|
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 - michaeldb
Pages: 1 ... 23 24 25 26 27 [28] 29 30 31 32 33 ... 37
676
« on: September 08, 2010, 14:14 »
Exactly. I imagine myself in the place of Getty/IS management watching this thread and the others which propose threats to me. Which threats really scare me? 2. The threat of a campaign by thousands of microstock creators smearing Getty and IS in the eyes of graphics designers, as a company which unfairly exploits artists. Every company which sells the the public has to worry about PR and many spend millions on it. This kind of PR cannot be good for Getty. 1. Microstockers start a new company to sell their images in a new and better way. It's how iStock got started, and changed the whole world of RF image licensing, and not in a way that was good for Getty. If I were Getty (and SS and DT and so on) this would scare me the most. "Getty bought a community. That was what crowd-sourcing was all about. That was why IS was such a thing. That is still where the next opportunity lies." Alias, http://www.microstockgroup.com/istockphoto-com/istock-changing-royalty-structure/200/"...The only hope is that in our connected world things change so quickly that a much better alternative for photographers might arise at any given point. The middle man is taking now the largest straw......but for how long ?" Cristian http://www.microstockgroup.com/istockphoto-com/istock-changing-royalty-structure/225/I think that "share holding macro+micro agency" for photographers is a very good idea, better than Union...
The idea of the union will be "operating principle" of that new agency...
Also to allow new photographers in the future to purchase new shares from the agency through the IPO...That will be new money for development...
Then all profit will be (after all costs, marketing, servers, etc.) in hands of a photographers, and imagine the future and impact on the development of this business in general... 
677
« on: September 08, 2010, 13:42 »
@Leaf: have you thought of doing it as an offshoot of MSG ? You already exist. This could be the hub of the new site. Everyone is here already. Maybe what you are thinking and what FD is thinking is complimentary.
Initial inspection ? Easy: peer review - provide a link showing that another site we all respect has already accepted it. That will cover the first 5 million images at least  Fastest growing site in history. Will it scale ? Will the bandwidth be too expensive ?
Really excellent ideas. (Maybe Alias is not an IS spy after all?) MSG is UGC, a stock site would be a natural outgrowth. Is startup capital is needed, if half of the top 2% of microstockers put in $1000 each, for one share in the new venture, that would be a sizable sum to start off with. The shareholders would have self-serving reasons to make sure that they uploaded their ports to the site as quickly as possible, and in helping the venture succeed in other ways.
678
« on: September 08, 2010, 12:43 »
Often, people are putting the horses before the carriage. Everybody likes to talk about organization, commissions, financials, marketing, a feelgood union - but the main point is USP. You first have to define your goals in the landscape of existing stock agencies and define what sets you apart from them. It won't be another instance of Yuri's port (pun intended, StockFresh).
Any new stock site won't work because it's old wine in new wineskins. Even with the very deep pockets of DepositFiles, DepositPhotos can't break into a market that is taken already. How the site is organized doesn't matter to buyers, whether it's a feelgood coop or a bunch of sharks from Getty. Buyers don't care.
I think this is the right way of thinking. Labor Unions work because, as has been pointed out, they have teeth, special powers granted them by laws. But if we think in terms of a business, business organization models exist which have been used for many years, and are known to work, such as limited partnerships, and so on. No need to reinvent the wheel to figure out who does what and why. And business concepts, such as USP, provide ways to think about how we might begin to find a way to thrive and grow in the microstock marketplace. A business startup is a better idea than starting a union.
679
« on: September 07, 2010, 21:03 »
Anyone notice the usual iStock apologist's have been conspicuously absent from this discussion?
Looks like you managed to rouse one from the depths.
680
« on: September 07, 2010, 20:17 »
All of this reminds me of why I love Shutterstock.
All this reminds me of why I have always loved Dreamstime too. Achilles makes a conscious effort to create a level playing field for contributors new and old, the opposite of what IS has always done.
681
« on: September 07, 2010, 17:53 »
One has to try to understand the strategy here. So let's see. The only way the vast majority of contributors will make the same or more despite their royalty rate going down is if they raise the prices by more than that cut. Maybe that's coming.
What I see here though, in the now, and this is purely my musing, is an effort to get the large customers slowly used to the idea of paying more for more elaborate and expensive artwork, in other words getting them accustomed to buying from Getty directly or from their other macro collections. Of course lost Getty customers who saved by buying from IS will slowly be brought back to macro at the same time. The success of Vetta and the implementation of the agency proves that this is working.
At the same time, they are trying to convince their best selling photographers and exclusive farms to contribute to macro, while discouraging the rest from submitting, even to micro. They've got the numbers and it probably won't hurt them that much to have the small guys rant and leave IS, even if that small guys turns out to be most exclusives and non exclusives below diamond. In any case, by force of habit, most contributors will take the bullet and keep submitting... to preserve their lifestyle. It's all just a news cycle anyways, and people will stop their turmoil in a couple of weeks and settle back into their routines.
...Getty slowly wants to move out of the micro business, and hurt it good on the move, taking away big names and big customers with it. Perhaps they didn't buy Istock to help it flourish? Perhaps they bought it to recuperate what they could and then slowly choke it to death... hoping to do it in a way that would prove how micro is inferior to all serious, sensible art buyers in the world. Perhaps in their view it would be great if eventually they all blushed in shame after someone recognized that they used some cheap stuff from micro in their prestigious publication...
After all, let's not forget that the brand that Getty is trying to polish and grow here is... Getty.
I read the IS thread for about an hour, but realized that it was literally growing faster than I could read it. So I came over here for the skinny. At first I thought that LostOne was right. (Just wait for a few days for their old and verified tactics. They will offer something that is just slightly less awful than this and people will start saying "Thanks istock".) But now I think nicmac has spoken the truth.Maybe Getty saw that subscription is the future of microstock (and, someday, real micropayments) and took a shot at subscriptions with StockXpert/PP, and missed. Anyway, Getty probably never wanted to compete on price only (and that is how commodities must be sold, and microstock images are a commodity), that's not how Getty sees itself. So now Getty is taking its losses and repositioning itself in the image market. As nicmac says, in its new position, Getty will want to destroy microstock, i.e. us. Anyway, what we are probably witnessing is infanticide, Getty is intentionally, if slowly, killing IS. And we independent microstockers are probably next, if Getty has its way.
682
« on: September 07, 2010, 12:25 »
I think dreamstime is having less problem since if you put categories as illustration and it will appear in search results.
Yes, I forgot about that. You do have to choose one of the 3 Illustration categories.
683
« on: September 07, 2010, 12:21 »
I got the new interface too. But to me it's not confusing. Actually, after all changes in all other stock agencies, this one is just one more. So, we just have to get used to it.
+1
684
« on: September 06, 2010, 14:03 »
dreamstime? i am not sure how the search engine know is it illustration of photos.. it seems the search engine won't know which is photos or which is illustrations.
In the beginning at DT, there was a problem with buyers who presumed that all images were photos downloading vectors and being upset (this happened to a buyer of one of my vectors ). DT then required that all illustrations, vectors and 3D renders, have the keyword 'illustration'. I guess this is still the official policy. I put 'illustration' in all my illustrations' keyword lists. One problem I notice is that some photographers include the keyword 'illustration' in photos which are in no way illustrations, but then there is a lot of keyword spamming on DT. The 'flagging' was supposed to help this but I don't think it has.
685
« on: September 03, 2010, 19:14 »
well that is not so far from the truth either. Serban mentioned that having a good download / image ratio also helps in the rankings but I have yet to put that video up. So deleting old non selling images will improve your images search ranking. That's another secret. Put the vid up soon!
Yeah, I'll be looking forward to that!
686
« on: September 01, 2010, 20:12 »
I hear Istockphoto is getting a spaceship ready to blast off on a moments notice. But only exclusives can get on board.
Never underestimate the Canadian Space Program, eh.
687
« on: August 31, 2010, 18:16 »
If it wasn't for this thread, I'd forget I even subscribed to that site.
    
Waiting for StockFresh (Did it take this long to get into StockXpert? My vectors are going to be stale before I get a chance to upload them.)
Did we all apply for StockXpert at the same time? I think they are doing a good job. Look how long it is taking Veer to go through all the uploads they had during their promotion. I am sure they have a bigger team than stockfresh. If they rushed this, they would just start rejecting everything, I have seen sites do that just to get rid of the queue. I don't mind them taking their time and doing it right.
Admittedly, reviewing a whole siteful of images these days will take a long, long time. I was referring more to the wait to get accepted and get started uploading. Other new sites, such as Graphic Leftovers, face the same tasks as SF, but I was accepted at GL within a few days. That said, I mean no criticism of SF, just voicing my impatience, that's all. I loved StockXpert and hope to get started in SF as soon as possible.
688
« on: August 30, 2010, 20:10 »
689
« on: August 30, 2010, 19:23 »
I add my congratulations. Sales there are ok for me, and I actually enjoy uploading vectors to CanStockPhoto (can't say that about very many sites).
690
« on: August 27, 2010, 13:13 »
OK I must feed beast, but the beast feed me too.
 exactly. I don't mind feeding it, that's the nature of the subscription model. New images do the best as subscribers watch what comes in to pick up something they like for 'free'. What worries me about SS these days is the changing review policies. They are rejecting highly commercial images for uncommercial reasons. Lately they have promised a new explanation of what they really, really want, but I don't see any reason to reject images (except technical or IP issues) which will sell better than others. What are they in business for? If SS continues to reject good-selling images for secret/arbitrary 'reasons', then all it will have to do is start favoring some pets over other contributors and SS will be the new IS.
691
« on: August 26, 2010, 11:57 »
PRO:
1 - a great cure for global warming
2 - fantastic sunsets by the ashes in the atmosphere
3 - 95% of all microstock photographers are killed - more room for you, more room for me
4 - great photo-op with a good tele - try video too
5 - no plane hijackings since no flights any more - use abandoned planes as props
6 - yellowstone park pictures become priceless on stock
CONTRA:
1 - 95% of all microstock buyers are killed - less sales for you, less sales for me
2 - more sensor dust when changing lenses
3 - "magma chamber explosion" over-abundant category on stock
4 - model girls with headset difficult to find
CONTRA: ... 5. 95% of all microstock buyers are killed - resulting in a lot fewer dls 6. I live about a hundred miles from Yellowstone
692
« on: August 25, 2010, 21:22 »
Do you really think their first point of contact will be some website with a group of desperate photographers listing a handful of their best photography. Designers don't give a * who they buy from. Take out the acrimony and this is a valid criticism. Our images are now a commodity. Just about the only way to compete when selling a commodity is to lower prices. So we have the fears of a 'race to the bottom' and .01 images, and these fears are well founded. Commodity sellers have to compete by lowering prices, it's Economics 101. The alternative to selling images as a commodity is a 'franchise' or a brand. If "Designers don't give a * who they buy from" it is hard to establish any kind of franchise, but not necessarily impossible. This thread is about the possibility of establishing a franchise or franchises for some imagists by competing with search, by using some kind of lightbox publishing idea. As christophertvarne and FD pointed out, buyers really do use lightboxes, of at least two different kinds. And Alias suggested ways to use social media and recommendations (with google SEO coming along as a result) to make the lightboxes highly visible. Can somebody use lightboxes to put his or her images ahead of the pack, create a franchise in a sea of commodity-images? If so I am interested in participating. The real question is can it be done? If so, how?
693
« on: August 25, 2010, 17:38 »
Obviously all of us (with maybe a few exceptions) have no clue how to successfully promote ourselves. Otherwise we would be laying on our yacht right now watching the royalties roll in on a custom-designed flat screen, mounted over my hammock.
My first question is: How are we all going to fit into your hammock? Secondly, would buyers use these lightboxes to actually buy? Ways buyers might find images to buy: -keyword search -looking at the port of the imagist whom they just dled an image from (mostly subscribers do this probably) to see if there are more good ones -looking in categories -looking at lightboxes, which are sort of more-vertical categories How many buyers really use lightboxes to buy images? Does anyone know? And if the answer is, "Not many" then even if alias' idea of using social media to get googlejuice (which sounds like a great idea) works and you get a lot of traffic, the whole overall idea might not be so good. Madelaide's idea of everyone re-publishing the lightbox seems like a really good one. But still, visitors might not buy. Then what good is it? Surely you if you were going to invest time or money in the lightbox idea, you would need some evidence that buyers really use them to buy.
694
« on: August 12, 2010, 20:36 »
I also think some photographers have been in the stock business for so long they think only commercial image buyers buy images. My walls are full of prints, many of which were sold as stock.
If you watch the SS Top 50 for a while, it becomes apparent that many if not most of the images on the list have been dled a lot solely because they are pretty pictures, and not for stock use at all - the downloaders have some dls left in their daily quotas so why not?
695
« on: July 23, 2010, 20:55 »
Allow me to add my sincere congratulations. It's a great achievement, especially for a non-exclusive.
696
« on: July 15, 2010, 20:44 »
I wonder technically if he is allowed to use these watermarked images in this way? I wouldn't consider this as "promotional" to the sites nor photographers.
No technically you are NOT allowed to post any images on your website that you have not purchased. Since there is a watermark, then they were not purchased and they could be served with a copyright infringement notice.
stormchaser said earlier in this thread:
Wonder how long the posting will last this time. I think they had a C&D order from Getty awhile back, Too lazy to look back in the blog.
Getty would have every right to do so.
What this site is doing looks like 'fair use' to me. Reviewers and parodists have pretty broad rights, especially if they are not using an image for profit.
697
« on: July 15, 2010, 20:23 »
In June 123RF rejected 19 out of 49 vectors I submitted there. All 19 of those were accepted by SS, DT, FT, et al. So I have stopped submitting at 123RF for the time being.
698
« on: July 15, 2010, 20:19 »
Total GL sales as of today: $26
I figure this is a pretty decent start, especially considering how fast and easy it was to upload.
699
« on: July 13, 2010, 13:36 »
Still, ShutterStock originally was an advocate of photographers and graphics designers. They severely lost their way...
How have they lost their way??
They stopped giving raises (such as the one you requested and which, I am sorry to say, I doubt we get).
700
« on: July 05, 2010, 16:35 »
Impressive renders. The hair on the girl is pretty much a give-away that it is 3D; hair is the hardest thing in 3D. The curls have that 3-D look.
I thought that the hard surface models, especially the motorcycles, were the most photo-real.
Pages: 1 ... 23 24 25 26 27 [28] 29 30 31 32 33 ... 37
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
