|
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 ... 35 36 37 38 39 [40] 41 42 43 44
976
« on: December 09, 2008, 20:20 »
That depends on how you define "top micro shooters". I certainly don't agree at all. I mean, with the "most" part.
And saying that IS can't control the price market when it uses to stablish the trend (in the past, other micros have always raised prices after IS has done it) and when IS is generating more than one million weekly on photographer's payouts, is, in my view, a little daring.
977
« on: December 09, 2008, 15:10 »
Well, they are talking about 200.000 high priced files in 2009 first quarter. That's about 5% of the collection, and exclusive files are about (I think) 35-45%. I don't think any exclusive will have all of their files there, and, anyway, it has already been suggested that exlusives will have a say in the tagging.
978
« on: December 05, 2008, 22:22 »
At every micro site you and me will have files that won't sell anyhing, zero, or one or two dowloands every six months. But obviously, nobody's files sell all only one time, not at SS not a IS, nowhere. So, you could sell the same file 500 times at a subs micro or 500 times at IS or to Fotolia or whatever, and you can get 0,30 dollars x 500 (150 dollars) or until 11 dollars x 500 (5,500 dollars). There's a difference. RPIS is not related with that at all, you're mixing things.
979
« on: December 05, 2008, 20:55 »
Kind of demagogic. We can't know in advance who will buy each file, nor what the buyer will do with it, and if for printing big, any microstock buying cost will be and almost irrelevant percentage of printing costs, you must know that. We were talking of revenue comparing subs to regular sales. About that, having in the last six months an RPIS (Return per Image Sold) of 2.20 dollars I just can state that it's almost 8 times more than 0.30 cents.
980
« on: December 05, 2008, 08:34 »
We would be prepared to pay the $ for the image yes ... BUT - and this is the thing - instead of buying 10 images we would only buy 1 - that means less sales for the photographers - our budget would not change so the number of purchases we make would have to be drastically less .... I do not see how this helps the micro photographer - when we are talking about micro I honestly think that its more about volume and less about price ....
That's the point. Even in that extreme example 1/10, 35 cents or so can't compare with the 11 dollars I can get and get often for an XXL sale. Subs can be good for certain buyers, but bad for contributors.
981
« on: December 04, 2008, 22:59 »
...but this goes both ways. Te effort tha some sites have had to do to keep some top contributers, means that this contributer's files can cost there 2 or three times what cost at istock.
982
« on: December 04, 2008, 22:05 »
Frankly, I don't see any benefit to either exclusives pushing exclusivity or independents pushing non-exclusivity.
IMHO we have all made our decisions based on what business model works best for us, and in no way benefit from convincing anyone else to go our way.
For example, if most independents were to become istock exclusive it would very much dilute exclusive benefits.
At the same time, if a significant number of exclusives (or just a few of the best ones) were to begin uploading to the other sites it would most likely mean a dilution of sales for many independents.
The system as it works now seems like a good balance (my complaints about the recent best match notwithstanding). I think it is in everyone's best interest for istock to keep its exclusives happy and preserve that balance.
Rigth. And what's more; I tend to doubt that some of the other site's improvements for contributors (ranks at fotolia, extra bonus per no. image dl's at dreamstime, etc...) would had happen if not for the fact that these sites were losing contributors, and sometimes top contributors to istock-exclusivity . Have not proof, of course, is just an opinion, but I think that IS exclusivity has been and is positive for all shooters, IS exclusives or independants.
983
« on: December 04, 2008, 11:52 »
Number alone (btw, including countless repetions from different angles) never has guaranteed prestige, and in this and other business, it's a weekest argument than exclusive content. The upload limits allow IS to have what others don't have and a great percentage of the best of what the others have.
Why do you think IS exclusives are best of all others?  There are lots of nonexclusive contributors who are better than IS exclusives  I don't want to start mention Yuri and others .... Maybe IS will have exclusive images, but noone can't guarantee that IS will have better images.
Few thousands of exclusives can never cover the field of new ideas as hundreds of thousands nonexclusives can. People will get bored in time...
Read my post again. I didn't say that at all, no matter what I think. What I said is that uploads limits push many non-exclusives to select their best wor to upload to istock.
984
« on: December 04, 2008, 11:33 »
Number alone (btw, including countless repetions from different angles) never has guaranteed prestige, and in this and other business, it's a weekest argument than exclusive content. The upload limits allow IS to have what others don't have and a great percentage of the best of what the others have.
985
« on: December 04, 2008, 10:59 »
Maybe yes, but they will find the same "different" images at all the other agencies, no matter which one. Only istock will have really "diferent" images,
986
« on: December 03, 2008, 11:53 »
LOL Come on i can point you out thousands of clear copies at istockphoto and no-one of these members got banned because of this.
Are you sure?
Added: BTW the coment about Lise Gagn is false, but its has no importance, because it doesn't portrait her; it portraits you and your feelings.
987
« on: December 03, 2008, 10:35 »
exclusivity in a microstock environment doesn't make sense. Images are so easy the reproduce, it's just a matter of time before all IS images are also available at other agencies.
my tip : see what sells well by IS exclusives and isn't found on other sites in large numbers -> then begin shooting  Don't think you're a thief. I've several examples of exclusives doing the same to non-exclusive images and then outrunning them because they are exclusive. So go and get them
Do it flagranty and words like "deactivating" or "banned" will take a special meaning for you. It wouldn't be the first time, at all.
988
« on: December 02, 2008, 12:41 »
Please, don't quote me out of context by deleting some of the middle tetxt. Thanks!
989
« on: December 02, 2008, 11:29 »
I see it easier. I think istock simply is simply doing what most businees of any kind would do: Emphasizing what they have and competition dont, in this case exclusive files. At the same time, this acts like another perk to get and keep exclusives. Yes, there are some posts of people that say I was thinking of going exclusive, but now..., but actually, less than one of every 100 contributors posts at the forums. I dont know at what rate is increasing the number of exclusives; but if I do an exclusive-content-limited search with any keyword and repeat it two or three weeks later I discover that the number of results has increased really fast. I think that's a good strategy.
And maybe non-exclusive good shots are being rejected for keywords or whatever, I wont discuss that because I really cant know, but saying that exclusive crap is being approved because its exclusive is false, unfair and mean. From time to time you see in the recent uploads page some dubious file that seems to have sneaked through the inspectors net; some of them are exclusive, some non-exclusive.
990
« on: November 30, 2008, 11:11 »
et more. A win-win
A final note: why this may not happen.
I agree with that particular point.
991
« on: November 27, 2008, 21:09 »
Not criticising, but I've done sessions like that, and rigth now, I prefer to concentrate in quality and getting the rigth shot I have in mind, although that costs me tenwty or 40 minutes and a number of tries and approaches. I've even made one shot in a three hours outdoors nigth session. I 've discovered that so done, the shots sell way better.
992
« on: November 27, 2008, 18:37 »
Great 3D work by an exclusive istocker, but I don't understand how is that related with what we were talking, if you are talking to me. 3D substiuing photography? Please, come on. 3D has its place, as vectors, flash, photography, etc have theirs.
993
« on: November 27, 2008, 17:59 »
Yes, ten years ago nobody have hear of micro. But, curiously enough, these years I never read any prophecy saying "New agencies will come selling pics at 10 c and will dent on RF and MR stock". I read other prophecies about the future of stock that never went to reality. Future is unknown. Had I acted according with prophecies I've read from the wake of microstock (or from the beggining of my involvment in microstock) rigth now I woul have lost a lot of money and opportunities.
994
« on: November 27, 2008, 17:18 »
In all these years, I've heard so many disastrous prophecies for microstock (one of them, but not the only one, that Gety had bougth IS just to close it), without any of them coming to reality that I tend to take your projections of future with a grain of salt. I any case, never let that what may (or not) happen in the future spoil your brigth present. If some disaster occurs, we'll worry when it happens, and many of us will find new ways to stay afloat.
995
« on: November 25, 2008, 19:40 »
Hi Loop,
If you truly want to share your data please do I think there are far more of us here that want to hear the real story rather than just one side. If people don't share then how will we ever know. If no Istock Exclusives or non-exclusives post what is really taking place then we are all wasting our time here and the data is mute. Please share.
Best,
AVAVA
Well, I'm up, not very much but probably getting BME for money and dl's this month, which is not strange for November. Not a great increase in downloads comparing to November 2007, but yes on money, due to EL's and higher prices. And, although I've been uploading, this year, my folder has been 25% dilluted in the istock collection, due to the exponential increase in new photographers and new files. RPI going always up since first day.
996
« on: November 25, 2008, 17:09 »
Right now sales mostly depend on wherever you are exclusive to IS or not.
Your sales depend mostly on the fact your images have a use to a buyer and has nothing to do if your exclusive or not.
I don't think so, shank. In my perception, Exclusives have a little push on the best match, and is rigth and is good in that way. I'm exclusive. On the other hand, even in the monthly report at IS forums I've never felt like reporting great sales or BMEs when other, exclusives or not, are complaining about downfalls. Maybe I'm vrong, but I fear someone with worst luck would resent it. Actually, I've more prone to post if my sales have been down, and I thnk this is a general feeling. So, I wont't detail my monthly tendence, but I've voted.
997
« on: November 24, 2008, 19:19 »
Nothing that I already didn't know (although sometimes I forget something in the heat of the sessions). I don't say that to sound arrogant, but to show how much can be learned in a handful of years of microstock, coming from almost zero in what concerns to stock photography. I would add something:
"Reading professional advice is good and helps, but what you won't never forget is what you learn by trial an error".
998
« on: November 24, 2008, 12:14 »
did you ever consider possibility that money is not the only thing in somebody's life?
Of course, according to monthly earning records published in this same forum I would earn more as an independant uploading everywhere as you do. There are several great sites, but I like istock, even if probably losing some money.
999
« on: November 24, 2008, 11:47 »
People complain because they want things done properly.
And you think complaining here will achieve that goal?
it may not be to you , but where there's smoke there's fire.
the collective we , to you, are bias against IS. and you, as a toadie, sees differently.
so , at least we both agree to disagree. a toadie is any other form is still a toadie.
Well, it may be said in another form, i.e.: "The collective"is against the fact that independents don't get more perks, don't have their files on the first pages of every possible searches, don't get any spam in what they may incur aprroved and cheered". But as have been said here, to be exclusive or not is just a choice; when choosing to be independent you keep your sales at other, six, ten or twewnty sites. Many of you talk monthly, event boost, of fantastic earnings at these sites, I cheer you for that, but I resent a little bit when seeing someone -not all, of course- trolling for more and more. If you really think that being exclusive has so many advantages, and according to istock rules, you are free to join as long you have 250 or 500 downloads. If you think that uploading to istock being independant is a loss of time, you know you can freely leave. Personally, I don't think many independents will do that, because, after all, being independent is about uploading everywhere, and istock is one of the active sites where --selling much or less-- every dowload gives a larger return in real dollars.
1000
« on: November 24, 2008, 10:22 »
Agree with loop. There certainly isn't any copyspace here. Not particularly joyful, etc...
This is why people who complain about keywords need to post an image to show their case.
Sean, I forgot to mention that I don't do keywording by myself anymore and outsorce it to wordsforimages.com, which is a professional service working accordingly to Getty guidelines and is managed by Shannon Routzahn, who did keywording for superstock for about 8 years....
I don't think professionals do keyword spamming for their clients!! 
Talking about copyspace, one of the photos of this series has been licenced to Zweute Hand for their new advertisement, which found enough copyspace to insert 1 object (note that all 5 photos of this series have been taken from the same angle or slightly different).
Further, none of 10 other agencies (between microstock and midstocks) pointed out any keyword spamming....nor that some keywords are inappropriate.
... 
Seriously, if this photo has copy space, no matter who keyworded it, then allt he six or so million of photos at microstock sites have it too.
Pages: 1 ... 35 36 37 38 39 [40] 41 42 43 44
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
