pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Show Posts

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 - aeonf

Pages: 1 ... 21 22 23 24 25 [26] 27
626
PicNiche Toolbar / Re: Is PicNiche still working !?
« on: October 04, 2010, 17:06 »
Any news regarding ths IS poller ?

627
iStockPhoto.com / Re: Statistics shows IS is falling
« on: October 04, 2010, 17:04 »

In my opinion, all big corps should be banned - there is something inherently wrong with that institution. They cause too much damage.

I couldn't agree more. You ARE wise. :)

And I thought this is a MS site, didn't know communism is still that common...
Hell why not ask the government to take over IS like they did with GM ?

The 2 viable options you guys have are simple:
1. Pull out your port.
2. You all seem to know how to run a MS site so well. Why not put your money where your mouth is and open one your selves?

Banning big corporations, what kind of BS is that ?!?!
Who will build youre cars you drive? who will supply you with electricity? phones? Water?

Grow up people

628
iStockPhoto.com / Re: Statistics shows IS is falling
« on: October 04, 2010, 11:46 »
What I don't seem to understand is why all of you think you are smarter then IS (or the rest of them) to know what is best for them ? they have been doing this for years and are worth well over 1B $  I guess they are doing SOMETHING right...

629
iStockPhoto.com / Re: Statistics shows IS is falling
« on: October 03, 2010, 05:06 »
I think they could easily double the price for exclusive subs and pay us double the commission or do what DT are already doing and increase subs prices of the more popular images.  There's a huge gap between subs and pay per download prices, buyers have shown they don't mind paying more for exclusive content and it gives sites something the others don't have.

Think how quickly SS could have 1 million exclusive images, especially with exclusives leaving istock and not liking the thought of uploading to multiple sites.

And SS are now my 5th placed pay per download site, with fast growth.  They could get in to the top 4 just for PPD.  So they aren't just a subs site anymore and all their rivals have exclusive images.  And they own BigStock that badly needs some help and they could share an exclusive collection.

No they couldn't. SS really don't need to take any lessons from DT. SS works because it is such a simple formula. SS customers don't value exclusivity of images so would not be prepared to pay more for them.

Did you ever read Cuppacoffee's excellent description of how her company operate their SS subscription and their attitude to our 'art'? Here it is;

"Buyers are not as educated as we contributors give them credit for. They may know that subscription prices at both places are the same but they assume that both sites are providing "different" images. They may not even know about the subscription prices as the business manager purchases the subscription and someone in that position is even more clueless as to how buying stock imagery works. The business manager assumes that since both sites are "cheap", they can give the designers a subscription to both sites and thus access to many more images. They do not know that there are duplicates, or even know, or care, how the images got to the sites in the first place. They do not know if they were submitted by "professionals," or hobbyists.

Designers in this type of business do not know about the inner workings of microstock in general. They read no forums, no sites about how or what microstock is, no industry reports, no photography sites in general. They don't care to know. They just want cheap images fast. They don't care about a site's design, they mainly care if the Search function is easy to use and gives them the results they want. Prices may be the same at both sites but designers don't know that contributors can submit to more than one place. They think in broad terms. They may even buy the same image twice because their immediate need is to find an image fast and use it at that moment. Since it is inexpensive to do that they search the site before searching their previous downloads. One designer may buy the same image as their counterpart on the other side of the building because it is "find it, use it, store it," and the image probably sits in limbo after it's use.

We think that each image we submit is a work of art, we get mad when it sells for a few pennies and we want to track how each image is used. The buyers in my industry think of each image as a commodity. A commodity that has a price that is determined as a function of its marketability. They need throwaway images so why shouldn't they be cheap? To answer your original question (I tend to go on and on) the buyers in my industry think they have access to many images because they have subscriptions at multiple sites, they have no clue about duplicates. If they run across the same image at both places it is of no consequence and they don't take the time to think about why."


Not enterly true.  as my most recent GF was an art director for one of the biggest local advertising agency, she explained to me they had used at least 3 different MS sites and first of all had a table of legal issues with each site, since the RF license in each site isnt exactly the same and they each allow a different legal use of the image. in addition many times she would search for something very specific which could be found on one site but not the other.  they used to download hundreds of images a month.  another thing they didnt care about is the image price, nobody cared if the image would cost 5$ or 10$ for a 300K budget.

630
iStockPhoto.com / Re: Statistics shows IS is falling
« on: October 02, 2010, 06:08 »
Quote
I have lost my faith in istock.  My sales have a similar pattern, new images haven't sold much for a long time now. 
Yes, you're right Sharpshot, I see also that my last upload till august  aren't downloaded or very few, that's different than other years, I'm stopping uploading also...and wait...wait...

Our personal stats: out of the 260 photos we uploaded in the last 60 days only 34 where downloaded. very frustrating!

631
ShadySue: then u missunderstood something in the new system at IS. if in the middle of the year you get to the redeemed credits goal you will be immidietly be upgraded to the higher royalty level in addition to the fact that you sart at that royalty rate the following year.

632
iStockPhoto.com / Re: Statistics shows IS is falling
« on: October 02, 2010, 04:21 »
Makes me wonder if any of the other exclusivity programs make sense.
Why don't SS have exclusivity ?? they can easly hurt many competing MS sites like this.

633
gostwyck: My only loyalty is to me and my partners pocket! believe you me I have no stocks at IS/getty.
you forget that uploading to many sites has a huge overhead.  uploading, keywording, disabmiguations, and keeping track of submissions and rejections all takes time. a LOT of time.  This is a huge downside for us since we are essentially a one man crew.
In addition, this brings down our upload quota on IS to 20 instead of 60, and I hope 90 soon. add to that a much higher rejection rate.
Our decision was based purly on our own best economic interest.  If we feel this will change in the future we will not hesitate giving up our crown.
If IS decide to play around with the goals (as I do suspect they will) then again, giving away the crown is ALLWAYS a possibilty.

(I appologize for any spelling mistakes, English isn't my daily language)

634
iStockPhoto.com / Re: Statistics shows IS is falling
« on: October 01, 2010, 18:05 »
Don't mix up wishfull thinking with statistcs. you are a single case from over 35K contributors.
And don't forget that for exclusives the picture might be completly different.

Maybe you are right. But I am around the 80th position in all time total downloads according to istockcharts and I am still climbing in positions. Not too many independents are listed before me. So I do not have a reason to think my files are not suitable for istock.

78 to be exact :)
This does change the picture a bit but here are 2 other explenations:
1. Giving exclusives a higher best match boost then before.
2. You upload much more images to other sites then IS.


I can tell you I took a peak at someones port (diamond exclusive) and he DIDNT add any photos for over a year and he sees a growth from year to year.
again, you are only an individual case and you can not deduct from this a thing.

Very impressive port and d/ls BTW.

635
iStockPhoto.com / Re: Statistics shows IS is falling
« on: October 01, 2010, 16:50 »
Don't mix up wishfull thinking with statistcs. you are a single case from over 35K contributors.
And don't forget that for exclusives the picture might be completly different.

636
gostwyck: we are not yet at the top 100 or anywhere near that, but working out it  :)
Since we are now at 25%, we will retain our 25% for next year and bump up to 30% sometime near July.
I don't know why you think its going to be a blood bath but we always have the option of becoming independent.

637
iStockPhoto.com / Re: Is iStock getting pickier
« on: October 01, 2010, 15:14 »
We went down from ~60% to about ~25%.
Very annoying !!

638
BME for us at IS (exclusives).
up 11% from last month (before PP's are in).

639
iStockPhoto.com / Re: Looking to purchase Istock portfolios.
« on: September 28, 2010, 12:53 »
Just got an official answer from IS.
Even though this makes things much more complex and much more risky, I am still on the market for portfolios!

Thank you for your email.

To do this, there are a few steps that iStock requires.

1.       The contributor you wish to take over must deactivate all files from iStock
2.       You need to supply us with a transfer of copyright document showing that they agree and sign over all rights.
3.       All files that you receive from the other contributor will need to be uploaded within your regular weekly upload limits and put through our  current inspection standards.

Any monetary exchanges for the files will be handled on your own and not with iStock.

Please let us know if there is anything else we can help you with.

 
Kelly
iStockphoto LP
Contributor Relations
Toll-free 1-866-478-6251

640
iStockPhoto.com / Re: Looking to purchase Istock portfolios.
« on: September 27, 2010, 14:52 »
cthoman: That is not what I said and not what I ment. if I buy a port of photos of a certain model posing for example, and you then go hire that model again and produce similar (or even BETTER) photos then my purchase is worhless.

Nobody intends for you to retire or become a burger flipper. but a buyer with some sense in his mind would try and avoid "shooting himself in the leg" .

641
iStockPhoto.com / Re: Looking to purchase Istock portfolios.
« on: September 27, 2010, 14:23 »
sjlocke: thats not risk, that would be plain stupidity.
Would you buy a bakery for example if the seller told you in advance he is planning on opening a bakery across the street as soon as the deal is closed ?  not only this, you know this bakery will probebly make better products then the bakrey you just bought!

Didn't think so.

642
iStockPhoto.com / Re: Looking to purchase Istock portfolios.
« on: September 27, 2010, 13:02 »
helix7: The link to your ports don't seem to work for me, nor do u have a link to your IS port.
Nobody in his right mind would buy a port with out written concent that the seller will at least avoid producing similar images to the ones in the sold port.
It would be quite silly to have some one buy your port just to find out after a few months that you have duplicated the port with similar or better pictures.

Digital66: The main problem would be the upload limits imposed by IS. for us the current 60 per week isn't enough. for a group of people this problem gets worse...

643
Cameras / Lenses / Re: Hasselblad for $12,000
« on: September 27, 2010, 04:59 »
In addition to the fact that this isn't there latest model (the H4D is), each lens will cost you ~2K-3K.
Might as well wait for the Canon 5d mk-III, unless your name is Yuri and you get them for free...

644
iStockPhoto.com / Re: Extrapolating Redeemed Credits
« on: September 26, 2010, 04:36 »
lisafx: a few more factors you forgot and where not mentioned here:

1. As an exc your files are much more expensive. more expensive photos = less demand = less downloads.
2. as an exc you get better best match = more sales.

which of the 2 out weighs the other is unknown.

645
iStockPhoto.com / Re: Looking to purchase Istock portfolios.
« on: September 25, 2010, 17:13 »
Gostwyck: You are essentially correct, and there is no true "intrinsic value" to a given portfolio. each one has his own figures and alternatives for the $$. its called the wonderfull world of financing (I spend 3 years studying it...). am I to understand your port is for sale ?

Jsnover: you indeed raise very important questions regarding such a deal, the answers of which will also affect final price.  they also change from person to person because of different port content (isolated on white VS family pics for example).
I rather cross these bridges once a serius seller comes along and after I get an OK from IS.
In todays world where multi bilion dollar corporations (did somebody say getty?) buy and sell other mulit bilion dollar corporations I am sure that such obstacles can be over come with some good will and negotiations.

I realy can't understand how there are so many contributotors out there and no way for effectivly selling complete ports/photos to one another.
its essentially like owning an yeilding asset (like a stock or corporate bond) with out the ability to sell the asset itself...

646
iStockPhoto.com / Re: Looking to purchase Istock portfolios.
« on: September 25, 2010, 15:46 »
How about waiting for IS to answer the clarifications first?

The formula will consist of an X% CAP rate, Y years return, and Z% depreciation in income each year.
Changes will need to be made depending on canister level and exclusivity status.
The exact XYZ figures have not yet been determined.
Other more "creative" payment schemes like the one you suggested will also be positively considered.
Everything is open for negations and the exact figures will be settled in person and not in the public forum, rest assure of that.

My original goal was to see if there is any one willing to sell (and by willing to sell I don't mean "looking for a sucker" to buy my port for 10x its worth)
Because of the recent changes in IS I figured there might be some people who don't want to trouble themselves with it and essentially "sell out".

647
iStockPhoto.com / Re: Looking to purchase Istock portfolios.
« on: September 25, 2010, 15:05 »
sharp: I guess you are right, I didn't think that IS would have problem with such a move, but I will ask them just in case (in the next few minutes).
I am dead serius about buying portfolios. I mean not waste anyones time!
Ineed an NPV formula will be used in my end in order to calculate economic worthyness to us.

I have no problem with your idea, I even must say I like it even more then paying everything up front.
I am open to any other creative payment/sharing plans as well.

648
iStockPhoto.com / Re: Looking to purchase Istock portfolios.
« on: September 25, 2010, 14:37 »
pepito: good assumption.
sjlocke: many questions are raised indeed. do the files transferd retain their BE placemnt and current downloads ?   is such a transaction sanctioned by IS at all ?
I am sure such port sales have been done in the past...

649
PicNiche Toolbar / Re: Is PicNiche still working !?
« on: September 25, 2010, 14:32 »
Answering your questions:

Yes, yes
error I get when I hit "test" :

[JavaScript Application]
Parse failed with error: pageRegex test resulted in no match.

650
PicNiche Toolbar / Re: Is PicNiche still working !?
« on: September 25, 2010, 07:35 »
the external poller doesn't work for me (gives me an error message when I test it).

Pages: 1 ... 21 22 23 24 25 [26] 27

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors