|
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 - gostwyck
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 ... 210
101
« on: September 30, 2014, 14:05 »
^^^ Utterly pointless waste of time (and therefore money) for all involved. Istock could quickly block those spamming from uploading or just close their accounts.
102
« on: September 30, 2014, 09:55 »
Your Shutterstock RPD estimate is way off. Mine (and I'm just average but paid at the highest level) is in the .90 to $1 range
That's higher than anyone else I've seen report on here. Gostwyck didn't even argue with that RPD. From SS the average RPD is reported at 70 cents.
My RPD is at 70c this month with fairly good volume and earnings. It's not something I monitor regularly but I don't think I have ever known RPD to go much higher than 80c.
103
« on: September 30, 2014, 09:37 »
upload to ss, you will earn 5k$ with 10000 images per mounth
I doubt that most people with 10k images are making 5k/month on SS, or 6-7k, as said by stock-will-eat-itself. Maybe there are a few, but can anyone back that up?
I have over 5k images there and do well but hardly ever 3k/month even in better years.
People are making life decisions. They need realistic numbers.
I don't feel Cesar's numbers are too far off. They also agree with yours
he said 10K images for $5K or 50 cents/image online
You said 5k images for hardly ever over $3K (or 2.5K) which is also 50 cents/image online.
Perhaps you were arguing that you can't scale up from 5K images to 10K images and expect the same $/image.. but I think you can.
The average image on SS sells about .28 times per month (probably slightly less the next time the numbers are updated, collection size is growing faster than sales). So an average portfolio of 10,000 images would have 2,800 sales in a month. I think average RPD for people at the highest level is around 75 cents. That comes to around $2,100 per month.
I'd agree with your maths however Fotovoyager is significantly better than an 'average' contributor. Based on our relative sales at IS I'd expect his portfolio to generate about $3K per month at SS (once the highest level has been attained) and maybe another $2K per month at IS (as an independent), DT and FT together.
104
« on: September 30, 2014, 05:04 »
It appears that they only joined IS in August and have only 5 sales since. I thought you needed 250+ sales to become exclusive?
Looks like it may be another 'special' deal that Istock has done. As we've been told many times ... "Professionals deal with professionals".
105
« on: September 29, 2014, 16:51 »
I'm going climbing in the Himalayas for a month next week so I'll try to ignore the coming calamity until I get back.
Lobo's promised to drop by later to join in the conversation.
If it's any consolation, which I'm sure it won't be, the losses that Istock themselves are experiencing will be at least 50% more than yours. Their financials over the last couple of years must be absolutely horrendous.
106
« on: September 25, 2014, 17:54 »
I think some have just come through on my account.
107
« on: September 18, 2014, 18:24 »
Here's the marketing comparison.
www.shootonline.com/spw/getty-imagess-istock-disrupt-stock-photo-indy-bold-new-changes?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter
iStock by Getty Images vs Shutterstock comparison:
► iStock has 155K contributors from 165 countries vs. Shutterstock 60K+ contributors from 100+ countries
► Eighty percent of search results in key global markets are returned in under 3 seconds during core business hours on iStock, vs. 30% for Shutterstock
► Video HD from $48USD compared to $79USD for Shutterstock
► Minimum entry is $15USD vs. $29USD (2 images) at Shutterstock
► No daily download limits on subscriptions compared to a 25/daily download limit for Shutterstock
► Signature priced at $24-36USD per image (depending on pack size purchased)
Oh yeah! That must be why Istock is doing so much better than SS. We can all see that for ourselves in our sales and revenue. Not. Do you actually believe everything you read on the internet (provided it supports your own bizarre choices)? I don't even know what "Eighty percent of search results in key global markets are returned in under 3 seconds during core business hours on iStock, vs. 30% for Shutterstock" even means? Do you? What exactly are "core business hours" in a global enterprise? Is it sort of claiming that Istock's website works better than Shutterstock's? admin edit: removed crude language
108
« on: September 18, 2014, 14:41 »
Sales volume appears to be down somewhat for me although RPD has actually increased a bit. Pretty sure my income will be down though ... as indeed will the money that Istock makes from my sales.
It seems that every time Istock introduces a major change like this my income takes a kicking ... but the hit to Istock's revenue must be more than 4x greater.
Makes me wonder why they keep cutting their own throats.
109
« on: September 16, 2014, 14:13 »
When Getty bought IS they tried to increase pricing for the industry. THEN Shutterstock saw an opportunity to undercut IS and did. As they gained traction and buyers flocked to SS for Walmart pricing, IS lost customers to SS's "screw the artist" business model.
Revisionist history or, if you prefer, just plain wrong. Shutterstock was already established as a subscription site when I joined in early 2005. Getty bought iStockphoto in 2006. Subscriptions had been around for a few years before Getty started playing around with iStock's pricing.
True but SS could have worked with IS to raise pricing. But SS did not. Now SS owners are millionaires and the industry is forced to play on their terms.
Collusion perhaps but at least it was an attempt to get fairer pricing for our work.
Hopelessly wrong. Whatever you have dreamed up in your head has absolutely nothing to do with what actually happened. SS were, until relatively recently, an entirely subscription-based model. They almost doubled their prices (and also royalties) between 2004-2008 because they had very little competition. It was only when DT and then FT also introduced subscriptions that the prices became 'fixed'. None of those agencies have dared to raise subscription prices significantly since for fear of losing market share to each other. SS and IS were never really competing with each other in the early days. They had completely different business models and they operated in different market sectors. Neither were trying to 'undercut' each other because they weren't selling similar products. If you want someone to blame for "screwing the artist" there are plenty to choose from. They pretty much all worked for Istock, Getty and H&F. Unfortunately, in their greed-driven attempts to screw the customers and the contributors as hard as they could ... they've ended up screwing themselves. Except H&F of course. Somehow they got out just in time with $B's of cash in their pockets.
110
« on: September 13, 2014, 18:54 »
iStock's back online. The buyers' interface is certainly simpler, for what it's worth.
It's still 'early doors'. They'll be plenty more outages and general f*8k-ups before an even less functioning version of 'stability' is declared a "success". That's the way it is with Istock. Maybe this time they'll even have to strip out our identities as 'artists' to "reduce load on the servers". There's not much else they've got left. Everything else is already gone.
111
« on: September 13, 2014, 14:54 »
It was reported that Angry Birds and Brightest Flashlight, both install tracking software that monitors your travel. And it's in the license for the FREE app. I'm sure there are others.
You know what they say ... 'If You're Not Paying, You're The Product'
112
« on: September 11, 2014, 06:50 »
No Apple versus PC war. Just pure criticism on Apple 
I am a Mac user since 1998. My first OS was OS7. I was with apple during all those years, had Powerbooks, G4s, G5s, MacPros , Macbook, ibooks etc. For me, Apple started to get uninteresting with the iphone. I use macs for working. I like MacOSX. I do not give a s**t about iOS or the millions of guys who thinks having a apple device is cool. I prefer having a Terminal on my machine and as much ram as I can. Apple continiously ignores professional needs and thus those people who stood with Apple during the tough times. Last year I had no other option than switching to various other machines. My workstation now is a Hackintosh. Apple had no professional workstation to offer which was relevant. Most machines of the keyworders/uploaders are now on Ubunutu. Apple failed to provide a reliable WiFi network technology. Broken FTP pipes all the time, Wifi disconnects on 10.8...etc. This is a real problem if you send out 80GB every day.
Why should I care now about a watch?
I've been going in the opposite direction. Four years ago I needed a new laptop and, at the time, hadn't experienced modern Apple products. I therefore couldn't understand why the Apple equivalent cost 3x more than the apparently equivalent Toshiba. So I bought the Toshiba. Three years later, one change of motherboard and endless waiting for 'lock-up' events to finish, the Toshiba lies idle as worthless junk. I bought a Macbook Pro instead and just wish I'd bought it the first time around. I now understand why it costs 3x more. Because it is 10x better. I also bought two non-Apple MP3 players (believing the reviews on Amazon). They proved to a waste of money too which again I only realised after I eventually stumped up for an iPod. I'd have saved myself a lot of money, a lot of time and a lot of frustration if I'd have gone Apple from the start. I still have a PC running XP. I use it only for processing images just because I'm used to my workflow with PS CS (2003) which obviously wouldn't work on an Apple machine. If and when it dies I'm very unlikely to replace it with another Windows-based product. I don't particularly like Apple being so dominant (and expensive) in their field but their products are a joy to use and they make my life easier. I love making a change to my diary or contacts on one device and, almost miraculously, the change seamlessly appears on my Macbook, iPad and iPhone. What's not to like?
113
« on: September 10, 2014, 08:58 »
It doesn't really appeal to me (although I said that when they produced the iPad and I wouldn't be without one now!). It's just another thing to keep the battery charging. Good article on the Beeb's website on it; http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-29129039
115
« on: September 08, 2014, 04:29 »
A minute and a half to load my sad, sad August sales. 
I dream of it only taking a minute and a half to load my sad, sad August sales. It's just taken me at least 15 minutes to get the 'Financials' page to load so that I could cash-out. This is from a 'distributor' who take 82% of the sale's value.
116
« on: September 06, 2014, 06:35 »
How it should be. Like clockwork, month on month. Fair play to them for starting early(ish) two months in a row. Keep it up.
Huh? How it should be? Are you kidding? Every other agency is able to report every single sale in real time. That's how it should be. I'm not going to congratulate the ineptitude of the staff at Istock. What would I say? "Well done for only being one month late in your reporting rather than the usual two months ... or just when you can be bothered to do so. That's assuming you don't screw up completely again and spend the next six months clawing back the money from our accounts"
117
« on: September 03, 2014, 14:24 »
2. If #1 happens, they lose buyers so the next question is can they attract new buyers to replace them? There are A LOT of small buyers and they will likely end up over at SS. So I see potential volume as a whole going down if pricing goes up too far.
It looks to me like pricing is coming down to compete with SS, I don't see how they would lose buyers to them with the new pricing. SS charges 9 to 15 dollars per image for image packs, 1 credit at iStock probably will be less expensive than that don't you think?
ya thunk? the race to the bottom continues, how cool is that?
Yep, it's easy to see what pricing pressure from the biggest competitor is doing. Looks like they just announced that the pricing will be almost exactly what SS's is.
We all know that the increase in supply of stock images has been outstripping the increase in demand for years. We also all know what usually happens when supply exceeds demand. About the only thing keeping the situation relatively stable is the the buyers aren't really 'buying' our images (or licenses for them). What they are really doing is paying the agency for the service they provide in hosting our images and making them easy to find. Breaking news shocker! It turns out that Istock's 'service' wasn't worth paying a premium for over that provided by SS. Who'd have thought?
118
« on: September 03, 2014, 10:23 »
It looks to me like pricing is coming down to compete with SS, I don't see how they would lose buyers to them with the new pricing. SS charges 9 to 15 dollars per image for image packs, 1 credit at iStock probably will be less expensive than that don't you think?
Exactly. It's obvious that IS are trying to simplify the buyers' experience in order to compete more effectively with SS. I doubt very much that this is at the suggestion of Yuri. We have yet to see the new pricing architecture but my guess is that it will inevitably mean reduced revenues for both IS and Yuri (all of us actually). This move is simply a further retreat from the previously escalating prices that destroyed IS's market share. Probably too little and way too late anyway.
119
« on: September 01, 2014, 18:07 »
There are two other potentially very significant factors:
1. Likely decline in the market for cheap stock photo content. Many companies and other potential clients for stock photography have substantially switched to using social media. Today they are just as likely to re-share a picture which one of their customers ('friends') took on their iPhone and instantly shared. Also - today most professional blogs use free content supplied by the companies which they are writing about (promoting).
In the early 2000s everyone running a corner-shop or church choir thought that they needed to be on the web. And maybe they even printed a newsletter. Lots of little clubs and community groups used to have websites and blogs which potentially needed content. Today they are all on Facebook - and their users share iPhone photos.
2. iStock launched subs.
IMO microstock (cheap and relatively low production value stock) was a 2000s phenomenon. Today shared content (and free / bundled stock) is where it is going.
I'd agree with you. The overall decline in my sales has been slowly accelerating for well over a year at all agencies I sell through. I believe it is in part due to increased competition ... but I also think that demand for microstock images may have either stalled or is in decline. I mainly shoot food and I know that some niche subjects are completely saturated and have been for at least a couple of years now. It appears that the world has already got as many images as it needs in that subject. Nothing to stop you shooting and uploading more of them ... but good luck with getting a return on your investment and time. Maybe there's simply a limited number of buyers for that niche subject and maybe they have already bought as many images as they're ever likely to need in that subject? I don't know exactly what the reason is for the decline in volume and revenue in microstock generally but I wouldn't bet any money on it ever returning to the levels of 2-3 years ago.
120
« on: August 28, 2014, 20:26 »
Looks like the National Trust is getting serious. They've required SS to take down all images showing NT properties and nothing new can be added, including editorial.
http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=141415
Fair enough. The NT is a non-profit that also invests heavily in commissions for their chosen photographers. Mind you, at what distance can you legitimately shoot an icon such as Corfe Castle, owned by the NT, without it being deemed 'theirs' for example?
121
« on: August 28, 2014, 11:59 »
ANCIENT thread alert!
122
« on: August 22, 2014, 12:49 »
Personally I have full confidence in Shutterstock as a business, their technical capability and their reporting of all sales within a reasonable amount of time.
I've been with them since Nov 2004 and have never had an issue with them. I just wish I could say the same for some other agencies.
If an agency wanted to reduce money paid to contributors (especially a public quoted business who get audited to high standards) then they would be more likely to start with changes to the royalty structure, claw-backs due to 'fraud', etc, etc.
The SS website has had virtually zero downtime since day 1. All modifications to the site have been achieved seamlessly over many years. They are the last agency I would accuse of either incompetence or deliberate fraud ... which essentially s what the OP is accusing them of.
123
« on: August 19, 2014, 14:35 »
Sales aren't 'terrible' but I've certainly seen better.
If I held SSTK stock though I'd certainly be thinking of selling before they announced the results for Q3 2014. Difficult to believe that the greater company is still growing strongly despite my own numbers (and those that other contributors are reporting).
124
« on: August 18, 2014, 05:38 »
Istock has been slowly dying for about 4 years ago now. I don't know why anyone is still surprised by this. It started when they announced the RC system in Sept 2010 with the resulting catastrophic loss of goodwill from contributors and customers alike.
As sales have decreased Istock have invariably reacted by increasing prices of images or credits or both ... which then leads to further losses of sales. Those actions did help to maintain revenue for a couple of years but eventually they hit the buffers and, about a year ago, got to the point where they could not raise prices any further. That was when they drastically reduced the prices of the Main collection. The loss of sales continued however as customers found better and cheaper sources of images (like SS for example).
Istock is not coming back ... ever. Exclusives are reporting month-on-year reductions of 30-40% and that pretty much tallies with my own experience as an independent contributor. Judging by my data, and the inexorable downward path of sales and revenue, Istock will become increasingly 'irrelevant' for most contributors with every month that passes.
It could be worse. You could have decided that "Professionals deal with professionals" and signed an exclusive deal with them.
125
« on: August 16, 2014, 09:11 »
I didn't get this email ... don't know why ! But am I automatically opted in to this ? Hope not !
I didn't get the email either but I'm pretty sure that was because I had chosen to opt-out of 'Alliances and Partnerships'. It seems to me that these things always turn out to be bad for contributors. Go to 'Management Area' and then click on the Alliances button (towards the bottom R/H corner) to see if you are opted-in or out.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 ... 210
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
