|
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 - imageegami
1
« on: July 31, 2013, 22:51 »
Thinking of bidding ? 
2
« on: July 27, 2013, 13:43 »
Not sure why some folks think Yuri needs to justify himself.
If he got a better deal than anyone else its because he has more leverage than anyone else.
I'm sure he did the math before making his decision.
-----
Suggestion for Yuri: Please stop referring to peopleimages as PP. This is simply false (Unless I can Opt in to sell my images there as well). You simply got a good deal which no one else got, good for you.
3
« on: July 24, 2013, 09:07 »
Yes, the other agency is behaving like the school yard bully and fotolia is responding with an even better value proposition.
4
« on: July 24, 2013, 08:53 »
fotolia just lowered their pricing on inactive files to compete with iStock's Main collection pricing. You can now get files from fotolia at less than half the cost compared to iStock.
5
« on: July 24, 2013, 08:31 »
Looks like fotolia first out of the gate to return fire.
After 6 months without sales, the content price will now be set according to this new pricing chart:
- XS & S = 1 Credit
- M & L = 2 Credits
- XL, XXL & V = 3 Credits
6
« on: July 24, 2013, 08:13 »
I think this is brilliant. I hope they call it the BetterValueThaniSTock Collection. Hopefully fotolia will market this similarly to iStock: Over half our library available for 3 credits or less, something like that..
7
« on: July 17, 2013, 08:17 »
Today's class is about how to create a solid stock photo business:
1) Instead of paying contributors a fair return, drastically reduce everyones royalties and tell them its because the business is Unsustainable. This will motivate contributors to offer their images elsewhere and you can then pay them even less royalties.
2) Reduce the price of half your collection by over 50%. Price reductions of this magnitude are Sustainable and will attract buyers from other sites.
The fact that it would have cost less to pay exclusive contributors a fair return (say 50%) thereby creating more exclusives and less competition in the first place will not be discussed in this class.
8
« on: April 28, 2012, 09:38 »
Yuri buys out Getty and introduces fair trade to all their Sites... and they all lived happily ever after ...
9
« on: April 28, 2012, 07:48 »
10
« on: April 19, 2012, 12:21 »
11
« on: February 29, 2012, 22:54 »
.
12
« on: February 29, 2012, 14:43 »
Having great month everywhere else except DT where downloads seem to be coming to a screeching halt.
13
« on: February 24, 2012, 22:10 »
Photos from Feb 3rd still pending... zzz
Still Pending.
14
« on: February 23, 2012, 00:14 »
Photos from Feb 3rd still pending... zzz
15
« on: February 13, 2012, 22:40 »
I agree with JoAnn. I don't see a direct relationship of TS taking away my IS sales. My IS sales were dropping like a rock before I was on TS.
OTOH, I think it's quite possible and maybe even very likely that TS bears some responsibility for Istock's loss of sales. Maybe not for each of us as individuals, but for the site as a whole. Meaning that IS customers are being directed to TS, but because artists are not named on TS, those customers may not be buying the images from the same artists, so each of us does not see a direct cause/effect link in our sales.
Also, once customers are convinced by Getty to buy subs, they are more likely to switch to the subscription leader, SS.
Agree that TS is canabalizing iStock sales. IMO, iStock exclusives are the sacrificial lamb in Getty attempt to compete with SS. As I see it, Getty is taking it on the chin, soooo glad I`m no longer iSTock exclusive.
16
« on: February 13, 2012, 22:28 »
Could we have some clarity please. Is it new contributors only effective 2013 or is it ALL contributors effective 2013 or is it something in between ?
17
« on: January 31, 2012, 18:16 »
That family is so happy, they climbed a mountain. If it wasn`t for Getty, they never could have accomplished this. I think that`s what it means.
18
« on: January 30, 2012, 09:12 »
Ludicrous! really. who cares? makes it sound like some stupid war between indies and exclusives.
Not at all. I`m going to play the part of Lobo for a moment. The topic is whether or not Thinkstock is going to kill Exclusive`s future revenues (Now that all indie content is there). Point being, I don`t think its going to be sustainable to stay exclusive at some point in the future when enough customers move from iStock to Thinkstock.
19
« on: January 29, 2012, 15:57 »
Yes there are many there are many exclusives doing good just as there are many indies that are doing good.
Topic is more, will exclusives keep doing good or are they doomed by Thinkstock migration.
20
« on: January 29, 2012, 15:39 »
Yes, how can any exclusive still believe that iStock has their best interest at heart ? Many must because they are exclusive. Would just need to have it explained to me.
21
« on: January 29, 2012, 15:32 »
Not an exclusive photographer ? That`s the question indies are presented when they upload. Then when you click on it, the answer is "iStockphoto wants to be your exclusive online, royalty-free, stock media agent. We don't want to share you and we'll take very good care of you... "
It`s the we`ll take good care of you part I don`t understand.
- Reneging on promise to grandfather commissions
- Putting Edstock at front of search results
- many other points already covered ad nausium.
The one I really don`t get is now that:
- All indie material (Vast majority of iStock content) on Thinkstock
- Thinkstock significantly less expensive than iStock
- Customers will migrate to Thinkstock - or elsewhere - preferable elsewhere
How is this taking care of exclusives ?
22
« on: January 25, 2012, 00:18 »
Don`t look at what they say, look how they act. Much more telling.
23
« on: January 22, 2012, 01:18 »
What does "Have registered with 123RF.com before February 1, 2012." mean? Do existing members who meet all criteria need to register somewhere?
If not, its kind of confusing. How is it even possible to have 150 accepted images by Jan 9 AND NOT be registered before Feb 1 (I take being registered as meaning a signed up member). What exactly does registered mean ?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Contributor's Message of the Day
January 18, 2012 - Change in Commission Structure
We will be changing our Contributors commission structure effective February 1, 2012.
Heres what you need to know:
All existing contributors shall continue to enjoy the current 50% nett commission share ONLY IF they fulfill ALL of the following criteria.:
Have registered with 123RF.com before February 1, 2012.
Have at least 150 accepted images in their respective portfolios by January 9, 2012.
Have had a minimum of 10 paid downloads by January 27, 2012.
All new contributors who start submitting images to 123RF.com AFTER January 27, 2012 OR do not meet all the criteria above shall be enrolled under the new commission structure.
For our veteran contributors who have been supporting us all this while, we thank you for your support and we will try our best to grow the business further in 2012. We will also try our very best to maintain the levels of 50% nett commission to you for as long as possible.
24
« on: January 02, 2012, 10:18 »
I wished there would have been more love for exclusives like myself the last few months. The end of this week I am NON-exclusive.
Its a difficult decision which comes with a mountain of uploading work and in all likelihood less revenue in the short term. IMO its a good decision and by the end of the year the math will have played itself out. Best of luck, I`m sure you will do very well.
25
« on: December 30, 2011, 09:56 »
But JJRD said it was a different market
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
