|
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 - ClaridgeJ
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 ... 23
51
« on: January 16, 2013, 16:57 »
For myself I've narrowed it down to three choices:
1) They hate microstock and are on the attack to get rid of at least Istock as the former micro leader and damage as many others as they can, because they want their high-priced macro to dominate the market.
2) They are exceedingly and unfathomably incompetent businesspeople totally out of touch with real life. So they'll throw everything against the wall and see what sticks.
3) This is just a fun interesting experiment and no one there really cares about anything or anyone else. They can survive quite comfortably on their inherited billions for the rest of their lives.
I'm really not sure which choice is closest to the truth.
May I add another?
4) The Carlyle Group has discovered it has bought a company in deep financial trouble. They are selling off assets at fire sale prices just to make a quick buck and once they've gotten everything they can out of it, they will take the rest of the losses as a write-off and move on to destroy the next hapless company.
Why is it always people like CG, H&F, etc, buying these sort of companies, why is it always the Gordon Geccos, we get lumbered with. What possible interest could they have, exept the God of Mamon? Why cant it for once be friendly people like you or me? Archbishop of Caterbury or the Pope? nah, I suppose its asking for too much aint it? we always get bogged down with the bad guys.
52
« on: January 16, 2013, 16:40 »
There's one simple, compelling reason why no one should be exclusive anywhere: these agencies are unstable businesses, in an an evolving (verging on chaotic) market, with business plans, prices, commissions, and contributor terms subject to change on any given day, without notice. That's not even an opinion - it's an observation.
You can't count on anything remaining the same long enough to justify the decision to be exclusive. It could sound great today, and 3 months from today look like the biggest mistake you could have made.
Very true indeed! and we have all seen that happen a number of times. Although I have to say all this nonsense, ups and downs, chnging this, changing that, well thats pretty much a micro-agency thingy. Never experienced this with the old trads
53
« on: January 16, 2013, 15:49 »
Things are already looking LOTS! better. Old files mixed with newish have sold like crazy overnight. Looking at it this morning I couldnt believe the positive differance. 
anybody else noticing.
Yes, first back to back, zero download days since about 2010. I noticed.
But if it will stop the constant static, crying and complaining about the search engine being broken, I'm all for it!
May I quote from the SS forums, 2011?
"The reason that newer results may not be selling as quickly now is that, as we have explained in our prior posts in this thread, the Most Popular alg now considers a variety of factors beyond just the ratio of total downloads vs total time-available for that image. These new factors we are considering are all image or keyword level factors, and have nothing to do with submitter level data."
Hi! I dont get it? you mean first day since 2010 with zip dls? in that case I put it down to just bad luck, a one off. Anyways if we dont scream and complain we would probably give the wrong message, that everything is great, even when it isnt. best.
54
« on: January 16, 2013, 15:45 »
End product is exactly what Sharpshot and Paulie says. SS has had an easy ride to the top. Not taking anything away from them, they have played it beautyfully. Without the total mismanagement ( forced upon the admin by Getty ). IS would still be the market leader and by a long shot and in a sense I feel sorry for them. It cant be easy to run a company of that size with big brother constantly breathing down your neck, not asking but telling you what to do.
Totally agree. Another 'sky falling in' moment!
Double! Because both gostwyck and chris are right on with the analysis and they also agree. (and I agree with both of them bottom line)
People tried to warn us about that Mayan Calendar thing, Now we can see it's true. 
Well me old mates. Calls for a toast, we all agree on something. If there was a way to mail you a Scotch each, I would. Sadly computer technology havent come that far.............. yet. Oh well. cheers! all the best. Chris.
55
« on: January 16, 2013, 15:12 »
Pleasant place, pleasant people. Professionally run, etc. They want to lay a bit more emphacy on that they sell photography not just illutrations, vectors.
Im afraid its not much revenue at the moment.
56
« on: January 16, 2013, 12:18 »
I was going for a bit of levity, oh well :-)
I know! frankly I wasnt too keen on that film, Sheen was brillant, he always is. Brando btw for that lark got 10 million quid.
57
« on: January 16, 2013, 12:09 »
Their Macro side is dying on its arse as well, they're just running around with fire extinguishers wondering what to do next.
Getty remind me of Marlon Brando in Apocalypse Now, a mad shaved headed old veteran chopping everything up and spouting nonsense.
There is no plan.
http://www.youtube.com/embed/WdNsltQXTVU
Matt! that is such a naive and dangerous thinking, wishful thinking its truly unbelievable. I could show you my and some friends sales-reports from the RM collections and you would not believe your eyes and then ask if its dying.
58
« on: January 16, 2013, 12:00 »
And here is whatvi posted in another thread:
I suspect they are NOT shooting themselves in the foot in any way. They may have taken a hit financially short term, but in their long term plans they will a. (Try to) kill microstock and b. eliminate all the "riff-raff" (contributors not part of their elite group). Sounds like getty is right on target.
And when i say riff raff, i mean in their eyes. And when i say contributors, i mean exclusive to istock, non-exclusive to istock, whatever. I believe they want to narrow their pool of contributors and go back to charging big bucks for each image, as it was before. No one is privy to their strategy, so a lot of what they are doing, including the ms and google deals, look stupid to contributors. In the long run tho, i am totally convinced that the outcome will mean a lot of money for them, some good money for some, and nothing for the peons.
Well spoken Cathy! although I would go a step further. I dont think, deep down they care too much for all these E+, exclusives to IS, etc. I am very sure they want to revert back to their trad-photographers, look after them and so on. They are so totally dominant in the RM/RF markets that the other trads are just getting the tail end of the left-overs. Consider this with all the expertice of Getty, own or hired, how difficult would it really be to fix the IS site, search, etc? its more a matter of WANTING to fix it? I recon they are well on course.
59
« on: January 16, 2013, 09:01 »
From the day i heard that getty bought istock, i was of the opinion that they were trying to buy the competition and get rid ofmicrostock altogether. Think of the attitudes of the traditional photogs...micro contributors have been the scum of the earth since day 1. From day 1 micro has been a boil on gettys butt and i still have no doubt that they will do whatever they need to so micro will disappear.
Yes and I told Lisa that back in 2008. Eventually I am sure they will succeed.
60
« on: January 16, 2013, 02:03 »
Things are already looking LOTS! better. Old files mixed with newish have sold like crazy overnight. Looking at it this morning I couldnt believe the positive differance. anybody else noticing.
61
« on: January 16, 2013, 01:58 »
Finally! after all these years. The penny has dropped.
62
« on: January 15, 2013, 16:03 »
Thanks Scott! kind of you to loook in . Appreciate it. :
63
« on: January 15, 2013, 15:15 »
64
« on: January 15, 2013, 08:25 »
End product is exactly what Sharpshot and Paulie says. SS has had an easy ride to the top. Not taking anything away from them, they have played it beautyfully. Without the total mismanagement ( forced upon the admin by Getty ). IS would still be the market leader and by a long shot and in a sense I feel sorry for them. It cant be easy to run a company of that size with big brother constantly breathing down your neck, not asking but telling you what to do. Paulie! gas leaks? where? oh yeah over there, been leaking for years now, how about putting a match to it?
65
« on: January 15, 2013, 06:10 »
Yes I did read the blog but I think exclusive images with istock do have added value, as buyers have been willing to pay more money for them. If istock had been managed properly and not in the shambolic way they have been in the past few years, they might be the dominant site by now. I think it's not been a fair fight between istock and SS in recent years because the istock owners don't seem to care or are incapable of running the site properly. If anything, they have done all they can to destroy istock, like sending buyers to Thinkstock. SS has been run well and has taken full advantage of isock's downfall.
SS don't need exclusive images now because all they have to do is not screw up and they will get more and more buyers. They could end up dominating the market and it would be like being exclusive for us but without the extra commission.
Good post and its all true.
66
« on: January 15, 2013, 06:02 »
Silly me! and I thought certain people here were applauding the new SS search? or.............. well its funny but just about everything seem to go weird after going public.
Actually my earnings have been good since the IPO. Whatever changes they make to the search, earnings seem to be quite stable. I've not uploaded much either. You seem to be fixated with the IPO changing things but that doesn't surprise me. If you said black was white, I'm sure you would never be able to accept you got it wrong You would rather insult people and then come back with a different name, so we don't recognise you for a few days. Then you can say you're not anonymous here, even though you've tried to be and you can attack people that are anonymous, even though anyone with a brain can usually work out who they are quite easily. It took me 2 minutes to work out who gostwyck was a few years ago. I don't agree with everything he says about SS either but at least he doesn't keep disappearing and coming back with a new name.
Are you Ok today? I dont seem to remember I said anything wrong in the above post? since you replied you must have read it. Oh neer mind, time of the month isnt it. Or maybe you just wanted to score a few +++. Be my guest. have a good day.
67
« on: January 15, 2013, 04:44 »
Why not invite the former founder of Istock to extablish a new agency? Take all the good things that made Istock successful and make it better by not repeating past mistakes. I would think any non-competition clause would have run its course by now.
Like selling to Getty for a wad of cash, knowing full well what Getty's reputation was prior to the deal?
Anyway, he's busy doing other things now, and if he wasn't I wouldn't touch him with a barge-pole
Exactly! he must shed tons of tears right now watching the vast amounts of SS and FT, IPOs, etc. There is nothing wrong with Getty! as long as you keep them separate from micro, which really isnt their game at all and instead of poking around in this flee-market they should concentrate on all their other ventures.
68
« on: January 15, 2013, 02:13 »
Mantis! I know its no consolation but I know two guys with 12K images between them, they have been stung now third time in a row by the changes and they are pulling their ports and ciao bella.
Me. no it hasnt effected me as yet.
You have been affected. You said so on the SS forum when it happened first time around
Yes ofcourse but not by much. However this might be of interest actually. I am used to quite good earnings at SS so when it dips its worrying ofcourse. Since Friday last week, would you believe, IS have gone past SS, I know, too short a time to judge but the interesting thing here is that judging by what have sold at IS, its a mixture of new and old files, so clearly something positive has happend with the IS, best match search. It might only be me, I dont know. Frankly who cares really what agency sell as long as the revenue is coming in.
69
« on: January 14, 2013, 15:12 »
Silly me! and I thought certain people here were applauding the new SS search? or.............. well its funny but just about everything seem to go weird after going public.
70
« on: January 14, 2013, 14:20 »
I still think having a day where we all start deleting together would send a strong message.
Do you honestly believe that? I doubt it very much. I think personally the only person you will harm will be yourself, by dropping your income. If you're really p*** off, why not leave completely, surely that would be more positive. They must get thousands of uploads a day, many many thousands, a couple of thousand being deactivated, what will that do? I don't want to sound negative, but this is doomed to failure.
Im afraid I think youre right. I doubt it will even make a dent. Good effort though. Further more they might be playing Getty right into the lap. This might be exactly what they have been waiting for. Remember IS have always been a thorn in the side of Getty and here comes an aid to their non existence.
71
« on: January 14, 2013, 12:49 »
... but I know two guys with 12K images between them, they have been stung now third time in a row by the changes and they are pulling their ports and ciao bella.
No you don't. You've just made that story up haven't you? Same as most of your other posts. You're probably ahead of Stig Larsson as Sweden's most prolific writer of fiction.
Old news as it happens but Sure! that would be your reaction, since SS, is all youve got and its scarry, isnt it to even think the very thought of that something is going wrong here. Dangerous for you but not for me.
No, youre all mouth my friend, nothing else.
Well I tell you what. If they do decide to leave youll find out, over there actually and maybe then we will see who " made it up"
BTW, dont you follow other forums? in that case this shouldnt be any news? ppl leave all the time, happens with all agencies.
Go back to your dark hole at Catherines wharf and do some writing, photography isnt your game, is it.  Oh! and Ed, in the other thread is 100% right and YOU are in the wrong.
Even as a groundling you should know they DONT SELL intellectual property.
seriously, is that hard to respect other? you are talking about the person who has more hearts in this forum and a contributor that have almost twice your sales at iStock
please don't start again with the RM talk, you have made your choices, other made theirs!
Hi Luis! No wont start anything. Five times as many sales at IS, doesnt account for anything nowdays and neither does the sweety hearts, since I dont suck up to anybody and is not in the business of being a yes-man. never been. The guy is wrong on a number of accounts. Blind leading the blind really. Me? I dont hide behind a pseudo ( neither do you for that matter ), dont have to, but lets put it this way. I know exactly who is who behind most Pseudos here ( thanks to a dear friend of all of us) and I dont like it. now lets find another topic. bvest. Chris.
72
« on: January 14, 2013, 05:47 »
deleted post.
73
« on: January 14, 2013, 04:39 »
Dont know? I havent boosted any prices at all. To be frank I dont really know what they sell anymore but they are still the no.3 and it beats me especially since 3 of the middle-tiers are doing better.
It dont bother me really. Its a strange agency with strange values.
74
« on: January 14, 2013, 03:47 »
... but I know two guys with 12K images between them, they have been stung now third time in a row by the changes and they are pulling their ports and ciao bella.
No you don't. You've just made that story up haven't you? Same as most of your other posts. You're probably ahead of Stig Larsson as Sweden's most prolific writer of fiction.
Old news as it happens but Sure! that would be your reaction, since SS, is all youve got and its scarry, isnt it to even think the very thought of that something is going wrong here. Dangerous for you but not for me. No, youre all mouth my friend, nothing else. Well I tell you what. If they do decide to leave youll find out, over there actually and maybe then we will see who " made it up" BTW, dont you follow other forums? in that case this shouldnt be any news? ppl leave all the time, happens with all agencies. Go back to your dark hole at Catherines wharf and do some writing, photography isnt your game, is it. Oh! and Ed, in the other thread is 100% right and YOU are in the wrong. Even as a groundling you should know they DONT SELL intellectual property.
75
« on: January 13, 2013, 16:13 »
can anyone paste a link to ClaridgeJ's portfolio? would like to see the most experienced expert's work.
Heck! Im not the only one, youve got experienced ports like Lisa, Joann, Luis, gostwyck, Pauls, there is a whole string of them. For whatever its worth. go to SS and search, chris56, pseudo for lagereek btw.
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 ... 23
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
