|
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 - timburton
26
« on: June 02, 2008, 08:44 »
Wouldnt image exclusivity rather kill the agreement for those that are already exclusive? If I could have image exclusivity over straight forward exclusivity then Id choose the former, and do slightly different versions (different enough to abide by whatever rules they have) of my most successful images. Itd be more sensible for me to do that- I wouldnt have all my eggs in one basket. Id probably dedicate a fair amount of my time to other sites. This would lower the istock brand. The only reason the other sites offer image exclusivity is because no one would go exclusive with them. Yup, I have a feeling istock knows better.
27
« on: June 01, 2008, 05:33 »
I agree with Rene here- this isnt a straight forward monopoly situation. Right now, istock isnt acting as a monopoly- the others are. Istock is giving more (through things like reasonable subscriptions terms) in order to get more exclusives. Theyre competing, unlike a monopoly. On the other hand, SS and the others are saying "here's a crap deal- whatre you gonna do?" Theyre acting like a monopoly. SS need to feel pain for cutting our pay. IS should be rewarded. That's how I see it. This way, if SS changes it's tone, there wont be a monopoly, and we win.
28
« on: May 31, 2008, 22:56 »
congratulations to you. I think it's good for microstockers to quit SS as a result of them lowering our pay. If no one does it, everyone's pay gradually goes down overtime.
Is anyone else doing the same? Im already exclusive, but I would make the move if I was in the same boat.
29
« on: May 23, 2008, 22:25 »
being irritated and angry is obviously ok if you just say that and refrain from making libelous claims about a company. I hope people are free to say when they are please or unsatisfied with an agency but it has to be said as a personal feeling and not a libelous fact.... if that made any sense.
Alright Leaf- youve gotta do what youve gotta do. Have a nice day now- and keep up the good work. I like this site. Wish Id thought of it...
30
« on: May 23, 2008, 11:40 »
In fact, I would love to know if thats the case...
31
« on: May 23, 2008, 11:26 »
yes really leaf- I like this forum and you usually do a good job but I dont know why you deleted that one- it was an irritable, angry post- but I assume there arent any children here? I didnt see any problem with it.
I do hope dreamstime havent threatened you with legal action if you allow anything beyond a certain line? Youre usually more liberal than that.
32
« on: May 16, 2008, 23:37 »
 was gonna write something... Nevermind.
33
« on: May 16, 2008, 22:54 »
that's exactly what happened to me!!! I asked how to do it, and they deleted it! I then realised thar dreamstime takes 6 months, and I was a bit annoyed.
Here's what I did- it was great. I just re-uploaded everything. And because of SS's stupid newest-first best match, I had two amazing months. I made more money doing that way than I wouldve done if Id left them up. That was one hell of a month...
In fact, Id recommend to all SS contributors- once youve been doing this for a couple of years and your old stuff isnt selling, "enquire" how to do it, so that they do it for you and you have an excuse should you need one, and then reupload. Hell, if it's a stupid system you may aswell game it. All those old photos you have are pretty much dead so it makes sence to resend it instead of going out and taking more photos.
34
« on: May 14, 2008, 02:47 »
2. They deliberately give newest images far more strength than they should have, meaning that images which are more popular/more likely to sell are naturally put further back than they should be, lowering the quality of images the buyer sees. This also makes shutterstock work best for newbies who dont yet know what sells, and worse for people who have been doing this for years and know their stuff, giving those people more incentive to go exclusive with istock.
3. They give only a few cents per image, putting off a lot of macro photographers.
Number 3 is the reason for number 2, I was with SS for a few months each upload would bring good downloads for the uploaded images then a decline, until the next upload.
No it's not- what I mean is that SS pay somewhere around 30/40 cents per sale, which puts off macro photographers. Some people refuse to accept only being paid a few cents per sale, even if they have a large number of sales.
35
« on: May 14, 2008, 01:17 »
Ive been thinking about quality at shutterstock and their model. It just seems really bad to me.
1. They have no exclusivity agreement so their stuff can be found everywhere, meaning they dont have anything unique.
2. They deliberately give newest images far more strength than they should have, meaning that images which are more popular/more likely to sell are naturally put further back than they should be, lowering the quality of images the buyer sees. This also makes shutterstock work best for newbies who dont yet know what sells, and worse for people who have been doing this for years and know their stuff, giving those people more incentive to go exclusive with istock.
3. They give only a few cents per image, putting off a lot of macro photographers.
4. They just shafted contributors with a lousy raise, irritating everyone.
This means that of course, they have to be cheap. Because people who want quality will naturally go to istock or dreamstime.
It's really a race to the bottom with them. They also concentrate entirely on subscriptions at a time when all other sites are now going to sell both subscriptions and pay as you go. Doesnt seem very smart. It seems like theyre the only one with a gap now. I think shutterstock are destined to decline from here.
36
« on: May 14, 2008, 01:04 »
iStock can totally take advantage of this and bump their exclusive commissions by 5% or something which would likely be the final nail in the coffin for many SS submitters.
That's like iStock saying "Hey Submitters! We appreciate our photographers! You are welcome to join us." where as Shutterstock basically just said "fuck you".
Hahahahahah.... when was the last time IS bumped their commissions. They pay the lowest commisions in the industry, so to IStock Photo I say "FU"
Dont you see the problem? Look, istock has a low commision- 20 to 40 percent. But it has stayed the same sinse exclusivity began. They havent changed it. Even with the introduction of subscriptions it seems to be staying the same. Compare that to shutterstock- yes theyre raising your pay. But theyre not raising you percentage, are they? Theyre lowering it EVERY TIME THE PRICE CHANGES. This is a terrible model. In ten years time Istock's percent will still probably be 20-40 percent. What will shutterstock's be? 1 percent or something ridiculous like that. Youll be on 40 cents when they make ten dollars. This is why their model is so bad. There is no future in it for contributors. The price of their images goes up massively but our cut isnt a percentage, so it goes up in cents instead. In an industry with these price rises, this can only lead to us getting shafted. As time goes by, there will be more of this.
37
« on: May 13, 2008, 23:57 »
No raise 4 me 
Still under the $500 mark.... but if I WAS over the $500 point I would be furious!
I was feeding the beast for a while, but I am done.
I will wait out the remainder of the time that I am obliged to at DT and then I am pulling the plug everywhere except IS.
IS simply has the best business model IMHO, and their subs model is much more fair to the contributors.
Good for you. And you know what would be good for contributors everywhere? If a lot of people ditched shutterstock and went exclusive with istock as a result of this. Those that stick around give the message that "you can pay us as little as you want". There has to be a negative result when they lower our cut or theyll just keep doing it.
38
« on: May 13, 2008, 21:25 »
Incredible. So, when Istock brought out subscriptions they didnt completely rip us off- as they could have done. They had the chance, but they didnt take it. The deal wasnt bad at all. But shutterstock did rip us off- the percentage we make is a lot lower now than it was before. So, who do you trust? Sounds like the time to go exclusive to me. Afterall, what's going to happen next? SS is clearly going to do something similar next time too. I bet in a year their prices will be raised 50-100 percent and our cut will go up 10-20 percent. This is a rip off.
39
« on: May 13, 2008, 09:57 »
Leo, no offense... But I guess I should probably tell you... The reason no one talks to you in lifts is because you have a strange smell when up close. I figure it's about time someone told you. Youre a nice lad and everything. Everyone else talks all the time in lifts- it's a great place to make friends.
(not that weve ever met or anything:) )
40
« on: May 11, 2008, 05:41 »
Oh what a bunch of whinging bores. Congratulations to the OP though- I know it feels good.
41
« on: May 08, 2008, 01:46 »
I dont see why anyone would bother either. Does anyone actually believe that anyone from shutterstock goes through and says "well, such and such said thank you, such and such also said thank you... This guy said thank you..." No one does that, no one remembers, and its all a complete waste of time. The only people who do are a bunch of pussies desperate to suck up at the slightest opportunity.
42
« on: April 28, 2008, 04:49 »
Why would any serious site accept something that they think deserves to have fun poked at it? And why would they insult a contributor like that? For that matter, I wonder why theyd want to show off bad images. All seems a bit tacky and amateurish to me.
(image seems fine...)
43
« on: April 24, 2008, 10:22 »
all it proves is that miz needs to get himself a girlfriend, and perhaps a day job.
44
« on: April 24, 2008, 09:22 »
Not a very good experiment, in my opinion. It would have been better if you had used a decent photo. This is just some crap shot you took while walking the dog- any hobbyist couldve taken it. Yeah sure its acceptable, but why bother? Cant you do anything more creative?
45
« on: April 20, 2008, 21:53 »
sound, 3d files, or fonts?
46
« on: April 18, 2008, 09:48 »
try account details, at the right under "tools"
47
« on: April 18, 2008, 04:26 »
heh yeah clear rigging... Probably understandable though.
On another note, istock seems to have added 50 percent to their collection in 8 months. Right? So to keep the same percentage of your photos that appear in the search, you need to add 50 percent every 8 months. Can ya do it? I can, but only with one hell of a lot of coffee.
48
« on: April 18, 2008, 02:26 »
Haha I think this post is great especially the part about shutterstock. Id like to add another theory. I suspect that istock puts the most popular files first in the search. Explain that people. Clearly, theyre favouring people who sell more. I agree with this guy-theyre cheating us!!!
49
« on: April 15, 2008, 22:11 »
Lets look at the real numbers;
As of today this is the number of images online at (4) of the big (6)
SS = 3,471,223
FT = 3,482,242
IS = 2,964,072
DT = 2,776,981
Here are my personal numbers
SS = 75 files approved with $29.30 in sales this month
FT = 105 files approved with $5.94 in sales this month
IS = 20 files approved with $2.65 in sales this month
DT = 55 files approved with $1.80 in sales this month
The numbers dont lie.
What a load of BS. Who cares how many files each company has? It's quality that counts! Istock obviously rejects more and has tougher standards. It isnt hard to build up a library- but a decent library is a different thing. Istock is the only one which has a serious exclusivity agreement, so theyre clearly going to have the best library. As for your statistics- its all pretty half assed isnt it? You realise that Istock takes a bigger cut, right? And you should know that the competition is tougher too (maybe you just cant compete there?). Who cares what you make- what matters is what they make! And you know that SS goes down every month if you dont upload? Ah forget it- come back when you have more than 20 acceptable images.
50
« on: April 15, 2008, 04:20 »
Isnt pump audio now attached to getty's site? I wonder if it could be combined with istock or if they plan on making a completely new audio section for istock?
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
