|
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 - stockastic
Pages: 1 ... 19 20 21 22 23 [24] 25 26 27 28 29 ... 160
576
« on: March 16, 2016, 20:40 »
I'd vote for Gates in a nanosecond - he knows what's really happening in the world, and how things might actually be improved.
577
« on: March 16, 2016, 17:06 »
Anyone thinking Trump is actually "speaking his mind" will find themselves disappointed if he's elected. There's only one thing on Trump's mind: Trump.
578
« on: March 15, 2016, 17:57 »
Some time ago I put 5 photos on 500px; later on I decided not to continue. I just looked at those photos and 3 of them are in the "Marketplace" under the heading of "Core Collection". I never did figure 500px out so I don't know what this means - if anything. Did these 3 actually get chosen for something?
579
« on: March 15, 2016, 11:31 »
I'm 67. Is that old?
Yes. I'm 64.
581
« on: March 10, 2016, 19:55 »
But if they transition into a stock site, what's going to prevent that "pile of garbage and similars" from showing up on their loading dock, as it has everywhere else? How are they going to be different?
My question is rhetorical, of course because 500px isn't talking. Whatever they're planning, we'll find out via the traditional Exciting Announcement.
582
« on: March 09, 2016, 15:16 »
Remember, they want the Authentic Cell Phone Look on those toilet photos. But please, no selfies.
583
« on: March 08, 2016, 21:28 »
Since they announced Kelly Thompson as VP of Marketplace, I've been wondering what changes there might be. As it's been a few months and there's been radio silence, I've been doing google searches every week or so to see if something turns up. This afternoon it did:
https://iso.500px.com/meet-the-man-at-the-helm-of-the-500px-marketplace/
I don't see anything much here about what they're actually going to do to build the image licensing business. There's talk about having great tools for people to be able to find images, and the move away from "stocky" images, but it seems to me an "if you build it, they will come" approach. How will they compete with the existing agencies for customers?
I'm off to shoot local toilets (read to the end to see why) 
Well that interview sure didn't tell us much. What it comes down to is, are they going to sell 'stock' or 'art'? Selling 'art' means selling prints - and they quit doing that. Nobody licenses 'art' except to offer it on other PODs in competition with the original artist. So they're going to transition into stock, it's that simple. Yes I read the part about how they don't want 'stocky' images. Every new agency starts out with that claim, it means nothing. Reading between the lines, I think they just want to go back in time and reboot IStock. Speaking for myself, I don't want another 'stock' site, I want a new 'art' site that does it right, and gives clunky old FAA some serious competition. Something like Crated - but with actual sales. Guess I'm not getting it.
584
« on: March 08, 2016, 19:28 »
Is there a dedicated forum or facebook group for sellers somewhere? i have tried to follow their groups, but it is extremly hard to read and there dont seem to be longer discussions. Just very simple questions and hardly anyone answering. That was my impression too. I guess it's just a social site for photographers to check out each other's work. You can license images, but how often would that ever happen? Puzzling because they recently got a lot of investment money and hired a former top guy from IS. Maybe someone thinks it can become a reboot of IS.
585
« on: March 07, 2016, 10:28 »
30,000 new images per day. This, more than the keywording pain, is what keeps me from doing more microstock. As this post from Alamy makes clear, these agencies are really expecting to make it off of a flood of photos from new contributors, very few of whom will ever see an actual payoff for their work. Many will never even get a payout from Alamy.
IMHO, it's madness. But, it's also a done deal. Moving on.
586
« on: February 27, 2016, 16:24 »
Yep. I have had dozens of images taken offline later as "requires model release" that are feet, hand, etc. I had several deactivated by them of a close up of a business suit & tie, but the suit was on a hanger and stuffed with plastic bags to fill it like a human was wearing it. No body parts at all, only inferring that a person was actually wearing it. DEACTIVATED for "needs model release".
Hilarious. Obviously someone paid to hunt through the archive for problem images, and flipping through them so fast they don't even know what they're seeing. I think this might be a good example of how these agencies are now struggling with enormous archives of material of unknown quality. Once you have 10s of millions of images you know nothing about, it's a bit too late to do anything about it.
587
« on: February 24, 2016, 15:45 »
I'll remember this guy's name and be sure to have nothing to do with any business he's associated with. If anyone hears of him popping up elsewhere, behind some other name or domain, let us all know.
588
« on: February 15, 2016, 12:40 »
There must be better options for more arty pics.....!
500px needs to get the basics in place. I get the impression their original plan didn't work, they cut way back (dropped prints) and probably reduced staff, and development of the site stalled. There's no sensible reason why they couldn't generate smaller previews, other than total lack of developer resources. Recently they brought in Kelly Thompson, of iStock infamy, which is probably a bad sign but might also indicate some new investment. I had hopes for Crated.com but that site seems to be dormant. Every once in a great while someone posts here about a sale, but there's just zero buzz. It doesn't help that they have no forum and no hit counters. I think they started off on the wrong foot, trying to create an artsy, elite image and being too exclusive in who they 'curated'. Now they've gone to the other extreme and are letting in all sorts of junk. No clear direction. I'd really like to see Sean Broihier cash out and sell FAA to someone who would invest in modernizing and updating it. That might happen. Zazzle, RedBubble, CafePress, are all a complete waste of time IMHO. There has to be a significant opportunity here for someone to put the pieces together and just do it right.
589
« on: February 14, 2016, 20:09 »
I was at a Target store earlier. Saw a framed canvas 16x24 print of a city for $35. Turned it over and it had a Shutterstock copyright on the back. If the SS customer actually bothered to buy an extended resale license the contributor got probably $25 total. The print was made in China and probably cost a few US dollars to make. I have no idea what Target's profit would be but I'm guessing $5-10 a print. Even if they sold one per month at each of their 2,000 stores that would be several hundred thousand dollars a year in profit from one print. Comparatively the contributor probably will make less than .0001% over several years of sales. That seems like a pretty bad deal for the contributor and even SS. But it's not SS's fault. The contributor provided them with the image. It's not Target's fault. SS and the contributor provided the insanely cheap option. If you could pay $100 for something and make $250,000 a year from it, who wouldn't?
I've been saying for a while that licensing needs to change. I think a good place to start is to change to single-use licenses. This all you can eat subscription stuff will eventually implode for both sites and contributors. Current prices are ridiculously cheap so is it really asking too much to pay a couple dollars for a single use license instead of the you-can-do-whatever-you-want-with-it-indefinately model? RedBox vs Netflix.
I'm doing something. On my site I came up with a simplified RM license based mostly on duration so a buyer doesn't need to go through the traditional RM maze. RF simplicity with RM rights control. Pricing is in the $25-$2000 range with $200 being about the normal amount for commercial use. This is a single-use single-company license. I know who every buyer is so now I can easily spot and pursue infringements which is almost impossible with RF. So far it's working well.
Life's too short to be angry. Turn the anger into something productive.
That's a perfect example of where things have ended up. Our slice of the actual, total 'pie' is probably so small we'd be shocked - even today - if we found out. A guy can buy my photo on SS and sell it on FAA, right against me. He can even stuff it with spam keywords, and because FAA's search rank is based on a seller's volume - not even the sales of the particular image, just the overal er's numbers - he could outrank me in search and get the sales instead of me.
All of this has to end. I'm really close to pulling the plug on SS.
Im probably not going to pull the plug on SS or micro. I'm just leaving my old simple stuff there that nobody is willing to pay more than a couple dollars for. I moved all of my stuff thats proven to sell well at higher amounts and as art prints to my site and I don't offer resale licensing options. And for the stuff i have on Alamy as RM I restrict any resale options. I sell 32x48 canvas for $600. If they can buy the image for $1 on micro or even $50 on Alamy and print it themselves why would they buy my $600 print? They won't. Even on my own site i set my RM decor print licensing to end up being the same price if they buy the print or buy the download and print it themselves. I get that all the time "$600 the print? Oh ok how about I just buy the image and print it myself? $450 for the download? Thats not really any cheaper". Nope it's not. Exactly.
That all makes sense, and actually, I'm already doing it. I stopped putting new photos on SS a year and a half ago, forgot about stock and just did photos I liked. I'm a pretty small fish with no marketing but I make a few sales on FAA and I'm hoping to build on that. SS will never get another photo from me.
590
« on: February 14, 2016, 19:28 »
I was at a Target store earlier. Saw a framed canvas 16x24 print of a city for $35. Turned it over and it had a Shutterstock copyright on the back. If the SS customer actually bothered to buy an extended resale license the contributor got probably $25 total. The print was made in China and probably cost a few US dollars to make. I have no idea what Target's profit would be but I'm guessing $5-10 a print. Even if they sold one per month at each of their 2,000 stores that would be several hundred thousand dollars a year in profit from one print. Comparatively the contributor probably will make less than .0001% over several years of sales. That seems like a pretty bad deal for the contributor and even SS. But it's not SS's fault. The contributor provided them with the image. It's not Target's fault. SS and the contributor provided the insanely cheap option. If you could pay $100 for something and make $250,000 a year from it, who wouldn't?
I've been saying for a while that licensing needs to change. I think a good place to start is to change to single-use licenses. This all you can eat subscription stuff will eventually implode for both sites and contributors. Current prices are ridiculously cheap so is it really asking too much to pay a couple dollars for a single use license instead of the you-can-do-whatever-you-want-with-it-indefinately model? RedBox vs Netflix.
I'm doing something. On my site I came up with a simplified RM license based mostly on duration so a buyer doesn't need to go through the traditional RM maze. RF simplicity with RM rights control. Pricing is in the $25-$2000 range with $200 being about the normal amount for commercial use. This is a single-use single-company license. I know who every buyer is so now I can easily spot and pursue infringements which is almost impossible with RF. So far it's working well.
Life's too short to be angry. Turn the anger into something productive.
That's a perfect example of where things have ended up. Our slice of the actual, total 'pie' is probably so small we'd be shocked - even today - if we found out. A guy can buy my photo on SS and sell it on FAA, right against me. He can even stuff it with spam keywords, and because FAA's search rank is based on a seller's volume - not even the sales of the particular image, just the overal seller's numbers - he could outrank me in search and get the sales instead of me. All of this has to end. I'm really close to pulling the plug on SS.
591
« on: February 14, 2016, 18:25 »
At some point - and it may not be far off - things will really go south at SS. As per previous posts, their stock price is heading for a cliff. And having spent the last few years systematically devaluing their product, they may not have many options. I like to think there will come a point where meaningful competition - with a different model - could finally get started.
And that's all the optimism I have for today, sorry.
592
« on: February 14, 2016, 15:35 »
They are trading at a P/E of 50, which means their actual stock price should be around $3-$5 based solely on earnings, which means that all of their current market cap is based on future expectations. This single fact is the key - it shows an unsustainable situation. At some point the big investors will lose patience and demand changes, and if you think things are crazy now, just wait. I have no idea how that would play out, but we can be sure that the situation for contributors will only deteriorate further.
593
« on: February 14, 2016, 14:20 »
I just uploaded a couple of photos and after looking around, remembered why I decided against 500px long ago. By default, they display your image as large as your display will permit. I was able to easily screen-grab a copy more than 2K pixels across; you could go bigger if you wanted to stitch. That's plenty big enough to attract thieves, so your best images will soon be on T-shirts and mousepads all over the web - and that washed-out watermark in the corner isn't going to be much protection.
The only way to avoid this is to prepare and upload your own reduced size copies for display - apparently, 500px isn't interested in writing the small amount of server-side code it takes to do this automatically, like every other photo sales site.
I'm not spending my time doing this for hundreds of photos. So, 500px is off my list until they get their act together. I already have enough stolen copies of my work in circulation, I don't need this insanity. Just my own opinion, flame if you will, but there it is.
594
« on: February 14, 2016, 13:22 »
I don't understand how 500px work ...
What's the deal with marketplace check box ?
How we upload model release ?
I'm confused too. And these same questions keep coming up, over and over. WHY in the heck can't a company like 500px have someone spend an hour writing up a clear, one page "here's how it works" and post it on the site?
"here's how it works":
https://support.500px.com/hc/en-us/sections/200579307-Information-for-Contributors
I've seen the FAQ. It doesn't say much. Looking at that FAQ again I see that if we want lower res watermarked versions for display, we have to upload them separately ourselves. Good grief. Like others have said, how hard can that be to implement on the server side?
595
« on: February 14, 2016, 13:15 »
Finding a place that can work as my personal shop, is my goal for this year. If I cant find a suitable agency, then I will give up and start to work with Photoshelter.
I'm disappointed that 500px gave up on prints. That leaves the art print market to FAA, a company that leaves a lot to be desired. Crated appears to be a dead site walking.
596
« on: February 14, 2016, 13:12 »
I don't understand how 500px work ...
What's the deal with marketplace check box ?
How we upload model release ?
I'm confused too. And these same questions keep coming up, over and over. WHY in the heck can't a company like 500px have someone spend an hour writing up a clear, one page "here's how it works" and post it on the site?
597
« on: February 13, 2016, 16:46 »
I guess I'm a bit negative because I've been burned in the past; spent the time uploading hundreds of photos and never made significant sales. At GL for example, I got some nice sales early on, but then word gets out, everybody comes in, pretty soon the number of contributors is way out of proportion to the number of buyers, and no one makes anything anymore. I've put a couple hundred on Crated too, and nothing is happening; but hey it's only been a few months, obviously I need to let some years go by before expecting anything :-)
598
« on: February 13, 2016, 16:02 »
Cool! How long did it take you before you got your first sale in there?
Just started uploading, I only do travel stuff
Around 1,5 years.
LOL. Sorry, that made me laugh. It just shows how slim the pickings can be in photography today, and how endless patience is required. I'm actually coming around to the idea that I should put stuff on 500px, just trying to decide what to upload.
599
« on: February 13, 2016, 14:23 »
Photos are licenced there for advertisements or editorial. So they sell for sure for stock. Mirco
And they don't sell prints anymore - right? So it's purely a stock site at this point.
600
« on: February 13, 2016, 14:18 »
The thing is, this "plan"started awhile back.
1. SS went public
2. Scott left SS
3. SS said they would keep being a part of this forum
4. SS stopped being a part of this forum
5. SS moved to the Empire State Building
6. SS cut commissions
7. SS got more posh real estate
The roadmap of what their intentions are is VERY VERY CLEAR.
Everything changes when a company goes public. Everything. And usually, not for the better.
Pages: 1 ... 19 20 21 22 23 [24] 25 26 27 28 29 ... 160
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
