MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Show Posts

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 - ichiro17

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 ... 33
126
StockXpert.com / Re: Bad things about to happen ...
« on: November 07, 2009, 12:47 »
If you have followed the threads on istock about this, you will know that this is ground that has already been well covered.  

So what is your interpretation of the Klein quote? Just one more executive with his head in the clouds?

Don't forget: Subscriptions are much more profitable for agencies than single sales. Getty will try every dirty trick to bring as much contributors as possible into this model.

Getty made mistake with buying istock if subs was main goal... They should talked to Jon from Shutterstock about that ;-) Now it will be very interesting race to watch: How Istock can compete with SS-BigStock business model where weekly over 100.000 new images are added. If Getty close Stockxpert they will have very great disadvantage. Some of Istock policies will have to be abandoned to have this race running for Getty.

Since quantity is preferable to have when selling subs, begining next year Shutterstock will have over 10.000.000 images... What about Istock?

Added:

Regarding to logic here I don't see any logic about closing Stockxpert as well I see a big mistake in pulling-out StockXpert images from Photos.com and JIU.

Do you have any idea what you are talking about? Its not all about subs - its about offering a variety of premium products and competitive products to grab the biggest customer base.  Getty will be the biggest house, and acquiring BigStock for SS was just something to do.  BigStock doesn't have anything that SS doesn't have, or very little.  And the quality at SS on average is no where near the same at IS, but this is an old argument that will never end.

To 2010!

127
StockXpert.com / Re: Bad things about to happen ...
« on: November 05, 2009, 12:45 »
A link to the leaked internal memo from Jonathan Klein has been posted earlier in this thread. I find the following part especially interesting:

"Jupiterimages Unlimited brings a very good base from which to start, but we will create an entirely new subscription business that builds upon it. This new subscription product will be a major initiative, with significant marketing support. It also represents a major collaboration between Getty Images and iStockphoto. "

Looks like we don't need to puzzle anymore about how Getty will feed the subscription beast. The only remaining question is: Will Getty come up with a fair deal or at least keep the opt-out option for contributors? Or will all contributors be forced into a rip-off deal?


I think the current outlines are very good.  Automatically inserted into the sub program if you have a file 18 months or older and no downloads, and anything less than 18 months will not be allowed in and you can choose the 18 month and older items with downloads to go or stay

The way it seems to be unfolding (minus the slow rollout) looks very strategic and very well intended

128
Shutterstock.com / Re: Shutterstock dropping ODs?
« on: November 04, 2009, 12:39 »
I buy on demand images from SS.  They are valid for a year after the date you purchase the OD subscription. So you have a year to download your images.  I just looked to see if OD subscriptions are available for purchase and they are.

If SS chooses to no longer offer OD subscriptions on SS, I will be buying more images from DT and Fotolia not BS!

I would really hope you wouldn't give FT your business after everything thats been said on this forum and how they treat their contributors


129
Software - General / Re: Windows 7
« on: November 02, 2009, 15:51 »
The newer iMac 27" with the i5 is pretty sweet too, for around $1800-1900 if I remember correctly.  I recently picked up a 24" Dell widescreen, so all I really need is a new machine.  The apple monitors are way higher end than any monitor you'll find in bestbuy or staples, though.  I'm happy enough with the quality of mine, you'd have to have them side by side with the same images to compare the minor differences.  

It's tempting to switch over...comparing macs to pc's is like trying to compare apples and oranges.  I've used them for years in the design world.  Macs just multi-task way better than pc's, the architecture is entirely different.  I haven't testing multi-tasking while running Windows on a Mac, to see if was any better than a comparably equipped PC.  Comparing processor to processor, ram to ram, video card to video card with mac vs pc, mac is always going to win in performance, for the line of work we're doing.  But if you want to be easier on your wallet and can don't need to have 10-20 applications running at once, at all times, just save your money and go PC. The whole "macs dont get viruses" argument is true, but that's not really an issue when you know what you're doing on a PC.  Also if you go with a mac you'll also have to pick up a copy of Windows XP or 7, then you'll have the best of both worlds.

apple fanboy much?

I don't care about the argument, but some of the stuff is completely untrue.  Apple is now using Intel processors (and will be releasing Core i5 and i7 models soon) and similar architecture for the most part, so if there are differences, they could be minor or major, depending on programming of OS and many other factors.  Macs do get viruses, and there was a big issue a while back regarding huge vulnerabilities that needed patching - I don't use macs and I'm not sure if the article I read was just hoopla, but it seemed to make a bit of news.  Not to mention that Snow Leopard sucks, as I have an uncle who uses CS3 on it and none of the drivers work, CS4 won't work properly.

Not to mention that Adobe used to write their programs for Apple first, then patchwork their way to Windows which made many versions crappy, but now they do write them for both systems.

The lines are blurring and the prices Apple charges for their machines is insane, especially when their newest OS doesn't work with anything.

Hi Vista, I'm a Mac.  I suck just as much as you did.

Its based on preferences -

and if you want amazing monitors, I believe that LaCie is among the best

130
iStockPhoto.com / Re: Istock guarantee?
« on: November 02, 2009, 09:00 »
As for that port you've found - it is not me ;-)
As for rest of your comments: Please don't be so frustrated about my decision. I really don't fell I should enclose any of my work to you because you are very 'nasty' and 'mean' people regarding what you've wrote here.
I see that you are frustrated with having me not willing to show my work and still you won't see it unless you really know me. People who know me show their respect - unlikely as you here!

I don't want to speak for everyone, but in my opinion, you don't deserve anyone's respect and I don't think anyone should give you this respect or acceptance that you desire because you have not earned it.  You have earned the label of being troll and a joke.

131
iStockPhoto.com / Re: Istock guarantee?
« on: November 01, 2009, 19:37 »
This is a joke.  Its people like this that just ruin it for everyone.

You must be a real douchebag if you can criticize someone with over a half-million downloads and think you are right

I hope you do apply to iStock, and I hope they reject you so many times it hurts physically.  Then we can hear you b!tch about that too. Go take pictures of butterflies or something

132
iStockPhoto.com / Re: Istock guarantee?
« on: October 31, 2009, 08:59 »
while you are at it, stop logging in under different aliases and being a douchebag on this forum, dude

133
Shutterstock.com / Re: 101,867 new photos added in the past week
« on: October 30, 2009, 13:54 »
it would definitely improve it

an approach closer to IS is probably a better idea: quality over qty

if you allow 12,000 - 15,000 uploads a week, and you reject 50% of them (which could easily be considered garbage by today's standards), you will improve the quality coming in

nothing wrong with limits :)

134
Shutterstock.com / Re: 101,867 new photos added in the past week
« on: October 30, 2009, 13:04 »
I think the answer will be:  when they create upload limits

A second thing that might help contributors is a better search engine - because in 8M+ databases, you are going to lose quality stuff no matter how good the search is, and given the emphasis on new uploads, the search needs some work.


135
Dreamstime.com / Re: "Dreamstime Ups Collection of Free Images"
« on: October 30, 2009, 11:19 »
Interesting...

136
Quote
That's only partly true. What you should have said was that you can't sell RF from your own website. You're free to sell RM or prints from your own website.

But if you sell RF photos as an exclusive on IS, I'm pretty sure you can't sell that same photo anywhere else, RF or RM. That means you must have other images to sell RM and prints.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

Like we are the image machines to produce enough for both. :) I don't think any of us has that kind of time and luxury to waste images for one type of use. IS basically takes your rights completely and don't let you sell your RF images on your own.

One thing agencies don't want is people sell their images from their own websites. If only a few people do it, no problem. But if everyone starts doing it and it becomes a trend, then that's the beginning of the end for agencies.

Newsflash:  Companies that buy images dont' want to buy from your website.  They don't want to spend the time to negotiate with you.  They dont' care about your own personal website especially when you don't have a portfolio unique and commercial enough to replace an iStock collection of 6 million images.  They want the protection and ease of a big stockhouse vs. having to find filter through 8000 websites to find the photo they want.   

137
iStockPhoto.com / Re: Istock guarantee?
« on: October 27, 2009, 19:37 »
Yet you are on a micro forum complaining about it even though it doesn't even apply to you.  If you don't want to be part of this, why even participate in the forum?

138
Been stable for a while now....so its not like they are going aroudn changing every week

That might be enough reassurance for you to base your income on but it's certainly not enough for me.


Different people have different views.  I may be wrong.  Thats okay.  So far I don't think I'm doing too badly. 

I'm just going to go on with the assumption that its in the best interests of IS to get the right photos in front of their customers - no algorithm will be perfect - but I'm hoping that my photos are good enough to find their way there. 

139
Remember last best match search change on IS? some exclusive and nonexclusive photographer has lower sales than before, in this case nonexclusive photographer feel little save.
Beside that if there is earthquake or other disaster in their area, is IS server still life? what happen to exclusive photographer if this happen? are they make backup server in other country?


thats the worst argument to date

I agree the earthquake argument is pretty farfetched. 

But his first point about the volatility of the Best Match changes and their affects on people's earnings is a huge issue.  That is a major reason I stopped considering exclusivity and one I have heard quoted by a lot of other independents too. 

Been stable for a while now....so its not like they are going aroudn changing every week

140
Remember last best match search change on IS? some exclusive and nonexclusive photographer has lower sales than before, in this case nonexclusive photographer feel little save.
Beside that if there is earthquake or other disaster in their area, is IS server still life? what happen to exclusive photographer if this happen? are they make backup server in other country?


thats the worst argument to date

if only I had that kind of originality in my photos (i think) ... :)

But bonus points for originality.

141
Remember last best match search change on IS? some exclusive and nonexclusive photographer has lower sales than before, in this case nonexclusive photographer feel little save.
Beside that if there is earthquake or other disaster in their area, is IS server still life? what happen to exclusive photographer if this happen? are they make backup server in other country?


thats the worst argument to date

142
not sure how you'd ever know - especially if you haven't had your photos up for exclusivity.  I haven't missed a beat from my exclusivity and whatever the costs were, they were minimal at most and very insignificant.  I could go on, but I don't particularly care either way what others do, as long as they don't impact me in any significant way

143
Istock takes more time than 12 other sites combined together. I am serious. I only prepare the IPTC data once and then upload with my fast internet connection. IPTC data is no use for IS controlled vocabulary at all. I have to go through every single word which is plain boring. I think everybody will agree about IS upload speed being quite slow.

Anyway, It is less risky business wise to submit to 13 sites and be cool about IS search engine changes. Especially if IS is only 1/3 of the earnings.

Having your own personal store is only a plus. Even without it my revenue as a non-exclusive is just so clearly bigger than what it would be if I was a black diamond IS exclusive. Is sould have to pay me about %70 royalty to make up for it:)

Maybe, if your only goal in life and photography is to shoot microstock, and if  you don't mind being converted in an human uploading machine.

Actually what I said is the exact opposite. Being exclusive is closer to what you said there. I know you are going to say how:) Here is how: Having your personal store where you pay %0 commission to agents and get %100 of the revenues mean you will be getting more money everytime you drive a new customer to your website. You make money by more customers, not by more shooting. Whereas if you are an exclusive the only way to increase revenue is to shoot harder:) Driving more customers to IS does not help you at all because they keep getting more photoraphers and you keep sharing the revenues with everyone.

Had you had a personal store, the increase in customers would mean the increase in your revenue regardless you keep shooting or not. An exclusive will never have this opportunity as istock prohibits this in it's exclusivity agreement.

I think loop was referring to the amount of time spent physically uploading files to all those sites.

You are not considering all the benefits of being an exclusive contributor, but it seems like you already have made up your mind on that.  Good luck with your business.

144
I'm not sure if anyone else here has ever studied contract law, but some of the things FT has been up to, particularly with changing the rankings systems and commission rates is on pretty shaky ground legally. You can't just unilaterally change conditions of a contract to the detriment of existing suppliers in most jurisdictions without gaining some sort of agreement - and often not even then. This is particularly so when you set up a ranking and progression system giving people a reasonable expectation when they sign up to provide you with services that they'll be able to meet targets. I know I'm still talking about the drop in commissions and change which is in some ways old news, but its probably only now that people have been able to calculate the amount of revenue they've lost through the change.

I'd suggest for the contributors where this amounts to a big $ figure, that you consider your position, and if necessary seek advice on it.

The contract terms state that the laws of New York govern the contract, and any legal action be taken there (not that it precludes things from happening at home), and my area of practice is really Australia, where different rules tend to apply, but they're not fundamentally different.

While this post is surely not going to make me popular at FT, I'm really not one to be bullied or cowered by the suggestion that I'll be disadvantaged because I speak my mind.

Many of these sites use the 'faceless internet company' to try to gain an advantage.  There is a lot of legislation going on around the world to prevent these ridiculous management teams from getting away with it, and I'm sure that some attorney somewhere would love to be the guy to set the precedent.  I'm not one of those crazy iStock fanboys, but if I remember correctly, iStock has made changes but has also re-issued the agreement so that they have a new agreement between contributors and the company.  Given, I don't think what iStock has done has been out to screw the contributors in any way, and their aim is to increase exposure and generate income, but the way they handle their business is much cleaner and less controversial than the other sites.

145
FT dropped the ball...again...

Maybe IS will come back with something better to say :)

146
I left because of their shenangens and if I wasn't already exclusive and still submitting, i would be gone now.

istock is huge, and I absolutely hate how FT runs their business.

As for consolidation, its going to happen, and the small useless players will disappear while the mid-players get bought out.  The writing is on the wall

147
Fotolia's management team has never been the poster boy of good decision making.  This will most likely backfire, and I would hope that the contributors who work hard for this would make a gigantic stink about it.

148
oooh exciting.........

149
General Stock Discussion / Re: More bad news on economy
« on: October 19, 2009, 12:13 »
Mine are mostly medium and large on IS - I now have many XL and XXL images and some XXXL images, but they are very infrequent. 

150
General Stock Discussion / Re: More bad news on economy
« on: October 19, 2009, 07:48 »
Yes the market does set the price but if the price is under paying the markets value then the industry are leaving money on the table. When the two small sizes where brought into the stock industry back with Macro RF 11 -12 years ago the amount of internet usage was way down compared to print media so the price was set very low.
 Now it is the highest sales point so an adjustment could be made to counteract this drop and raise opportunity for agencies and photographers to increase their revenue. This is in part why unions were formed years ago, so that the individual workers could not be controlled and under paid by the large industries. Unfortunately unions can be as much trouble for other reasons but talking about an adjustment is an important topic that should not be swept under the rug.
 If you want the market to establish the worth of our product they could easily run the costs down and there rejections up as they overflow with similars. How will that increase individuals sales and grow the market. Trust me the Micro world will meet maturation.
 I hear a lot about BME but that term means nothing until people start talking dollars and cents. If my sales last month were 10 dollars and this month they are 30 dollars well then I did have have a BME but I didn't make much money.
 When we used to use terms like RPI's or sell through rate they were always followed with the actual number. Not many people in Micro share numbers they just use terms like BME. I don't believe this is useful information to anyone. Are we just reinforcing sweat shop mentality in ourselves and the agencies as well? Just asking.

Best,
Jonathan


Definitely agree with this, however, you can always tell who is really making money.  First, they usually have a portfolio at IS, and so there stats are available (somewhat).  Also, you can look at the portfolio and you can weed out the people who say BME with 250 photos.  Unless they are a stellar 250 photos, I can't see that many making any real money.  Then again, it just depends...

But I prefer to keep my numbers to myself.  Too much information given may not in my best interests in the long-run

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 ... 33

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors