|
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 - Nordlys
26
« on: September 15, 2010, 00:26 »
Brave move, but the right move. One sleeps better at night I can tell you. Welcome back in the ranks of the indy's! 
27
« on: September 14, 2010, 13:24 »
All of your questions presume that your point of view on the situation provides an accurate prediction of the future available to us at istock. I don't have the same point of view, but I'm not an independent. And taking business from me to suit your career choices (remaining independent) is pretty crappy. Anyways, just offering my ten cents, because there's s pretty big bias here most of the time. But I suspect no one is interested is discussing the value of another perspective. I do hope that istock reconsiders the floor for independents to 20%. Believe it or not, exclusives do care what happens with independents. But you're eroding that sense of support, at least speaking for myself.
Fair enough
Support is a two way street, what are you as a group of exclusive contributors willing to do to support independent contributors besides "hoping"?
What productive options do you see available for independents to recover their lost income on IS and how can exclusives help support that process?
Well - support is nice, even if it only as hope for the better... But look - we have to get the most out of your business - if that includes attracting buyers to other sites that IS, where we earn the lowest commision - thats a sound business decition for us. I recon, that you as an excluse got an other perspective, but that dosen't change the way we have to do businnes - and survice. And a paltry 15% is not enough to survive... On a personal level, one feels sorry for those exclusive and lockes up with an unethical company, but funny thing is that you folks did so to maximise your profits short term. (sounds familiar?) Nothing wron with that, but dont whine when things change, and your bedpartner in the morning suddenly looks way less attractive
28
« on: September 14, 2010, 12:38 »
in any case, we're all in it together...whether it seems like it or not. the agencies and contributors combined make one big ecosystem, and that's the biggest concern.
I agree 100% with the above. I can't speak to anyone else's motivations, but for myself, I am making the biggest stink possible for one reason - to try and benefit the entire ecosystem, not just my own tiny part of it.
This isn't just about istock, this is about a precedent in the industry. The 20% barrier has been broken. The "protect our exclusives" barrier has been broken.
This doesn't just affect us on istock. The other sites are watching.
If we don't protest this in the strongest terms, and do whatever we can to show istock this will hurt their financial bottom line, the other sites will quickly follow suit. Then independents will be completely screwed and so will exclusives, because if you should find you are getting a raw deal at istock, you will no longer have the safety net of going independent to recover your income. If istock succeeds and profits from shafting its contributors this way, very soon there won't be any place to do to get a better deal.
I totally agree with Lisa on this. Talking about us pushing business to other site, are not making business like deecitions are bull. You've got to draw a line somewhere. Thres also ethics in business - god and bad. Istock are like doing business wiht the mafia - the photo mafia - and I for one don't want to contribute, or in any other way be assosisated with the kind os business IS practices. As for directing buyers to sites where the price for the same product are lower,a nd my indcome higher, can I not se hurting me, nor the buyer - it's a win-win situation. As for the exclusives at Istock - sorry - you made your own decition about doing so - now you have to take whatever crap comes down from above at the IS halls...
29
« on: September 14, 2010, 02:24 »
I see from this thread, that Ss bought BS.
Are my SS pictures then also automaticaly shown on BigStock?
Anynone know about this?
30
« on: September 13, 2010, 13:40 »
Well, I was taking a break during the summer slump. Now I see what all is going on.. so no more uploads there for me. If they would pay me the monies in my account, I would even pull my port just to save me and them some time. I am done with Istock but I do want what I am owed.
Tehy will. Just contact support - I just did it.
31
« on: September 13, 2010, 07:37 »
I belive so - but why not e-mail them, and if yoy have a portfolio now, link to it.
They are quite friendly
32
« on: September 13, 2010, 06:17 »
Decent prices, decent commissions, rather slow sales (but better than some other low earner sites).
I would recommend them as an additional site if you're spreading your work out.
Certainly no replacement for any of the top sites volume wise.
Thanks - they offered me to do the keywording if I bulk upload, s I'll give them a try, as it is mostly a supplement
33
« on: September 13, 2010, 03:58 »
Clipdealer who run a banner at this site, are advertising for contributers.
Any experiences?
Looks interesting to me, as they are in Germany, which has a good market for scandinavian pictures
34
« on: September 12, 2010, 16:09 »
WELL - we will have to see what happends in the coming months.
As far as I can see, as of today IS has got 7.395.351 images online.
35
« on: September 12, 2010, 15:34 »
Many will wait to reach their payout amount, and many will continue until jan 1. and ripe the "better" royalties un til then.
As for sales - we have no way of knowing, but people would want to use up their credits first.
36
« on: September 12, 2010, 15:07 »
Vlad - I can see, that you are not able to follow my line of reasonening and/ or arguments
Someone else pointed out the flaw in your thinking. Pulling an image doesn't mean IS lose a sale, a buyer will just choose different sellers images on IS so they lose nothing.
Only if theres a substitute
37
« on: September 12, 2010, 14:39 »
I pulled 100 pictures. My yearly income on those was about 200$ -> IS made 800 $. (fairly medicore folio)
But if 100 photographers pull the same amount is 80.000 dollars - a good salery for a year.
To keep equal - bring in 80.000 - to grow bring in more. So many samller contributers rapedly sum up.
And remember - these missing money will show directly on the bottom line, as all the expences was payed long ago.
So - if many pictures are pulles, they really have to bring in a lot more than the useual amount of new material, just to stay even, and yet more to grow.
True - if my port was laptops isolated on wite etc. pics - which it was not - so it depends of the kind og content removed and if it easely substituted - right - but many smaller contributers supply more diversifed material, thatn just the mainstream, and than mean that IS will loose some of the more exiting stuff, thus not providing the same broard content...
But we have to see - theres also the question of the Getty collections.
I appreciate your motivation and your action but unfortunately there is an obvious flaw. By removing your images does not necessarily mean that Istock will lose the revenue __ the buyer will simply chose a different image to fulfill their needs. Istock still gets their money but the commission you would have earned goes to another contributor. It's the buyers themselves we need to move away from Istock.
38
« on: September 12, 2010, 14:35 »
But if 100 photographers pull the same amount is 80.000 dollars - a good salery for a year.
To put that into perspective, IS currently pays out $1.7 million dollars a week in commission alone. Although I respect your desire for change $80k is a drop in a very big ocean.
Vlad - I can see, that you are not able to follow my line of reasonening and/ or arguments
39
« on: September 12, 2010, 13:13 »
I think IS has peaked, or are very close to do so (jan1.?). Peaked in amount of renevue, peaked in numbers of contributers, and peaked in numbers of photographs. (except bringing getty material), and peaked in number of buyers.
If i'm right about that, then the downwards spiral has indeed started.
Remember for each picture pulled they loose profit. They not only has to bring in one new picture = equal, but two to make growth.
I pulled 100 pictures. My yearly income on those was about 200$ -> IS made 800 $. (fairly medicore folio)
But if 100 photographers pull the same amount is 80.000 dollars - a good salery for a year.
To keep equal - bring in 80.000 - to grow bring in more. So many samller contributers rapedly sum up.
And remember - these missing money will show directly on the bottom line, as all the expences was payed long ago.
So - if many pictures are pulles, they really have to bring in a lot more than the useual amount of new material, just to stay even, and yet more to grow.
It gonna be hard, but perhaps the getty material can make up for it?
40
« on: September 12, 2010, 10:14 »
Personally, my old nick was Asist, and my images can be found at:
Alamy
Canstock
Dreamstime
Fotolia
Shutterstock
41
« on: September 12, 2010, 10:11 »
We could set up a thread where people thats has left IS, can post their pseudonymes, and on what sites, they now can be found?
42
« on: September 12, 2010, 09:48 »
Alamy.com host the worlds largest image collection with currently 20 million images, both RF and RM.
You will find many of the independent former istockers pictures there as well as a lot of other stuff.
Please don't speak for "many of the former istockers." Speak only for yourself.
I helped a pretty number of people to at good start at Alamy, so whats the problem?
43
« on: September 12, 2010, 09:32 »
Ha ha, the Istock site is down right now. Not even an error message.
Who ever caused that ... could you PLEASE do it again, and again, and again .... 
Perhaps some one finally goet pissed enough on them to launch a cyberattack, botnet etc. to down their servers? Would really be a laugh.... Don't ever piss on your croud source!
44
« on: September 12, 2010, 09:25 »
Alamy.com host the worlds largest image collection with currently 20 million images, both RF and RM.
You will find many of the independent former istockers pictures there as well as a lot of other stuff.
45
« on: September 12, 2010, 04:46 »
The major cahnges takes effect from jan.1. From there on, more people start leaving IS, as they see diminishing income. On till then, will have to wait and see, but one should not underestimate the ongoing activity at the moment with rederection of linkes to toher sites, refering buyers there also and son on.
One this / if this reaches a certain momentum, the situation will be extremely har for IS to reverse.
46
« on: September 12, 2010, 04:16 »
I think Istock will decline from here on. Come january 1., many smaller and midsized independents will leave together with smaller exclusives, because the paydrops and the trouble uploading to IS, it's no longer worth while.
As they go, they remove linkes to IS, refer clients to oter sites, and stop buying at IS. Many of the smaller contrinuters to IS, are often also big buyers - IS forget to include this in their calculations.
As the word spreds further, traffic will decline further. Those who leave take with them some (not all) unique content, so buyers will have trouble finding what they want at IS.
And so on, and so on, and so on. IS has startet a negative ongoing downwards spiral.
Each time they lose a selling picture, they have to make extra sales to make up for that.
Each time a parttimer leave and take whith him his spending at IS, the will have to find new buyers to compenate for that.
With diminishing traffic, it will be very hard to attract new buyers, and with lower pay it will become morediifcult fo find new talent.
I simply cant see how they with rising prices, market saturation, and less unique material, can make up for the losses.
47
« on: September 11, 2010, 09:29 »
I personally know of a London based photographer who is a pretty heavy contributor but he is also a big partner in an Advertising/designer agency, who for ages obviously have bought all their stock from IS.
Im pretty darned sure, when he gets hold of this news though, his agency will probably go elsewhere.
see, the trouble is, sooner or later you pick on the wrong crowd, dont you.
I think the bean counter missed this. Many part time contributers work in the design and advertising industri, and often spent more money on IS buying pics, than they do earn i royalties from their portfolios. So they are going to migrate, take their pics with them, and taking their business somewhere else. I think thins goes for at lot part timers, especially those non exclusive. It has to hurt IS renevue badly
48
« on: September 11, 2010, 09:11 »
The truth is, the only reason I'm submitting to iStock is because it allows minors to contribute, I'm only 15.
You are one brave lad - I'll give you that.... But that said, I don't think Istock is a very nice place to be for a young fellow like you. Don't get lured in to all their sweetalk, expect to be underpayed, talked down to, getting your files rejected for no apparent reason etc... No - actually, I would recommend you not to join, and instead to to some photoshosting sites with a freindly environment, where you can get some good feedbask on your photography. Best!
49
« on: September 11, 2010, 07:30 »
[/quote]
They would have thrown in a sweetener instead and enticed non-exclusives to join the other side.
[/quote]
So now is time to deside if you want to join the Dark side, or go with the Force
50
« on: September 11, 2010, 05:30 »
I bet so, beacuse if I were a top contributer, at would have contacted IS by mail or phone, when the first message hit the boards, and the I would have tried to negosiate a deal directly. So thats probably what happend - at least for some of the top names such as Yuri etc.
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
