MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Show Posts

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 - ichiro17

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 33
1
iStockPhoto.com / Re: iStock Best Match Theory/Idea
« on: November 01, 2011, 10:11 »
i won't hit the next target level, they should divert all the downloads to me

if thats true, its a stupid strategy and bad long-term business management.  however, I'm not sure that they can program the site to do that without breaking it completely :)

2
iStockPhoto.com / iStock Best Match Theory/Idea
« on: November 01, 2011, 10:04 »
I'm not saying this as fact - just pointing out an observation/trend that is becoming more prevalent.

I've noticed that the downloads don't follow an "ebb and flow" and now go by a weekly trend whereby downloads are torrid for one week (aka best week ever) and then die off 60% the next week, only to go back to best week ever status the week after that.

I have a feeling that the best match is juggling the searches for some topics weekly which is changing the results and screwing with the downloads making them less consistent and its been doing this for quite a while.

3
iStockPhoto.com / Re: Istock raises payouts to partner program
« on: February 27, 2011, 11:07 »
I really don't need a lecture from the Captain of the good ship "Boycott iStock uploads", thank you, Gostwyck.

You may think that nobody noticed that you jumped ship and were in the upload lifeboat 21 days after saying this:

"I've stopped uploading to Istock too. There will probably be some minor retraction from this announcement, maybe an adjustment to the redeemed credit levels, but it won't be enough. I may never upload another image to Istock again."

http://www.microstockgroup.com/istockphoto-com/istock-changing-royalty-structure/msg158888/#msg158888

and this (in direct reference to me):
It'll be the same limp-wristed f*ck-wits who joined Thinkstock because "Ooh __ there's nothing we can do about the big juggernaut". You can pretty much guarantee that they'll wimp out of this fight too.
http://www.microstockgroup.com/istockphoto-com/istock-changing-royalty-structure/msg159171/#msg159171

and even this:
Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on September 08, 2010, 17:22
Do you really think anything as feeble as an upload boycott is going to work, when 90% of submitters are probably still in blissful ignorance about this?


Gostwyck: Yes, given enough months, I think it has a very good chance. It's not as feeble an idea as doing nothing at all which seems to be your main suggestion.

http://www.microstockgroup.com/istockphoto-com/istock-changing-royalty-structure/msg159178/#msg159178

But you couldn't even manage ONE month.

So it seems you are very good at shouting and badmouthing everyone, playing the cheerleader and guardian of "the right thing to do", but when it comes to standing by your words you are found wanting.

When you were complaining about pathetically low commissions at TS I asked if you would support a new agency offering 50% and you said no, because it wasn't delivering a worthwhile return (very true). So you are not even consistent about whether you want decent percentages or cash-in-hand regardless of the percentage.

You often have good points that are worthy of consideration but I hope the hectoring way you shout down anyone who disagrees with you doesn't push people into doing things that you won't really do - like boycotting Istock uploads, for example.

BTW, congratulations on the several hundred extremely fine images you have uploaded there since you began your "maybe never again" boycott. They really are excellent.


finally someone says it!

4
iStockPhoto.com / Re: Time to celebrate?
« on: February 11, 2011, 14:50 »
Doubt it

People always complain

5
iStockPhoto.com / Re: Time to celebrate?
« on: February 11, 2011, 14:44 »
Non-stop complaining.  Sweet jesus

6
Quote
I love it. I can't get my hands down. :)

I'd like to see someone other than Yuri say that

7

Regarding price: Custom Brackets makes top notch gear. It's for the professional.
[/quote]

Being a professional and the price of gear are two separate, unrelated things. That price for a monopod is simply ridiculous.
[/quote]

I guess you can sell things at these prices when you are the best selling microstock photographer of all time

8
Wrong forum methinks

9
From 112 votes so far, just 37.5% will be carrying on as usual. It seems that a fair few will be making a stand or have already done so.

I don't see how leaving will make a difference in how anyone is treated in this business. Supply and demand rules here as in any other non-government enterprise. So "making a stand" is akin to the local shoe store owner reducing his hours of operation when Walmart opens up down the street.
The only people would be the really big hitters who are independent. If they pulled their images and uploaded elsewhere, iStock would feel it.
For the rest of us, while there might be some satisfaction, it won't matter to iStock one iota.
Added: I'm not sure what would happen to iStock if Yuri pulled his port totally. Interesting to speculate.

Nothing would happen.  Yuri is not that important to this model.  Its crowdsourcing, not Yuri-sourcing.  There's hundreds of guys who can step up and make images like Yuri, and he's just another guy here.  Whats Yuri's portfolio as a ratio of the entire site's total photos? Miniscule.  WHat happens is other people get better search placements.  And I'm all for that.  Plus, he's not even exclusive so its not like people have to go to iStock to see his work. 

10
iStockPhoto.com / Re: istock sale
« on: January 01, 2011, 23:25 »
You can't expect the rates to kick in yet when the RC counter still is not fully updated yet - and probably won't happen until Tuesday.  Definitely interesting if they will backdate royalties or not

11
iStockPhoto.com / Redeemed Credit counter
« on: December 27, 2010, 09:38 »
I've tried looking but can't really find out any information on this question:

On that stats page at IS, the RC counter updates whenever it wants.  Does anyone know what the lag is on the counter? I keep getting increases in credits but my sales of the previous few days don't match those increases.

Thanks for any help,

Joseph

12
as economy crumbles, I think we will see more and more companies viciously using non productive means trying to get their hands on the remaining  few extra dollars going around, as compensation. Capitalism is going to be showing it's worst face - expect that in microstock too (just look at istock)

The economy is recovering, not crumbling.  Your reasoning is terrible at best

13
General Stock Discussion / Re: Some examples of my work
« on: December 15, 2010, 07:56 »
yes she's still alive, she's the best and should be alive for another 80 yrs :)

don't remember the aperture though

14
General Stock Discussion / Re: Some examples of my work
« on: December 14, 2010, 08:33 »
wow come a long way since then making 20 bucks a month and submitting really bad photos

15
iStockPhoto.com / Re: iStockphoto to offer "Editorial Use" license
« on: December 13, 2010, 12:49 »
its about time...this is going to create an inspection queue mess though

16
General Stock Discussion / Re: iofoto interview on John Lund
« on: December 06, 2010, 13:20 »
Ron's business model is about producing really expensive images.  It makes complete sense that he wouldn't be able to put it into microstock and that he's looking for better returns elsewhere.  Its how he does his business.  If I had the resources/know-how, I'd love to do what Ron does - its awesome

17
General Stock Discussion / Re: Zack Arias on microstock
« on: December 01, 2010, 12:50 »
It's not uncommon business practice to grow market share by purchasing a smaller competitor, and then closing it down to eliminate the competition.  Not saying that is what happened in this case, but only a Polyanna would not consider the possibility.

Of course thats considered, but you all say that it made money hand over fist.  Closing down only in a market thats a) got few competitors to begin with and b) where you can be sure that the business will come to you.  In this case, there's no guarantee of either and it would have been a horrible investment to buy somethign so profitable because it would have cost a premium.  There were plenty of other sites to buy if they wanted to shut them down (and probably for a lot less)

18
General Stock Discussion / Re: Zack Arias on microstock
« on: December 01, 2010, 12:30 »
Why would iStock/Getty buy StockXpert if it was making so much money and then promptly shut it down?  I'm not sure why its so hard to think of the other side.  I'm not saying that I'm 100% correct, but you're reasoning doesn't make sense

Wasn't StockXpert just a part of Jupiter Images (that Getty acquired) ?

So? they still shut this 'money making machine' (according everyone on this forum) down in favour of what seems to be other strategic objectives

19
BME.  Big increase over Nov 09

Good times.  December seems a bit less promising

20
General Stock Discussion / Re: Zack Arias on microstock
« on: December 01, 2010, 08:50 »
 All the 50% commission sites have been taken over by other companies - SS with BigStock, iStock withi StockXpert.  

Well I wonder why they were bought out...you reckon it was because they were making money??? Nobody is going to buy a company that loses money unless they need a write off because they are making to much.

Or...they were cheaper to buy because their flows weren't as high and they could still meet the strategic objectives of the buyer - for example, provide re-routed traffic to the main site or provide a different distribution method.  Why would iStock/Getty buy StockXpert if it was making so much money and then promptly shut it down?  I'm not sure why its so hard to think of the other side.  I'm not saying that I'm 100% correct, but you're reasoning doesn't make sense

21
General Stock Discussion / Re: Zack Arias on microstock
« on: November 30, 2010, 15:07 »
All the 50% commission sites have been taken over by other companies - SS with BigStock, iStock withi StockXpert.

I also vaguely remember that a 20% site called iStockphoto was taken over by Getty. Why was that? And a 60% site called Alamy has not been taken over by anyone. What is your point?

iStock's royalty cuts (for non-exclusives) suck and are based on greed. I cannot find any valid argument that tells me otherwise.

I'm talking about micros swallowing micros.  Getty's entrance through buying iStock was to stop the erosion of their core businesses and add diversity to their portfolio. 

I'm still making money.  I'd love to make more.  But until then, I'll try doing that through making better photos

22
General Stock Discussion / Re: Zack Arias on microstock
« on: November 30, 2010, 13:03 »
The model isn't based on one, two or 100 contributors.  And the likelihood of the best and the brightest all leaving is so low that I don't particularly care much.  Additionally, they will be replaced by others who will prop the portfolio up at a smaller commission, which in turn lowers the weighted average and allows iStock to continue to pay out better exclusive commissions.  So I'm okay with people who want to leave.  Most won't.  And thats what drives this.

I'll take that as a no, not worried.  ;D

Nah not worried.  Can't worry about what other people do, just need to worry about what I can control

23
General Stock Discussion / Re: Zack Arias on microstock
« on: November 30, 2010, 13:03 »
Well in my opinion when a lot of businesses can survive on 50% profit margin, then iStock should be able to survive on less , simply because all those other businesses.(not stock) also have to purchase an inventory....not pay for it after the fact.

that is a flawed argument in its entirety - but you can assume whatever you wish

24
General Stock Discussion / Re: Zack Arias on microstock
« on: November 30, 2010, 10:54 »
^^^
My Grandfather was a diamond wholesaler back in the post depression era.
He said that if he could make 33% margin over his cost he was REALLY happy.

80% is TOTALLY sustainable. Anyone that says otherwise is lying.

There's a reason why analysts that actually cover companies don't compare different industries in different parts of the world and in different eras. 

Okay, howabout the other microstock sites, in the same industry, in the same era, who all seem to be growing and thriving, while paying double or more what Istock pays its suppliers?   If other microstock sites can be sustainable on 50-70% margins (and that's a fact, not speculation) then Istock must be either (a) lying;  or (b) grossly mismanaged to be unable to sustain itself on 80%. 

Who says these sites are growing/thriving at 50% commissions/70% commissions - you are going to be hardpressed to convince me that SS is not keeping 70% themselves.  All the 50% commission sites have been taken over by other companies - SS with BigStock, iStock withi StockXpert.  LO died quickly, the rest are meaningless because they are such an insignificant portion of the whole. If money was so great at 50%, then StockXpert would still be there. Don't forget that Getty is a business and they would not overpay for something if the NPVs and the IRRs didn't warrant the investment.  Plus, to actually prove your sustainability points, you need to have comparable figures - no one has those because of the private nature of these businesses.  When Getty goes public, we will have a much better idea.  That won't happen for a while though.  The IPO market is just starting again  

25
General Stock Discussion / Re: Zack Arias on microstock
« on: November 30, 2010, 10:50 »
There's a reason why analysts that actually cover companies don't compare different industries in different parts of the world and in different eras.  First of all, its not 80% of everything, its 80% of your stuff.  There's a mathematical solution called a weighted average but you all go back to the same thing.  I really don't feel like debating this on speculation anymore, so my final thoughts are that if some of you want to leave because you don't like it, please do.  If you want to put up with it, then fine.  I don't agree with 15% or 20% commissions, but I'm not running the iStock business and I've made my choices according to what I perceive the business conditions to be.  I like the results so far and I will continue doing what I'm doing and making my analyses on my portfolio, etc.  That is all from me

I know it's nice to eliminate your competition, but you must worry a little bit about other contributors packing up and leaving. That seems like it could have some negative consequences as well.

The model isn't based on one, two or 100 contributors.  And the likelihood of the best and the brightest all leaving is so low that I don't particularly care much.  Additionally, they will be replaced by others who will prop the portfolio up at a smaller commission, which in turn lowers the weighted average and allows iStock to continue to pay out better exclusive commissions.  So I'm okay with people who want to leave.  Most won't.  And thats what drives this.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 33

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle