|
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 - loop
Pages: 1 ... 25 26 27 28 29 [30] 31 32 33 34 35 ... 44
726
« on: September 13, 2010, 01:58 »
The point is simple. They are working on trying to make iStock exclusive only and pay 20%.
Exclusivity in RF means nothing these days, the images on Getty's main site aren't all exclusive and haven't been for a long time, I can't see any reason why they'd want iS as an all exclusive agency.
I agree with lagereeks statement "Getty wants more money"
Well, but Getty results, with this formula, aren't and haven't been for years good at all. Maybe the should stick with the formula that really works.
727
« on: September 11, 2010, 13:46 »
Good sales, but it's the beggining of the good season. And today, for a Saturday, great sales. Maybe without the noise sales would had skyrocket, we'll never now.
On the other hand, I don't imagine any business man spending his credits in a rush just to be able to began buying credits at another site.
728
« on: September 11, 2010, 09:53 »
Remember that there is also a separate forum for exclusives, where I'd imagine there is quite a bit of discussion going on, hidden from public view where it may be more damaging (though I can't imagine what could be more damaging than some of the things already being said in public.)
Theres no discussion at this forum on the changes, out of a few questions about the Agency Collection, all is been discussed in the open to everybody forums. Aswering the question: I haven't been contacted. At least, by Istock.
729
« on: September 11, 2010, 08:45 »
As much as I hate all these changes, I have to give them credit for allowing us to really hammer them on their forums. You would never see Fotolia or Dreamstime allow that.
Yea thats about the only positive thing I can say. 
... and organising buyers boycots in qnd out their own forums. How much will last any employee doing that at any business? At least they are taking the heat Note : But I don't agree with the changes.
730
« on: September 10, 2010, 13:38 »
@Jamirae,
I don't hate you. I like you actually 
And I wish you best of luck. I mean it.
And if indeed there are many IStock Exclusives who think independents have been treated unfairly over the years, well, they should have been more vocal.
I'm not going to go into all that now; let's just wait for the announcement and hope for the best.
For all of us.
Just to say I'm amazed ad your powers that let you read minds and know what people thinks.
731
« on: September 10, 2010, 08:15 »
Finally all will be 0.30 or so subs, that's were clients aredirected.
732
« on: September 10, 2010, 05:12 »
So, you can't read. I said I'ven been browsing fifteen minutes ant that was enough.
Maybe you just can't read more five or ten posts in this time; it's not my case. And I've been in istock and in the forums many years, more than enough to know what I'm talking about.
The bare, not arguable, fact is that you can't prove your words. You just can insist that "it's true", but you can't provide examples. Hum. And being your target to create conflict between people, that puts a clear light in your personality.
733
« on: September 10, 2010, 04:41 »
The facts that there wasn't any reference to the change in yesterday's Contact Sheet for contributors, and that no more answers have been provided in the forum, could indicate they could be planning some softening changes (and that wouldn't be a fast or easy task, because they should satisfy many people, newbies, veterans, independants, exclusives without losing some increase in their margins, as they pretend).
But maybe I'm wrong.
734
« on: September 10, 2010, 03:31 »
Not everybody is so slow.
Sixty-nine thread pages read in full and digested in less than 26 minutes. I'm impressed. You should be a forum moderator.
Who I am it's not your business. And if you think that I would spend more than fifteen minutes browsing in a thread when you have been not able to cut and paste one single example (in so many pages!) in a full day to support your campaign to confront exclusives and independents, you are very wrong.
735
« on: September 10, 2010, 01:59 »
I really can't remember that. Post some real example, please.
Go and read the responses to the pay rate announcement made at the beginning of the year.
Just did it. Nothing at all of what you mean. Zero examples. Sorry, I fear you could be a little paranoid, or personally interested in a comfromtation between exclusives and independents that just can weaken the contributors strength in these decisive moments.
No you didn't, you haven't had time to go through that lot. So you're just saying whatever comes into your head.
More interestingly, Shank Ali has turned negative on iStock and accused them of destroying trust and stealing contributors money... I never thought I would see the day
Not everybody is so slow.
736
« on: September 10, 2010, 01:42 »
I really can't remember that. Post some real example, please.
Go and read the responses to the pay rate announcement made at the beginning of the year.
Do you think it's an accident that the COO made a special point in his last post of saying that he was shafting non-exclusives really hard? He was expecting it to get the usual WooYay from the in-crowd.
Just did it. Nothing at all of what you mean. Zero examples. Sorry, I fear you could be a little paranoid, or personally interested in a comfromtation between exclusives and independents that just can weaken the contributors strength in these decisive moments.
737
« on: September 09, 2010, 17:42 »
What about a royalty structure based on the downloads of a single image, instead of the contributor as a whole. So the more downloads a image has the higher the commission for that image. It is similar to how Dreamstime has the single image tiers based off of downloads, except instead of effecting the image price it effects the commission.
I really have no idea if this would negatively or positively effect my income or anyone else's. I'm just thinking out load here.
Here are some numbers for exclusives that I pulled out of my ass:
1-20 downloads = 25% commission
21-200 downloads = 30% commission
201-1000 downloads = 35% commission
1001-5000 downloads = 40% commission
5001+ downloads = 45% commission
I think Non exclusives should continue to just get 20%. Anything below that is just pathetic. They say the reason for this change is the diminishing returns they get from contributors going up canisters, but that doesn't apply to non exclusives who are at 20% for life.
Bad idea and probably more profitable for istock that what they had proposed. Example. I'm alreading getting 40% on all my photos, no just on a handfull with more than 1.000 download.
738
« on: September 09, 2010, 14:24 »
Yeah, hey everybody, i think the idea here is to try and get better terms from Istock.
This angry mob stuff with pitchforks and torches stuff aint the best route. By driving off buyers you are burning the house down that some of your fellow contributors are still in. And what happens if istock decides to make adjustments that are more acceptable to contributors. Are those buyers coming back? Probably not.
Think before just doing stuff.
Exclusives have quite a lengthy record of dancing round the bonfire as istock torches the independents, if I remember rightly. If burning down the barn on istock's farm puts an end to micros trying to screw their contributors then it may turn out to be best for all of us.
I really can't remember that. Post some real example, please.
739
« on: September 09, 2010, 12:16 »
...Until 2005/2006 (well, actually until the photos.com/thinkstock affair) Istockphoto was the fairer a better rewarding agency. But even then, it was regularly attacked for many people.
istock has been on the low end of artist commissions for a lot longer than the photos.com/thinkstock days. They've been fairly attacked and criticized for doing exactly what they're pushing forward with today, keeping the bar low on royalties. In 2005 and 2006 I'm pretty sure StockXpert was already around, and they certainly offered a more fair rate than istock ever offered, even to exclusives.
istock has never been the more fair and rewarding agency.
I dind't say the agency that payed higher comissions, but the more rewarding, the one that generated most incoming for their contributors. Well I suppose you understood it, but maybe yoy felt better misinterpreting. Don't agree neither in the second point. Even now, IS (Istock, not Getty Thinkstock) have the only fair subs systems.
740
« on: September 09, 2010, 11:58 »
While I'm against the proposed changes, I must confess that I'm beggining to feel uneasy at all this agressiveness against istock, in a good number of cases coming from people that, looking a their number of files/downloads through the years, only can have a limited interest in the matter.
I won't do anything in the spur of the moment; no boycotting, no, deleting portfolio, no stop uploading, no calling my designer sister-in-law to sent her to buy to another site. I've said before that this is a numbers matter. So, I will wait until February or March 2011 and see what happens with my numbers. If I feel that I'm losing money, and if I can get my protfolio accepted en masse elsewhere (I've already had some offer from some other site about that) I will become independent. That's all.
Until 2005/2006 (well, actually until the photos.com/thinkstock affair) Istockphoto was the fairer a better rewarding agency. But even then, it was regularly attacked for many people.
741
« on: September 09, 2010, 11:27 »
If they want me out, they made it. I am happy that I found another place to sell my talent for for music for more money and I'm already approved there. Since I disabled all my audio files today, the next step will be dropping exclusivity.
Well, that's better and more reasonable than trashing cars or burning buildings.
742
« on: September 09, 2010, 07:12 »
One thing must be said in favor of IS: they are showing and almost incredible tolerance with the people's opinions in the thread, just deleting an absolute minority coming from people really out of their minds. They are tolerating insults, calls for deleting portfolios, calls for delintg buyyers accounts, calls for buying at another sites etc etc.
Yes, that doesn't solve the problem, I agree. But I don't know if that would be possible elsewhere.
743
« on: September 08, 2010, 05:24 »
I don't believe anyone threatening to drop exclusivity will do it. the cost would be far greater to the contributor. and to what end? I was supposed to hit diamond this year, so I'm losing the added income in theory. my level is not dropping, I should have the 40K redeemed credits top maintain 35% royalties, but I won't get 40% for hitting diamond. I see potential for increased business. I'll take in volume what I'm losing in percentage to a certain point. I also think the marketing value of attracting more traditional pros is being overlooked. someone posted earlier that the invitation is ironic, but it's not in fact. the Agency Collection will be priced like traditional RM and RF imagery. they're just putting it all under one umbrella and bringing that traffic to iStock. why is that bad? it's already for sale elsewhere.
With all due respect: you are completely wrong. You forget that this is a numbers game. It wont happen overnight, yes (although it seems that there are already some quitters, or people that stopped uploading), but yes in the mid-term. If lower commissions, external Getty flooding, downloads fall when customers realise that it ins not not micro but, at least midstock, etc affect contributors earnings, and contributors realise that they can earn substantially more being not exclusive, many will drop the crown. Emotions don't last may time, economic reality is far stronger. Of course, if Istock manages to get more money for they exclusives with the new scheme, that won't happen. But that seems a diffult target. Time will tell.
744
« on: September 07, 2010, 18:38 »
What happened today it is not a minor change. It's a turning point. Never thougth I would consider the idea of leaving exclusivity. Too early to say, it's difficult, but maybe there's is some backpedaling. For the moment, I'll wait. For becoming independent; it would help being offered by other sites the possibility of swallowing all my portfolio at once.
745
« on: August 31, 2010, 04:24 »
Finally, August, after four or five months still or going down, has bounced back, by 25% at my exclusive port at IS. August had been my lowedst month five years in a row. Hoping that will grow in the busy months. However it is true that a great part of the revenue comes from ELs, at 50% comission, some as high as 300 $, and Vetta sales
746
« on: July 26, 2010, 15:05 »
I can't really understand what kind of strategy istock want to sell same thing in 2 prices.
That's exactly what most of us - as contributors - are doing by selling pictures at a number of sites, at different prices - and buyers don't seem to care too much
I suppose IS is doing the same: increasing market share
Except that it is not IS. It is Getty trying to break into the subscription business of the sites like SS. And doing so without worrying much about IS. The way they are trying to do this should be of great worry to those relying on this business.
For the moment, judging for what is read at the forums about sales at SS and for the notorius fall in downloads at my own por at IS, I think that what they are getting is to transfer istock custumers to TS without even making a small dent in SS sales.
747
« on: July 16, 2010, 17:10 »
BTW, the student wrote me back and said that she contacted someone else who was happy to let her use their images for free.
So all is right with the world. 
Posible, not true, or not the image she really wanted. No need to write again if it was true. And if true, ceahps find cheaps and they make pairs.
748
« on: July 15, 2010, 13:43 »
Many people ask because they don't know how to remove the logos (logos in a presentation look cheap) or want bigger sizes.
749
« on: July 15, 2010, 06:09 »
Must say, you sound very optimistic indeed or perhaps afraid it has reached a plateau? Im not, Ive also been in the stock-business for over 20 years, seen very good agencies bite the dust, in fact the entire RM industry has been in a decline for the past 3 years and there is absoloutely nothing in this world that says Micro wont go the same way.
We are all wishfull thinkers though, arent we?
I think you're missing the point. He said he expects there are changes coming but that people will always need images. Do you think we'll revert to a text-based world and suddenly the billions of attention-span-challenged people will prefer to read information instead of taking it in visually? Of course not. Then you have to believe that the demand for images will only increase. Next, do you think buyers will pay high prices for those images? No, price pressure will only grow, making microstock or something like it the most viable business model for supplying low-priced images for some time. Yes, microstock could and maybe will be replaced by another model (free downloads with contributors paid via advertising, or some other variation of the free model that compensates contributors), but if you think there's no future for image-producers, then you have your head in the sand and the industry will pass you by.
Youre missing the point, nobody said it wont be a demand for image-makers, what I said or rather meant was: it will not and cant remain as it is and will probably be replaced by another model. There will always be a demand for pictures, sure! were not questioning that, another issue here.
The issue here is the Micro model, the concept and if you think this present model will remain for another 10 years, well then Im afraid youve got youre head in the sand and pretty much deeper then mine. sorry.
Yes, it will. I accept bets. (Another think is how profitable it will be)
750
« on: July 14, 2010, 18:00 »
Cant't upload with IE, can without any problem with Firefox.
Pages: 1 ... 25 26 27 28 29 [30] 31 32 33 34 35 ... 44
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
