|
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 ... 22 23 24 25 26 [27] 28 29 30 31 32 ... 210
651
« on: July 17, 2013, 10:09 »
if you think saturation is bad today wait 2-3 yrs when the images on sale will be 30-40 millions.
this is no problem for RM as the variety of subject is pretty much infinite but it's THE problem for RF micro, who needs another million photos of shaking hands and smiling businessmen ? not the frustrated buyers, i guess.
It is a problem for RM because while the subjects may be infinite the amount being spent is not. If the RM collections treble in size and the spend is unchanged then the RPI will drop by two-thirds.
Exactly. The problem is always going to be worse for RM. As the quality and quantity of micro continues to increase then so they will also take an ever-increasing share of the total money spent on stock imagery.
652
« on: July 16, 2013, 17:41 »
Wake up and smell the coffee guys and gals.
You think Yuri is the just throwing $1.2mill out the window?
Most likely, yes. Yuri might be a highly successful photographer but his record as an 'angel investor' in risky dot-com businesses is unknown. I think he is far too driven by his ego and he probably doesn't have enough experience to do the necessary due diligence or make rational decisions __ but we'll see. He might still be lucky. There's no way this concept is strong enough to make it to an IPO. By far the quickest way to make big money will be to sell out early to FB, Google or the like in the way that Instagram did. Michael Birch, the founder of would-be social media site Bebo, did very well. He sold out to AOL for $850M in 2008 ... and has just bought it back at auction for $1M. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bebo
653
« on: July 16, 2013, 12:05 »
I wonder what's happened to The Great Communicator, Rebecca. Does this change mean that communication will now take a back seat to impactfulness?
Anyone heard anything about her?
I was wondering the same thing. Although Getty have announced her successor as Istock's GM they didn't mention what happened to RR. If my sales at IS were anything to go by then I'm guessing she didn't get promoted! At least she's not tweeting her rage until her fingers bleed anyway; https://mobile.twitter.com/rrockafellar
654
« on: July 16, 2013, 11:52 »
More from Yuri Acurs:
http://techcrunch.com/2013/07/16/scoopshot/
Odd. We've already learned that neither "citizen journalism" stock nor "assignment" stock works as a paradigm. Already many such businesses out of business.
Even odder ... I thought Yuri told us that "Professionals deal with professionals". So why is he buying into the efforts of amateurs with phone cameras?
655
« on: July 16, 2013, 06:20 »
656
« on: July 16, 2013, 05:55 »
She's the GM ... as was Rebbecca. The previous numpty was actually the COO.
Tx, it's all the same to me, but I've made the correction.
There's a huge difference between being GM and CEO (or MD). Essentially one is responsible for internal matters and the other is responsible for external matters and strategy. On a warship or submarine for example the captain is the CEO who decides where the craft should be, how fast it travels, etc, to achieve it's mission whereas the First Lieutenant's job (the GM) is to makes sure the decks are clean and the crew are properly trained, etc.
657
« on: July 16, 2013, 05:38 »
"...said Ellen Desmarais, the new general manager at iStockphoto..."
Did I miss that one? 
Never 'eard of 'er.
Maybe that is the new announcement Lobo promised in the exclusive forum, firstly for Friday, then for first thing yesterday (Monday) morning.
Hasn't appeared yet.
Ellen, the new and improved Rebecca?
iS CEO seems to be as much a Killer Job as manager of the Scotland football team.
She's the GM ... as was Rebbecca. The previous numpty was actually the COO.
659
« on: July 15, 2013, 07:25 »
It will take plenty of time to see the effect.
Lowering the Price is just the fastest way to screw up the market and to make sure that nobody makes money
It's not taken me much time to see the effect! My income from Istock has been slashed (and so has the revenue that IS are earning from it). IS are projected to contribute less than 13% of my total microstock earnings this month and my portfolio at SS is now earning nearly 4x more for me than it is at IS. No independent contributor now has any incentive to upload new content to IS unless royalties are increased substantially ... but IS won't be able to do that without also increasing exclusive rates ... which Getty would never allow. I'm really not sure how IS can drag themselves out of they hole they have dug. I can see them becoming a boutique 'exclusive only' agency at sometime in the future but more by the accident of independent contributors leaving (or starving them of new content) than by design.
660
« on: July 14, 2013, 11:07 »
Not worried, per se. Just makes me scratch my head that an image that has sold once since mid-February is "more popular" in my port than an image that has sold nearly 5000 times since January of 2007.
Let me emphasise again that looking at your own portfolio does NOT give any guidance whatsoever as to how the 'Popular' algorithm works. The real algorithm is keyword-based. When you, or preferably a customer, looks at your portfolio then all you are seeing is a 'presentation order' presumably designed by SS to promote mainly newer images. It appears to have very little to do with sales or 'popularity' despite the tag. If you want to know how 'popular' your best-selling image really is then do a real search using the keyword(s) most often used to buy it. Then do the same with your mid-Feb image that has only sold once.
661
« on: July 13, 2013, 16:07 »
I liked this part:
"The biggest problem for the company may lie in the fact that it generated a gross margin of over 61% during Q1 2013. This shows that the business model is lucrative, but also shows that there are plenty of additional profits that could be distributed to contributors should a competitor decide to get aggressive in its pricing. If company XYZ is willing to pay double to its contributors what Shutterstock is willing to pay, and can scale into the same size of business with the same amount of customers, which platform do you think contributors would choose? "
The writer is pointing out what many of us already know, which is that SS is basically a middleman making a killing, and could in fact be paying contributors much more - it just hasn't been necessary.
The writer doesn't even begin to understand our industry. If you read the next line after the one you have quoted (somewhat out of context) it becomes obvious. He doesn't realise that SS contributors are not exclusive and, in fact, already have their content on SS's existing competitors. I think he is correct in that SS is currently over-valued, but not actually for all the reasons he has assumed. Facebook, for example, is way more over-valued than SS on any metric you care to name ... but still the market sustains a ludicrous price.
662
« on: July 11, 2013, 14:31 »
663
« on: July 10, 2013, 18:23 »
I wonder if nonexclusive exclusives, especially those from the state of Denmark, will retain the option to participate in the PP as one of the 'perks' of their 'nonexclusive exclusivity'.
I think it is outrageous that nonexclusive exclusives, especially those from "the state of Denmark" (it actually qualified as a nation the last time I was there), are not allowed to have their images on SS. We need a 'nonexclusive exclusive' revolution to get Yuri's images back on SS. It is also an absolutely disgusting denial of Yuri's 'Human Rights' to not have his images available everywhere whilst being paid an exclusive pittance by Getty. He's basically been 'human trafficked' from his studio in South Africa.
664
« on: July 09, 2013, 20:23 »
In my opinion, it seemed that people were pretty happy until they found out that the owner of the company is now a billionaire. It sounds like a simple case of envy to me. I've always felt that shutterstock has been fair to its contributors, and I've seen nothing but an increase in revenues for myself since I started in 2005. I currently pay my mortgage with my stock earnings, most of which comes from shutterstock. This is part time work for me. If I can make a decent earning from it, and the owner of the company can be successful, then that's great for both of us, and people should stop whining.
Well said Sir. The politics of envy always rules supreme. The truth is that SS have invariably treated their contributors better than any other agency ... and now they are being criticised for being incredibly successful whilst doing so. You couldn't make it up.
665
« on: July 09, 2013, 20:12 »
U want to tell me u would like someone to pick your work and link it as example of something not worth at all ?
Because there is someone whose image we are talking about here, even if paper in white, , so I'm just pointing that I strongly believe its also not ethically
right to do that to any person.
Would u like to be that person whos work is presented as template of laughter ?
So I have nothing against nobody, but I don't like this specific ethical method used to prove something, and I don't like it so much that I felt like writing
a post.
Any chance of "u" actually writing in English rather than juvenile text-speak? I might actually bother to read what you have to say if I didn't have to decipher your lazy nonsense.
Seems like a non-native-English speaker.
Or a 14-year-old.
666
« on: July 09, 2013, 19:32 »
U want to tell me u would like someone to pick your work and link it as example of something not worth at all ?
Because there is someone whose image we are talking about here, even if paper in white, , so I'm just pointing that I strongly believe its also not ethically
right to do that to any person.
Would u like to be that person whos work is presented as template of laughter ?
So I have nothing against nobody, but I don't like this specific ethical method used to prove something, and I don't like it so much that I felt like writing
a post.
Any chance of "u" actually writing in English rather than juvenile text-speak? I might actually bother to read what you have to say if I didn't have to decipher your lazy nonsense.
667
« on: July 09, 2013, 14:44 »
They are extending the payout date until Friday so if they get it done by then you'll get your money on Monday (paypal).
Yeah right! Of course that's going to happen. Did they specify which Friday they were referring to?
668
« on: July 09, 2013, 14:25 »
Istock are now over 2 months late in reporting PP sales from the first week of May.
No, according to their own terms they are 9 days late. I mean, it's total merde - no dispute about that - but let's deal with it inside the rules that iStock imposed.
No, according to reality they have had the money for those sales sitting in their bank account for over two months now. In fact, with annual sub packages they could actually have received the money over a year ago. We're still some time from getting it too. Even when they eventually sort the issue (hopefully) then we still might have to wait for up to another week for a convenient cash-out day ... and then a further week from there to actually get paid.
669
« on: July 09, 2013, 14:01 »
Oh great, now were setting a precedent!
No, we are making history! 
It's only going to be an historical event if things actually improve from here. However the history of Istock suggests that this is unlikely. In 8 years I've only ever seen the reporting of sales to get steadily slower and generally worse. Once upon a time all Istock sales were reported in real time ... just like all the other agencies have always done. The real-time stat's were only disabled as a 'temporary measure' (due to other ***k-ups at the time) but of course they never came back. Istock are now over 2 months late in reporting PP sales from the first week of May.
670
« on: July 08, 2013, 18:34 »
The popularity of 'normal' search results are ordered via the keywords actually used by buyers. When you are just looking at your own portfolio then clearly no keywords are being used so a different algorithm is being utilised, presumably one that promotes your new images. I wouldn't worry about it as such circumstances are irrelevant in 'real' searches.
672
« on: July 08, 2013, 14:45 »
It's still a bit too early to tell. It seems that my sales volume is somewhat higher, than before the price reductions, but it is certainly not definitive or high enough to warrant a 'Significantly Higher' vote.
Of course the revenue is hugely down ... and that's the statistic that really matters. If my projections, based on the new lower RPD, turn out as badly as I am expecting then I will be down about $350 per month. Of course, if that happens, then Istock's revenue (from my sales) will also be down about $1600 per month. They are taking a HUGE hit on revenue from independent contributors. They've pretty much pressed the nuclear button with this gamble.
673
« on: July 08, 2013, 14:32 »
Not sure that such things matter any more for independent contributors. My RPD is down by more than 50% since the price changes.
674
« on: July 06, 2013, 04:42 »
wonder if Yuri is getting the sweats ....
As Yuri said in his last post ... "Professionals deal with professionals".
675
« on: July 05, 2013, 19:18 »
the sky is falling the sky is falling!!! 
For Istock, the sky is most definitely falling. Their revenue, due to the price reductions, is falling off a cliff. They are gambling that, if they take three steps back, they might hopefully be able to make a step or two forward in a few months time. Can't see it happening myself. I do get the impression that Istock management have somehow been recently released from the constraints of quarterly Getty targets. Only because the business was probably dying on it's arse though.
Pages: 1 ... 22 23 24 25 26 [27] 28 29 30 31 32 ... 210
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
