|
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 - lefty
126
« on: June 06, 2010, 17:06 »
Let's all of us to stop using soap, it is too big risk... 
ha!ha!.. I know we all think this is going to be a big joke. But now I think about what this mean if microstock become only free image and make money with advertiement . Maybe it effects many contributors that microstock is lifelihood. How many to you here will lose house, car, property etc if microstock screw up/ it's a big question huh?
127
« on: June 06, 2010, 13:02 »
Or maybe buyer realizes how much time he or she wasted looking for that free image and decides to investigate those not free but awfully reasonable images linked from the free site. The buyer does a little cogitation and comes to the conclusion that free isn't worth what he or she paid in terms of time and tedium. I'm guessing that's the reasoning being hosting such a site. Ad revenues alone don't justify building and marketing it. Probably, anyway.
Good idea. So maybe it is good idea to dump crappy rejects to Free Section. Only we must remove contributor name so we can hide the shame , ha!ha!.
128
« on: June 06, 2010, 12:59 »
Before microstock, how many of us earned ANYTHING from stock photos? I think that is something that many of us lose sight of on a regular basis.
We all wish that we made more per sale. However, compared to making nothing, what the sites pay us is much better!
I echo, no, no, no! You might as well bend over and get the soap.
If stock keeps heading toward free and subscriptions we may not be able to afford the soap.
ha!ha! no, we have to bring bottle from home to steal liquid soap from hotel W.C.
129
« on: June 06, 2010, 11:42 »
Come on guys, "free" doesn't really mean free. It just means no commissions have to be paid. The idea is to accumulate and ever-growing collection of images for which no commission has to be paid - and then, SS is free to find ways to "monetize" that collection. One obvious way is advertising - buyers will have to look at ads to get their free images. Another way would be through a subscription plan that is extremely low-cost and only gives access to the commission-free images. The plan would be called something else, of course, to maintain the "free" fiction. It might be a "search application", or a membership, but whatever it's called, it means the agency gets income without paying comissions. We get fame and recognition, of course.
That's another good point.
There are probably thousands of rejected contributors and millions of rejected images. Why not make freebie hunters stare at advertisements while they spend a ton of time looking for that gem among the junk. Buyer gets a free image, stock site gets ad revenue, contributor gets nothing.
The more I think about this the less benefit I see coming from it for all of us. Prices, commissions, and sales volume need to go up. This accomplishes none of those.
This exactly what I think , like free music and free movies. Only so the people who give free get points from movie and music downloads. Many countries consider illegal practice for copyright infringement. Now agencies for stock want to do same? I am sure it make money for agency and save money for freebie user. But PaulieWalnuts is right again. We see no commission and still Buyer gets a free image, stock site gets ad revenue, contributor gets nothing. Not a good idea for me and you .
130
« on: June 06, 2010, 11:03 »
A couple of people invited made the point it may be because they have a low acceptance rate. I'm about 85% acceptance on SS and 9 out of 10 rejections I get make sense once I have checked the image over - without having drunk too much wine the night before.
As for giving these rejections away for free? If an image is seen as not up to snuff I'm not sure I want my name attached to it any longer.....and If I think it is and SS got it wrong, I'll sell it elsewhere.
Same for me. Shutterstock rejection is always I agree because when like you say-make sense once I have checked the image over - without having drunk too much wine the night before. It is not leaning on personal opinion that is shaky like we don't think this is stock material,etc that can smell doubtful. Same with IStock rejection, always you agree. You make correction and re-submit and it approve. But yes, if is not up to snuff, I too don't want my name attached even for free. I think everyone here is thinking same ie. not a good idea to give free.
131
« on: June 05, 2010, 23:56 »
If you submit a series of images and two get rejected (perhaps the noise was a little high or the lighting a little less good or the focus a tad soft - sites are getting very persnickety about things). Do you really want to compete with yourself by having the free ones that were not quite good enough out there? How could that possibly be good for your business?
This is exactly what I was thinking.
I'd really like to see the performance data behind this free model. I get the idea but I question the benefits vs damage. Like how many freebie hunters get converted into paying buyers? How many images do they download for free versus pay for?
I feel for every image somebody gets for free that's one less image that gets paid for. One of us just lost a sale. The more "good enough" free images that exist for buyers the less they will buy. If there weren't any free images buyers would be forced to pay, take pictures themselves, or do without the image. If it's worth using it's worth paying something for. And again, isn't microstock cheap enough already?
Whenever you can get something for free that's "good enough" how often do pay for the upgraded version? Rarely?
I am not allowed to give because too new here but one heart to PaulieWalnuts one heart to jsnover . Only winners for free image is agency because agency can say we have 8 million pictures for you to use. But yes, I too believe free image is lost sale to creator and one more step in wrong direction for profitable business for stock contributor. Much like moving in direction youtube for musicians and freeloader for movies. If we support this , soon there will be no reason to pay photographers. Or maybe already this model exist. I hope I make sense.
132
« on: June 05, 2010, 14:10 »
Microstock is changing, and for the simple apple on white or tape measure around the waist shot - of which there are thousands, possibly tens of thousands - buyers will get the shot the cheapest way possible. That's pretty similar to what happened with traditional agencies when micros came along - they could no longer charge high prices for easy to produce shots.
If you want to churn out high volumes of those types of objects and people on white, then you're stuck with modest returns from subs sites and better keep your production costs low.
For anyone hoping to compete on something other than price, putting your high quality stuff on the race-to-the-bottom sites doesn't help. You shouldn't think that 25 cents is better than zero, but that if you let it go for 25 cents, over time, you're eliminating your ability to charge more. If buyers need stuff that they can't get on the high volume sub sites, they'll go find them at the cheapest price possible (i.e. other micro sites, if not there, then macro sites, if not there then commission a photographer for custom work).
I don't (and won't) participate in the partner program - i.e. no Thinkstock or photos.com. My expectation is that doing so will slowly pull buyers away from the place where we get a good return on our work.
You make excellent point jsnover. I am in full agreement. Also I like make other point about production cost. If you do stock for many years already you know how to mass production. Your workflow is perfected. You don't spend too much time to make pictures for uploading. For this, you can accept micro stock low prices. Second observation too. For Istock I mark for partnership program because I go with Shutterstock also. But I notice sale with Istock still mostly the higher commission and not many partnership program commission. So, maybe it is not all the same buyer look for Thinkstock Photos.com and Istock. This only my personal observation. Yes, I reduce production cost by streamline workflow for micro.
133
« on: June 05, 2010, 13:55 »
In the race to the bottom, the agency that dies with the most free images wins. Interpret that in any way you'd like.
stormchaser, if you talk about other agency race to the bottom I maybe believe you. But this is Shutterstock. I don't think ever Shutterstock make #2 . So this is not race to the bottom. It is doing what Dreamstime and other lower agency already do. Again, I still much surprise Shutterstock do this. Why? Maybe big chief SS woke up one morning with bad vodka decision. Ha!ha!
134
« on: June 05, 2010, 13:41 »
I make $0 from my lawn mower. Doesn't mean I want to mow my neighbors lawn for free just so they'll tell people I did it and for the possible benefit of someday, possibly making $.25 each time if they abuse me enough. People wouldn't download if they didn't get some benefit out if it. Why give that away?
I agree sjlocke. If buyer not pay 25 cents for picture, why let them take it for free. Crazy .
135
« on: June 05, 2010, 13:29 »
I'm just very worried about the millions of images from contributors who are too excited about the exposure of their (rejected) images and offer them there.
I'm also confused about how this will actually benefit SS.
This is not open to everyone click_click. Shutterstock invite you. My impression is maybe for older contributor with big portfolio and old pictures with no sales. I think Dreamstime give away free pictures also and open to everybody. For me, I don't believe giving free is good idea. If my dead old pictures are dead on no sales, I prefer deletion than give free. I find this ironic because Shutterstock want to give free like the lower placement agencies below Shutterstock. Yes, big mystery, but Shutterstock sell many for me, so I am curious to see why they want to do this. Market pressure by other agency. This one I think we can point finger away from Shutterstock.
136
« on: June 05, 2010, 13:17 »
cclapper. I don't think any agency give credit line. Only Getty once I see . Maybe I am wrong.
Yes, you are wrong. All major micros show who the artist is and offer a link to more of their porfolios.
Thinkstock doesn't, but they are unique in that and they are definitely NOT a major micro.
Thinkstock is Getty. And new. So maybe it is too soon to make judgement with Thinkstock.
137
« on: June 05, 2010, 13:14 »
Cheap subs are the reason that I became exclusive @ IS and am opted out from the partner sites.
My lowest commission now is around $0.70 and my highest is $18+ (thus far & not counting extended licenses).
Selling for $0.25 is a losing proposition in my book unless you just happen to have a shot that sells in the multiple thousand of times.
That is a very rare shot indeed.
Why would anyone want to give their hard work away for peanuts?
It depends on bottom line $$$. You sell more 25 cents Shutterstock versus $2 IStock. At the end of month Shutterstock give bigger total with 25 cents por commission. In case of me, I take 25 cents any day with Shutterstock because each month my total is bigger than Istock. But for other agency I don't think it is worth my trouble. Other people here , you agree?
138
« on: June 05, 2010, 13:06 »
I echo, no, no, no! You might as well bend over and get the soap.
Ha!ha! sjlocke! which soap you use ? Not only does what all of you have discussed above bother me, but here's another trend that bothers me:
Notice the credit line does NOT have the contributor's name, only the agency's. So not only is the picture purchased for peanuts from Thinkstock, but the contributor has been stripped of any benefit of having his/her name published along with the photo!
Something's gotta give...we just keep going backwards faster and faster.
cclapper. I don't think any agency give credit line. Only Getty once I see . Maybe I am wrong.
139
« on: June 05, 2010, 10:55 »
I am new micro person. I follow you on forum and read much bad note on this agency. How many is true and how many is propaganda by people here wheb talk bout Fotolia, I not expert to separate truth / lie.
I am much curious to know what really Fotolia. Thk.
All the agencies have their good and bad points, and they all have people who like or don't like them.
This board is not a place for propaganda though. Most people who share their experiences are telling the truth, at least from their perspective. I haven't read anyone who is just making up lies about any of the agencies.
The best way to find out about an agency is to join and judge for yourself 
BTW, even though some report having a negative experience with Fotolia - if you are non-exclusive and serious about making money in microstock I think they are an important agency to join. They are consistently my #2 earner.
Thank you for reponse. But what I mean is since Fotolia officials do not come here to make their explanation on negative comments or topics, it is very one sided . If I want make bad call on IStock I go to forum Istock . I think to be fair to Fotolia, we go to forum Fotolia. Or let Fotolia officials know we have a problem debated here so they can come give proper respond, so we know it is not one sided accusation. You understadn point ? Lisafx?
140
« on: June 05, 2010, 10:44 »
Before microstock, how many of us earned ANYTHING from stock photos? I think that is something that many of us lose sight of on a regular basis.
We all wish that we made more per sale. However, compared to making nothing, what the sites pay us is much better!
No no no and no!
What was the quality of your images before microstock and now.!?
They brought us up to commercial standards in photography, only because we can sell...
Otherwise before we could easily sell through the traditional agency before Microstock...
What is problem now?
Customers buy a professional photography today on microstock, not amateur as microstock was conceived from the start...
Because of that, there is too much big difference from price to quality in Microstock, that is problem...
I hope that agencies see it, and We see that they slowly changing the rules, because they raise the cost of photographs, what gives hope to all of us...
Cheap subscriptions remain as biggest problem for now...
Okay, borg , I now get your point. Yes, you are right. We look and compare the standard quality of microstock before and after, and we can see the big change. With more strict review and more demanding reviewers. So now we are making better quality not amateur stock photo, but the stock agencies and buyers expect to pay less and less with more and more quality photos available. If you say this is problem, I agree much more to your point. Borg, I tried give you a heart for this comment, but not permitted because I am too new. But you get heart anytway from me
141
« on: June 05, 2010, 09:56 »
I am new micro person. I follow you on forum and read much bad note on this agency. How many is true and how many is propaganda by people here wheb talk bout Fotolia, I not expert to separate truth / lie.
I am much curious to know what really Fotolia. Thk.
142
« on: June 05, 2010, 09:49 »
I don't get what the problem is? Is it that they are using a ThinkStock image?
There is no problem, only cheap subscriptions are problem, nothing more...
Big companies use pics for dollar,every day more and more, several years ago they needed to pay few zeros more for the same...
Where is "big" difference for us, between my image on free site or my image under subscriptions...?
Maybe free site brings more popularity for me than the subscription site, there I am just a one drop in the Ocean...
yes borg, but several years ago we all got paid more zeros too. it's economics. supply demand.. One of the biggest Croatian commercial television, their site:
http://dnevnik.hr/vijesti/zdravlje/grozdze-za-mozak-francuski-paradoks.html
See the label with a picture, everything is legal, TV house makes money, only we make cents... 
Before MS and digital cameras, pro photographers earned heaps of money - Now its only the elite or those who adapted that can earn such money.
Same with these free picture sites - only the elite MS photographers will survive.
But those that can survive will earn good money as quality always wins in the long run and big companies always have a big budget for quality imagery.
So its getting close to that time now when its either adapt or start looking for a new hobby
Good point. Survival of the fittest to earn the pittance
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
