|
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 - Read_My_Rights
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 10
1
« on: April 28, 2011, 09:54 »
... If they set them to low then they give away the farm. ...
The only people giving away the farm on a continuing basis are the IS contributors. Nothing short of splitting revenues 50/50 will change that fact.
2
« on: March 23, 2011, 23:02 »
Complete wipe-out and why? because I am filling up my keywords and now I get severely punished by low keyword relevance since the bottom slider was defaulted to the right - high significance. Sh*t
3
« on: March 13, 2011, 21:51 »
Sounds weird. Are you sure you don't have the search sorted by "contributor"?
That's why its good to ask. Search default was set to file age for some reason. I guess I do not search often enough to check all settings. My bad
4
« on: March 13, 2011, 21:13 »
By cluster I mean that all your pictures in the search are next to each other without apparent picture specific search ranking even though the DL range from 10+, 100+ to 500+ and were uploaded at about the same time, all are exclusive Plus, all have the same keywords. i would expect that their search rank is dispersed according to their success. Apparently being my pictures overrides pretty much every other consideration. Just don't understand
5
« on: March 13, 2011, 20:30 »
When I carry out my customary - not too frequent - search for my best seller that are not buried in a million other pictures i get a good sense of how the latest incarnation of IS search is working. Too my shock I realized that I can no longer understand the logic of the I standard search. All my pictures that respond to the particular search term are CLUSTERED together regardless of number of DL (from 10, 100 or 500). what (Why the f**k) are my pictures are not spread over several pages according to their unique search rank. Other contributors are clustered as well. This search arrangement SUX THE BIG TIME if you are not the one lucky contributor that is featured at the beginning of the search. Anybody else seeing this clustering. Hate it Hate it Hate it. Did I mention that I am without DL since Thursday when normally I get 7-10 DL per day. I wonder if it is another way to punish outspoken contributors.
6
« on: March 07, 2011, 22:15 »
Things seem to be changing for the worst in a matter of weeks so any sort of statistic is going to be outdated when you publish it. I am having for instance a terrible 1st quarter of march. I know ebb and flow, but I believe the video price hike really killed the golden - well lets re-phrase that - the copper goose (as in pennies). anybody else experiencing a further dramatic drop in income this week (like 60% down like me)?
7
« on: October 29, 2010, 08:35 »
Well the proof is in the pudding. A reduction of ~30% in income for me this month (IS exclusive) is clearly showing a reduced interest by buyers. The only pics that are selling regularly are the ones that are niche images that can not be had anywhere else. Even great images with regular DLs before the masters of disaster messed with the system are not being touched anymore. FU Getty/IS/Whatever hedge fund owns this POS now. Disgusted. That whole "rest of the year will provide more DLs" is clearly NOT kicking in this year.
And back to your regular programming
8
« on: October 07, 2010, 15:42 »
Just a suggestion: www.footage-online.de
Cheers
Thomas.
What's the profit sharing % on that site, because I have a bunch of time lapse HD videos from Germany that are probably not going to find many buyers at IS. Thanks If you want contact me directly, that's fine too.
9
« on: October 01, 2010, 19:22 »
So I guess political advertising is perfectly fine for model released content. I consider advertising for republican candidates defamatory however.
10
« on: September 29, 2010, 08:02 »
This one is completely out of left field.
Leica R 35 1.4. I had to file down the back metal of the lens so it fits the 5D II but together with the shortest extension tube from canon is my ultimate one lens solution for pictures and video. Out of focus softness is nothing like you have ever seen. Shoot wide open as you like. Being fixed to 1/30s exposure with video you can shoot at available darkness levels at base ISO. No funny colors around contrasty borders. LOVE IT.
11
« on: September 15, 2010, 10:26 »
The percentage of visits to istockphoto.com that came from a search engine:     In my effort to see what has happened at other sites I compared the big 4 at ALEXA and something is horribly wrong with DT. Their traffic stats are nosediving since July of this year and their search engine referal seems to be the culprit. Anybody knows what is going on?
12
« on: September 12, 2010, 21:38 »
OK, here are my predictions. The change for IS will be slow but slowly gaining momentum by Jan 1. It all starts with some buyers leaving as promised this week. The other agencies are generally cheaper than IS and have probably massively cought up with IS in diversity and quality so designers and IS contributors/buyers have good reasons to leave. This, in combination with the best match being clogged up by high priced content will actually reduce the income for many contributors even more than the percent change. Since most already have lost their good will in the recent debacle so will now start to seriously concider alternatives. It's not the end of IS but once they increase prices further and buyers realize how much quality they can purchase at DT or SS without sacrificing too much coverage, more willl leave really accelerating the exodus. I have no idea where the NEW buyers are supposed to come from that are willing to pay the higher prices. I am exlusive but I am affraid that is the beginning of the end.
OUT
13
« on: September 11, 2010, 17:20 »
The whole point of being owned by private equity is so you do NOT have to open your books. If bruce would have taken IS public, we would know exactly what the execs are making and how their cash flow looks like.
14
« on: September 11, 2010, 13:18 »
Other (Radical) option: Decide to remove complete portfolio, BUT just ignore exclusivity restriction - in my book IS broke the contract first - and start uploading at other sites. Redeem money the moment you reach 100. When they find out they will oblige and remove your portfolio.
15
« on: September 11, 2010, 07:41 »
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coercion#EconomicRead the definition of economic coercion and tell me that it is NOT exactly what is/getty are doing with us. Exploitation of a monopolistic situation.
16
« on: September 11, 2010, 07:27 »
Something just occurred to me...you know how since F5 we don't seem to be able to opt-out of subs? I'm guessing that non-exclusives will not be able to do that...meaning we are going to be shuffled over to ThinkStock. No choice anymore to opt-out. Anybody else thinking this?
You can but it is buried so deep it is very hard to find. My Account/Preferences/My uploads/Manage collections/Partner Program I just finished removing every single file that had at least 1 IS DL. Yeah Getty here are my leftovers.
17
« on: September 10, 2010, 14:23 »
If I am right, you will soon see the other larger stock agencies doing exactly the same thing. Time to get used to 20% with perhaps a premium for the Vetta and other elite collections.
Wow, way to cheer me up. Thanks
18
« on: September 10, 2010, 14:14 »
Good point. If you think IS has enought isolated caucasian businessman pictures you are right and this motive indeed is basically a commodity that is subject to supply and demand dynamics. My points is that it is the combination of most generic motives in high quality PLUS the well annotated niche pictures supplied by exclusives that make IS so attractive to buyers. IS management is risking that unique source material to go to other agencies thereby loosing some of their biggest draw - because IS is certainly not going to compeet on buying price.
19
« on: September 10, 2010, 12:40 »
The problem is essentially supply and demand. The supply of images exceeds demand and therefore the agencies are free to reduce commissions. As commissions are reduced, some contributors will move on to other endeavors and perhaps eventually equilibrium may be reached and prices may go up. The simple fact is the agencies do not need to pay 40 or 50% commissions to attract contributors. Management of corporations have a goal of maximizing profit and cutting commissions is certainly one of the ways to increase profit. I suspect many of the traditional stock photographers could provide you a very detailed account of how the supply demand system works since as a result of micro stock, they experienced a similar phenomenon over the past five years.
My strategy is simply to make my work a cut above others and to utilize as large a sensor as I can afford.
Asside from the asenine ways of IS management I believe they are committing a truly horrible strategic mistake long term and short term. What appeals to anybody submitting to IS is their large base of buyers. Right. Now. What appeal to the buyers? IS has a large, DIVERSE, and relatively well curated database. So if you, as a buyer need the odd picture of "god knows what" chances are high IS has something for you - because many niche contributors are indeed lower volume exclusives that usually hold full time jobs that often afford them the unique access required for some of these more obscure subjects. They do not have the energy to contribute to many sites and therfore truly appreciate the perks for their work. I believe these low volume niche contributors are indeed the most likely ones to jump ship because 1. they can. 2. They only have to port a rather small portfolio to another site. Just my $0.00
20
« on: July 22, 2010, 14:05 »
... wrong - NO roylty is paid under a RF license - the term rf means "no royalties ever need to be paid" and is technically correct. ... We are talking in circles here. That was exactly what I ment. The problem is that the casual observer equates royalty with fee and thinks RF licenced content is free to use ("Hey it says free here"). Of course "RF" is technically correct but our argument is trying to improve the name for RF licences so that casual observer - potential customers - understand that there is a one time fee attached with use. Thats all.
21
« on: July 21, 2010, 21:36 »
I just noticed that the "Single" in single fee license will include our pictures in all the millions of searches for "Single Ladies that charge a fee" 
22
« on: July 21, 2010, 09:42 »
I kind of like "Single Fee" but it should be "Single Size Royalty" . . . the word "Royalty" is the point and the customer is buying an image according to the size. Guess it is too late to add it to the choices.
I was actually arguing that "Royalty" should be removed from the new term to avoid the conflicting meaning of "Pay per use". BTW the customers do not "buy an image" they obtain the rights to use an image. Thanks anyways - we need more votes.
23
« on: July 20, 2010, 16:01 »
Please select your top 2 choices.
Perhaps we can start a grass root movement for changing this misnomer.
When RF was born it was competing with rights managed (RM) content which required the payment of royalties. ("Royalty" by its definition is a payment for use). So technically a single fee can never be a "Royalty" if perpetual use is allowed. So the problem was keeping Royalty in the name "Royalty free".
Just my 0.02 pesos.
24
« on: July 20, 2010, 14:19 »
Pay once eternal licence - POEL
Single royalty eternal use licence
Royalty Once licence - RO
I like RO the best.
Lets vote.
Actually lets think of some more alternatives.
25
« on: December 22, 2009, 17:06 »
Still unacceptable for microstock. Sensor spots in the sky. Rejected 
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 10
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
