MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Show Posts

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 - caspixel

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 ... 41
26
iStockPhoto.com / Re: Buyers Bailing on Istock
« on: May 13, 2012, 10:05 »

Actually, they *would* stop buying. Microstock made stock photos much more accessible to a wide variety of customers who did not use photos before. They would just go back to not using photos, until another microstock site popped up. The crowd-sourcing model has also hurt designers. I see logos advertised for $5, or at 99designs, people compete and design logos FOR FREE on the off chance that one of their designs might be selected. And, of course, *everyone* is a web designer these days. So many designers, especially ones who service small businesses, have been forced to lower their prices more and more. Also, don't forget the wide swath of non-designers who could never afford photography before microstock(teachers, bloggers, some churches, non-profits). They'll be gone. Add the still struggling economy into that mix and you will find that access to images will once again be relegated to an elite group. And a lot of photographers will be stuck with photos of apples and background textures that will not sell at higher prices. Let's also face the fact that some microstock photos aren't worth mid-stock or more prices.

Be careful what you wish for.

No way they would stop buying, unless they go out and take pics themselves, no way, it isnt worth it, and its not a break against the law either. Remember, we are not talking automotive industry here, we are talking pictures, as example, instead of selling a pic for 10 bucks, make it 20, etc, etc.

Warren!  there is no law against this,
[/quote]

Yes, they absolutely would stop buying. Stop being so arrogant as to think the world can't live without photos. It did before and it would again if the price was cost prohibitive. Here's a for-instance for you. I create FB banners for people. Most people (especially since Facebook is a free service) are not going to spend a hefty amount tricking out their Facebook page, but, priced right (say under $100), you can actually sell quite a few of them. Am I going to buy a $50 or $100 photo for such a design? Nope. I'll come up with another solution. I might even get a decent point and shoot and start talking some photos myself. Heck, even some phones are taking quality high-res photos these days. After all, it's not the camera,  that takes the great photo, it's the person, right?

BTW, if all the microstock industry got together and decided to fix prices, it is absolutely against the law. It is called collusion and it has happened before.

27
iStockPhoto.com / Re: iStock surveying buyers again...
« on: May 13, 2012, 09:48 »
I totally agree. I'm saying all the time, that the prices should go up, quadruple at least. They're absurd at the moment, especially if you look at the quality of the best images (only a few %, but that's more than enough to find a good image for most subjects)

they should go up anyways, inflation is pretty bad in europe but even more here in asia, here it's running at 10-20% per year for many items and 5-10% for anything else with some goods peaking at 100-200% compared to 2011.

all this is first and foremost reflected in the average cost of transportation and the production costs are therefore skyrocketing but agencies are still paying peanuts, selling less than before, and pretending to slash royalty fees even more.

So you don't think these issues also affect the people who buy photos?

28
iStockPhoto.com / Re: Buyers Bailing on Istock
« on: May 13, 2012, 09:39 »

Where would the buyers go?  they would have no option but to buy, they still need pictures, dont they,  so they would have to buy regardless of the price increase, since the prices across the board are all the same, after the increase.


Actually, they *would* stop buying. Microstock made stock photos much more accessible to a wide variety of customers who did not use photos before. They would just go back to not using photos, until another microstock site popped up. The crowd-sourcing model has also hurt designers. I see logos advertised for $5, or at 99designs, people compete and design logos FOR FREE on the off chance that one of their designs might be selected. And, of course, *everyone* is a web designer these days. So many designers, especially ones who service small businesses, have been forced to lower their prices more and more. Also, don't forget the wide swath of non-designers who could never afford photography before microstock(teachers, bloggers, some churches, non-profits). They'll be gone. Add the still struggling economy into that mix and you will find that access to images will once again be relegated to an elite group. And a lot of photographers will be stuck with photos of apples and background textures that will not sell at higher prices. Let's also face the fact that some microstock photos aren't worth mid-stock or more prices.

Be careful what you wish for.

29
iStockPhoto.com / Re: iStock surveying buyers again...
« on: May 09, 2012, 17:18 »
Remember when it was cool to be an istocker? By gum how things have changed.  :D

Dagnabbit!

30
iStockPhoto.com / Re: iStock surveying buyers again...
« on: May 09, 2012, 16:38 »
okay.. not to drag all of you back on to the main topic... :)  but thought I'd share some more with you about the survey.  I did complete it.  It is geared towards buyers.  Basically they asked about what other agencies I buy from and how often I bought from iStock last year as well as whether or not I would be buying more this year.  

Then based on my responses of the other agencies I bought from last year they had me compare them.  some of the questions included these below.  I am copying them verbatim (i did a few screenshots).  You'll see references to StockFresh and Dreamstime because aside from the one image I bought at iStock last year, I purchased images from those other two agencies last year.  oh and the caps and format is exactly as it was in the questions (you'll see what I mean below):

Quote
What would improve the variety of iStock images?  (choose up to 3 of these):
  • more local/regional images
  • more images from individual contributors
  • more images from professional photographers
  • make it easier to find unique and intersting content
  • more curated collections
  • more current and contemporary images
  • here's another idea:  (with empty box to fill in your comments)

What else could we do to make iStock more convenient for you? (choose up to 3 of these)
  • allow cash purchase
  • push pictures to me that i might want to use
  • improve key-wording
  • there are too many image sizes to choose from; give me fewer size choices
  • offer more customer support
  • there are too many image collections to choose from; fewer collections would be better
  • let me make a lightbox without having to register
  • here's another idea:  (with empty box to fill in your comments)

Some stock companies are more hip and fresh than others.  How COOL are iStock, StockFresh and Dreamstime?
(beneath this there was a scale bar for each agency where you pick between a range of "not at all cool; 180 degrees from cool" to "One of the coolest stock companies out there")

What could we do to increase iStock's cool quotient? (choose up to 3 of these)
  • Too late - iStock used to be cool but it's not anymore
  • Emphasize contributors
  • Change the look of the site - it needs updating
  • Improve the contents; add more hip, fresh images
  • Here's something else iStock could do: (empty box to add comments)

I answered it honestly and truthfully as a buyer.  At the end when they asked for additional suggestions I basically told them what they should already know - that this may be too little too late and that their biggest loyal customers and biggest marketing feature used to be their contributors.  but the treatment they have given to them has caused many buyer/contributors, like me, to shop elsewhere.  not to mention the increase in the prices.  I also mentioned that they could be more respectful and professional towards anyone (contributors and buyers) in the public forums.  

so there you have it. I didn't include all the questions, obviously, there were about 25 of them but I think you get the gest of it from what I posted above.  It was okay but really all this stuff they should know already.  

oh, and they must have hired some firm to do this research. the logo that was pasted at the top of the generic looking page was very crappy looking!  not very professional looking for iStock, if you ask me. but hey, maybe it's COOL!

Were there really no questions about price or answers that included pricing options in them? No mention at all about the price increases? Why are they so hung up on curated collections? I've been buying microstock for nine years now and I've never once cared about a curated collection.  How dumb about the "too many image sizes". No one has ever complained about that. They really are beyond hope. LOL

31
iStockPhoto.com / Re: iStock surveying buyers again...
« on: May 09, 2012, 16:07 »
Aww, they're so cute.
I wonder who writes this stuff for IS? The Pink Fairy?
And I wonder, will they be sending this email to Caspixel?
Perhaps together with an apology for the way they treated her?


Thanks for thinking of me! Just for the record, I did not get any survey. :D

32


That could be a good thing. In fact how could it get any worse? Images are sold for peanuts and we get, on average, 30% out of it.

Too funny. You obviously weren't there at the beginning of microstock, when the images were free and then started selling for something like 25 cents. :D

33
iStockPhoto.com / Re: Istock exclusive price rise again
« on: May 02, 2012, 10:31 »
It's okay, Getty will buy SS soon as it floats and have that as their micro site, IStock will be their midstock offering for exclusives only. Watch the skies.


Unlikely. SS is getting ready for an IPO: http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/01/us-shutterstock-ipo-idUSBRE8400PC20120501

34
iStockPhoto.com / Re: Buyers Bailing on Istock
« on: May 01, 2012, 16:24 »
I have lost track of lots of details with IS, but is it a change that indie files are 4 credits for small and Photo+ is 5 for small?

1-4-07-10-15-20-23 for indie files and
2-5-10-15-20-25-28 for Photo+

I'm pretty sure that is a price increase as well. I think the M went up 2 credits too. I'm pretty sure it was 1-3-5 last time I had to check on something there for a client. Thank goodness for the other sites!

35
New Sites - General / Re: How is Your luck with vectorstock.com ?
« on: February 01, 2012, 12:56 »
I can add my input as a buyer - I looked at them about 2 years or so ago and did not bother with them because their offering was too small. I took another look 3 months ago and was impressed that their number has grown - I opened an account and have been buying there ever since - I also would be happy to pay a little more too if they raised prices.

I agree. I shop there. I do hope they reward the artists more, but still keep the prices somewhat reasonable for the small buyers. While the prices are low, I am more comfortable buying something for mock-up purposes, even if I might not end up using it. Similar to what I used to do at iStock before they increased the credits value of the images and the price of credits. The prices may be low, but I think the volume purchased is often higher when that is the case.

36
iStockPhoto.com / Re: Layoffs at istock
« on: January 24, 2012, 20:18 »
How sad, pathetic, and predictable. A few crumbs from iStock HQs and they still scramble thankfully like little mice.

Two things:

1. Grandfathered canister levels
2. No plans for iStock editorial

How can anyone believe anything they say. It's all corpor-babble.

http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=340051&page=1

37
iStockPhoto.com / Re: Layoffs at istock
« on: January 22, 2012, 16:56 »
It's the way of American big business, where the uber-wealthy CEOs sit in their ivory towers, insulated from the riff raff, disconnected from the real world. When are people going to realize, they will never get the answers they seek from Getty? Getty will do what Getty wants and only inform you of the decisions after they are already implemented. Or do people just not pay attention to their past performance?


Your comment reminds me of a piece in the Wall Street Journal that appeared yesterday, The New American Divide.  While it's about the growing cultural divide between the upper-middle class and the working class, the same can be said for CEOs and the workers in their companies, especially in a situation like the one we face with IS/Getty/H&F.  Has anyone from H&F ever taken the time to walk among us?  

Disclaimer: I'm making no claim about agreeing or disagreeing with the author's opinions for solutions.


Wow. That author's hypothesis is as much fiction as the neighborhoods he used to back up his wildly inaccurate analysis, though I shouldn't be surprised coming from the WSJ and a conservative think tank. Typical blame progressive policies and not looking AT ALL at how conservative polices and the wealthy are shaping this country. The only thing I agree with is that there is a divide.

Added: He really makes me sick with his suggestions that the wealthy should go out and give the poor a positive moral example, like those cut-throat rapacious bullies should be held up as an example for ANYTHING ETHICAL. How would everyone feel if Jonathon Klein came out of his ivory tower to walk amongst all you lowly contributors, holding himself up as an example of how "moral" you should be? Yuck! I think I need a shower.

This post from the comment section sums up the article perfectly:

Quote
Here's a translation summary of Charles Murray's latest hack piece on behalf of the elite which employs him as Court Philosopher:

1) "Industriousness:...The primary indicator of the erosion of industriousness in the working class..."

Translation: The reason you are unemployed/underemployed is that you are a lazy bum.

2) "To illustrate just how wide the gap has grown between the new upper class and the new lower class, let me start with the broader upper-middle and working classes from which they are drawn, using two fictional neighborhoods that I hereby label Belmont"

Translation: "Let me make things up"

2) "For explaining the formation of the new lower class, the easy explanations from the left don't withstand scrutiny. It's not that white working class males can no longer make a "family wage" that enables them to marry."

Translation: "Let me manufacture and beat upon a strawman"

3) "The average male employed in a working-class occupation earned as much in 2010 as he did in 1960."

Translation: "How To Lie With Statistics", by Darrell Huff

4) "It's not that a bad job market led discouraged men to drop out of the labor force"

Translation: "Why stop at just an imaginary town? Why not also an imaginary history, where the massive manufacturing offshoring and Wall St. three-card monte games of the past 30 years never happened in the first place?"

5) "As I've argued in much of my previous work, I think that the reforms of the 1960s jump-started the deterioration."

Translation: "The eternal, imaginary Cadillac-driving Welfare Queen did it, not the plutocrats who cut checks for my conservative think-tank gigs."

6) "The economic value of brains in the marketplace will continue to increase no matter what, and the most successful of each generation will tend to marry each other no matter what."

Translation: "The rich are genetically superior to you peons."

7) "Increasing scholarships for working-class children won't make a difference."

Translation: "Because your children are likewise genetically inferior, there's no point in wasting any money on them."

8) "Changes in marginal tax rates on the wealthy won't make a difference."

Translation: "On behalf of the bigwigs who sign my checks -- let's cut to the chase."

38
iStockPhoto.com / Re: Layoffs at istock
« on: January 22, 2012, 10:46 »

This "no -information announcement" from the Wizard(s) of Oz hiding behind some thick curtain is so counterproductive, I really dont know what to say. Apart from all the site bugs, the company communication, if there is any, seems to be designed to belittle and embarrass us. Just like the strange "little monster in the cellar" screen that was used AGAIN.

A CEO of an international  200+ million dollar business that hides? Or that other admins feel they need to protect and shield from the real world?? Isnt "superior social network leadership skills" the most essential part of the job description for an internet based marketplace?  

It's the way of American big business, where the uber-wealthy CEOs sit in their ivory towers, insulated from the riff raff, disconnected from the real world. When are people going to realize, they will never get the answers they seek from Getty? Getty will do what Getty wants and only inform you of the decisions after they are already implemented. Or do people just not pay attention to their past performance?

39
iStockPhoto.com / Re: Layoffs at istock
« on: January 21, 2012, 00:50 »

"You were the wind beneath my wings" .... BLEEEAAARRRRHHH



OMG, someone really said that?

Sadly they did __ and worse. Really it is too embarrassing and distressing to discuss any further. I'm quite literally sick of the nausea such posts generate when I view them.

Masochistic drama-queen.

Nah, hilarious and acerbic British wit.

40
iStockPhoto.com / Re: Layoffs at istock
« on: January 20, 2012, 21:29 »

"You were the wind beneath my wings" .... BLEEEAAARRRRHHH



OMG, someone really said that?

41
iStockPhoto.com / Re: Kelly Thompson Leaving Getty January 20th
« on: January 20, 2012, 19:07 »
So I browsed the thread on the istock forum and see that Lobo is answering questions in typical Lobo-like fashion. So I presume he isn't one of the ones who got laid off? Does anyone know? I haven't been through all the threads yet today. Just curious. If he's staying, I guess that means the company thinks he is a doing a bang-up job.

...or he just missed this round of cuts. Complete assimilation hasn't yet occurred...

42
iStockPhoto.com / Re: Layoffs at istock
« on: January 20, 2012, 17:37 »
Do these people need to be hit upside the head with a wrecking ball? Has the company's behavior the last five years not told them anything?


Speaking of people that "need to be hit upside the head with a wrecking ball" have you dared venture onto the "Thanks" thread yet? There appears to be some kind of mass-hysteria thing going on in there, not dissimilar to the 'official media' portrayal of Kim Jong-Il's death. I didn't think anyone has actually died at Istock recently but now I'm not sure. Maybe.

Not to be read on a full stomach unless you want to ruin your keyboard;

http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=339825


 :D I scanned some of it when it first when up. I had enough of the cultish adoration after a couple pages. No way I could stomach 12 of them!

43
iStockPhoto.com / Re: Layoffs at istock
« on: January 20, 2012, 17:07 »
In scanning the discussion thread on the Getty announcement, I see there are *still* people asking Getty what their vision for the company is and other information. Do these people need to be hit upside the head with a wrecking ball? Has the company's behavior the last five years not told them anything? The aren't and never will be privy to the internal strategies at Getty. It's kind of pathetic to still see these kind of supplicating requests.

They get Lobo and vague announcements from HQ. And that is it.

44
iStockPhoto.com / Re: Layoffs at istock
« on: January 20, 2012, 17:05 »
I've already read that the captain didn't exactly 'trip and fall' into a lifeboat - he landed in one when the ship's deck tilted to 70 degrees and he slid off the deck.   

I wonder what the chances of *that* are, and if other people had as fortuitous a sliding. :D

Even more amazing the Captain apparently fell into the lifeboat together with both his second and third-in-command officers! What a staggering coincidence.

LOL!

45
iStockPhoto.com / Re: Layoffs at istock
« on: January 20, 2012, 15:14 »
I've already read that the captain didn't exactly 'trip and fall' into a lifeboat - he landed in one when the ship's deck tilted to 70 degrees and he slid off the deck.   

I wonder what the chances of *that* are, and if other people had as fortuitous a sliding. :D

46
iStockPhoto.com / Re: Layoffs at istock
« on: January 20, 2012, 13:51 »

47
iStockPhoto.com / Re: Kelly Thompson Leaving Getty January 20th
« on: January 19, 2012, 21:02 »

iStock resembles a red giant star in the final stages of collapse.   Shine bright and expand then sheds its content; then a cold core cinder remains at the center slowly cooling until there is nothing left.

More like a giant star that shines brightly, then collapses into a black hole (called Getty) that greedily tries to suck everything into its gaping maw.

 :D :D :D :D

48
iStockPhoto.com / Re: Layoffs at istock
« on: January 19, 2012, 16:25 »

I think istock will be around this year, as they streamline what images go to Getty and what goes to stinkstock, but then BOOM!, one day an announcement will come and istock will be gone. You will be directed to either Getty or thinkstock directly. The "artist formerly known as istockphoto" will cease to exist.

I think it will become just another collection on Getty's main site, just like the other collections they absorbed. They will get rid of the iStock website. Why continue to maintain it and incur the cost when they already have one umbrella site.

49
iStockPhoto.com / Re: Layoffs at istock
« on: January 19, 2012, 15:36 »
But unless the iStock management truly wants to throw money away, they have a plan for keeping those buyers in some capacity.  

I don't see Getty as ever understanding the business model, so any "plans" they might think they have for keeping buyers will fail, unless they can figure out what the magic (all three sides of the triangle working together to succeed - agency, contributors, AND buyers)  was that has been lost in their lust for profits. Unfortunately, big business does not understand that it is the people at the bottom, that they sh*t on, that props up the people at the top. They think the people at the bottom (the suppliers AND the customers - big business has a huge contempt for customers - the necessary evil that they are) are easily replaceable. There will always be more, right? WRONG! The more they weaken the base, the more likely the top will also collapse.

50
iStockPhoto.com / Re: Kelly Thompson Leaving Getty January 20th
« on: January 19, 2012, 14:49 »
Wow. And to think just two days ago I suggested he might not still be there.

You did! Maybe Klein read your post and thought "Great idea Cas, I'll fire him tomorrow".

Then he must have read my mind about JJRD! LOLOL. There are others I'm thinking about too...:D

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 ... 41

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors