|
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 - Mantis
5151
« on: August 04, 2011, 18:11 »
From the istock forum:
Huge Thanx Kelly for all things what you've done for us...
...more than the money and downloads stats, his achievement is the many lives he changed. I am very thankful.
Rock on Kelly! I hope this means less travel time for you. And more delicious restaurants...
Kelly you truly are a rockstar...
Can't wait to see what happens next 
Are we that quick to forget that this is the same guy who delivered that whole "unsustainable" speech last fall?
What a horrible message this sends. The guy hands down a nearly across-the-board royalty cut and less than a year later we're singing his praises. The execs at Getty must read this stuff and think, "Look, we screwed them over and they love us for it!"
I have no doubt that ThinkStock and some of the other collections will not remain optional forever. It's no wonder Getty/istock feel inclined to always act in their own interests before those of the contributors. We pretty much give them license to do it. All the woo-yaying at every turn sends a dangerous message.
I agree. I see nothing in his statement that excites me. What I see is contributors getting fkd more. I mean, he did such a fine job last fall that they promoted him to do more of it....with the incentive to pay for his, perhaps, fluffy salary now.
5152
« on: August 04, 2011, 07:10 »
Not just DT, but FT and IS too. Very frustrating and does not sit well with motivation to shoot more.
5153
« on: July 30, 2011, 20:50 »
Then there really wasn't a point to the thread was there? Being exclusive doesn't mean I question less, in fact it means I'm risking far more than you are. That risk is a calculated risk that is almost always cut down to cheerleading or blind faith by many (certainly not all) posters here. I'm sorry you don't feel exclusives have a valid POV....because I guarantee that we're far more aware of what's happening on iStock than many of those here who simply join the negative chorus without any firsthand contributor knowledge.
He is merely asking for feedback from non exclusives in his OP. You've spun it. And so has Sean.
5154
« on: July 30, 2011, 20:06 »
'1. If someone is only with one agency it's difficult to be balanced because you don't have a basis for comparison,
2. If you're an exclusive and can't be positive then why would you be an exclusive?'
You didn't ask for 'balanced'. You asked for positive.
And if you're looking for 'positive' and you believe #2, then you would want to hear from exclusives, definitely.
A better title might be 'Are any independents having any positive thoughts about IS'.
"Rarely see anything positive posted - wondering what folks think. Really aimed at non-exclusives as less likely to be institutionalised...." I think he was pretty clear in his initial statement that he was more interested in the non exclusive opinion. "Institutionalized" simply implies that he understands that exclusives will have a more emotional, defensive response. Both you and SNP have emphasized the reasoning as to why he used this term by your very responses.
5155
« on: July 30, 2011, 19:57 »
Will the site be at the bottom in no time because they don't accept your images? Keep uploading.
mon ami, it's not personal..
the agency may be a big monster but we play as team.. if you check IS forum you'll know exactly what I mean
most illustrators hat DT
Not trying to start a pissing thread but how do you know that most Illustrators hate DT? Please don't get me wrong I have my own feelings on all sites and they are not so positive for the most part.
5156
« on: July 30, 2011, 19:07 »
These suggestions/ideas make me think you don't understand the economics of microstock. Shutterstock would be far better off getting rid of everyone who's made $500 or more and keeping all the new photographers who just started. They don't because quality of the gallery would suffer but they make a lot more money on a new photographers sales then they do mine or someone else who's crossed $10k.
Really? Why? Let's say for sake of argument that SS sells 100,000 images per month at $1.00 each ($100,000 in revenue). Part of this success is the simple fact that those contributors who are $10k + submitters provide good images that the buyers want. Some come from new submitters. How is eliminating these $10k plus submitters going to change a thing if the bulk of sales come from them? Regardless of .36 cents vs. .38 cents? It just goes to show you that new contributors, in general, don't submit enough volume and quality to warrant weeding out $10k plus contributors. The issue is quality, quantity and consistency, which regulars seem to keep giving. It provides a form of reassurance to SS that they can keep buyers buying 100k images per month. But let's get real here. The actual "real value" of SS is for images downloads to not happen so that they keep more of the package price. A few cents here and there in payouts is nothing when compared to someone who buys a $200 package and buys 1 photo.
5157
« on: July 29, 2011, 20:43 »
nothing but a bunch of rich little babies who want more and more and more before they shoot their dicks off.
5158
« on: July 29, 2011, 20:41 »
I have experienced the mood swings like everyone else. I was an independent and now I am exclusive.
At the end of the day, I realize one thing, I cannot control what iStock does, but I can control what I do. I either adept and survive, or I do something else. No one cares about your destination, it's up to you, independent or exclusive.
How are you feeling about going exclusive? Is/was it worth it?
5159
« on: July 29, 2011, 20:38 »
I Don't want go off-topic here but I'll leave it for the record..
Dreamstime is the most *** stock agency ever, it doesn't even worth the upload so imagine giving them something exclusive..
their upload process is bloody annoying..
their inspectors are very amateurs..
they know sh*** about vector too..
this site will be in the bottom in no time
They're not that bad. They do have serious issues with that "too similar" crap, but they are pretty fair in terms of image quality (not too many LCV). I can't speak to who their inspectors are but am pretty sure they are taking direction from someone like SERB or his bosses. I don;t know crap about vectors, either so I cannot comment. Will the site be at the bottom in no time because they don't accept your images? Keep uploading. I know their (like all MS sites) acceptance criteria is a moving target but try to adapt and keep uploading. Otherwise don't hurt your brain.
5160
« on: July 29, 2011, 17:11 »
Yes, I got an EL this week 
5161
« on: July 24, 2011, 18:00 »
My, my, my, how one comes and goes. You are a character at the least. Good luck in your photo adventures.
5162
« on: July 23, 2011, 21:13 »
Funny.
5163
« on: July 23, 2011, 21:12 »
"face it: the # buyers is very limited indeed, while the # new pics that can be produced is unlimited"
The number of possible buyers is the same as the number of possible contributors. And the number of uses buyers can come up could be just as unlimited.
Sorry, this is inaccurate. MS attracts a bazillion contributors who want to get rich quick. We compete for buyers. If you look at the decline of buying activity at IS, for example, and the increase at DT and IS, it tells me, inferentially, that buyers are way limited.......at least in terms of comparing them to the number of contributors. It's caddywampus at best.
5164
« on: July 22, 2011, 16:37 »
Link doesn't work.
5165
« on: July 19, 2011, 07:43 »
I stopped participating the morning I woke up to a site mail from Lobo warning me about a forum post. It was an honest question about where IS was going and it got locked pretty fast. Just not worth the time and treatment.
5166
« on: July 19, 2011, 07:36 »
I couldn't care less about them being investigated for fraud. I couldn't care less if they definitely sink. Maybe if they fail, other fairer agencies (like 123RF or canstock) could raise
Seems like they have removed lots of user accounts keeping users earnings
http://amplicate.com/hate/fotolia
Are you saying that they ARE being investigated for fraud or SHOULD be investigated for fraud?
5167
« on: July 18, 2011, 16:22 »
14 of my last 20 are subs, with one credit at .23 cents, worse than a sub. Plus I had a nice .11 cent dl at IS. Things sure are looking up, boy.
5168
« on: July 17, 2011, 08:45 »
I got it too.
5169
« on: July 16, 2011, 07:15 »
^ I guess I assumed from Slovenian's prolific posting in excellent English that he/she would have heard the term before.... 
Maybe if they had Geico commercials there 
5170
« on: July 15, 2011, 20:07 »
What sells well on Alamy? Is it still the general lifestyle, models and market trends that we see on microstock sites?
I find that what sells for me on Alamy is oddball stuff. I rarely sell anything that is traditional stock work, like concepts and models. For example I sold a pile of broken up concrete for $300.
5171
« on: July 15, 2011, 19:44 »
I'm confused. Isn't "turn and burn" a major part of the problem?
As to "our art", sorry guys but, figuratively speaking, micro is producing Widgets, with some very few exceptions.
And technology is the enabler that has allowed this situation to occur. Just as it has in almost all other industries.
I don't think there is a viable solution, except to wait until normal market forces sort it out. But I fear that is some way off yet.
I was responding to a brain storming question that the OP posed. How to handle 100 mil files. So for me, all things being equal, culling may be a possible approach. All things not being equal, meaning there evolves a technology that can streamline keywording, capital investment is a reality that new technology, some of these other suggestions are awesome. When I said turn and burn, I meant it in the context that "if they culled at a high rate (2 years) we'd, as contributors, would have to turn and burn images to keep up. Part timers who simply could not produce in the volume they'd need to would (or may) give up. It would change how images are produced, who images are produced by and, consequently, weed out a lot of the "noise" in current submissions. Just my opinion, of course.
5172
« on: July 15, 2011, 19:08 »
Views, zooms, and sales statistics are all based on the time period shown right above them. Default covers a month, and you can adjust parameters to show more or less time.
Thanks, I get it now. So actually I've had 3 zooms. I think if I'm getting occassional zooms, I'll eventually make a sale.
All I'm doing is uploading my micro photos as RF.
And you should only upload your RF micro images as RF on Alamy. You are doing the right thing. Putting a RM license at Alamy on a RF image you have on IS, DT, SS, etc. can get you in trouble.
5173
« on: July 15, 2011, 19:02 »
I am only thinking of removing files from searches that dont sell (after 3,4,5, years) Just like you suggested to purge old portfolios. These would be automatically transformed into nearly 100% "personal portfolios".
The artist can then return if he wants to and add new content.
Maybe even have the possibility to add an old file to the main collection if suddenly it starts to sell again.
I think culling will be the way of the near future to push out the inevitable 100 mil threshold. And I suspect that it will be done in more frequent periods, say non-selling in two years. We're going to have to keep shooting, shooting, shooting to pipeline in new stuff to replace the culled images. It will weed out the part timers and really only be aligned with those who can turn and burn.
You are both probably right about culling. Guess I had better bone up on some other job skills, because being pushed in to producing like a factory doesn't appeal to me at all.
^^ Me either, it becomes work then.
5174
« on: July 15, 2011, 18:41 »
I am only thinking of removing files from searches that dont sell (after 3,4,5, years) Just like you suggested to purge old portfolios. These would be automatically transformed into nearly 100% "personal portfolios".
The artist can then return if he wants to and add new content.
Maybe even have the possibility to add an old file to the main collection if suddenly it starts to sell again.
I think culling will be the way of the near future to push out the inevitable 100 mil threshold. And I suspect that it will be done in more frequent periods, say non-selling in two years. We're going to have to keep shooting, shooting, shooting to pipeline in new stuff to replace the culled images. It will weed out the part timers and really only be aligned with those who can turn and burn.
5175
« on: July 15, 2011, 18:32 »
Will,
I give you huge cudos for coming into this forum and asking for help. And taking the high road for the feedback you're getting. It's called having think skin. If you keep listening to these fine photographers' advice, create a plan (tiered plans each with a desired outcome and metric that helps you understand whether you met that outcome) you can make it.
1. Skills (shooting and key wording)
2. Initial Shooting Plan
3. Shoot
4. Post process
5. Upload to a couple of agencies
6. Assess any rejections (get critique)
7. Start building a port around your new competencies
8. Grow competencies = grow port
9. Make a few bucks
I think you have the attitude to make something work for you.
Good luck.
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
