|
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 - hqimages
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11
201
« on: June 10, 2009, 18:12 »
Istock are already doing this model, they now 'share' their 'communal' database of images across to photos.com.. and I'm sure there will be many more sites to come.. they will end up with the top 6 sites, all with the same istock images at different prices.. SAME images, DIFFERENT prices.. I find it a joke really.. oh and always less commissions to the artist, that's a given.
That's why, this idea, I get it, and maybe it is good, but it would only be good for an agency that can undercut the cheapest microstock site.. because the same images go around and around.. I wish photographers would get the concept of setting a price, and not going below it, but it's impossible not to go cheaper, with such massive competition between each person for downloads.. that's why I would love to see photog with their own web sites, and promoting themselves to their local community of business people too, then perhaps having a communal search engine, that searches the images yes, but re-directs the buyer to each photographers own web site to checkout.. again the images have to be only available via their web site, or at another web site at the same price or higher, it doesn't work if they undercut themselves.
202
« on: June 10, 2009, 18:00 »
I think you're missing the creation of a web site for each contributor under their own url also.. otherwise, what's the difference between this method, and new web sites such as zymmetrical where they set their own price too..
Free website tools would be included but not the core, the difference is now you upload the same image, in different keyword and attribute templates, accepting different prices from many websites, this new model you upload only once, then via the API the different agencies can request you image thumbnail and data to add to thier library, this does not waste your time or assets uploading to get a rejection for 'not what we are looking for' or 'we have to many of this style'.
Now you upload many times and spread your assets all over different servers, new model upload once, set the price and keep control.
David  (Long day)
I getcha now! I don't think I'm on the same wavelength though.. this model still forces the contributor to be dependant on distributors, and I feel it doesn't have enough going for it.. I don't know.. you'll see the same users sell their image from this at 20 euro let's say, and the same image at SS for 20 cent. I feel like if photographers were given their own web site with a checkout, without competition, it would shift in their mind the balance of power or dependancy on distributors.. I can see it's handy to have one copy of an image as opposed to many, and uploading to one site instead of many, and ok, people can set their own prices, but prices will need to be standardised then because people will keep undercutting each other until the big fish are the only ones left.. and if the price is standardised to a value more expensive than let's say, istock, but the same images are on istock for 200% cheaper, the api will be useless.. I think photographers first need to sell from their own web sites, and feel the power of it They might even sell from their own web site exclusively if it works, and THAT is when you get a communal api that is WORTH a lot, and can actually result in new websites, re-selling images at a set price, that are NOT available anywhere else cheaper. You want it, find the photographer, or find a distributors web site..
203
« on: June 10, 2009, 17:34 »
My concerns, David, are/were more about the work that I am/will be putting into creating a fully functioning e-commerce site that does everything. Actually, the work that my (friend) webmaster would put together. Once I have a library or libraries of images and the capability to market, sell and collect from customers (shopping basket, paypal account, etc), where, how, and why do I connect to the API (search engine)? Will I need to keyword everything and upload thumbnails to a central location? HOW is the API going to link to me?
Do I really need the API after developing my fully-function e-merce site? I think I like this but can't seem to wrap my simple mind around it. May be my problem is age-related?  
I suppose you could use your own api for your own website, as long as you can separate your images from the others on the server.. I feel like it's all backwards.. first stop should be, have each person develop their own web site to sell their own images, next stop put those images out as a communal database for distributors.. but, I guess you could start with the image storage, develop the api to adhere to usernames, and then each contributor can build their own web site using it, and decide for themselves whether they want to allow distributors access to the api for their images also, or not..
204
« on: June 10, 2009, 17:07 »
I think you're missing the creation of a web site for each contributor under their own url also.. otherwise, what's the difference between this method, and new web sites such as zymmetrical where they set their own price too..
205
« on: June 10, 2009, 15:47 »
It's not really a global search engine, I think an api is a better word to use, you want a way for distributors to be able to display the images, whether via a global search, or categorised thumbs, or both.. you just want as many re-sellers as possible to plugin to the group's images in exchange for their commission based on the sale price (set by the image owner)..
206
« on: June 10, 2009, 13:48 »
Can't do that, well, the way I see it..
Each photographer should have their own web site with full check-out functionality for image buyers. The price for each image is set on that web site. They can promote it locally, they are not competing with anyone else, their web site is for their images only.
They then allow potential distributors to sell their images, kind of like a referral scheme, the price is already set, and you give a % of the sale price for each referral sale.. that's how I see it working..
Then you need to have an api or some way that a distributor could take the images from the entire group of web sites (they would need to be hosted with the same hosting company to make things easier), and display them/sell them on their own web page.. this would be open for anyone to do..
207
« on: June 10, 2009, 13:35 »
It will be a lot of effort.. and with no investment/money won't work.. Don't know how that will get sorted but, that's what the group is for!
I did already build my own web site to sell my images, and I could do it for anyone, but it's HARD, it takes weeks to do, it costs money.. and I can't see microstock contributors paying my fee, or even half of it to be honest.. and there's no way I'm building web sites for people for free.. it's just to hard, it takes too much time, and it's a headache.. especially with the kind of functionality that we need.. but.but.but. It is possible in theory, that each contributor could have their own web site, with prices set per image, and have a communal web site that searches all the web sites in the 'group'.. takes time, takes money, in fact, it's a full-time job for approx 3 people..
208
« on: June 09, 2009, 17:12 »
I f&^cking LOVE this idea, well done David for putting it to paper..
Many years ago a group of photographers got together and founded a little company called Magnum. They came up with a 'new' concept, that instead of having the client dictate the price and keep rights to all photos shot under contract, the photographer should set the price, keep the copyright, and sell TO MULTIPLE clients. The idea was new, the usual people said it would never work, and those people are now posting to microstock enoying the copyright these people brought abaout, and they are still saying ideas like this will never work.
Time to get a backbone and take power back from the agencies. THEY SHOULD NOT BE SETTING THE PRICE, YOU SHOULD BE!!!!!!!!!!! I really hope this idea works.. also another two cents, I would much prefer a yahoo or google group if possible? I haven't heard of the other site and I'm imagining most people have to sign up to join the group..
209
« on: June 03, 2009, 14:25 »
29th May - Friday
7,058,343 royalty-free images
85,441 new stock photos added this week
3rd June - Wednesday
7,122,257 royalty-free stock photos
91,854 new stock photos added this week
210
« on: June 03, 2009, 10:55 »
I think it is wrong, I took a screenshot on 29th May, around the time all this came out, just out of curiousity to see how many images they would/could lose, and the numbers don't add up for me.. http://www.draiochtwebdesign.com/blog/shutterstock-drama
211
« on: June 02, 2009, 07:56 »
The reason people with small portfolios are most vocal, is because it will cost them their yearly salary just to process the papers for this thing.. then they potentially lose 30% in America before losing more in their own country, so it's not viable for small contributors to actually go through with this..
212
« on: June 02, 2009, 07:51 »
Then why isn't she complaining about the VAT tax. The VAT tax is not only paid twice on a product, but multiple times.
Why not just consider this another VAT tax and be done with it?
We all pay our taxes...
Because we claim 100% of vat back from the country we live in.. I have no problem paying vat to istock for example, because I recoup it every two months from revenue IN MY OWN COUNTRY.. this tax is income/royalty tax, you're comparing bread with cheese, totally different.
213
« on: June 01, 2009, 18:45 »
What if all contributors join the sites where you set your own price, delete all your images from other websites, and see what happens?
As long as there is a minimum price set on these web sites, eg. Can't sell a high res image for less than 5 euro or whatever, no-one can undercut their neighbour, and you will all get a nice return for your work.
The whole problem here is that you are letting the agency dictate the price, my advice would be to support the agencies that let you set your own price MUCH more than the agencies that don't, even if you don't take the radical move of deleting your images from them..
The unfortunate thing about this is that is takes an initial loss of income, but after that, more profit for you, as long as the majority follow suit.
214
« on: June 01, 2009, 18:23 »
But if those means of protesting include childish behaviors like creating avatars with silly messages or posting complaints in a forum
Maybe they were expecting results more like those when contributors at istock got "childish"?
Well, Jon don't need to read manual of "how to proceed in case of..." as iStock employees - He acted driven by stress and he has right to do it. It is his company!
So why did he edit the original message
 Probably as many other managers... He probably rethought his first reaction!
Exactly, so even though you can say he's the CEO, he can say what he likes to contributors, even HE knows thats not true.
215
« on: June 01, 2009, 18:21 »
But if those means of protesting include childish behaviors like creating avatars with silly messages or posting complaints in a forum
Maybe they were expecting results more like those when contributors at istock got "childish"?
Well, Jon don't need to read manual of "how to proceed in case of..." as iStock employees - He acted driven by stress and he has right to do it. It is his company!
So why did he edit the original message
216
« on: June 01, 2009, 18:00 »
Why do you think istock removed an opt-out for subscription prcing? Why do you think they want to share their library across to photos.com, a well known site, known for it's cheaper than cheap prices..
To clarify:
They removed the opt-out for the iStock subscription plan, for which contributers are (currently) paid an amount comparable to the pay-per-download price. That certainly can't be fairly compared to the 25-33 cents per download, regardless of size, type of arrangement at some sites.
The photos.com is definitely as crappy as that type of arrangement, but it can be opted out of, with the exception of those images currently in the dollar bin (or you choose to deactivate them). Since a whole bunch of the dollar bin images were already deactivated, and then got magically reanimated, I'm sure some people think potential for something is better than the certainty of nothing.
"but it can be opted out of," But not EVERYONE will opt out, therefore your peers that choose to sell on photos.com, are undercutting their own photos on istock.com, and undercutting their collegues on istock.com. It doesn't matter hugely because subs are being offered on istock now anyway, so pay-per-download would pretty much die as we know it.. but people also selling on photos.com puts the nails in the coffin of pay-per-download, which I think is a shame for the artists..
217
« on: June 01, 2009, 17:55 »
If this is buyer's mind then eventually images will be 5 cents and then they will have to figure out where else they could cut cost :-)
What photographers/graphic artists should do, i think, is sell their own images without an agent, but without undercutting themselves. Set the price for your own image, and remove it from any web site that offers it for less.. it's a bad business model from the photographers point of view. Make a price, stick to it if that's the price you want, from your download!!
218
« on: June 01, 2009, 17:51 »
If I saw an image for 100 dollars that was perfect for a customer and not available on any other web site for less, I would pitch my customer on it. And I have done that in the past..
As I said if I see an image suitable for a customer at two different prices, I will take the one around the 5-10 dollar mark (the cheaper option), but it all depends on the client. Some clients can afford to pay big bucks for custom images, some can't, so it varies from job to job. But the problem with microstock is if you offer the same image at two prices, customers will ALWAYS pick the cheaper option..
219
« on: June 01, 2009, 17:48 »
I'm a buyer and yes, it matter to me, but only if I see the exact same image, for sale on one web site for 20 euro full res, and another web site for 5 euro full res, I'll take the 5 euro option everytime! But, I won't buy subs, because there's exploitation, and there's EXPLOITATION
<curious>Are you buying images for assignment, so then you just pass this as a cost to customer? I am trying to understand an economy of buying images. I thought it is treated as materials like paper, ink, etc.</curious>
I'm not willing to discuss my workflow/billing in an open forum, I'm just giving you a glimpse into the mind of a buyer..
220
« on: June 01, 2009, 17:37 »
It's microstock, the same images are seen on every web site over and over, so the customer is going to the cheapest.. that's why all the sites do subs now without an opt out (StockXpert's will be gone soon I'm guessing). The cheapest wins, and any site that tried to charge more, for the same image on another website for less, has failed. Crestock will fail too, why pay x10 times the price for an image available on istock for half that at the exact same resolution?
I wonder if price really need to go down at all. Who are the buyers? Does it really mater if image price is $1 or $10 for them? Common we are talking pennies here. I probably spent more on groceries monthly than these buyers for images :-)
I'm a buyer and yes, it matter to me, but only if I see the exact same image, for sale on one web site for 20 euro full res, and another web site for 5 euro full res, I'll take the 5 euro option everytime! But, I won't buy subs, because there's exploitation, and there's EXPLOITATION
221
« on: June 01, 2009, 17:04 »
It's microstock, the same images are seen on every web site over and over, so the customer is going to the cheapest.. that's why all the sites do subs now without an opt out (StockXpert's will be gone soon I'm guessing). The cheapest wins, and any site that tried to charge more, for the same image on another website for less, has failed. Crestock will fail too, why pay x10 times the price for an image available on istock for half that at the exact same resolution?
I don't see it like that. istock charge much more than most of the other sites and they are doing great. A few new sites have tried cheaper prices but the buyers haven't gone to them. There might be a bit of a price war with subs but SS is still the site selling the most subs, the others don't come close. Pay per download is still more popular than subs on most sites. I have tried a few sites that charge much higher prices than microstock and they are doing well. I am convinced that buyers will pay more as long as they can find what they want. Of course some buyers will seek out the cheapest option but luckily they seem to be in the minority.
Why do you think istock removed an opt-out for subscription prcing? Why do you think they want to share their library across to photos.com, a well known site, known for it's cheaper than cheap prices..
222
« on: June 01, 2009, 17:03 »
my personal opinion, all that are trying to make it now will eventually fail except maybe the top seven
I say the top 5, and they will all be owned by Getty and be predominantly subscription based models. Good for Getty, bad for photographers/designers
223
« on: June 01, 2009, 16:54 »
It's microstock, the same images are seen on every web site over and over, so the customer is going to the cheapest.. that's why all the sites do subs now without an opt out (StockXpert's will be gone soon I'm guessing). The cheapest wins, and any site that tried to charge more, for the same image on another website for less, has failed. Crestock will fail too, why pay x10 times the price for an image available on istock for half that at the exact same resolution?
224
« on: June 01, 2009, 16:50 »
Jon's original reply is long gone and killed! I don't know if anybody has it around here. If you do post it please!
http://www.draiochtwebdesign.com/blog/shutterstock-drama
Thank you! I think this is pretty close if not exactly the same!
It's exactly what he first posted, and it was edited on the web site since then.. he removed the 'if you don't want to deal with it leave' bit 
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
