|
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 - falstafff
76
« on: May 13, 2013, 15:10 »
A good number of us are buyers as well sellers. It has been demonstrated @ another site that we don't buy from or stock companies that do not treat us or our fellows fairly. So yes companies quickly become expendable when they treat their suppliers fairly.
This is what I don't get... how are you not being treated fairly?
SS is testing to make sure the pics that used to be good sellers are still good sellers. If it turns out that different pics sell better, then they are doing a better job serving the needs of their customers.
Should their priority be to support the needs of suppliers over customers?
These tests are the ultimate fairness. The cream will rise to the top, no matter who produced it -- the veterans who sold well in the past, or the rookies with new ideas. I'm certainly not saying all the "cream" will be produced by rookies... people who have been at this a long time, and taking careful notes along the way, should be adept at sensing the changing needs of customers. Theoretically, SS is treating everyone equally here... elevating stuff that may be popular among its customers but otherwise might not get seen because the veterans have been getting all the limelight.
(FWIW, I'd put myself in the veteran camp... the recent changes have resulted in different pics in my port selling better, but my total sales have been about the same.)
You make me laugh  been sitting here reading your stuff and my word, you do sound as if you are on the SS payroll. Lets be open, frank and honest, shall we. SS is doing exactly what is expected of them. Trying desperately to find a way to satisfy the shareholders. Manipulating the search for quick and speedy gain. Thats all. Here is something interesting for you. My wife is a fairly wealthy woman and stock-broker, she actually lobbied for this media and so far its a big flop as far as dealers look upon it, not private individuals, there is a difference I believe. Thats her words and she is a senior dealer since twelve years. I mean come on. This is just another IS beginning. A downhill race.
77
« on: May 13, 2013, 14:48 »
 Do you work for SS or own large quantities of stock, you seem to fear Union organizers lurking in every corner.
No, but I took a few business courses in college, and just remembering the 101 stuff. As for unions, I used to be in one. I support them in general, as long as they don't get in the way of a business adapting to the laws of supply and demand. When that happens, they are a lead weight pulling a company down into an abyss.
Smart companies support merit and when they don't they quickly lose the very thing that made them a success.
Smart companies constantly test new products and watch customer feedback, and are nimble to meet customers' needs better than any of their competitors. From where I sit (on the outside, not inside) this is exactly what SS is doing.
Test new products? what are we talking about? Ketchup, mustard, spam? 
78
« on: May 13, 2013, 14:37 »
Again, Shutterstock will do what proves to serve its customers' needs the best. (Yes, in turn this will serve shareholders as well, as a properly run business should.)
If your great-selling images are removed from front pages and customers buy less from Shutterstock, you can be sure Shutterstock will readjust and you'll be back in front. But if Shutterstock's adjustments results in MORE downloads, then the stuff they shifted in front of yours sold better than yours, and the best-selling stuff SHOULD be front and center, no matter who created it.
It's good business, really, pure and simple.
Thats fine. I have no problems with that. However they do not need the suppliers to participate. Do they? I mean we are expendable. Right? since as you put it, " they do not provide" I have not been at the MSG for long but I have been shooting stock for almost fifteen years. Dont you see? this whole thread, posts, comments and so on. What does it remind you of? ......... the epic fall of another well known micro agency of which you surely can not defend.
79
« on: May 13, 2013, 13:47 »
Thanks a lot. Although this constant analyzing tend to be quite a costly affair for many of us.
Agreed......and maybe his title should be investor success?
Yes. shareholders my friend. Shareholders. Nothing else matters.
Yes new shareholders with small ports that do not generate much income seem to be the happiest about these new search changes. Never mind the many people who used to believe in SS. These are the same people who were instrumental in SS's success. I am talking about the real people who used their own funds to buy tens of thousands of camera & studio equipment, not to mention software, props ect. so that they could work hard year after year to provide SS with quality content.
Over the years they worked hard to produce images and vectors that would reach the top50 so that they could feed their family. They made a good income because they worked hard for years and their families depend on that hard won income to eat and pay their mortgages/rent.
Now SS turns their back on the very people who assured success for those working for SS. We made it possible for SS's employees to enjoy good incomes and perks such as gym memberships, massages, free breakfasts, free drinks and weekly pizza parties.
Maybe they should come to breakfast, lunch and dinner at some of the houses they are robbing of shelter and food so that they can reduce cost of sale and bring up RPI sold.
Fantastic post!!!!! you nailed it to 110% turning their back on contributors is exactly what they are doing. Going the IS way ofcourse. Just look what happend.
Downhill race from now on. Muddy, sticky and watery. Its public knowledge whats posted here, so everyone will know. Bad PR indeed.
Sounds like we've just elected our new union leader.
Just so we're clear. We're going to ask for pensions, right? We're going to demand that if we have images that sell well today, we expect to be supported by the agencies even when our old images stop selling, regardless of our ability to create new images that sell, correct?
When customers no longer want to download our images, and the agencies stop giving our ports preferred treatment as top sellers, we will view that as "robbing us of shelter and food."
First order of business for our union... let's meet with the old-school professional photographers who accused microstock of robbing them of shelter and food, and see what they did to hang on to their old way of life. Their complaints and accusations must have worked well for them.
Because that's only fair, right? Anyone who doesn't adapt to change should be supported forever by the people who used to buy or sell their work. Just want to make sure I'm reading you correctly, if you're going to be representing my interests.
Ahhhhhhh! great post but you forgot the dole que. 
80
« on: May 13, 2013, 12:40 »
Thanks a lot. Although this constant analyzing tend to be quite a costly affair for many of us.
Agreed......and maybe his title should be investor success?
Yes. shareholders my friend. Shareholders. Nothing else matters.
Yes new shareholders with small ports that do not generate much income seem to be the happiest about these new search changes. Never mind the many people who used to believe in SS. These are the same people who were instrumental in SS's success. I am talking about the real people who used their own funds to buy tens of thousands of camera & studio equipment, not to mention software, props ect. so that they could work hard year after year to provide SS with quality content.
Over the years they worked hard to produce images and vectors that would reach the top50 so that they could feed their family. They made a good income because they worked hard for years and their families depend on that hard won income to eat and pay their mortgages/rent.
Now SS turns their back on the very people who assured success for those working for SS. We made it possible for SS's employees to enjoy good incomes and perks such as gym memberships, massages, free breakfasts, free drinks and weekly pizza parties.
Maybe they should come to breakfast, lunch and dinner at some of the houses they are robbing of shelter and food so that they can reduce cost of sale and bring up RPI sold.
Fantastic post!!!!! you nailed it to 110% turning their back on contributors is exactly what they are doing. Going the IS way ofcourse. Just look what happend. Downhill race from now on. Muddy, sticky and watery. Its public knowledge whats posted here, so everyone will know. Bad PR indeed.
81
« on: May 13, 2013, 11:40 »
Thanks a lot. Although this constant analyzing tend to be quite a costly affair for many of us.
Agreed......and maybe his title should be investor success?
Yes. shareholders my friend. Shareholders. Nothing else matters. Yet some people here thought this was the ultimate micro stock agency. Bit shortsighted I would say.
82
« on: May 13, 2013, 10:45 »
Sorry! I did not mean the TS or micro section. I meant the rm or rf areas. Everyone I personally know there earns a small fortune every month.
Count me out on that one. I have not made one cent off those images as of now. I wish I could get a small fortune for those though...
Well thats pretty strange? Everyone I know including myself are earning plenty. I suppose it all depends on content.
83
« on: May 13, 2013, 08:37 »
Sorry! I did not mean the TS or micro section. I meant the rm or rf areas. Everyone I personally know there earns a small fortune every month.
84
« on: May 13, 2013, 07:04 »
You should be over the moon of happiness! that is where you will earn the money.
85
« on: May 12, 2013, 10:17 »
Thanks a lot. Although this constant analyzing tend to be quite a costly affair for many of us.
86
« on: May 12, 2013, 01:10 »
Been with them since 2008. Worst month ever so far.
87
« on: May 11, 2013, 00:06 »
If you wanna have a good wide-angle don't buy Canon.
I have the Canon EF 16-35/2.8L II USM the 20mm the 24mm, I have used the 14mm and 17-40mm and the all are disappointing!The only decent Canon wide-angle I have is the 28mm/1.8 but it's not very wide and very soft at the edges if used wide open.
The Tokina 16-28 is supposed to be very good and its cheaper than the Canon EF 16-35/2.8L II USM. The Canon EF 16-35/2.8L II USM is certainly disappoints for it's price I'm regretting that I have bought it.
bad experience but no I wouldnt say they are that bad. When buying optics you have to try a few samples. It took me two samples to find a good 16-35 and a 17-40. Its true though what they say. Nikon for wides and Canon for teles.
88
« on: May 09, 2013, 23:29 »
No change here. Sales are still down compared to a month ago or something.
89
« on: May 09, 2013, 14:20 »
I have them both and my experience is very positive with both of them. The 16-35 is slightly sharper at the widest end, corner to corner and one stop faster if you need it. In practice, that one stop faster is really the only advantage and will also set you back lots more dollars.
90
« on: May 09, 2013, 12:21 »
Trying to find any logic or excuses in this is all to easy. Most will always blame the world economy. The most usual excuse is ebb and flow. I hate that expression  Could ofcourse be as simple as, Shutterstock is at the moment going through a bit of a rough time.
91
« on: May 08, 2013, 13:29 »
How about Bigstock? People are reporting big increase in sales there. Bigstock sells images for 16 cents, Shutterstock subs are 23 cent. What if buyers are copping on and are going to BS in masses? I never understood why they introduced cheaper images at BS, undercutting your own business. I am sure they thought this through, but it seems like a very unsmart business decision from the start. Maybe I am just a simpleton, probably missing something.
Since the bridge to BS I have always done well there. My sales though are a lot more then 0.23c.
92
« on: May 08, 2013, 12:26 »
This time around their sort clearly show they are investing in smaller members with smaller portfolios hoping it will save them lots of money in payouts.
They are in fact doing an FT on us. Who would have thought this was ever going to happen with an agency like Shutterstock?
Well, then I would be getting a lot of downloads then, and I dont. I dropped too, and I am a 'smaller' member. ( what a weird thing to say, smaller member )
I wish you more downloads I am quite new to this forum but have 14 years experience in stock photography. Never seen such a perfect demise in the stock world as seen right now. Somebody I know there have a portfolio of 9000 images and have fallen from 400 dollars per day to 150 dollars and thats during the last two weeks. We are not alone thats for sure.
93
« on: May 08, 2013, 10:50 »
This time around their sort clearly show they are investing in smaller members with smaller portfolios hoping it will save them lots of money in payouts.
They are in fact doing an FT on us. Who would have thought this was ever going to happen with an agency like Shutterstock?
94
« on: May 08, 2013, 07:32 »
Editorial and RF is what sell at Alamy. Hardly anything else.
95
« on: May 03, 2013, 11:24 »
Used them for years and a golden rule especially with the HDR is to stick to "realistic". The silver black/white is great. No problem in getting images accepted as long as its used in moderation.
96
« on: May 02, 2013, 09:42 »
I have noticed this shuffle for the first time, very clearly, since about 5 days ago, still going on until today, all my old useless junks are selling, surprising, but not complaining here.
Have also noticed this. For some reason and for some time now they seem to be against showing new content. Uploading new content? whats the point.
97
« on: April 29, 2013, 12:30 »
Quite the same really. The FT search though is not very good or accurate for that matter.
98
« on: April 25, 2013, 13:22 »
Same here. Must be some delayed sales?
But are yours of similar subject matter, suggesting a single buyer? That would point to all of them being bought at once. My SODs today could be grouped by a few similar themes... mostly business concepts.
No not the same buyer but there are some reporting the same thing over there. Could be something funny going on?
99
« on: April 25, 2013, 12:37 »
Same here. Must be some delayed sales?
100
« on: April 24, 2013, 14:27 »
yes its a buyers invitation. Seems a bit odd that a buyer have to be invited to buy.
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
