|
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 - ichiro17
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 ... 33
151
« on: October 15, 2009, 07:57 »
to be honest, I don't think its worth it unless you have a gigantic, high quality portfolio. Even still, the gains would probably be marginal at best and given that the industry is consolidating, you would be better off concentrating on making better photos than uploading to borderline competitive sites.
Just my opinion, but you should note that I'm exclusive for many reasons, one being that I was sick of the variety between sites
152
« on: October 14, 2009, 14:59 »
StockXpert on its own is bigger than BigStock and shutterstock just spent money buying them. It makes no sense closing StockXpert down, as they must have at least a million images that aren't on the istock site and they must be making a decent profit. Would istock alone be bigger than a combined SS/BigStock? Can they risk losing their No. 1 status?
Perhaps StockXpert will be closed anyway but I am sure a lot of the buyers would move to sites other than istock because they want access to the full portfolio of the best non-exclusives.
Unofficial estimates put IS at over 50% of the market by itself - which I would be interested to see verified
153
« on: October 13, 2009, 20:57 »
But, like the Gap has Old Navy, if Istock is the Gap wouldn't it make sense for them to groom an Old Navy site that has a library that can compete with Dreamstime, Shutterstock and Fotolia?
Istock is certainly in a league of their own and their prices are beginning to migrate up. Yes, they have exclusive content and impeccable standards, but they don't have the same content as their competitors: the artists who snubbed 20% commission, or those who didn't pass the entrance exam, and of course all those rejected files that are good enough to sell well for the other sites.
Photos.com is Old Navy. Just like Toyota is to Lexus. Cars may be a bad example, just because you can't buy a subscription on a car. iStock has the same content as most other sites minus the odd ones here and there that refuse to submit or don't for various reasons, but the attractive draw is that you can get the best of the exclusive world and the regular world. Add that you have subs too, and you are covering your bases. StockXpert would then be a duplicate - a bad idea for business - just like GM - too much duplication. Smart, streamlined model that makes sense business-wise for them. Costs are cut, buyers go to one place, and the charts show an increase in traffic. My opinion, I'm not Jon Klein but I'm just trying to put together the clues.
154
« on: October 13, 2009, 18:47 »
I think the photos.com part is important because it will include exclusive material older than 18 months. No one has really noticed, but the IS subs don't work very well. And I think that photos.com will be important because I do think that compared to everywhere else, IS does have a better search so I think they may be using the same type of engine over at photos.com.
Regardless, StockXpert was just part of the package, so they needed to take it and since they did, they killed off a competitor. This is a great long term thing for the industry. Consolidation is great and the buyers will have to go somewhere, so its not like they will disappear. In the end, it will mean higher prices charged, and hopefully, bigger commissions. When you have too many players, they compete on price. IS is allowed to get away with their prices because they have selected content not available anywhere else. The only thing that sucks is that people who submitted essentially are losing the time they spent in submitting. Nonetheless, the buyers will still be there.
155
« on: October 13, 2009, 14:58 »
StockXpert is redundant in the Getty scheme of things. If they decide to dump the non-exclusives to IS then thats different, but they have their subs in photos.com powered by old IS files, and they have their premium stock at IS, so I'm not sure where StockXpert fits.
Probably good to say the goodbyes now
156
« on: October 02, 2009, 14:00 »
Not a fan of the Olympics at all in terms of hosting it. The games themselves are fantastic.
I am happy to see a South American country get it, it will create such great aura in the city and pride for the country. The problem lies in spending all this money that will never return much more than a lot of infrastructure and no real economic benefit. I hope that Rio can pull off what no other city has except LA and make it a profitable games for themselves without landing themselves into too much debt like Sochi (costs have tripled to $33 billion US from just under $12 billion)
157
« on: October 01, 2009, 07:46 »
Its good to know that the 'professionals' are automatically amazing photographers and they too don't need to go through a trial and error period either. Schools today must be that good.
Please...
158
« on: September 30, 2009, 10:07 »
great...sammy is wilddingo and god knows who else. seriously, can we either not ban IPs or stop people from re-joining a million times under different names.
Do people not have better things to do?
159
« on: September 28, 2009, 13:39 »
Thats okay, your experiences have led you to that conclusion. You should do some checking into that as there has been a precedent set to raising prices every so often. It should happen more and more now that small players are being bought up. Hopefully....
However, 1 year isn't a good timeperiod to gauge the industry, especially one thats continuously changing. As for subs, I'm not effected but I can see why you would be upset about it
160
« on: September 28, 2009, 13:25 »
Red Dove, you are good to go. Just make sure as stated above to save at 12 image quality. Unlike etien, I save all my images at 300 dpi sense that is what is used for printing. Some sites, moodboard for example only accept 300dpi...but most will accept 72 dpi also. Your shooting in RAW so that is also great, Alamy is the only site I have ever had to upsize a little for...only do this with RAW images. Good luck when you start to sign up!
72 dpi or 5000 dpi is meaningless. If your photo has 2000x3000 pixel dimensions, your photo is 6MP regardless of the DPI. You do NOT need to waste your time changing what the DPI is. All the sites care about is that you meet the requirements for photo dimensions. The site will automatically size the images for the screen and display purposes if accepted.
161
« on: September 28, 2009, 13:18 »
Prices are rising now...
Please give us some examples of where this is actually happening. Note that raising commissions for OD sales doesn't mean much of buyers are simultaneiously being herded onto subscription plans.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but iStock raised their prices in January 2007, January 2008. I don't believe they raised them this year because of the current state of the economy. I really only care about iStock because I'm exclusive, but didn't SS also raise their prices 3 straight years before 2009? I have not followed Fotolia or DT for a while with their prices, but I'm not 100% sure that photos are not as cheap as they used to be.
162
« on: September 28, 2009, 11:44 »
The micros destruction of the pro business is more complicated that arguing that "old farts" fell for a "darwinian" thing... The problem with micros is, as I've said before, that prices are too (way too) low. In fact, they started rock bottom. It should have been different, they should have started as mid-stock, it would have been wiser. Now, increasing prices some pennies at a time dont give you any margin of anything but to feed the beast, as we are all are.
Prices are rising now as a result of having sites realize they have a collection worth more than they were charging (for the most part) - istock especially - would you rather that they all started in the middle and then kept price adjusting downwards instead until there was no room to move? One possibility: I think that the industry is where its at because they started so low, didn't get any respect from the big boys and now have the ability to move up given their customer base. The other way, the major companies selling RF and RM at the time would have lowered their prices, pissed off their photographers and then ate up microstock or resulted in a crazy price war. If that happened, I wouldn't be submitting right now and many of us wouldn't even know about this, because the entire dynamic would be different. I'm all for price increases, but I don't agree with starting at midstcok prices and moving downward. Right now they are moving towards a more equitable equilibrium instead of two extremes. Potentially a better outcome, although its taken a while.
163
« on: September 27, 2009, 22:56 »
I'm not full time on microstock, nor do I think I have the ability to be full-time, but it makes me enough money. I think a lot of people make enough money to supplement other areas, but it would be difficult to penetrate now given the numbers game that its become.
I was reading the comments about some of those old fart pros who continue to harp that its ruining the business and changing their revenue streams and whatever else. It would appear that the internet has also allowed all those who will be left behind by Darwin to complain endlessly about it until it happens for good. Welcome to capitalism. They should bitch about Adam Smith too.
164
« on: September 27, 2009, 09:29 »
Technology has always influenced the evolution (and sometimes revolution) of many industries. Some historians believe that the reason why slavery in the Caribbean stopped was not because the Bristish felt like being good people, but more because it was more economical and easier to manage their productions with new technologies being created at the time. Maybe its a bad idea to use that as a parallel situation, but new technologies have essentially made it cheaper to generate photographs. Those old farts who haven't been able to keep up should have taken to new technologies and distribution methods earlier and adapted with the industry. I have grown up with digital but I'm sure it was horribly expensive and cost prohibitive to use film, hence the need to charge $400 for a photograph to keep up with costs. In the end, industries change all the time, the main point is to always try to teach is to adapt to change.
That being said, I'm sure that the evolution of the micropayment industry will carve some fantastic new niches for photographers to expand into that weren't available before.
165
« on: September 24, 2009, 18:18 »
To avoid another hijacked thread, I don't think it is recommended that one should do that. Then again, you can do whatever you want. You know the consequences. But perhaps it isn't a good idea to publicly announce it.
It may be fraud but I don't see jail as an issue unless your country has a habit of incarcerating everyone for anything
166
« on: September 23, 2009, 12:45 »
What I think it happening is that sites are consolidating to increase their margins and revenues. Its part of an industry that starts to mature to find an equilibrium thats worth it. I wouldn't be surprised if 4 main big sites compete with each other and try to differentiate their product offerings to be able to charge a higher price. Wait and see I guess, but its not shocking at all that this has happened. It would be interesting to see if DT and FT woudl consider a merge to fight off the SS and IS market eating machine
167
« on: September 23, 2009, 12:37 »
I'm not screwing the taxman, and everything is in accordance with the law and I don't do anything that would upset Revenue Canada and I have had my statements reviewed by accountants that have found nothing wrong with them. Microstock is part of my business offerings, and I don't just do microstock. I have other parts that also produce revenue. So fark off
Given your ridiculous assertions about everything, I am not going to give you any more ammo to fuel whatever fire you are trying to burn.
Just for anyone who cares to know about the tax implications: Lets say I make $8000 US this year from microstock, that would be $8000 US that IS will give me a T5 statement for (a Canadian royalties statement used for my income tax form), I would need to pay tax on that. However, I incurred many expenses while producing many of the images that are generating that revenue this year and for years to come. I am entitled to deduct those expenses, which I do in accordance to the guidelines published by Revenue Canada. I also deduct the appropriate capital cost allowances for my gear, calculate the percentage used (km/total km) by me from my car for business purposes and try to complete my forms in the most accurate, legal way possible. When I take trips for photographs which do not just include images for micro, I deduct whatever expenses I can justify if questioned by the Revenue Agency. The snarky comments that I'm evading taxes is full of B.S. I do expect to pull in a profit. If I do not pull in that profit, its because I'm trying to build my business, and thus I will definitely pull in less money than I spend. When my CCA credits run out, I will lose a lot of tax credits. I operate like a legitimate business would and its not about tax evasion, but I'm not going to be afraid to use the tools made available to me by my government. And I'm not going to listen to some shmoe who can't cut it in the world of microstock (and will be my opinion until I see some proof of awesomeness).
Wilddingo's actions and words are completely opposite. You claim that no one should do microstock because their is no money and you aren't getting paid for it properly. However, who is paying you to post here? To harass forum members and hijack threads? If there is no money, then you could be doing something better with your time? Say, like producing images where you could earn a return. Or work for an 'acceptable' hourly wage (although I don't think one exists because you are a sour *insult removed* with nothing better to do). I'm not inclined to take advice from someone who can't even take their own.
Honestly, what do you expect to gain here by posting? Do you expect people to respect you because you are going against an establishment of some sort? Do you think people are going to see you as smarter than the rest because you see things differently? You are going to have to do more than say 'dude' and call people who are obviously successful at this game 'bozos' to gain some of that respect.
168
« on: September 18, 2009, 13:08 »
Congrats
haven't gotten many vetta downloads yet. not sure if i will, don't have many files I feel are Vetta worthy.
Hopefully i will be able to nominate more in there soon.
169
« on: September 15, 2009, 09:19 »
I was told by admin that it was a mistake that my exclusive application ever got approved.
Yes, this sounds bizarre. I've never heard of anyone being denied exclusivity.
Quite bizarre. I asked, and as long as you have 500+ downloads, then you will be accepted. If you have more then 250 but less than 500, you will need a 50%+ acceptance ratio.
170
« on: September 14, 2009, 12:58 »
I don't have any regrets either. I haven't missed a beat from my non-exclusive days and spend a lot less time uploading. 1% is pretty insignificant.
171
« on: September 03, 2009, 18:19 »
None of those would be worth spending the time to submit. The bridge might get accepted, but you will not make any significant money.
Study what is available on the sites, how they are composed and use that knowledge to create photographs that have value. When was the last time you saw that type of duck photograph used in an ad or in a presentation?
172
« on: September 02, 2009, 07:48 »
It definitely should be moved. This is not general stock discussion
Really?
Yes...really!
173
« on: September 01, 2009, 13:29 »
It definitely should be moved. This is not general stock discussion
174
« on: August 26, 2009, 14:56 »
mmmm exclusivity is delicious
175
« on: August 24, 2009, 17:14 »
All is well now, its unfortunate that some of the process was frustrating, but I guess thats the case with any business. I know that Wal-Mart has had a reputation for being a huge pain for their suppliers in terms of getting paid, so I should know that the frustration is part of the process - I don't know if my original post here helped solve the issue, but now that its solved, I'm happy...and hopefully nruboc and disorderly have a hard time chewing on this for their relatively unhelpful, spiteful posts.
Thanks to all for their responses - and submitters should note that, despite my initial frustration, some sites may make it frustrating at first but at least SS is willing to fix the issues if they are legitimate.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 ... 33
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
