|
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 ... 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 ... 210
176
« on: April 30, 2014, 13:19 »
Every day many requests are sent from Dollar Photo Club members wanting to purchase an Extended License. In response they are directed to Fotolia to make the purchase. Ive just been notified that Dollar Photo Club will soon be adding an Extended License. The commission paid to photographers will be an even $30 (US). The cost for the member for this license will be $50 resulting in a 60% commission rate for contributors.
If you have any questions, please email directly: [email protected]
I'm an Emerald contributor and I almost can't remember when I last had an EL at FT. Certainly none this year so far. In contrast I've had 9 ELs at SS this month. Guess which business I want to be "disrupted"?
177
« on: April 30, 2014, 12:21 »
I'll actually be in the US on that date, visiting friends in Maryland, but obviously I'm not going to Toronto for a 2 hour 'workshop'. Why Toronto anyway? If it was at the New York HQ I might have been tempted.
178
« on: April 30, 2014, 09:36 »
I try to not upload more than 10 - 15.
Sometime I see portfolios with full photo sessions with 100 or more images with the same subject.
I find it a little ridiculous, and from my point of view it does not even demonstrate a great professionally.
Do really those photographers posting all these images think that the customers have time to choose one photo among more than 100 of the same subject? O_o
When I work directly with customers or advertising agencies they generally ask me to chose the 10 - 20 best for them, so with microstocks I do the same.
Yeah, I am one of the ones who submits 100s, but the concepts of one shooting vary a lot! Usually I cover about 6 different subjects in a "storyboard" of one shoot.
But I get what you mean. I highly respect people like you who can edit so harshly. I could not. I wonder if economically it really gives the appropriate return for one shoot. I would be afraid that my 10 images get simply buried in the databases.
I just can't imagine that it can be worth your time and effort to process, keyword and upload so many similar images from the same shoot. I was quite surprised that your survey started with 'up to 50 shots'. I'd have thought that to be a maximum. You should be able to tell the good, the bad and the indifferent from a shoot. Then you can concentrate your time editing the images that matter. Having similar images can also damage your income as downloads may be spread between them so that none of the images attain good placement in the default sort order. I shoot food and I can easily take 150 shots of the same plate. It's rare for me to upload more than 4 or 5 images of that shoot though. Any more would likely waste my time and damage the long-term potential of the images.
179
« on: April 29, 2014, 16:22 »
I've said this before, but I think FT is a sinking ship and DPC is one strategy they hope to use to patch the holes/s.
1. DPC is not "for a special/select group" - anyone can sign up.
2. The purpose of DPC is NOT to serve an unserviced market segment. They can spin it however they want, but DPC is ONLY to expose a cheap visual asset outlet: SUBS. Shutterstock is known as a successful sub site, but Istock/Getty wasn't so IS had to do something to gain share (probably gain back share they lost to SS). So what did Istock/Getty do? They created Thinkstock in an attempt to steal share from SS. And this is exactly the reason FT created DPC. They tried to differentiate themselves by offering all those licensing features (unlimited print runs, no expiration, etc) but the reality is that these are very weak hooks. The biggest hook is that those images cost $1.....ANY SIZE, Vector or Photo. That single differentiator is the kiss of death for the FT contributor and simply adds grease to an already slippery micro stock hill to the bottom. I condone Mat for coming in here to defend FT, but he (FT) really doesn't have a good argument as it relates to contributors' financial health. I've said it earlier in this thread.....If DPC is successful it is successful ONLY for FT, not the contributor.
I think you must be right because the DPC will also destroy FT's own original business model. That's an incredibly risky strategy ... unless the original model really isn't working. If FT are struggling to build their current business at selling images say an average of $3 then they are going to need some serious volume to make it work at $1.
180
« on: April 29, 2014, 16:13 »
Just got a message from Andresr. He's in!
From Boycotfotolia.org:
28-04-2014 17:13:50 Name: Andresr
Will remove 34000 out of 34000 works on the 1st May.
Comment: The dollar photoclub is the worst thing that has happened to us, its time all these taking advantage of photographers stops.
Looks like Andres' images are no longer available on DPC. Result.
181
« on: April 29, 2014, 15:56 »
^^^ Shut up about Symbiostock. Keep this on topic. Fotolia and the DPC.
182
« on: April 29, 2014, 14:40 »
I've just compared my statistics for March and April 2014 to the same months in 2013. In both cases I have sold about 15% more images this year that last ... but made less money. Great. The "Dollar Photo Club Effect" in action I guess.
183
« on: April 29, 2014, 10:25 »
FT have added the option to OPT OUT OF DPC. You can find it on the 'My Account' Page under 'Actions'. The 'default' value is 'OPT IN'. I have modified to change it to 'OPT OUT'.
Thanks for pointing this out. Done.
Let's see how long it takes for my portfolio to be removed from the "wonderful opportunity to grow your revenue" (... whilst potentially destroying it everywhere else).
I'm pleased to report that the 'opt out' facility appears to work very quickly. My images are still appearing in the searches (presumably until the database re-indexes) however they are not clickable or able to be downloaded. The bad news is that A LOT of excellent images from other contributors are still available. We need to get the word out to all our friends in the business.
184
« on: April 29, 2014, 08:02 »
FT have added the option to OPT OUT OF DPC. You can find it on the 'My Account' Page under 'Actions'. The 'default' value is 'OPT IN'. I have modified to change it to 'OPT OUT'.
Thanks for pointing this out. Done. Let's see how long it takes for my portfolio to be removed from the "wonderful opportunity to grow your revenue" (... whilst potentially destroying it everywhere else).
185
« on: April 28, 2014, 16:00 »
Press release from Fotolia saying they're expanding to other countries because of this stinker's success
http://www.bizcommunity.com/Article/196/16/112677.html
Shocking. It seems to me that FT have accepted that they have lost the battle to dominate the microstock market ... so they thought they'd use our images to invent the "nanostock" model. The use of the phrase "disruptive offering" means exactly what it says. Having lost out to SS they are now, quite literally, trying to destroy microstock itself.
186
« on: April 28, 2014, 15:51 »
Hi All,
I can tell you with 100% confidence that the Fotolia team cares very much for the photographers and respects your opinions and feedback. Your concerns about being in Dollar Photo Club have been heard and Ive been told that soon an option for contributors to choose will be made available to all Fotolia contributors. In the meantime if you do not want your images sold through Dollar Photo Club send your request via a Fotolia customer support ticket and you will be manually removed.
A couple of points of interest. Contrary to what has been posted earlier in this thread, every dollar spent by a Dollar Photo Club member goes towards a download. Every image downloaded at DPC is paid to the artist through Fotolia immediately. Monthly members pay $10 per month and receive 10 downloads. Annual members pay $99 and receive 99 downloads. Each of those downloads pay a commission to the contributing artist.
Something you may not have considered is that the Dollar Photo Club membership actually is more beneficial to the contributors than traditional subscriptions. In a traditional subscription if the sub expires, unused downloads also expire. As a result, no commission is paid. At Dollar Photo Club, even after a member cancels their subscription they can use their unused downloads. As a result, a higher percentage of money spent goes to the photographer.
Another misconception is the license. The license sold via Dollar Photo Club is a Standard license. Members that need Extended licenses are referred to Fotolia to purchase them. Soon an Extended License will be made available to Dollar Photo Club members at rates similar to those at Fotolia.
The simple truth of the matter is this. The only way for Fotolia and/or Dollar Photo Club to be successful is for the contributors to be successful. Regardless of what has been written in msg, the interests of FT and of the contributors are aligned. The goal for all parties involved is to drive sales. Dollar Photo Club has already proven to be successful and has resulted in many sales paid out to contributors. The site will continue to grow and to push sales in a positive direction for all of us.
-Mat Hayward
I have to say I'm really disappointed that this post from Mat was marked down so many times it has been made 'invisible'. Mat's only trying to help us here by clarifying the issues and I appreciate his efforts in doing so. Let's not 'shoot the messenger' so to speak just because we disagree with FT's somewhat desperate new policies.
187
« on: April 25, 2014, 17:11 »
Agreed. For me, RPD has grown exponentially for 10 years straight.
It will be interesting to see how subs affect RPD vs overall income for exclusives. Will it add to it or just eat away at high value sales?
Yes it will be interesting to see. Here are my RPD increases over the last 6 years:
99%
32%
68%
40%
36%
32%
These are just regular sales, not including extended licenses or PP or GI stuff. Since they're reporting subs separately like an additional revenue stream, I don't think many people will pay much attention to RPD or even include subs into their analysis. Any effect on regular credit/cash downloads and sales are what people will pay attention to.
What order are those numbers in? Is 99% the latest year or the first year you started? Please specify which numbers relate to which year.
188
« on: April 25, 2014, 12:01 »
In a way, yes. When it comes to "sympathy" in the context of microstock, Shutterstock is the first thing that comes to my mind. They seem to be open, listening, inventive, all very positive attributes. And they progressively have evolved from their "subscription, cheap images" model to attracting more buyers paying more than just a few cents.
Then again, because they were so successful with their model, they probably had even more impact in the "devaluation" of stock images than any other place. There is a lot of things I blame iStock/Getty to have done (and still do) wrong but at least they took some effort in taking that "images from $1" approach to move buyers into higher price levels. They did it in a wrong, sneaky way for both, customers and contributors. And that's why they are not my favorites these days.
But I don't see that effort from Shutterstock yet at all. And because they have been very successful with all the other stuff they do, they are the ones who put on the most pressure on other agencies to lower prices. So in a way... while my RPD with Shutter is growing consistently, I also partly blame them it's still at $0.50 or $0.60 rather than $2 or $4.
SS didn't 'devalue' microstock. When I joined them in 2004 they were paying 20c for a sub download which at the time was the same royalty I got from IS for a Medium sale. They were exactly in the middle of the market. SS then increased prices steadily but carefully (but not as quickly as IS) through until about 2008. Unfortunately by then every other agency (apart from IS) tried to emulate and often undercut SS with their own subs packages. The market for subs became too competitive for any agency to dare increase prices. SS won from that point by simply offering a better service to the customer than the others. The other agencys' answer was mainly to prop up their profitability by reducing our royalties. Credit to SS for not doing the same. I wouldn't however give much credit to IS/Getty for increasing prices. They weren't doing it for us __ it was all for themselves. It was also done in such a ham-fisted and greedy manner that it was bound to fail. And so it has proved. When IS/Getty decided we were earning too much money then they introduced the ridiculous RC system to grab yet more of the pie for themselves. Why pay the artists 20% when you might be able to get away with as little as 15%? Why pay exclusive diamonds 40% if you can get them down to say 30%? Whilst we're at it why not separate the RC totals for illustrators and photographers? That way we can reduce contributors' earnings even more. SS are growing their business (and ours). The growth however isn't coming from subs but mainly from all the higher priced image products that they are selling instead. As Jo Ann has pointed out the subs part of SS is now only about 40% of the total. It seems to me that it is only on SS that RPD is consistently growing (and has been for some years now). Everywhere else it has been moving in the wrong direction __ especially at IS.
189
« on: April 25, 2014, 04:53 »
They have the goals already set for 'regular people' though. It would be fun / nice to have a few more goals for the full time stock photographers. I'm guessing the top 100 or so photographers on Shutterstock make the top goal requirements every month. A goal in the $100,000 or $200,000 lifetime earnings range wouldn't be so ridiculous.
I'd definitely vote for a rate increase at $100K ... because I passed that milestone last month!
Good job. I hearted you for that milestone. And congrats to Sean, Too.
Thanks! To be honest I think a good deal of the credit is probably due to SS themselves. Amazing that they've managed to shift such a volume of my images, most of which are just photos of my dinner before I eat it! It's always a bit bizarre being constantly reminded, through daily image sales, of the meals that I eat several years ago.
190
« on: April 25, 2014, 04:38 »
Wow. Just Wow.
I'm grateful to at least have an explanation for the sudden extreme drop. You obviously have a stronger stomach than I do to have delved into the situation. Thanks for doing that!
Sounds completely FUBAR over there. Makes me wonder if they are now directing all their resources toward implementing the subs program at Istock with an eye toward an eventual phase-out of Thinkstock. It certainly hasn't proven to be the Shutterstock killer they had hoped. But then, I suspect nothing will be.
It certainly doesn't look like they'll be much more investment at TS any time soon with subs now available on IS. If anything TS probably became more of an 'IS Killer' than harming SS. Especially with Getty sales reps phoning up their own customers. The trouble is, as we know from recent experience, how much confidence can we actually have in the reporting system? With some people reporting massive increases in sales and others significant losses (and other artists' images in my portfolio) how do we even know that whatever sales do happen are actually being attributed to the correct accounts?
191
« on: April 24, 2014, 05:58 »
They have the goals already set for 'regular people' though. It would be fun / nice to have a few more goals for the full time stock photographers. I'm guessing the top 100 or so photographers on Shutterstock make the top goal requirements every month. A goal in the $100,000 or $200,000 lifetime earnings range wouldn't be so ridiculous.
I'd definitely vote for a rate increase at $100K ... because I passed that milestone last month!
192
« on: April 24, 2014, 05:53 »
I wouldn't worry. My PP sales are on a par with Feb, which was my lowest ever, so it's more likely just a search order shuffle.
Gostwyck hasn't weighed in again, but my sales are also about 30% down on the norm, assuming the month is concluded.
I finished the month a full 30% down from expectations, maybe a bit more. So I decided to do a few test searches to see where my images turned up in the default sort-order and ... oh dear, what a mess. I clicked on the first image of mine that I found and was surprised to see that it was now actually credited to me as the artist (as opposed previously to just IS). Even better, the name is also clickable so that you can view the artist's portfolio. Anyway, when I clicked on my name I only had a portfolio of 1100 images __ that's about one quarter of what it should have been. Even worse, a few of the images within 'my portfolio' weren't even my images. Some other images were completely corrupted too. I then did a search on "my name", the way we used to have to do to find our stuff on TS. This time my entire portfolio of 4600 images turned up (including the ones that weren't mine and also the corrupted stuff). After a bit more digging around with various searches I found that when I clicked on one of my own images, and then clicked on my name to view my portfolio, about 50% of the time I got my 'reduced portfolio' and other times I got my full portfolio. Overall the search results were a total mess anyway with completely irrelevant stuff dominating the Best Match and most of the good stuff buried well below. I think the site has just descended into deeper levels of uselessness and unreliability and that is probably the explanation for the massive swings in monthly sales. Heigh ho.
193
« on: April 23, 2014, 16:30 »
Made it to the $.36 level if anyone cares. Honestly, from some of the posts here, I would have thought I'd make it faster that this.
So would I a few months ago (mind you, I'd also have thought you would have had 10K images on SS by now!). In my experience it has become much more difficult to get new images to take off this year. Some still do but many more fall by the wayside than before. I guess it has something to do with the 1M new images added each month nowadays. Most of them are crap and full of wrong keywords but they still have the effect of quickly burying quality images in the 'Newest' sort-order. Hopefully it will only cause a temporary 'lag' in the ability of decent images to climb the default sort-order. The cream should still rise to the top, it's just going to take a bit longer to do so.
194
« on: April 21, 2014, 13:25 »
No.
195
« on: April 19, 2014, 07:18 »
I haven't been on this board in awhile. I have been exclusive at istock since 2005. I finally gave notice last week that I am going non-exclusive. Does anyone have any advice for me? Any warnings? What do expect?
congratulations. it isn't easy, but going non-exclusive was the right move when I did the same well over a year ago now. get your files organized and do your homework on the agencies. and diversify. that has been my strategy. we're in an industry in flux right now. it's difficult to plunk any move or agency into "good" or "bad". the variables are different for each of us. all in all, independence works and is liberating if you work hard and keep your expectations realistic. I liked MichaelJay's comment about keeping his work with a hand-picked number of more reputable agencies (my words, not his, but paraphrasing). I have taken the same approach. there are too many small guys out there and the ROI just isn't there.
be your own hero. sounds cheesy, but I mean it.
Stacey quick question for you...
I gather you recently left Stocksy for what ever reason and from what I hear of your own accord.
You liked MJay's comment of sticking with reputable agencies. Does this mean you don't feel Stocksy is reputable? Or is it more that you feel you can do better with your imagery elsewhere?
I think Stacey has already answered your question with her observation that "there are too many small guys out there and the ROI just isn't there." You can't leave exclusive work at an agency if it is not generating adequate income.
196
« on: April 18, 2014, 08:41 »
With a third of the month in so far my download numbers are looking to be about 30% down from the norm.
197
« on: April 16, 2014, 18:08 »
Hi,
4 weeks ago one of my employees made that joke and the whole team were laughing their heads of:
"Wait a while - soon SS will ask for a PR of the tatoo-artist if you shoot a portrait and the person has a tatoo."
Oh boy - what a laughter....
You should never make jokes like that............
Rejected:
"TATTOOS-We require a property release from the tattoo artist for all prominent tattoos"
Example: http://www.axellauer.de/wp-content/uploads/slider-paula-mandy.jpg
And for this one i have to send you 12 PRs???
http://www.axellauer.de/wp-content/uploads/slider-anna-just.jpg
What comes next....??
PR from Dolce & Gabana if a model wears a D&G coat?
Oh no, i am sure it will be like this:
You need a PR from the farmer who owns the sheep D&G made that coat from the model wears on your shooting.
Thats the future.
Strange that its always SS which makes these "special" rules.
Why dont they invent something useful instead?
BTW:
I heard there will be a new agency with 90% split for the photographers in the first year and not less than 75% forever , no subsystem and you set your price yourself and they have a big print-company in the background as financial sponsors.
Does anyone knows more about that?
what's the big deal? just get a property release. problem solved.
On what planet are you living??
On what planet are you living? Why don't you respect the copyright of other artists who work in a different format than you have chosen? What if someone made a painting or an illustration (or a tattoo) of one of your images for example? How is that 'different'?
198
« on: April 11, 2014, 19:29 »
F**ks sake. I'm getting so bored of these petty point-scoring posts that are filling MSG lately. I can barely be bothered to read such nonsense, much less to offer any considerations.
Stop it. Let's be more professional. I believe someone once said "professionals deal with professionals". On MSG it is becoming "lonely, sad f*ckwits deal with other lonely, sad f*ckwits".
199
« on: April 08, 2014, 17:24 »
We signed on for some less than decent deals, but no one signed on for these crazy partner programs and redistribution arrangements. Most of these things, just like Dollar Photo Club, have come into existence after the fact.
And when I started in microstock, there were some partner deals already in place but nothing like what we have today. Certainly not like the DP stuff where neither the artist nor the company have any idea sometimes who the partners are and where the images end up.
So in short, no, I didn't accept this.
Nor me. I'm absolutely shocked at this development. I am seriously thinking of cancelling my FT account unless we can be provided with an opt-out for this madness.
200
« on: April 08, 2014, 14:14 »
I've only just noticed the DPC banners and then this thread. It's actually much worse than it first appears. On the splash page it says this; $1 an image. Always.
26 million high-res images and vectors
Business-ready royalty free license
Unlimited print runs
Unlimited image use
Social media ready "Unlimited image use" basically means every image downloaded is effectively a free EL for any use whatsoever doesn't it? So we're getting a few cents for EL's courtesy of the DPC?
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 ... 210
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
