|
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 - donding
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 ... 70
26
« on: June 04, 2014, 14:47 »
My warning to part-timers (I count myself as one, with about 50% of my income from microstock) is this: don't give up the day job.
I once had dreams of doing exactly that. My first 3 or 4 years were all up, up, up. I thought I could ramp up my output and within two years be earning enough to sustain my family just on microstock income.
I followed the plan, but agencies and the rising tide of global contributors have crushed my hopes. I'm no further ahead now than when I set up my plan a few years ago. I feel like I've just been spinning my wheels, working more and more hours each night on this just to stay in place.
So make note of what your percentage of income comes from microstock today, and ask yourself the same question a year from now... then two, then three.
Newbies will fill the forum with boasts of being 200% over last year or 300% over 6 months ago. I know, I was one of those. But after a few years, those bright-eyed new contributors so full of dreams will face the same reality the rest of us face, and they'll take our place as the grumpy veterans who moan about the good old days.
Sorry for the rant... been pretty depressed about falling numbers lately. I'm actually hoping some veterans refute my claims of doom and gloom and tell me there is hope. I'm just not seeing any right now.
A big dream for newcomers. I personally think between the cheep prices and the lower commissions and the over saturated market, it would be very difficult to make a living in microstock as a newcomer unless you found a niche market and were a super fantastic photographer. It's just not there anymore in my opinion.
27
« on: June 04, 2014, 09:36 »
Honestly you'd think as many years as iStock was in business that they would have someone that has some experience with website creation and the way it works. With all the updates and improvements it seems every time they do it, it is a total disaster. I guess they thought they were the king of the mountain and could rule the contributors for their own financial gain.
28
« on: June 03, 2014, 19:11 »
Whose is it, then?
Somebody by the name of Logos? Is that Yuri?
haven't you seen the avatar? ok he was slimmer before 
I have never followed Yuri and that certainly didn't look anything like him.....lol Thanks for pointing that out 
29
« on: June 03, 2014, 18:05 »
Whose is it, then?
Somebody by the name of Logos? Is that Yuri?
31
« on: June 03, 2014, 15:29 »
I wonder how many of the folks who constantly bag on Yuri are still using his model releases, etc?
He is more proactive than most of us and we still find reason to criticize. At least he is trying to bring about positive change, for himself if not the rest of us. The micros need competition, monopolies have never proven to be positive for anyone.
Yuri is in this for Yuri. Not for us little people. Any changes to Istock will be for his own benefit because we know that the masses will never make more money there, whatever he does. Istock isn't going to take a 25 cent subscription and magically make it $25. Whatever they do, if anything will be fore the benefit of a small subset of people but you can be dang sure that Istock will keep 99% of their collection in the cheap seats or they will never compete with shutterstock.
If they are successful at making a cleaner, functional site, great, but that alone isn't going to bring back lost buyers. The ONLY way to create more mid stock pricing is to create mid stock collections, like vetta. That's been done already. So by focusing on mid stock, they leave out what shutterstock does so well.
For me my criticism of him is his manufactured statement to watch out shutterstock. That's what a press secretary says.
And the sites do this because we have allowed them to do so!
Yuri is one the few photographers here that has actually and consistently tried to talk to the sites regarding the challenges we face. The rest of us just bend over and thank them for sticking it to us. We actually collectively praise sites who have not raised sub pricing in over 9 years!
Like Mantis said, Yuri looks out for Yuri. Look at the Google/iStock deal and what happened to fellow photogrpahers that stood up to iStock. Look at Sean for example. Many people feel he went behind their back and made a deal with iStock for his own good. Have you seen any positive changes with iStock since he did that? Like I said before, I am no longer with iStock, but from reading these forums it is still up to the same ol same ol. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.
32
« on: June 03, 2014, 14:37 »
I don't follow Yuri but is he seriousy on the other agencies as well as shown as exclusive on iStock? If he is that is in and of itself double standards and only more dishonesty with iStock....thank God I'm not there any more. I wouldn't trust anything they say.
33
« on: June 03, 2014, 13:52 »
I'm not on iStock anymore but it sounds like those of you who are may be in for more of those dreaded site changes and updates "for better sales performance" that always screw up the whole system.
Why would iStock think they can gain back the trust of those buyers they basically ran off as well as any of the contributors. These people must live in another world...lol
34
« on: June 03, 2014, 12:56 »
I just uploaded some and they uploaded fine.
35
« on: June 01, 2014, 20:53 »
I never said that an agency paying higher commissions couldn't make it, they just usually don't these days....what I said was if they did make it big how long would it take for them to lower commission's. Shutterstock started out as a sub site and still is. They are my main earner because of volume...not because of higher commission rates.
I still don't understand why you're assuming that companies who make it big will lower commissions. The biggest company in the business hasn't cut rates, nor have most of the top tier and middle tier companies.
iStock, Fotolia, Dreasmtime, 123rf, Alamy, Bigstock, Canstock have all cut royalties. Shutterstock has effectively reduced a few things (EL royalties when they introduced higher price packages but our cut was the same as before) but in general has not. Envato hasn't made the big time, so jury's out on them
Thank you Jo Ann. I wasn't going to argue with him...
36
« on: June 01, 2014, 14:45 »
From my viewpoint it seems the agencies that offer the larger commissions are usually not that successful. The sales are low and the profit is lower than we make at the larger agencies with lower commissions. I agree that we need to refuse to join an agency that offers less than 50% in the future, but will the one who offers the higher commissions become successful?
There is no proof that agencies with larger commissions aren't successful because they pay more to contributors. Just because we have yet to see an agency hit the Top Tier while paying 50% or more doesn't mean it can't happen.
...The question is if one of these agencies that paid higher commissions become successful, how long would it take before the greed kicked in and slowly they take more and more? The successful ones did just that...
They all did that? Really? I don't recall Shutterstock ever cutting my pay. Or most of the other Top And Middle Tier companies either. iStock did, Fotolia did, who else? Envato raised my pay rate. Shutterstock used to give regular raises as well.
I never understood where this generalization comes from. Just because a few companies cut pay you've decided that all companies will do the same. When really there is no reason to believe that the majority of companies would do the same in a higher position in the market.
I never said that an agency paying higher commissions couldn't make it, they just usually don't these days....what I said was if they did make it big how long would it take for them to lower commission's. Shutterstock started out as a sub site and still is. They are my main earner because of volume...not because of higher commission rates.
37
« on: June 01, 2014, 10:45 »
I dropped Fotolia a long time ago because of their unethical practices, but I've been reading this topic for a couple of days now. I want to say I admire Ron and Anyka for standing up for what is right. They paid the price for it and continue their push. Sean paid the price for standing up against iStock. It sad that these agencies don't listen to their contributors and I'll say it again, I do admire you for your stand. Keep pushing forward.
38
« on: May 31, 2014, 17:50 »
I had a piece chosen to be shown at the opening but have no idea what it was ...
Communication sure ain't these guys' strength.
Hopefully it's because they are trying to get the site fully functional and it isn't the beginning of a bad habit.
39
« on: May 31, 2014, 16:11 »
I got out of iStock a long time ago, and I am glad I did, but it sounds like they are up to the same crap they have been pulling for years.
40
« on: May 31, 2014, 16:07 »
From my viewpoint it seems the agencies that offer the larger commissions are usually not that successful. The sales are low and the profit is lower than we make at the larger agencies with lower commissions. I agree that we need to refuse to join an agency that offers less than 50% in the future, but will the one who offers the higher commissions become successful?
With these larger agencies it's like a trap that we can't get out of. They are established and make more sales.
The question is if one of these agencies that paid higher commissions become successful, how long would it take before the greed kicked in and slowly they take more and more? The successful ones did just that. So many photographers rely on these agencies for their living and most will not walk away because of that. That is what I refer to as a trap and I'm sure the larger agencies know this and therefore know these big earners will not walk away. It's the little guy who walks away and that doesn't really effect the sales of the agency.
41
« on: May 31, 2014, 12:06 »
Just curious...those of you who got "crated"...how many uploads did you have initially before you were approved? It'll give me an idea rather I have enough already uploaded to know rather there is enough. I know someone said they thought it was 15 to 20.
I uploaded 20 and got 'crated' the next day...
Thanks...I only had 8 on there which I uploaded last week and I'm going to upload 20 more to see what happens.
42
« on: May 31, 2014, 09:43 »
Just curious...those of you who got "crated"...how many uploads did you have initially before you were approved? It'll give me an idea rather I have enough already uploaded to know rather there is enough. I know someone said they thought it was 15 to 20.
43
« on: May 30, 2014, 18:04 »
You have to wait to see if you get that "curated" e-mail to find out rather you will be in the search results? I've got 8 sitting in my gallery but none show up in the search. It sounds like if you're not curated in that those photos just sit there. I just uploaded them last week, don't remember the exact date.
Am I correct in my thinking?
I think they are asking for 15 to 20 images to be reviewed in the curation process. 8 might not be enough.
I have e-mailed support to how many they want. Hopefully it won't take to long to get an answer. I could find no information about the requirements on their site or even being "crated" in order to be in the search engine. They really need to be clearer as to what they do so contributors know before hand.
44
« on: May 30, 2014, 15:55 »
You have to wait to see if you get that "curated" e-mail to find out rather you will be in the search results? I've got 8 sitting in my gallery but none show up in the search. It sounds like if you're not curated in that those photos just sit there. I just uploaded them last week, don't remember the exact date.
Am I correct in my thinking?
That was the point of my last post on the subject a few lines up. I've got 20 images on Crated now, all of which are selling on stock sites but also (thanks to Crated) very easy for somebody to steal in blog size. Most of them have been there 2 weeks. I still haven't heard anything back from Crated, so I don't know if my images failed to pass muster or if I just haven't cooled my heels long enough to make it through their vague "curation" process.
If other people are getting acceptance notices after a similar time period, then it might be worth waiting. But if nobody is getting "curated" there any more, then it seems to make sense to take my gallery down.
Rather hard to know how to deal with a company that doesn't give you decent feedback.
I guess if they are still hanging in the wind in a month, I'll just take them down. I know I won't upload any more til I find out. It wouldn't be worth my time to work on uploading photos if they can't be found in a search. I know the ones I uploaded do sell, but if I'm going to give someone 20% and have to do all the work searching out customers, it isn't worth it. If I wanted to do that I'd have my own site.
45
« on: May 30, 2014, 12:42 »
You have to wait to see if you get that "curated" e-mail to find out rather you will be in the search results? I've got 8 sitting in my gallery but none show up in the search. It sounds like if you're not curated in that those photos just sit there. I just uploaded them last week, don't remember the exact date.
Am I correct in my thinking?
46
« on: May 30, 2014, 12:29 »
How in the world do you know rather you are on there or not. I have a gallery, I have photos on there...only 8 but they don't come up in the search results. Are they just sitting there?
47
« on: May 30, 2014, 11:55 »
If you stay opted it it means you are informing the agencies that they still havn't reached your limit
Going back to my OP. I just threw out the idea of the petition. Disregard my person.
If anyone feels it is worth doing - do it. If not, drop it.
I've made my decisions as others have made theirs. Their prerogative and not my business. Nonetheless, we contributors always get the short end of the stick not just since I stayed in DPC...
I personally don't care what you do, rather you opt in or out of DPC, that is your decision. I'm not going to judge you on that. The idea you have is a good one and just because you are opted in to DPC shouldn't mean the idea isn't a fair one, but just so you are aware, this talk has been going on for years. No petition has ever been done that I am aware of. Many times demands have been made of stock agencies by it's contributors. Some times it works sometimes not. Sometimes people get banned from the sites for being to loud about issues. Many threaten to leave, but most never do so the agency usually wins. There isn't one person willing to do what you talk about. I gave them my answer years ago...I walked away from them all of them except for Shutterstock. People speak loudly on here about issues, but no one person has ever taken the reigns to do anything about it. In my opinion if one person threatens to leave an agency unless it changes, then they should keep their word, but that usually doesn't happen. Good luck.
48
« on: January 28, 2014, 22:22 »
Here are some places that sell used and refurbished lens. Sometimes they are as good as new. They rate them so you know the condition of the lens. http://www.keh.com/ I've used them and haven't been disappointed yet Also http://www.adorama.com sells used lens also as well as http://www.bhphotovideo.comI prefer KEH over the other two. Take a look and you can see the prices and compare them. I've bought some lens off of e-bay and was never satisfied.
49
« on: January 28, 2014, 12:51 »
Facts are that they sold my pictures 8 months after I deleted them.
Thats a fact, friends.
Dont wrap it up in excuses and conditions.
It IS foul play.
You might want to see if they changed your account name. A year after I deleted my port there, they changed my user name to dondingclosed....or dondingdelete....something like that. I had made over $100.00 in sales. I just happen to find one of my photos by doing a tineye search and found that my account was still open, but under a different user name. I did finally get my money and the account removed, but if I hadn't done that tineye search I would have never found that my account name had been changed and they were still selling my photos. It could be something like that.
50
« on: January 27, 2014, 22:01 »
I quit iStock about two years ago so I don't read the iStock posts usually. I just find it amazing when reading this, it sounds exactly like the same crap that made me leave two years ago and so many others all said they were leaving also, but chose to stay. I hope for all your sakes you make the right choice this time around. Two years is a long time and how do you even know if the money that they "refund", because of these supposed bugs, really is what they owed you? These people are crooks plan and simple.
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 ... 70
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
