|
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 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 ... 44
151
« on: February 24, 2014, 16:49 »
They are looking for new images and can't find them!
Files still ARE showing in portfolios but ARE NOT showing up in searches.
Ghost ship, ghost files... 
Search works very well and very fast.
152
« on: February 21, 2014, 11:37 »
Less work? I can upload 12 files to 8 different sites faster and easier than I can upload one file to istock. Even the worst sites out there have a more modern and simpler submission process.
Oh,yeah. Sure. No need to go ti this extremes to be a wooyayer.
153
« on: February 19, 2014, 09:27 »
It is a speculation, but quite disturbing anyway.
Imagine that DP will create their "sister's" company, you will never know that they are connected. And now imagine that company will be doing all the marketing and promotions and selling for whatever amount, but then they will pull the images from DP for subsc. prize.
That's what I've been thinking all the way.
154
« on: February 13, 2014, 18:35 »
My images are up there too. I've emailed to see what the deal is.
I thought your files weren't available at DP for subscription sales.
155
« on: February 13, 2014, 14:14 »
All this sounds incredibly bad. Anb, btw, what happens if this partner agency sell one photo mre than one time? Do you just get the first 0.30?
Maybe I should thing of buying subscriptons from DP and start my own "reselling" site...
156
« on: January 29, 2014, 03:55 »
"baddabing!!"
LOL! Now he is using his 'extended' lens on the particular dancer. Just hope he has a hood on it ... 
How interesting. We never had a soap opera here at MG. Keep us informed, we want more chapters!
157
« on: January 27, 2014, 19:21 »
They just payed the Getty royalties. Maybe partner will be next.
158
« on: January 23, 2014, 05:19 »
Gostwyck, in this case the market hasn't decided - SS has, and they admit it. Haven't you read the comments which GBAlex has posted so many times? They have chosen to price our images low to win market share.
No one is defending IS, and no one thinks their are images are precious. We all know the market is saturated. Our images are nothing more than the Pawns being swept around and off the board as the Kings slug it out.
No, again you're off the mark. SS haven't decreased prices (unlike Istock). They simply haven't increased prices of subscriptions for a few years (and neither have FT or DT). That's fair enough. A business will always choose to operate either for growth or for profit ... according to market conditions. SS know that they already have their foot on the windpipe of most of their competitors. Why on earth would they choose to release it now? Would you if you were in their position?
Gbalex always 'quotes' minuscule segments, usually so out of context that they lose their meaning anyway. If only Istock/Getty were so open in their financial reporting then we could also judge them by the same standards as Gbalex pretends to do with SS.
I know you and many others mourn for the heady days of 2010 when, as Istock exclusives, you earned far more than you had previously believed was possible (and then began to believe it was you birth-right to do so for ever more) but unfortunately it was simply unsustainable. Now where have you heard that word before?
I don't know how you extrapolate your numbers. Maybe things are going really bad for non exc at IS, I don't know. About my folder: Number of downloads has decreased, from sure, from 2010. And earnings. But, regarding earnings what I got last year (2013) isn't so far from what I got at back 2010 (and better than 2012). RPD has skyrocked (about 17 dollars, compare that with subs downloads, even with EL, SOD and all the acronyms). Ok, with more files (40% more) I should get more. We all are hoping for some kind of improvement but, at this point, although things not being shiny I would't t characterize that as a disaster. If it was, I would had left exclusivity. I will should things worsen until a certain point. Regarding SS, DT, FT etc... they are selling a 300% much better product than in 2006 at the same tiny price.
159
« on: January 22, 2014, 18:20 »
10-15% is and has been for ages the norm for books printed and distributed through bookstores. In this case, the publishing houses assumes all the production, promotion and disttribution costs of one physical product, the book. You can't compare this with stock photo sites. To compare, you must use e-books sold throught the internet. Internet stores give about 70% to indie writers, and between 40 and 55% if it's the e-book version (the internet provider takes his cut also)
160
« on: January 22, 2014, 14:39 »
But at iStock in 2005 there was no option for a single sale that would net you $114 in royalties (that's the largest single SOD sale I've had so far at SS). Just sayin' 
Wrong. I had an EL more or less at this time for more than that. Not automated, not a direct download option, but negotiated on the phone.
161
« on: January 22, 2014, 13:36 »
And so, which is the business of Amazon? They also pay 70% to kindle direct writers (provided they sell their books between 2.99 and 11), and they don't ask for exclusivity, they just ask you to don't sell cheaper elsewhere.
162
« on: January 22, 2014, 07:32 »
Only, One big Problem. Anyone with even a small understanding Of Photoshop can remove a watermark in seconds. I know I can. and have proven it many times. There useless to prevent theft....USELESS. And theres been programs around for years than can upsize anything to amazing results.
It just depends on the watermark, the image and what's under the watermark. Istock current watermark it's not easy at all to lift, except on uniform surfaces. Can it be done? Yes, all can be done, but it the end, lifting a watermark to save two credits can cost you 10 o 20 dollars the working hour.
163
« on: January 21, 2014, 11:08 »
They know the value of images, and they know that this value exceeds the price point they have. But they also know the value of the money they earn. If they can have 60,000 photographers sending their images and agreeing to sell them for 0.30 it's great, as long they sell a lot. And they probably will, selling so cheap. Individual photographers make a few dollars, but they make a few dollars x 2 or 3 x and then x 60,000. That's and old trick. Have many people working for you, no matter if each one makes not much; you'll do a lot.
The real trick is being able to convince these 60,000 people that they must go on producing, assuming production costs, sending stuff and being ok with these returns (or even wooyaying you)
At the end of the day we are the cheap wh*ores of the business. In any project made with subs images, the cost of these images is nil. Nothing. Nada. Rien de rien. Designer gets hundreds, production gets hundreds or thousands, placement in media can even cost ten thousands. Images, some cents. Not even worth to count this ridiculous expense. The boy that carries coffee gets much more.
164
« on: January 15, 2014, 17:27 »
"...Dollar Photo Club will target a small audience of approved members and provide exclusive photos."
from the TechCrunch article
It's a mistake or a plain lie. Or maybe worse; maybe they have 25 million of non exclusive photos and one hundred exclusive, so they can say that they provide exclusive photos. Anyway, I've found some of their images all over the places.
165
« on: January 13, 2014, 07:38 »
I recently upgraded.
PC i7 32 GB RAM, SSD local disk (+four HDD for storage).
price for the upgrading: about 900 dollars
It flies, no matter what software I'm using.
166
« on: January 12, 2014, 16:08 »
The microstrock concept is that we sell our pictures for one dollar many times, so it becomes sustainable.
The cost of producing an image is returned because it sells many times.
BUT the agencies let us down, they put all the expenses on us, all the postprocessing, categorizing and keywords and all the manufacturing costs. We do all the work.
Yet they deny us the benifit of having many downloads on the images, because they just take more new contributors in.
So the agencies undermine the concept that is the basis of their success, they cheat us and they do not keep their promises.
I can understand that the agencies want to have innovative content, they want new contributors, so they dont stagnate.
Innovations are important in the world of today.
But I cannot understand why they consequently only prey on us, and not let of harvest the benifits.
Well I can. They have the oppertunity, and since we are powerless, they exploit us.
If there were a union of contributing phoitographers. The first it would command was that, the agencies could only take in as many new photographers as the rise in sales allowed.
Wise words.
167
« on: January 10, 2014, 14:54 »
Good luck Sean, I'm sure you will be pleasantly surprised at your returns on SS with the rep you have and your port. I'm only a small fish but compared to what IS does and is doing, real professionalism is plain to see. Enjoy your success. SS is really not a bad company.
7 year old images also show 7 year old clothing, hairstyles and interiors. Lifestyle is the toughest category, and Seans 7 year old images will be competing against new fresh up to date content, and millions of it. Its not going to be an easy ride, but I am sure with more and new content he will make a decent return.
Do now mechanics wear fucsia overalls and page haircuts? I don't see great differences with Sean's images on SS: most could have been shot last year. With his backlog I don't see any need to shoot new stuff just for SS; as I understand (maybe wrongly) Sean's new and far better stuff goes to Stocksy.
168
« on: January 10, 2014, 14:39 »
It means they have very good peopleskills and know how to respect the community as a group of independent entrepreneurs that they meet at eye level.
Sorry but for me, 35 cents isn't "eye level."
The only place I get 35 cents (or less) is iStock or dreamstime - if you're going to criticize SS, at least keep up with where things actually are versus some straw horse that's convenient but incorrect.
Deleted because posted as a reply towrong post.
169
« on: January 09, 2014, 16:45 »
Another lost battle against the subs system.
Anyway, good luck.
170
« on: January 06, 2014, 19:05 »
My number of downloads lowered clearly in 2013. Price increases (including all my bestseller being pushed to S+) made up for that, but that's another history. This January has begun weak, even considering that it's the beggining of January.
171
« on: December 20, 2013, 06:52 »
Lately, they seem the alternate GI and PP payment dates. If one month PP comes first, next month GI comes first(and viceversa). If that's true, for November sales GI will come earlier.
172
« on: December 14, 2013, 07:00 »
Unique home interiors already needed release. So, files with home interiors aproved without release shouldn't be affected.
173
« on: December 04, 2013, 18:40 »
Payoneer payed today without any problem.
174
« on: November 28, 2013, 18:09 »
One could argue that it is SS's success with selling at very low prices (for subs) that forces other site to compete on price.
Yep. A classic case of the race to the bottom. And despite good sales on SS, we are all paying the price in the long run.
Wise words.
very wise indeed but there is no other alternative, do you think I should rely on less than 100$ at IS?
Well, I don't know, that's up to you to consider. Certainly, I make much more of 100 per month at istock.
175
« on: November 28, 2013, 17:41 »
One could argue that it is SS's success with selling at very low prices (for subs) that forces other site to compete on price.
Yep. A classic case of the race to the bottom. And despite good sales on SS, we are all paying the price in the long run.
Wise words.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 ... 44
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
