|
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 - Shelma1
Pages: 1 ... 98 99 100 101 102 [103] 104 105 106 107 108 ... 116
2551
« on: March 12, 2014, 18:34 »
I asked the question because I don't think Getty is known as the company who used predatory pricing to gain market share...snip
Read what you just wrote....if they weren't known before as a company who used predatory pricing to gain market share they sure are now....free is pretty cheap, don't ya think? And, it is being done to gain market share.
It's not really free
They're charging people now?
It's not free in the same way that sites offer a free image of the week for example. There are lots of restrictions attached to the images. Most importantly they have to be used in the embed player but they can't be used for commercial purposes, they can have ads placed over top of them or maybe even in place of them, they aren't guaranteed to be there the next day. It's a very restrictive 'free' use. I'm sure you can see the difference between this program and what most agencies say free images. One place that comes to mind is dreamstime's free offering http://www.stockfreeimages.com/
They're not charging people to use them. Therefor they're free. All agencies place restrictions...that's what licensing is. But they charge money for the usage, so they're not free. And of course, iStock gives away free images as well. Odd that you'd use Dreamstime as your reference.
2552
« on: March 12, 2014, 18:10 »
I asked the question because I don't think Getty is known as the company who used predatory pricing to gain market share...snip
Read what you just wrote....if they weren't known before as a company who used predatory pricing to gain market share they sure are now....free is pretty cheap, don't ya think? And, it is being done to gain market share.
It's not really free
They're charging people now?
2553
« on: March 12, 2014, 12:01 »
My sales and earnings continue to grow despite reaching the .38 threshold a while ago. In fact, my earnings per DL continue to rise as more people buy larger licenses. It's now more than double the 25 I started out with...and higher than my earnings per DL at iS, which continue to drop.
I'm sure their search algorithms are much more sophisticated and complex than simply turning off or pushing back higher-priced files. They're looking for the ROI sweet spot, which means ups and downs in everyone's portfolio, IMO.
2554
« on: March 11, 2014, 13:59 »
I know nothing about your experience tickstock. All I know is that you are an istock exclusive, since before 2008.
Or did I misread that?
And that you recently got access to getty and want to upload to PC, right?
A successful exclusive who is able to make a full time income from istock and getty.
eta: I think I am confused?
Close enough.
Perhaps you've become an iStock exclusive more recently?
2555
« on: March 11, 2014, 13:51 »
So you were at Shutterstock but are now exclusive at iStock?
2556
« on: March 11, 2014, 12:23 »
Has anyone run across any embedding anywhere other than the original stories about embedding? I've checked a bunch of blogs, even ones that ran the story and said they were planning to use embedding, and I haven't seen one instance of it so far.
2557
« on: March 11, 2014, 10:12 »
I'm not a photographer, but I've been on many food shoots, making decisions about tableware.  I second the fork opinion...it immediately caught my eye. I'd recommend buying a nice, sleek, neutral place setting and using it only for shoots to keep it pristine.
2558
« on: March 11, 2014, 07:52 »
I just realised today that when you open the Photos.com website you can see this: http://www.photos.com/comingsoon:
Looking for royalty-free subscriptions or image packs? Please visit Thinkstock.
Looking for access to other digital images? Please visit Getty Images."
And where is the invitation to visit iStock???
A guess: all subs will be offered through Thinkstock and all non-subs through Getty. Once all images are absorbed into Getty, they'll be available for embedding.
2559
« on: March 11, 2014, 07:49 »
I love that the only audience question included in the video is about non-commercial use...and...cut! No more questions. That's a wrap, folks.
2560
« on: March 10, 2014, 21:56 »
Well, they have to make up for the exodus that must be happening now.
2561
« on: March 10, 2014, 19:28 »
It seems like it takes around 90-120 days for people to start seeing sales. Also if you just upload the same images as the micros and don't do any SEO or customization of your titles and content it will probably take longer.
That's interesting to know. I'm getting close to that range, so hopefully things pick up soon. I think I'm spoiled because my Ktools site started selling right away. I probably put a little more work into it, but not a ton more. My traffic is still garbage though, so I need to work on it. It's all on my to do list.
The only sale i made was in the first couple of months, before i even had all of my images online. Nothing after that.
Dont have an SY site now, but still have my own site. It still takes work.
Success = sales and money.
If you can work on your site full-time, if you know quite a bit about seo, if you can spend time on social media, if you have multiple sites you can all link together and you dont mind waiting a year or maybe more for a sale, then you might be successful.
I think the part in bold applies to any self-hosted site, not just Symbiostock, and anyone considering a self hosted site on any platform should take note. There is no magic wand - "build it and they will come" just doesn't apply. As photographers whether it's assignment work, micro, self hosted or with an agency you need to put in the effort to build a strong portfolio and market yourself.
True. Although we may think their commissions are too high, the agencies use a lot of that money for marketing, which is how our work gets seen. With your own site you have to do your own marketing.
2562
« on: March 10, 2014, 13:53 »
Here is a great analysis of the situation by Michael.
http://www.michaeljayfoto.com/distribution-channels/why-getty-decided-to-offer-images-for-free/
Short version:
Getty has debts of about two Billion dollars due in November 2015. More than double their revenue. Under traditional valuation as a media company, they can command a P/E of about 15-18 times profit. Rebrand as a technology company, they can get double the money, with a P/E around 30.
I guess that would be worth throwing out 35 million files to the internet. Especially if they dont use their own content but that from crowd sourced contributors.
What do you think? Is the rebranding before Getty is sold the main motivation for this bizarre decision?
Makes perfect sense.
2563
« on: March 10, 2014, 11:47 »
A whole bunch of nothing.
Good to know that Symbiostock is not as successful story as it looks on the first sight.
I don't understand this comment. Why would you wish people to NOT have success? Especially with recent developments, with work being given away free? I would hope Symbiostock would be successful, so people would have other income options.
2564
« on: March 10, 2014, 11:14 »
If Bruce can start an agency that pays out 50% royalties and 100% of extended licenses and go from zero to the success and branding they have in one year - yes, for me that is innovative entrepreneurial work.
And it begs the question - all the smaller production houses with excellent content - what are they doing wrong?
This is where I completely agree with you, if Bruce can accomplish this in one years time, Shutterstock could certainly do the same. The fact is that they choose to pay their contributors 28% while keeping pricing stagnantly low to gain markets share.
I think the low ball pricing has contributed to Getty and Istocks recent moves and I think it has and will continue to hurt all of us.
You hit the nail!
And in his recent interview Jon Oringer confirmed that all use is commercial you can ask yourself why companies that make a lot of money with our work can only spend a few Dollars for it. The truth is they could easily spend a lot more but it's all sacrificed for the greed of market-share.
The link to the interview is here:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevenbertoni/2014/03/07/free-getty-images-no-threat-to-photo-market-says-shutterstock-ceo/
I am genuinely surprised that most people are completing missing or discounting this important contributing factor. When you mentioned it in threads they dismiss it with comments to get back on topic. The downward business pressures shutterstock is exerting via this long term move to grab market, share seems to have gone by virtually unnoticed.
But again: what does this all have to do with Getty deciding to give out files for free? Including RM content? And will their decisions encourage more exclusives to leave? Or will it attract new people who want to work only with them?
iStock applied the original downward pressure by introducing microstock. Now they've really increased pressure by making millions of files "free." I think that's the more egregious approach of the two.
2565
« on: March 10, 2014, 10:39 »
I'm curious about how much those expenses are. Anyone ever had this happen?
2566
« on: March 10, 2014, 10:34 »
This isn't about the embed program. I think we're asking: Have any long-time Getty contributors ever been paid a royalty where expenses were deducted for pursuing payment? In the section of the agreement tickstock pointed to, it only mentions deducting "Any costs associated with a claim due to a breach of the Agreement on your part." Not on the part of the person who used your image without permission.
2567
« on: March 10, 2014, 10:13 »
I found this article about payment demand letters from Getty really interesting, especially this part:
"If Getty tells you something like 'we don't care if you take it down or not, you still have to pay our demands,' they are misleading their victims into thinking that paying the demand means you have purchased the rights to use the image. It does not -- the demand for settlement is purely punitive, asking for for restitution for violating a copyright law, and nothing more."
If the payment they demand is purely punitive, and does not mean the person is now paying to license the image, my guess is they would not pay the image contributor because no license was sold. N'est ce pas?
http://womeninbusiness.about.com/od/copyrightlaws/a/Can-I-Ignore-A-Getty-Settlement-Demand-Letter.htm
I don't think that's correct. My understanding is contributors get paid after expenses for going after infringers is deducted. The best thing to do would be to use primary sources, check your Getty Contributor agreement.
Can you point us to that understanding in writing somewhere?
2568
« on: March 10, 2014, 10:06 »
I've had several sales, one an EL, even though my site doesn't offer that option. The buyer got in touch with me through my Facebook page looking for an EL (a very honest buyer!).
2569
« on: March 10, 2014, 09:56 »
I found this article about payment demand letters from Getty really interesting, especially this part: "If Getty tells you something like 'we don't care if you take it down or not, you still have to pay our demands,' they are misleading their victims into thinking that paying the demand means you have purchased the rights to use the image. It does not -- the demand for settlement is purely punitive, asking for for restitution for violating a copyright law, and nothing more." If the payment they demand is purely punitive, and does not mean the person is now paying to license the image, my guess is they would not pay the image contributor because no license was sold. N'est ce pas? http://womeninbusiness.about.com/od/copyrightlaws/a/Can-I-Ignore-A-Getty-Settlement-Demand-Letter.htm
2570
« on: March 10, 2014, 08:44 »
Where are the advantages for the contributors?
2571
« on: March 10, 2014, 07:36 »
It bothers me because they purposely sent out a press release (which was picked up/modified by the press) shouting that they'd made 35 million images FREE, and it was only if you read all the details in the articles and the TOS that you realized that wasn't really true. In the comments sections bloggers are talking about yay it's free and all I have to do is right click to get rid of the frame. So they've just released everyone's work into the stratosphere and lulled people into believing it's ok.
Something bad up their sleeves.
2572
« on: March 10, 2014, 06:43 »
Just a thought...Getty offers embedding and gives bloggers "sticker shock" when they see how much images cost, sends out a few demands for payment to scare people, then a few weeks later announces the new subs model at iStock, which will probably be priced lower than the competition since they're paying us lower royalties.
Conspiracy theory, yes, but it's an awfully odd coincidence they're offering subs a few weeks after embedding. One-two punch at the competition as well.
2573
« on: March 10, 2014, 06:20 »
If Getty build 3 tier content supply with:
Getty -the most expensive
Istock - middle priced
Thinkstock - cheap sub model
Why they are making Getty's most expensive content free
And don't include Istock and Thinkstock content in this deal?
Just a thought.
What do you think?
It's easier for non-exclusives at iStock to jump ship, which would ruin everything because those "free" embeds would now be big holes in someone's blog. Also, if they're using embedding to pinpoint unauthorized usage, they can send much larger demands for payment with Getty than with iStock.
2574
« on: March 09, 2014, 18:30 »
I doubt the Times would use this. They want, need, to be in charge of their own advertising...that's how they stay in business. They can't have a competitor's ad popping up randomly on the same page as a paid ad because it appears in a Getty embed. This is really only meant for smaller pubs and bloggers.
I really don't see how it would work. With YouTube, at least you can see in real time how many views your video has. How would you know with Getty? How could any individual contributor possibly know how many times their image was viewed, how much ad revenue was generated, and whether they were paid the correct amount?
2575
« on: March 09, 2014, 15:57 »
Just a guess, but Getty would somehow bundle a bunch of blogs or news sources with similar content and audiences and sell the ad space. I'm guessing ad agencies would place ads based on demographics and interests. Probably has nothing to do with the specific image in question.
Pages: 1 ... 98 99 100 101 102 [103] 104 105 106 107 108 ... 116
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
