|
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 - Xanox
Pages: 1 ... 18 19 20 21 22 [23]
551
« on: February 24, 2013, 21:36 »
so they say it's about "brand awareness" ?
i beg to disagree, from a marketing perspective it's a cheap way to get users flooded by images with the IS watermark, but will this ultimately translate in new buyers and new sales ?
i don't see any so called "call to action" in these social networks, no "BUY this image" buttons especially, how can random users even get to know they can licence these images if all they see is a watermark ?
so now we reached the point where the world's biggest stock agency (getty) goes in bed with companies that base their business on stolen images like Pinterest and companies that profit from displaying 3rd party images without compensation like Google.
and they already had deals with Flickr, what's next .. Instagram ? Facebook ? BitTorrent ?eMule ?
552
« on: February 24, 2013, 12:19 »
How many are making that with 500 images?
That's impossible in stock, no matter if RF, RM, or whatever. Only in art galleries you can make it with a few dozen good photos but they're still a selection of hundreds of good images. If you really cant produce more than 500 good images, sorry but you don't have the minimum required skills to be a photographer.
553
« on: February 24, 2013, 10:57 »
Xanox what is your suggestion? we all dump micro?
If the trend keeps going on, micro will dump you as the sales will not be enough to cover the production costs. Said that, many things can happen in the industry in 2-3 years, nobody is in the position to say that micro is dead or that micro will prosper forever. If we look at the numbers, the ones at risk of getting out of business are the photographers with small portfolios, not the top sellers. They will be the ones to eventually keep micro as a hobby or to leave stock altogether. On the other hand, oversupply will force top sellers to feed the beast more often than now but i guess the agencies will have to change something in their fees in one way or another. In a typical scenario, 20% of the contributors make up 80% of the sales. So, agencies have no reason to keep the small portfolios apart rare cases. Being a cut-throat business it's logic that agencies will shake the fees in favor of the top sellers, or maybe give bonuses or whatever other incentive, i can't think of the whole micro industry remaining stale forever. Getty itself could launch some new evil ideas to monetize their micro collections and they've no reason to give it away for free, if it works the other agencies could follow the same path. All we can do is keeping out eyes open, something big could happen soon.
554
« on: February 24, 2013, 01:41 »
Getty is NOT closed !
They're just very selective and picky.
At least they accept applications, Corbis instead is a closed fortress but you can get the foot in the door joining one of their partners, and same for Getty.
555
« on: February 24, 2013, 01:18 »
Believe it or not, i don't agree with John Lund.
Nowadays, your net earnings with RF images on Getty is usually in the 50-150$ range and same for Alamy and second tier RM agencies.
His image selling 4 times for 1300 bucks is NOT the norm.
Secondly, Thinkstock is a joke in terms of payout, what else did he expected ?
The same images sold on IS as Vetta Collection would give him a decent amount of money, maybe not on par with Getty RF but neither a ridiculous 0.2$/download.
Third, he's specialized in conceptual images, which is a niche selling like hot cakes on Getty so to me it looks like comparing apples and oranges, thinkstock is really not representing of the micro industry as Getty treats it as a leftovers collection.
556
« on: February 24, 2013, 01:04 »
microstock is not killing the industry - there will always be a large demand for ridiculously cheap photography. it is making the industry unsustainable for individual photographers to produce quality imagery and make a living from doing so, and it is also enabling the sellers of our work to make tons of money from the volume of sales. it is not killing the stock industry in terms of sales, but it is killing it for the photographers who produce the work.
As a comparison, a friend of mine is on the children book business, he draw illustrations and writes the text and also edits the whole product (which is a PDF file that will need further editing by the publishing company). He's usually paid 10% of the retail price, each book will be printed from 1000 to 5000 copies and sent to the national distributor, but the publishers tend to give him some money in advance as it can take even 1 year to see the book in the stores. Further payments are made every 12 months and include royalties from other books and eventual distribution agreement in other countries (a one-time fee of 3000 to 6000$ depending on several factors, spit 50/50 between authors and publisher). Once he get paid, he will have to pay taxes, from 30 to 50%, again depending on several factors. Conclusion ? He cannot do this full time as the book publishing business is now in deep sh-it and he would either have to publish a new book every month or become a famous and expensive illustrator, so that at the moment and for the foreseeable future he keeps book publishing just as a hobby and as a way to make some bucks. IS THIS the same fate waiting for microstock photographers ? stock as a Hobby ? maybe.
557
« on: February 23, 2013, 11:10 »
We all focus on what the agencies are doing and how they're changing, but the real change is happening in the mind of the buyer. Thanks to the fine work of these agencies, and predatory companies like Google, the buyer's idea of what an image is "worth" is being steadily eroded and is rapidly approaching zero.
Speak for yourself. While your analysis holds true for the RF/micro market, i can't see how it can apply to the RM world. There's still a whole universe of images sold as RM not available in any way as RF and sorry but buyers have no other alternatives than buying RM licences or hire somebody on assignment. Ironically, buyers could easily find similar subjects for free or for next to nothing on the many photo sharing sites but since none of these images are properly keyworded it's almost impossible to find the right photo you need and it's not gonna change soon as nobody in his right mind seem to be interested in wasting long time keywording free images, and why would they ? Moreover, it's not possible to sustain the production costs of many RM subjects if they sold at micro prices, and this too is not gonna change soon or ever. There will always space for both RF and RM licensing, but while RM will never reach the saturation point, RF already reach the point of non return, just as it happened for so many other industries before with the advent of the internet and the spread of the "everything must be free" sub-culture.
558
« on: February 22, 2013, 01:19 »
Hahahaha.
Hope it becomes a booming success.
No glass ceiling in microstock, welcome to nanostock or "freestock".
559
« on: February 21, 2013, 01:50 »
How these people could participate to this masquerade after what has been done to SjLocke (aka Robin Hood)?
Because he's no Robin Hood. I'm 100% with Getty on this story. You can not blackmail the company who's feeding you. You signed a contract, if you dont like it move elsewhere or start your own agency.
560
« on: February 19, 2013, 14:06 »
What's the difference with sites like FIVERR where they sell 5$ photo services of any kind ?
561
« on: February 18, 2013, 08:42 »
Transmitted by Lobo:
"We do not care about you".
"And it is us who write history".
.
hahaha ! i would like to drink a beer with this guy, is he for real ? must be really a bad job.
562
« on: February 18, 2013, 01:50 »
sorry guys.
even Digital Railroad had VCs, investors, backers, and money to invest and their slogan was "Photographer = Hero!".
But it didnt worked and it wasnt enough for buyers to jump ship.
Buyers are money conscious, they MUST BE !
Where's the tangible benefit for them if Stocksy is a co-op and pays fair prices to photographers ?
Clients all around the world are cutting budgets, all they need is even cheaper prices for photography and design, this is the trend everywhere including RM and assignments.
Stocksy will pay 50% but of what exactly ? selling cheaper than SS and IS so that you end up with 50% of nothing ?
563
« on: February 17, 2013, 09:51 »
If you dont like micros, sean and stocksy, I suggest you open a new account at Alamy, it seems you have a better audience over there.
oh well, i'm probably already in "ignore" by most of the readers here. i just come here to give my 2 cents about the stock industry, my holy war against micros is concluded. i'll be glad to see the alamy forum sink, leave the boat while you're still in time.
564
« on: February 17, 2013, 09:47 »
I pointed out how unethical this was in their forum once and all I got from Serban was a 'shut up or I'll ban you' warning.
of course. because this is the stock industry's dirty little secret ! only getty, corbis, and a few others are willing to prosecute copyright infringemente and licence abuse, and this seems to be limited to western countries, if the infringer is in china for instance you're F'ed. and the most typical scenario can be buyers getting a licence for the cheapest RM small sized 5-10$ image and then using it for book covers, brochures, web site, full page spreads. how are we supposed to spot the infringers as long as nothing can be found online of all this apart their web site ? will you see their business brochures given away in australia ? i dont think so, will you see their book printed in russian ? same same ... what about a double page spread in a gossip magazine in brazil ? no way. RM is too vulnerable to abuse, but so is RF. the only solution would be to raise prices to compensate for our losses, just as in many countries they have a tax on blank CD/DVDs to recover the losses of piracy.
565
« on: February 17, 2013, 07:40 »
all this talk about Stocksy is "vaporware".
as it is now, the microstock is a mature oversaturated cut-throat industry.
there's not a single chance for a tiny startup like Stocksy to get the foot in the door without being backed by investors and VCs fueling the company with TENS of millions $.
and these guys are there to make fat profits, not to provide photographers a "fair share" environment.
they will try to grow the company as much as they can and then sell it to the highest bidding competitor, that's their business plan.
early photographers who invest in Stocksy could make some money, but all the other random contributors being merely content providers will be taken for a ride again.
would you invest in Stocksy ? NO !
566
« on: February 17, 2013, 07:25 »
selling as both RF and RM ?
that's business as usual considering how many millions of images are on sale nowadays, nobody is going to double check and same goes for similars with different keywording, no one will bother especially agencies.
567
« on: February 16, 2013, 11:15 »
Are you sure exclusivity in microstock is such an added value considering istock is making less money than shutterstock and that many top sellers like Yuri are not exclusives ?
For Getty losing 12000 images is a drop in the ocean, they fear is dealing with an onslaught of bad press in stock blogs, forums, FB, twitter but will buyers really care in the long run ?
I can be wrong but istock is tanking because they have the highest prices in the market, not because they pay the lowest fees, in plus their bloated bug ridden site also doesn't help.
568
« on: February 16, 2013, 00:11 »
My opinion ? they will expect contributors to bring buyers into Stocksy, which is a "viral marketing" concept not too far from what the PoD sites do already, see FAA, Zazzle, RedBubble, etc
Unfortunately it's never easy to live just on buyers coming via word of mouth, Stocksy could be a booming success or a complete disaster.
all we can do is to wait and see.
569
« on: February 15, 2013, 10:40 »
@ ADMIN :
I'm Xanox from the Alamy forum, it seems Alamy is as ruthless as Getty as i've been banned from their forum and our thread about Sjlocke and istock has been deleted without any warning.
Considering their forum is moribund and soon to be phased out from now on i'll stick here in read-only mode.
Cheers
Xanox
Pages: 1 ... 18 19 20 21 22 [23]
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
