|
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 - RT
Pages: 1 ... 26 27 28 29 30 [31] 32 33 34 35 36 ... 77
751
« on: September 13, 2010, 04:53 »
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.
What do you mean their results haven't been good for years?
752
« on: September 11, 2010, 06:38 »
Right now, as an Exclusive Emerald (equivalent to I-Stock Diamond right?)
No, in order to be a diamond on iStock you have to have sold a certain number of files no exceptions, if memory serves me right you got your emerald ranking because you became exclusive? There have also been other examples where folk on FT have been bumped up the ranking for one reason or another, and don't forget the huge ranking change fiasco a couple of years back. The ranking system on FT is a joke, they should scrap it and start a new one based purely on sales figures. You've chosen to be exclusive on FT for reasons known only to yourself, as has been pointed out there isn't a single full time photographer that has chosen FT to be it's exclusive distributor, and because of past treatment I think the management would have to do something spectacular in order for any full time photographer to even consider going exclusive there, iStocks latest screw over is going to make anyone extremely careful when considering future exclusivity no matter which site it is.
753
« on: September 10, 2010, 07:22 »
To break that circle we will have to stop licencing images for too low (whatever that is) commissions. Easy to say (and easy to do for people like me who don't depend on their stock income) but a lot harder to implement.
Exactly (well almost), to break the circle you could stop licensing certain images for too low commissions, diversify and sell some at the traditional agencies (which I appreciate for some is easier said than done), it's a business and like any business you have to decide how, where and for how much to sell your product to a level that satisfies you, if one revenue source drops down move up, sideways or whatever you need to do, then if the original revenue stream picks up again move back.
754
« on: September 10, 2010, 07:07 »
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"
755
« on: September 10, 2010, 07:00 »
Earlier in the year the Shutterstock CFO Adam Riggs made this comment in an interview: (I've highlighted bits)
Q - "Last year you acquired a competitor, BigStock Photos, which uses credits as its payment method. If you're so committed to subscriptions, why did you do that deal?"
A - "It was a pretty easy decision. For a long time it's been a question of whether to buy or build to get into the credit-purchase side of the business. I feel it's clear that if you line up these two pricing models next to each other, the subscription solutions are a better value. But it's a fact that a lot of customers don't feel like a subscription solution meets their needs. One challenge for us has always been to educate people as to why a subscription would meet their needs, and at a lower price. But being realistic, it can't all be about education; we also have to go after customers directly."
I think that says it all!
756
« on: September 10, 2010, 06:45 »
Maybe buyers don't know these sites..
So tell me, why do you commission these sites to sell your work?
757
« on: September 10, 2010, 06:16 »
But if we put up with commission under 20%, they will just keep cutting and the other sites will do the same, costing us a lot more money. I would like to see a list of contributor recommended sites, there are several that pay a decent commission and have prices that are fair for buyers and contributors. If we could persuade more buyers to use those sites, wouldn't we all be better off?
You need to ignore the term 'commission percentage' and concentrate on the nett amount per download, you sell an XL image on SS for 38c or $2.85 (less for some people), an XL download on iStock will nett you twice that amount, and yet there are people who would encourage buyers to move to SS! DT pays a better commission on some images dependent on it's popularity, but then they don't do as much to sell our work, and as has been previously reported the image selection process can be bizarre at times, I recently had a selection of images rejected on DT for being too similar, I appealed trying to point out that they are not what would be deemed similar, the appeal goes back to the original reviewer who (no disrespect intended) doesn't understand the stock industry, these same images have sold 177 times on iS alone, why would I encourage a buyer to go to a site that rejects high value images. Trying to persuade a buyer to use a site because it's better for the contributor is IMO completely futile, you'll get the odd one or two that may support the cause, but the serious buyers will go to the site that best suits them because it's a business and in business emotions and morals are not as important as economics, iStock understand the stock industry better than any other site, it's why they're No.1 and why buyers go there, unfortunately they are ultimately controlled by bankers who only understand one thing and that is greed, these bankers also understand how business works which is why and how they bought iStock in the first place. iStock have and will screw us and it will get worse, you just need to make the decision as to how that fits into your business module and adjust accordingly. Ask yourself this question in response to your comment "there are several that pay a decent commission and have prices that are fair for buyers and contributors. If we could persuade more buyers to use those sites, wouldn't we all be better off?"Why aren't the buyers using these sites now?
758
« on: September 10, 2010, 05:11 »
You won't waste time trawling through hundreds of posts to find out what I am saying, but you demand that I should waste time trawling through them to provide evidence that you can't be bothered to look for yourself.
In all fairness you raised the issue, it would be far easier if you just cut and pasted the comment in question rather than expect him or anybody else to read through 69 pages of a thread just to see if you're correct, then you could sit back and be satisfied that you won your point. Personally I'm bored of the 'them vs us' thing, some exclusives don't like non-exclusives and vice versa, it's human nature.
759
« on: September 10, 2010, 03:57 »
I'm pissed with the iStock announcement as much as the next person and I am 100% sure it will hit me in the pocket, but for me the bottom line is nett revenue and even after the pay cut the nett revenue on iStock per image download is still higher than on their nearest microstock rival which is Shutterstock.
I like the DT pricing structure and I can make more per download on a like for like image size than any other microstock agency, however DT don't have anywhere near the sales volume that iStock do, and from what I've seen they do not market even to a fraction the amount iStock does.
This thread is a prime example of why I don't support canvassing buyers to go elsewhere, because nobody can agree where that should be, and a lot of people are suggesting they go to a site where we'd make less per download !
I'll support any viable and practical action to get iStock to rework this commission cut, but please excuse me if I don't jump on the knee jerk bandwagon that will in the end cost me more.
760
« on: September 10, 2010, 03:45 »
But there is one thing I do care, because it is the only real thing: how much income my whole portfolio is making for me in a months with that given agency.
This is my way of thinking also.
761
« on: September 10, 2010, 03:28 »
OK form a Union, I'll be the leader and you will have to support any decisions I make which may effect you financially, whether or not you agree to them.
There you go, that's why a union would never work, we are all independent and as such we will each make our own decisions on how we run our business.
What iStock has done is very bad news but mass hysteria calling for forming a union is just a waste of breath.
Lots of people have made suggestions on how to react to iStocks commission drop, as an independent you have the luxury of being able to act on one or all of the suggestions.
762
« on: September 07, 2010, 18:26 »
I don't know what insults me more, the veiled attempt to hide what is an obvious commission cut or this statement:
''With that overriding objective, we wanted to produce a solution that:
- would not change most contributors' total compensation (except for the better)
- adjusts the model to better reward contributors of premium content"
Either the person who wrote that is incredibly naive or they're hoping that everyone who reads it is.
I'm guessing this will change over 95% of contributors commissions for the worse, and that not one single "premium content" contributor will be better rewarded.
763
« on: September 07, 2010, 11:57 »
@ Ellen
Is there going to be a Kindle version available on Amazon in the near future?
764
« on: July 27, 2010, 17:51 »
I do look forward seeing some more work from the master.
I wonder if he'd be considered a 'master' of photography if he started out today. Don't get me wrong I like his photographs but a lot of that is because of what he went through to create them in the times that he did, not for the actual photographs themselves. An old photographer who's work I like is Frank Sutcliffe, I've got a friend who lives in Whitby where most of his stuff was taken, bought a couple of prints from the gallery there.
765
« on: July 27, 2010, 17:31 »
Adelaide I think you're confusing yourself, this is what they mean by NASA-related merchandise: http://www.thespaceshop.com/naloteeshgr.htmlUsing the public domain NASA images to make a calender isn't the same thing, as long as you don't use their logo or as mentioned earlier images of employees then you'll be fine IMO. If you're that concerned about it make sure you add a statement to the effect that NASA are not affiliated or in anyway endorse the product. You've got an email address, write to them and tell them what you're doing, if they're bothered they'll let you know.
766
« on: July 27, 2010, 04:06 »
Many NASA images (moving and still) in the public domain can be used for merchandising purposes. However, there are rules regarding the appearance of astronauts' or NASA employees' faces or names on commercial products. Astronauts or employees who are currently employed by NASA cannot have their faces or names displayed on any commercial products, advertisements or commercial product packaging. Astronauts and NASA employees who are retired from the Agency can grant permission for the use of their faces or names, but that permission may be subject to a fee. For deceased astronauts or employees, their families must grant permission for use of their photos or names.
There are many images (moving and still) in the public domain of unrecognizable astronauts in space suits. However, in some instances, the astronaut's name may be legible in the photo. In such a case, we would have to determine if use of it for commercial purposes might infringe on a right of privacy. Permission from the astronaut could, therefore, be necessary.
Can't get much clearer than that. You can use the images for commercial use including merchandising but if the image features a face or name of an astronaut/NASA employee you'll need a model release, and if they're a current NASA employee you won't get one.
767
« on: July 26, 2010, 07:38 »
Anybody else having intermittent problems uploading to FT via FTP over the past few days?
I noticed someone else has mentioned it on their forum, I either get critical errors or a message telling me they're only allowed 3 users on their server.
I've sent a message to support but it would be handy knowing if it's effecting anyone else.
768
« on: July 21, 2010, 18:43 »
Back-to-School Photos for Elearning
Isn't that a contradiction in terms!
769
« on: July 21, 2010, 18:38 »
Additional note - I have started having the model's friends, spouse etc. witness their signature. Before I was just having my hubby do it. They are less likely to contest if their friend is the witness IMO.
Personally speaking I'd never want a friend or relative of the model to be the witness, and spouses as witnesses are a dodgy area on both sides as far as the law over here is concerned (and in the USA I believe) But to put your statement into the context of this thread, you're the photographer and she signs the release and gets her friend to witness it, then she sees the photo in question and the dollar signs light up in her eyes, do you think she's more likely to 'bribe' her friend (the witness) to deny everything about the release, or someone who you got to witness the release that she's never met before? I've said it before many a time, get the model to sign the release before you do the shoot and make sure the first frame is a RAW image of them holding the release they just signed, then keep an unopened copy of that RAW file, they can't deny that. If you're a bit timid about what to say when the model asks what you're doing ( you don't want to get into a 'don't you trust me' situation ) tell them it's a handy visual reference for your records and that it's a great way to set the white balance for the subsequent shots. In practice I've never had a model question it, it's pretty much standard practice for most models who've got a bit of experience.
770
« on: July 21, 2010, 17:09 »
Option 3: she signed but says now it's a forgery. For 2 million, it's worth trying.
Until she discovers that it's the photographer she'd be suing not the band.
771
« on: July 21, 2010, 13:31 »
Well done Lisa, you're one of the few "true" independants to reach that level and it's all down to the hard work you've put into creating a good stock portfolio. I guess you'll be going after a Sapphire next 
772
« on: July 19, 2010, 14:44 »
Microstock history question: Was DT a contributor at IS about the time that the DT site started ? Or was that someone different ?
I might have asked that before. I think I used to know the answer.
Don't know about DT but the guy that started SS used to be a contributor at iS
773
« on: July 14, 2010, 04:18 »
A woman in a bikini will probably sell a lot more than an apple, but who knows?
What about a woman in a bikini eating an apple 
774
« on: July 12, 2010, 17:11 »
I use istockcharts.multimedia.de and, of course, your portfolio information on iStock. If you publish other statistics, I would sure be interested in reading them and would be happy to get them for $.25
One thing I have trouble figuring out is why photographers think anyone should pay anything for photos -- even iStock prices -- if all information has to be free. Granted, if the information is worthless then you certainly don't want to pay for it. But, if it saves you some time and research maybe it is worth something??? 
So you use free information sources to collate a report for which you then expect people to pay a fee to read! As for paying for photos (aware your remark was tongue in cheek) you only pay to use them after having seen them therefore giving the potential buyer an informed opinion as to whether they should pay, but as you agree nobody should pay for worthless information do you offer a full refund to anyone who paid to read your article but then feels that the information was completely worthless to them. By the way I've heard a rumour that the Octopus predicts things might pick up once the recession is over - who'd have guessed it
775
« on: July 12, 2010, 05:49 »
I've often wondered that myself, I guess not everyone is interested in getting the highest financial return for their photos, or maybe they feel the standards are too high on the higher earning sites like iS or FT, I keep having to remind myself that some people like doing this just for the 'fun' side of things.
Pages: 1 ... 26 27 28 29 30 [31] 32 33 34 35 36 ... 77
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
