|
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 - BaldricksTrousers
Pages: 1 ... 30 31 32 33 34 [35] 36 37 38 39 40 ... 206
851
« on: January 20, 2015, 13:19 »
So there is still nobody thinking about whether or not this would actually affect any other sales?
This is the first thing I thought and my big reason for opting out. If one of my best sellers ends up littering the internet all over the place in Google ads, nobody is ever going to buy it again.
I thought about that, too, but if it is a best-seller it is already littering the internet - and the best-sellers keep selling regardless.
852
« on: January 20, 2015, 03:28 »
So there is still nobody thinking about whether or not this would actually affect any other sales?
which agency deal really did?
Google drive could well have done. I'm opting into this because it might be a bit more money and I'm d'mned sure none of my images is so wonderful that 10,000 advertisers would grab it for free just because it is one of a pile available free. I'll probably get a handful selected and be able to buy a beer with the proceeds. There may be a "devalues the market" argument, but since we all opted out of the mysterious free give-away last year and there are still enough images available for DT to go ahead with this, being opted in or out is going to make no difference to that at all. Having what is going on explained actually removes the objection I had to secret giveaways which caused me to opt out in the first place. Besides, I'm not in the mood today to light my brand, pick up my pitchfork and head up to the grim old Romanian castle, I've got other things to do.
853
« on: January 20, 2015, 03:11 »
So there is still nobody thinking about whether or not this would actually affect any other sales?
854
« on: January 19, 2015, 19:04 »
What i wonder is whether being in this deal would actually cost any other sales? If not, then maybe it's not really all that bad (though it's certainly not all that good).
855
« on: January 17, 2015, 13:29 »
Yes, I've had sales, but not a lot.
856
« on: January 17, 2015, 13:06 »
Yeah, there's a program to help with that. It costs a fair bit, though, and I can't remember the name just now.
857
« on: January 10, 2015, 03:25 »
16 days of green bars here
Same here!
Same. On a related note, I wonder if/when Getty will dissolve Thinkstock when their IS sub program is such that TS becomes redundant and too costly to run given the IS sub program.
They won't because they have wholly owned collections in TS. They seem to be applying the idea that the more brand names you give your cornflakes, the larger the share of the market they will take.
858
« on: January 09, 2015, 18:35 »
16 days of green bars here
859
« on: January 09, 2015, 10:13 »
If it's taken him more than 10 years to do it then he hasn't been cashing in very efficiently.
860
« on: January 08, 2015, 06:22 »
I absolutely believe the model is in the wrong, and that any competent judge would dismiss immediately.
Do you not have business insurance for just such a contingency? My insurance covered a similar issue for me.
What she is doing is raking in every single person - even imaginary tarts in Dubai - who has had anything to do with the pictures. She should have no case against the photographer and the agencies, but she probably has a case against the US sex clubs etc that have used the image.
861
« on: January 08, 2015, 03:30 »
Is there no way to get a pro bono lawyer?
Yes, that should be straightforward, there is clearly no case to answer.
862
« on: January 07, 2015, 13:54 »
Please don't repost the "shouts", they are SO annoying.
863
« on: January 07, 2015, 05:26 »
Now there are some "subscription credits" showing for the 1st and 2nd, but no TS beyond the 16th.
864
« on: January 07, 2015, 04:35 »
As far as I know there is nothing to worry about (except the tax issue, which you know about).
865
« on: January 07, 2015, 04:27 »
It's mainly an internal reorganisation, it doesn't mean your images are being made exclusive.
866
« on: January 07, 2015, 04:23 »
I don't think SSartist is anything to do with the agency, I think he is just still in the Woo-Yay phase because he is selling some images. Weren't we all there once (at least, all of us who started selling through microstock, rather than coming to it from another photographic background)?
867
« on: January 07, 2015, 03:13 »
The first six days look complete for TS and I've got a scattering up to the 17th now.
868
« on: January 05, 2015, 14:51 »
SS is actively selling our media files and probably with operational costs can not afford to pay us more.
IT amazes me when people with no special knowledge will happily proclaim that an agency "probably" couldn't afford to pay out more. There's absolutely no reason to believe that is true. It is very unlikely that they will pay us more, because they have to maximise profits for shareholders and they are paying enough to get the content they need. But to suppose they COULDN'T pay more if they wanted to is a very large piece of uninformed speculation. But that isn't in any way accusing them of being anything but straight in their dealings with us.
869
« on: January 05, 2015, 14:43 »
The lower rating means their cost of borrowing will go up making it even tougher for them. They either need to increase sales rapidly or increase margins. The easiest way to increase margins is to lower the acquisition cost of your inventory -- which is our content.
But they aren't talking about raising more capital, so their borrowing costs are fixed at what they were when they took these loans, aren't they? The people who made the loans, on the other hand, would only be able to sell the debt to someone else at a cut rate. At least, that's my less than expert understanding.
870
« on: January 05, 2015, 13:43 »
And this reflects the situation BEFORE the "relaunch", since when sales have tanked without any sign of sales transferring to PP - at least, not in my results.
871
« on: January 05, 2015, 04:32 »
The Christmas break is always slow and January takes a while to get cranked up, but this year iStock has been incredibly slow and DT is not performing very well so it has been a particularly poor time. I was lucky last year with some big SS sales, this year I've had the same sort of sales volume there but have been out of luck with ELs and SODs. All in all, I'm looking forward to getting past the seasonal slump.
872
« on: January 04, 2015, 15:34 »
I found this line particularly interesting "there are millions of files on Shutterstock that buyers will not find anywhere else". What does that remind y'all of?
(And I'd vote for a rise, too!)
it just means more of us feel we waste energy upload elsewhere so we give to ss.
of course, we should vote for a raise. if the shareholders get fatter, we too should 
It seems to me that they are trying to trump the last fragment of sales strategy that iS uses.
873
« on: January 04, 2015, 15:22 »
I found this line particularly interesting "there are millions of files on Shutterstock that buyers will not find anywhere else". What does that remind y'all of?
(And I'd vote for a rise, too!)
874
« on: January 03, 2015, 18:40 »
I'm sure the landscape setting boosts the saturation, too. The WB in the original RAW version seems to be a bit off. I think you can apply the landscape setting to the RAW file in the DPP software module that comes with the camera, while still doing some other corrections (CA, etc) if needed.
875
« on: January 03, 2015, 09:54 »
Got my first sale of the year now - but in the first three days last year I had 22.
Pages: 1 ... 30 31 32 33 34 [35] 36 37 38 39 40 ... 206
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
