|
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 ... 32 33 34 35 36 [37] 38 39 40 41 42 ... 44
901
« on: May 06, 2009, 10:13 »
Good for the "Getty family"?
Average comission at istock is 30% (70% for istock)
70% of 400 is 280 $.
Average comission at photos.com will be 21% (79% for Getty)
79% of 200 is 158 $
They will be barely doing a bit more than the half that waht they would have get at istock. I wpuldn't call that "good for the Getty family".
902
« on: May 06, 2009, 05:29 »
Until this starts, I have no idea what their average subs will be. They might be wildly optimistic with their predictions but other people are looking a the worst case scenario, if everyone bought the most expensive annual package and downloaded their full quota.. Might as well wait and see what the actual numbers are. They wont get many people opting in if the average subs commission is less than 30 cents.
30 cents --if true-- for any size. Don't forget it.,
903
« on: May 05, 2009, 19:05 »
Poor Batman.
No, you mean, poor us ! I don't see anyone of us laughing.  Unless you think it's nice to get a slap in the face and be told the objective truth 
I just said that out of compassion, inferring from his words the kind of person he is. I may be wrong, of course, but, after all, compassion is a good sentiment. What is happening at stock is another matter. I'll wait and see and if there are no changes, I'll opt-out (that's a no-brainer). In the end, what will happen with me, will happen to the majority of exclusives: words can be said, but what rules are facts and numbers. If as a consequence of this plans exclusives see their income plummeting, they simply will thrown their crowns and flood the other sites. Or something else, we'll see. If, against all odds, the plan works, we'll stay there. That will be seen in the next 6-9 months. In the meantime, having considered from the beginning that the "basket" was all microstock and not just one agency, I haven't all my eggs in one basket, so I can take it without any angst.
904
« on: May 05, 2009, 18:26 »
Poor Batman.
905
« on: May 04, 2009, 16:54 »
It's good to see the different prices for different sizes in subs. I'm not going to be there, unless leaving mi exclusivity at another site, but well, good luck.
906
« on: May 04, 2009, 11:46 »
iStock is run by a very smart group of people, and I believe they truly care about contributors for the most part. we'll see.
iStock is a business and like any successful business they care only for making as much profit as possible, like any other business they wish to maintain an alliance with their suppliers, but if you think they actually care about you as a contributor then you are living in a dream world.
As pointed out by gostwyck there's a huge difference between having friendly helpful staff and what the business plan is.
Yes, but this business plan isn't good for Getty, in my view. Maybe they will get more percentage, but at the cost of losing much more dollars coming from sales at istock, even if they have there less commission.
907
« on: May 02, 2009, 18:14 »
Lets take it in another way...
Step 1: Setting up a merge between photos.com and iSttock
Step 2: Asking exclusives to select photos to sell trough Photos.com and (step 2b) removing them from iStock
Step 3: Pushing non-exclusives to Photos.com.
The only model this industry has not try till now is a full exclusive content. So going this way, iStock (or Getty) would have a regular site to compete with the actual market AND a full exclusive to offer something buyers can't find anywhere else.
Think about it...
Claude
That makes sense, from a business point of view, and would ask some questions that right now are missing a logical answer. . But I would prefer it won't happen, even if I'm exclusice.
908
« on: May 02, 2009, 07:49 »
I think that designers contending in the Steel Cage can download some number of files for free, for using them just in the contest. It must be that.
909
« on: May 02, 2009, 05:42 »
I've written many times in these forums supporting istock decisions. The reason was that I felt these decisions were right. I can't support this one.
910
« on: April 28, 2009, 11:18 »
I once saw a free image of the week from a micro-site in an ad published in a magazine of a big real state agency. Insertion of the ad in this magazine costs thousands and, OMG, that was the same real state agency that asked me for about 20.000 dollars commission to sell my house.
911
« on: April 23, 2009, 17:23 »
Well, according what you say it seems that the benefit is for the buyers and for DT...
912
« on: April 17, 2009, 16:38 »
Read the thread, Adelaide.
913
« on: April 17, 2009, 14:25 »
It is really touching to see independents cheering and celebrating and considering very reasonable the fact that DT (or any other agency) "gives a bump" to exclusive files, aside of paying more comission. But, when it's istock who "gives a bump" to their exclusive files, well... then is very very very wrong. You know: "Exlusives already have a bigger comission", "Customer shall find the better files, no matter if exclusive or independent" etc etc etc etc. Curious.
Actually, the bump is more a result of Dreamstime's current search algorithm which appears to be weighted somewhat toward higher download levels.
Images accepted to the contests automatically become level 5 images which seem to be getting that bump in visibility at the moment. However an image doesn't have to be exclusive and a contest entry to reach level 5 status. It just has to have over 100 downloads.
So, images without 100 (or many) dowloads can't be exclusive and "get a bump"? If you enter a new image and make it exclusive at day 1, without dl's, don't get the bump? And well, as you know any contributor with 500 dl's can be exclusice at IS. Or not. It's just matter of choice.
914
« on: April 17, 2009, 13:29 »
I really don't know, Freedom, but the fact is that I'm exclusive and I've had files rejected for flares, out of focus, etc. No idea if I would have had more if I wasnt't exclusive.
915
« on: April 17, 2009, 12:34 »
It is really touching to see independents cheering and celebrating and considering very reasonable the fact that DT (or any other agency) "gives a bump" to exclusive files, aside of paying more comission. But, when it's istock who "gives a bump" to their exclusive files, well... then is very very very wrong. You know: "Exlusives already have a bigger comission", "Customer shall find the better files, no matter if exclusive or independent" etc etc etc etc. Curious.
916
« on: April 17, 2009, 10:24 »
It's probably just that I don't "get" what makes a good stock photo. 
Sure you would want to leave open the possibility that you still have new ideas and techniques to understand. Just like how we do not always get the music which other people like. So for example, what sounds like random noise to one person might seem like the epitome of the zeitgeist to someone else. And then later we see those influences everywhere.
The type of publication or campaign which might appreciate the style of that image might not be able to use yours. And vice versa. But it is in all of our interests that the agencies attempt to service as much of the potential market as possible.
wunderbar, so this means all those previously rejected images by IS for "over-exposure, lens flare,
out of focus,etc..." are now welcome for RESUBMIT. we are all looking forward to IS new interest in looking at the possibilities.
this is the best news we've had in a long time from IS reviewers.
good reason to celebrate. luvly to hear from you , and three cheers for the new IS . drinks on the house... rofl
As everything, "over-exposure, lens flare,out of focus" can be done with artistic and creative talent and purpose and without any of that, for example if the photographer gets that by accident, without intending it; or intending it but getting a final flawed product, because of lack of talent, technique etc
917
« on: April 15, 2009, 19:52 »
Results are extremely accurate. Downloads are flowing. What more can be asked?
918
« on: April 14, 2009, 10:43 »
Would be rejected by every NON-exclusive for over-filtered, blown highlights... what a joke
Is that suppose to give the effect of being shot on the beach? They must be desperate
That tells more about your understanding of the art/craft of photography thant about istock, certainly.
919
« on: April 09, 2009, 09:30 »
No variations here. Maybe from Friday to Sunday will be slower.
920
« on: April 07, 2009, 11:16 »
That's a "teenager", it's easy. "Teenager" (Early teens) and woman, Not a child, at all.
921
« on: April 06, 2009, 17:27 »
What I don't understand is if you knew all this going in, why are you blaming the agency now? How does this make DT "stupid"?
One thing are the 6 months compromise, known in advance. Another different matter is that after the 6 Mont's are due, DT could ease the process of deactivating files. After all, if the contributor should be thankful to DT for selling his photos, DT coiuld be thankful as well because for a period of time they have been having benefits from these photos. I don't thing anybody decided to leave will stay just because deactivating is slow and painful; all what happens is that they finally leave disappointed. It seems that nobody wins.
922
« on: April 05, 2009, 20:08 »
Not even drunk I would fall on that.
923
« on: April 05, 2009, 18:21 »
That's not exactly an istock official feature. Contributors can delete their names and even their sales just asking for it at the person who made this chart,
924
« on: April 05, 2009, 17:04 »
It does seem like the IS forum admins are very eager to censor anything less than "Istock is #1, I love Istock, or (name top ten exclusive here) is the best EVAR!"
In the posts I have read, it seems like there are two groups of people who talk on those forums a lot: IS exclusives with lots of images on the site who think that makes them them important, and newbie photographers who kiss their butts.
I don't care - I just don't hang out on that forum. It is more entertaining and useful to talk places where proving you are a big shot isn't the point.
But pieman is right. I'm still more than happy to take their money.
It seems that you and me are reading the same, but different forums. This concept about boasting and "being important" seems a fantasy to me. Maybe you are filtering what you read through your fears and complexes, or maybe it's me who is doing that. One of the two.
925
« on: April 04, 2009, 08:15 »
I had a bunch a crazy rejections and I emailed them about it
They rejected most of my good non-person sellers at other sites, so I doubt their reviewers. I also doubt their programmers since it took months before they came up with a password > 6. Wasted too much time on it. I stopped uploading. Time wasted there is better spent on new shoots or paying more attention to iStock.
Isn't that the truth!
It's always kinda funny reading posts complaining about the tedious upload process at IS and squawking about how it isn't worth the hassle, and then in another thread reading the same person talk about how they will continue to upload to a non-performing site because of the easy uploads or friendly interface.
The days of viable new sites are over. LuckyOliver was the last one to have a shot (some folks, like myself, were making regular payouts)...the rest all seem to fade into oblivion before they even get started. It would take an extraordinarily innovative new model of selling images for a new site to make it now.
ha, ha, this is true. An no ms new site withouth a huge investment has now reasonable possibilities of surviving more that some months.
Pages: 1 ... 32 33 34 35 36 [37] 38 39 40 41 42 ... 44
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
