will buy occasionally new images - at less than $10 per image ($229 for 25 images), bringing eventually their total image count to 100,000.
Such an impressive image library will become a valuable company resource and will attract a lot of attention. And as in most retail stores, office cabinets, and libraries, there will be also some degree of image pilferage committed by inside staff that invariably will reduce the sales revenue of remaining stock agencies.
Doesn't make sense. The cost for building up and maintaining the inhouse library (suitable database, software to acess it, keywording the images (!!), training staff how to use it...) would be way higher than the cost to keep the subscription running for the next ten or twenty years. This does not make economical sense. Jon Oringer once said something along the lines that the value Shutterstock provides for customers is not the in the images themselves, but it is an fast and efficient way to search and find the right image when you are looking for it. Even if some customers would stockpile for later usage, the majority (and surely the big corporate buyers) will not for economical reasons.
597
« on: August 21, 2013, 05:01 »
and also notice how you can get paid 'up to $120' so that makes me wonder how it is common to get $150 as per your other post let alone $231.
... that is because you miss the footnote which says "* Or more, based on sale price received."
598
« on: August 17, 2013, 17:01 »
in any case the supply is overwhelmingly higher than the demand,
Is it? Taking Shutterstocks published numbers (see here) that does not seem to be the case. Just look at the first table, number of paid downloads and number of images in the collection. If you compare the first three or six months of 2012 with 2013 demand seems to grow about the same rate as supply does.
599
« on: August 15, 2013, 04:41 »
All your money made at SS
... including all sales of all media types and referral earnings.
600
« on: August 09, 2013, 07:28 »
It needs 3 sales in 24 months to go back to minimum/standard price automatically.
(So this means that even seasonal photos still make a chance)
this isn't happening, if that is true there is a bug affecting thousands of files
Yes. That is what several people here are stating. What they write at their website and what they actually do are two different things. And on top of that what they say they do (what's on their website) is constantly changing. It's a mess.
Pages: 1 ... 19 20 21 22 23 [24] 25 26 27 28 29 ... 56
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
