|
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 ... 33
26
« on: November 30, 2010, 10:12 »
^^^
My Grandfather was a diamond wholesaler back in the post depression era.
He said that if he could make 33% margin over his cost he was REALLY happy.
80% is TOTALLY sustainable. Anyone that says otherwise is lying.
There's a reason why analysts that actually cover companies don't compare different industries in different parts of the world and in different eras. First of all, its not 80% of everything, its 80% of your stuff. There's a mathematical solution called a weighted average but you all go back to the same thing. I really don't feel like debating this on speculation anymore, so my final thoughts are that if some of you want to leave because you don't like it, please do. If you want to put up with it, then fine. I don't agree with 15% or 20% commissions, but I'm not running the iStock business and I've made my choices according to what I perceive the business conditions to be. I like the results so far and I will continue doing what I'm doing and making my analyses on my portfolio, etc. That is all from me
27
« on: November 25, 2010, 10:23 »
Still see no numbers. Just words... What part of "15%" has words?
15% has no meaning to me because you aren't representative of the entire company. I want to see a model, with costs and cash flows - you know, the business side of things that include revenues, costs, financing, etc. That way I can actually study something more than "15%" and your most likely misdirected, biased, angry posts
28
« on: November 25, 2010, 08:57 »
Some things are dead wrong:
- not sustainable for the stock companies it is very sustainable the only reason thompson said this was to get more money to istock and less for the contributors.
I would think that this is true. I have no proof though. Can you provide some proof?
How about the fact that any business keeping 80% of the money coming in on a product they don't have to manufacture would be considered a highly successful business by any definition? Or the fact that countless other microstock companies are sustainable on far less of a profit margin?
Still see no numbers. Just words...
29
« on: November 24, 2010, 13:48 »
I would think that this is true. I have no proof though. Can you provide some proof?
What kind of proof would convince you?
Numbers. Not just angry speculation. Or at least an actual model that incorporates the significant variables to show how their system works.
30
« on: November 24, 2010, 12:33 »
Some things are dead wrong:
- not sustainable for the stock companies it is very sustainable the only reason thompson said this was to get more money to istock and less for the contributors.
I would think that this is true. I have no proof though. Can you provide some proof?
31
« on: November 17, 2010, 15:48 »
I'm not going to get into another argument like this. There's plenty of them around. if you want to see how this plays out, there's plenty of threads here to read
You have chosen your path, and you have the right to do so. But don't try to make me quiet if I want to tell about my philosophy (NOT putting all eggs in one basket). I know it's hard to be an exclusive and not being able to do anything but listen.
you can tell your story, but if there's something i can call you out on, i will
32
« on: November 17, 2010, 15:04 »
Call me whatever you want, you're the one that doesn't get it. Yes they are blatantly cutting your commission, but the SS commission you get has been hypothesized to cap out at 20% total, but most of the time you make a lot less commission-wise. I've seen people complain that commissions are below 20% at Fotolia, so why are you so upset at IS. And by the way, I thank you very much for having your commission cut, because without you, it wouldn't be possible for me to get my 35% 
I don't like many of the sites that I send my work to, but they pay me so I'm hanging with them. But I certainly know that I wouldn't want to be "married" to any of them like the exclusives at IS. The problem is that most of the exclusives doesn't know how life is outside their exclusive bubble. I'm pretty sure many of them would even be surprised that there are sites where you don't need to click any buttons when uploading your stuff, just sending files via FTP
BTW SS percentage can be low (we cannot be sure), but they have always treated contributors fairly well and offering them raises (hmm... it's been a while since they last time gave us a raise... ).
I also sell some of my images as macro RF, even that wouldn't be possible as an IS exclusive. IS seems really to hold its exclusives by the balls.
I'm not going to get into another argument like this. There's plenty of them around. if you want to see how this plays out, there's plenty of threads here to read
33
« on: November 17, 2010, 14:27 »
good to know you know their business better than they do - I'll be sure to shoot them over an e-mail and let them know they aren't hiring the right people
I'm most likely not the only one that can't really understand what IS has been doing for the last months (except making themselves more money). I know you are a die hard IS fanboy so criticizing IS is useless.
Those that adapt to it will most gain more likely than not, those that remain here and complain about every single move will not.
I can't for example see what I possibly could GAIN by the fact that my royalty rate is dropping from 20% to 17% just to feed some fat greedy corporate pigs. Luckily IS only is a part of my income.
There are lots of websites, there's lots of ways to make money.
Yes.
Call me whatever you want, you're the one that doesn't get it. Yes they are blatantly cutting your commission, but the SS commission you get has been hypothesized to cap out at 20% total, but most of the time you make a lot less commission-wise. I've seen people complain that commissions are below 20% at Fotolia, so why are you so upset at IS. And by the way, I thank you very much for having your commission cut, because without you, it wouldn't be possible for me to get my 35%
34
« on: November 17, 2010, 12:19 »
I'm totally okay with taking a step back. it really helps to readjust and attempt to aim your focus.
Its really scary that any changes that happen are reworked as being the end of an industry and that the end is near.
I bet, and i haven't done this yet, that if i were to take the standard deviation of my returns (to measure the volatility of returns) from when i was independent to when i was exclusive, i would see more volatility in the independent data. But no one ever posts that type of statistic.
35
« on: November 17, 2010, 11:14 »
Nobody can know for sure, but it is a safe assumption that you would AT LEAST double your income. don't forget picure prices increase as well as royalty.
And next year they can find another new way of screwing the contributor. Or what if IS starts to lose its market share? I would never ever put my eggs in one basket in this unstable business. (And yes, I have been an IS exclusive a long time ago, but when I had invested much time and effort in my portfolio I thought being exclusive was too risky. I have never really looked back)
A Smart move for IS would be to have the possibility to submit some exclusive images and get a better percentage somewhere between what an independent and exclusive contributors make.
good to know you know their business better than they do - I'll be sure to shoot them over an e-mail and let them know they aren't hiring the right people I don't agree with some of the things they've done, but business-wise, they have shifted the model. Those that adapt to it will most gain more likely than not, those that remain here and complain about every single move will not. There are lots of websites, there's lots of ways to make money. Find the ways that work for you and go that way. Bar and pie and line graphs are nice, but you still need to take pics. And there are probably much more important ratios to look at just time-series bars
36
« on: November 17, 2010, 08:39 »
nevermind
37
« on: October 14, 2010, 07:48 »
Snip...
Just this year I was almost one of the many people snared in Istock's push to get independents to go exclusive so they could "preserve their canister level". Fortunately for me Istock made some very worrying moves in that six month period of time and I decided to stay independent. I am so glad I did. Seeing how many people were taken in by that deal and are now losing income because of it is very, very sobering.
Just to clarify - are you referring to people that may lose income in Jan '11 due to the recent announcements, or do you know for certain that some people have lost income since going exclusive at the beginning of 2010 when iStock did their 'canister preserve' push?
I would be genuinely interested to hear if anyone has lost income so far this year due to becoming exclusive. On the contrary, exclusivity has been very good for me through 2010 and I will end up making more than I did as an independent in either 2008 or 2009.
Income up 100% from 2009, where i was exclusive from June to December. Good year for me
38
« on: October 12, 2010, 14:22 »
I think we started a new thread together. This is very bad news for me 
Yes - sorry about that. I already asked Leaf to delete my thread though...
The really bad news is no money for another week (we already have to wait one week) - they keep our money for an extra week and pay no interest on it. Cash flow management of this sort isn't unheard of for businesses but it sucks for those waiting to get paid.
Assuming its 10,000 at the current rate, its approximately 40 cents of lost interest (i'm being generous in my interest rate) So I'm sure interest isn't the priority. Probably cash flow timing
39
« on: October 09, 2010, 17:06 »
Yeah, and it's easy to come back and gloat when something changes for a competitor, troll. The fact is that the microstock photographers beat the traditional ( read : oldtimers with connections and legacy images paid for by clients) at their own game by creating fresh, new and creative work. Digital imaging and the internet ran a bulldozer through your little playground and you don't like it. It's called creative destruction, and it's happened throughout history. What you were part of was a guild, and the microstock photographers weren't allowed in. Rather than just give up, they went around your tired old distribution model and created a new one, and now you're on the outside looking in. Any changes at istock will be dealt with, adapted to and taken advantage of, with the same creative spirit that made this whole community what it is. The sad part for you is that you just want to have someone to blame. Do you really think that if microstock hadn't come along, your old world would be intact? Now, that's naive!
Excellent summation. I agree, digital imaging and the internet have SO many advantages, but they created huge changes, for a lot of industries.
The only thing to do is deal with it and use it to your advantage, instead of blaming and griping.
Change isn't bad. People who don't want to change deserve to be left behind. These macrostock people are starting to sound a lot like the Catholic Church. Hmmm
40
« on: October 07, 2010, 15:43 »
The fact that they're forcing Vetta and any IS Agency work onto Getty sites (no opt out), plus dumping this dreck at high prices onto IS is just wretched. My guess is that Getty traffic is down IS is up and management wants to put the Getty material where the traffic is in the hope it might sell.
There's a reason for the traffic disparities. A lot of the Agency stuff is crap and people will go where they don't have to hurt their eyes looking at it/and the prices for it
41
« on: October 06, 2010, 12:52 »
Earlier you guys lost money because smaller number of images were sold during recession, now with this you will suffer even after recession when the better time comes - taking the base for the commission from the earlier year will mean this. And those of you who are saing reaching proper income means you should sell so many images that it really is not possible, are mainly right. The users are still buying less images than earlier, and they are buying smalle sizes than earlier; that means less credits, too.
I am discussing with users daily, 90 % of them are saying they will buy only microstock imagery, and I see that happening every day. And I am talking about professional users; ad.agencies, graphic designers, corporate users, magazines etc. So unfortunately I see no turn point back to old days when it was easy to sell multiple images with hundreds or thousands of dollars or euros.
But I still believe in image business and in microstock. Now it just means users are demanding better quality, better keywording, better collections - and personal service. So why don't you choose agencies that have local reps really serving users, marketing your images daily to all possible local users, updating their customer register actively, pushing your images - and honoring your images like they should be honored. Users are tired in just getting some marketing email from London or from some other place, and to be forced to wait for several days to get help or reply when they have some trouble.
Not another one of these posts
The meaning was not to make you depressed but to take actions.
Sorry but for me the only actions I need to take are to get out and take more/better pics, make my portfolio better and increase my revenues that way. Everyone speaks about going and taking action, yet they want everyone else to do it for them so they don't have to. I'm not pretending to want action taken when I'm not going to do it myself.
42
« on: October 06, 2010, 08:37 »
Earlier you guys lost money because smaller number of images were sold during recession, now with this you will suffer even after recession when the better time comes - taking the base for the commission from the earlier year will mean this. And those of you who are saing reaching proper income means you should sell so many images that it really is not possible, are mainly right. The users are still buying less images than earlier, and they are buying smalle sizes than earlier; that means less credits, too.
I am discussing with users daily, 90 % of them are saying they will buy only microstock imagery, and I see that happening every day. And I am talking about professional users; ad.agencies, graphic designers, corporate users, magazines etc. So unfortunately I see no turn point back to old days when it was easy to sell multiple images with hundreds or thousands of dollars or euros.
But I still believe in image business and in microstock. Now it just means users are demanding better quality, better keywording, better collections - and personal service. So why don't you choose agencies that have local reps really serving users, marketing your images daily to all possible local users, updating their customer register actively, pushing your images - and honoring your images like they should be honored. Users are tired in just getting some marketing email from London or from some other place, and to be forced to wait for several days to get help or reply when they have some trouble.
Not another one of these posts
43
« on: October 05, 2010, 07:31 »
Just had one approved from the 1st, not sure what this means though.
Generally my reviews are taking about a week - so no real advantage over non-exclusive review times.
Lately its been taking a while, but its been sporadic with some reviewed in 2 days, some taking 10
44
« on: September 30, 2010, 23:16 »
I use the pen for everything and I love it. It takes getting used to. There is no touch, but then again, I have read mediocre reviews about BambooTouch anyways
45
« on: September 30, 2010, 14:43 »
I've always used the Intuos3 tablet for photos and for regular browsing and I've never had any issues. I have a bad wrist and the mouse used to ruin it every time I was at a computer for extended periods. Once you get used to the tablet, it makes an amazing and efficient tool and I will never go back to a mouse.
46
« on: September 26, 2010, 00:12 »
Definitely! Somewhere between 70 - 100 would be my guess, probably on the lower end of that scale. Working from my own data (as an independent) you'd probably need to be averaging something like 2200 sales per month.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, gostwyck, you can't extrapolate your data as an independent to accurately calculate what an exclusive makes. I don't know why you don't believe me - doing things like that only leads to foolishness. Like making silly $10 bets. (grin)
That being said, I think my guess is indeed a little high, but not by that much - I'll change it to 275.
Some of you guys underestimate so badly its hilarious. I'm with Sharply on this one, he's gotten the math right more often than not - and well he seems to be pretty smart and thorough instead of just bad guesses
47
« on: September 24, 2010, 13:12 »
sweet fancy moses
48
« on: September 24, 2010, 09:31 »
imagine how many image downloads he would have in total.
Well done
its probably a staggering number. SS always outpaced my iStock by 5 or 6 to one. Just imagine his SS account vs. his iStock which probably has a ton more photos (don't have time to look)
49
« on: September 23, 2010, 23:44 »
I think a lot of us are very smart, and that we know very well that what works for the small and the big contributors doesn't work for the middle guys. In the end, it would be difficult to adequately represent the individual needs of the members of that group. But then again, don't know until you try.
50
« on: September 23, 2010, 15:50 »
Aside from that, the bet is only $10, which makes it more of a joke than anything else.
Exactly. It's just a bit of jousting.
Understand what you mean about the 'commission cut'. I forget that exclusives have such a high RC rate per sale compared to independents. Remaining at 40% isn't arduous as it appears from my own figures. Yet.
For now, 40% is reasonable. We'll what the future holds.
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 ... 33
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
