|
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 ... 33
51
« on: September 23, 2010, 15:14 »
Hmmm. But did you 'plan' on a massive cut in your commissions for next year? I think Istockphoto's inherent greed will stretch the loyalty of even their most ardent supporter (although I am staggered to find that they still have any at all!). Time will tell!
Why do you think I'm getting a massive cut in my commissions next year?
How else would he argue it? Just because some can't hit the targets means that all can't in some minds.
52
« on: September 23, 2010, 12:15 »
Cool. Thanks amazing
53
« on: September 23, 2010, 10:40 »
my life is over...an ACCOUNTANT called me boring
54
« on: September 23, 2010, 10:15 »
Too bad there any beans left for you to count
You obviously have a problem with the people in this forum. You have a problem with this business. This is a microstock forum, not a management accountant convention. I'm sure there are other places for you to park your big-boss I'm better than you attitude......mate
55
« on: September 23, 2010, 09:41 »
Won't work. Its a waste of time. There's no such thing as unity. This is an everyone for themselves business with a side of community.
lol, then why . are you all here whining together as a group? Why?
If that's the case, piss off on your own and shut your trap and put up with istock raping you. This is it, everyone here wants to whinge but no one really wants to do anything about it. There is no point in feeling sorry for a bunch of no-hope lifers. At the end of the day the majority of you deserve to take the beating you're given. You deserve to put in hours of work and be paid peanuts if you don't demand anything more. I just feel bad for ones that put up with an industry screwing them just because there's a majority of people content with being screwed. This mentality is the reason why microstock has sunk to the level it has and why it will continue to do so till it's no longer viable for anyone other than the odd hobbyist to upload. The agents have screwed you but you've all pulled your pants down and bent over!
Wow. Aren't you a bitter old sack of crap. I'm not whining about the changes. I'm here for the discussions and most of the opinions - like most people. I enjoy hearing the views of the vets such as sjlocke and lisafx because they have different points of view given their experiences. They offer a lot in terms of knowledge in their own unique ways. They are also reasonable and don't have some sort of god complex like yourself because you think you are trying to save everyone with your 'management accounting skills' and because you have all this 'experience'. This is capitalism. Its the evolution of an industry and the shifting of powers. Its how technology changes industries. It happened to music. It happened to the movie industry. Its happening to photography. Is this such a big surprise? Adapt to the change or die. Make Darwin happy.
56
« on: September 23, 2010, 08:06 »
Won't work. Its a waste of time. There's no such thing as unity. This is an everyone for themselves business with a side of community.
57
« on: September 23, 2010, 07:54 »
...
I want to add, sharply_done, that I really can't be bothered addressing someone that compares microstock exclusivity to a 9-5 day job. From all the ridiculous things I've read on this board (and there's been a lot of them), that has to top them all.
Sorry pseudonymous, but I can't really take anything you have to say about microstock seriously when you were under the impression that commissions at iStock have been dropping (reference this post). Just so you know, everyone who's been involved in microstock for any non-trivial amount of time knows that iStock commission rates have not changed since the day they were introduced. Your thinking that iStock has a history of lowering commissions shows that you have limited knowledge of the microstock industry, and it speaks volumes about your experience in this marketplace, which severly undermines the value of your opinion - at least to me, anyway. But then again, who knows, maybe you've been involved in the traditional stock arena for decades and want to impart some of your knowledge/experience here. If that's the case you should go ahead and do so, but perhaps temper your opinions a little - microstock isn't traditional stock, and you shouldn't treat it as such. If you have to ask why not, then I'll just have to point you to back to the beginning of the what I just wrote.
Moving on, I think you misunderstood the comparison quoted above. What I was saying is that being exclusive to and collecting royalties from a single agency is in some ways similar to having a regular job and collecting a wage/salary from a single employer. That's all. I still think it's an apt analogy - it's certainly not a ridiculous one, and of that I'm confident most everyone would agree.
It really doesnt matter if you take me seriously or not, its your right. You may have been in the microstock industry for many years and I may not have been an IS contributor at all but that is because, and Ive said it several times, I thought IS was bonkers and alas, they have just proved me right. Your experience as a photographer does not make you an expert in running or analysing a business. If you were an expert, you wouldnt have been so foolish to become an IS exclusive. You were easily drawn in by the nutters who waved a bunch of empty promises in your face and brainwashed you into believing youll have it cushy there and now youre locked in. Perhaps youre too proud to admit youve made a mistake going exclusive but come January, when you start to take a big hit in earnings, youre going to have to admit it... at least to yourself.
If ISs commission rates havent come down then oh well, youre right, thats the impression I received from reading many posts scattered around here and on the IS forums complaining about previous pay cuts. I was wrong, it was because others wrote something that was wrong. In any case, it doesnt really matter if commissions havent fallen previously. Its actually worse if people willingly applied to istock from the beginning handing over up to 80% commission. It doesnt at this point in time, matter whats happened historically, theyre reducing already degrading commissions even further and the points Ive raised about profitability are still valid.
and it speaks volumes about your experience in this marketplace, which severly undermines the value of your opinion - at least to me, anyway
My opinion might not matter to you and you should ignore it if thats the case but Ive worked across many industries for multicorporates as a management accountant and they paid me big bucks for my opinions which both increased their efficiency, reduced costs (without cutting the throats of their employees) and gave them a competitive edge. These industries were far more complicated than the microstock industry that has very little overheads and variable costs. Believe me theyre not that difficult to figure out. So I dont really care if some random photographer, who has been in the microstock industry for 10 years, making poor decisions with regards to their own portfolio, doesnt take my advice. Most people would be happy to pick my brain for free and if Ive come here, its really not for my own benefit, but rather to show my concerns and support to those who are going to feel the effects the most. I wont be affected by Istocks f-up at all. But it still pisses me off to see arseholes like that stealing money from undeserving victims... in this case, its you people and your families. It's always been my nature to look after underdog and I can't help it. There are going to be people here that think Im full of *, thats fine. But there might be the odd ones that take my advice or at least use my advice to make them think about their position and future in a different light. Youre expert photographers and all of you think youre experts in managing your own work but sadly youre not and its the agents that take advantage of that. As vlad mentioned somewhere above... theres a downward pressure in earnings but the biggest contributing factor of this downward pressure is the contributors themselves and their attitudes and acceptance that their work has little value. You allow these companies to trick you into thinking theyre looking out for you but theyve screwed you over in every way possible... and youve allowed them to.
As for your analogy, I understood what you meant, but I still think it is ridiculous. How does it compare to working for a single employer? I cannot see any connection at all apart from the word single. For starters, Istock or any agent isnt your employer, they are your agent who provides you a service (not the other way around) and you pay them a commission (not the other way around). Furthermore, those working 9-5 are usually after some stability and security. Becoming exclusive, you lose stability and security over your portfolio more so than being independent. Also I dont think many photographers and artists relate to any 9-5 because a big part of the attraction of photography and art is flexibility and working for yourself. So again, I still find your analogy a tad ridiculous. Okay, I admit, ridiculous is harsh. Ill tone it down and say its irrelevant.
wow...multicorporates...you are a star...teach me more man...teach me more. Most of us have business experience in multiple areas and I know for a fact that Sharply isn't just another photographer. If you can't tell by his posts that he's a smart guy, then maybe you should stop and re-evaluate your own abilities to pick up information. Just because you have some work experience in other industries (I don't know how old you are or when this happened or who you worked for or what happened to those companies so I can't make the argument that you are an outdated hasbeen) doesn't mean your opinions are all valid. Especially without facts or properly reading the arguments presented.
58
« on: September 21, 2010, 13:44 »
funny because i average about 9.5, (approx 40 cents per credit) so it varies per person - and i was never going to get to diamond level 40% anyways under the previously new cannister changes as they put that well out of reach, so being grandfathered to gold was my aim. And seeing as I will either hit or come very close to getting to that level, I'm totally fine with that. i'll refrain from saying anything else because whatever i say you won't believe me because it doesn't suit your agendas
59
« on: September 21, 2010, 12:52 »
nevermind, my numbers are meaningless to you because you will just twist them with your effed up math anyways
60
« on: September 21, 2010, 12:18 »
I understand the argument that everyone has the right to complain about changes and everyone deserves a fair commission, etc. Which I 100% agree with. There's a faction here that says downloads don't matter, and there's a faction that says that past performance does matter in judging the validity of the argument. I do believe that DLs and tenure do matter because the statistical reference point that a person that has 38 downloads over 1 year or 500 downloads over 5 years carries much less weight than someone who is at 12000 dls over 3 years or something like that. Experience is a huge player in almost any job and this is obviously no different.
I'm not saying that people with crappy ports or low dls do not have valid arguments, and in a lot of cases they do, what I'm saying is that when people who are predicting the future from a such a small reference sample its hard to take that prediction seriously given the lack of data/experience to back up claims.
The point you're missing is that Istockphoto aren't merely reshuffling things to give a higher sellers more and lower sellers less __ they're just keeping more of the money for themselves. Nobody (that I'm aware of) is getting more money and everyone is getting less, one way or another.
Unfortunately your feeble-minded unconditional love for Istockphoto means you are completely blind to their real motives.
indeed! i'm totally blind
61
« on: September 21, 2010, 11:01 »
If 1000 buyers leave and each buyer buys 2000$ a year in photos, which could be pretty substantial that would mean that $2 million in revenue disappears. If iStock has revenues in excess of 200 million, that would mean that approximatley 1% of business goes. That is nothing more than the general ebb and flow, or maybe just slightly higher than that. Those 1000 buyers are small little ants compared to the whole pie. A small change that no one will even see. And the few buyers that have already said they would leave probably don't combine to spend 2 mil. Even at 10 million in lost revenue, I don't think that the impact is going to make that big of a difference.
And to address the blufish point - I'm not saying I'm discounting everyone's opinion based on port size, I'm taking the credibility of the opinion of only contributors based on port size unless they indicate that they have some other information that they base their arguments on.
Another point was made that these changes are way radical: no they aren't that radical. And the outcome can be easily anticipated using buyer behaviour and contributor behaviour - especially similar to that from previous events. May not be identical, but may be close enough to make it worthwhile using past data. We do NOT operate in a vacuum, and these events are NOT mutually exclusive.
The global recession could be a game changer.
Talk to a few advertising agencies and maybe a few of the people who work for them and ask them how business is doing? Then ask them if price matters?
because istock only has a few ad agencies as clients and their customer portfolio isn't diversified or anything. and this global recession is currently recovering slowly. Its no longer a recession. its in "recovery" - the pace at which is highly debated
62
« on: September 21, 2010, 11:00 »
I understand the argument that everyone has the right to complain about changes and everyone deserves a fair commission, etc. Which I 100% agree with. There's a faction here that says downloads don't matter, and there's a faction that says that past performance does matter in judging the validity of the argument. I do believe that DLs and tenure do matter because the statistical reference point that a person that has 38 downloads over 1 year or 500 downloads over 5 years carries much less weight than someone who is at 12000 dls over 3 years or something like that. Experience is a huge player in almost any job and this is obviously no different.
I'm not saying that people with crappy ports or low dls do not have valid arguments, and in a lot of cases they do, what I'm saying is that when people who are predicting the future from a such a small reference sample its hard to take that prediction seriously given the lack of data/experience to back up claims.
Then there's always those that just go off the deep end anyways....whatever it is...this off topic reply is just to try to incorporate the idea that dls and experience and portfolio exposure do matter a bit more than many peopel here are willing to admit.
So , if that's the case , why u wrote that i don't know what im talking about ?
I believe that numbers say my portfolio is side to side with yours, even on IS only ? Both +1000 images both about 9000 dl and we started almost at same time ?
So please tell me you base your claims not to loose or even rise your % on what facts exactly ?
Please, please , tell me what u know and I don't , any fact that is going to rise my optimism
Thank u
you are dumb. i said don't tell me stuff about me losing commission because you don't know anythign about me or my portfolio or where my credits are or how my portfolio performance at iStock has increased over the past year hence my ability to stay at the same level with a good chance at rising up to the next level. How hard is that to understand? its not rocket science, but given the math abilities displayed lately.....
63
« on: September 21, 2010, 10:41 »
If 1000 buyers leave and each buyer buys 2000$ a year in photos, which could be pretty substantial that would mean that $2 million in revenue disappears. If iStock has revenues in excess of 200 million, that would mean that approximatley 1% of business goes. That is nothing more than the general ebb and flow, or maybe just slightly higher than that. Those 1000 buyers are small little ants compared to the whole pie. A small change that no one will even see. And the few buyers that have already said they would leave probably don't combine to spend 2 mil. Even at 10 million in lost revenue, I don't think that the impact is going to make that big of a difference.
And to address the blufish point - I'm not saying I'm discounting everyone's opinion based on port size, I'm taking the credibility of the opinion of only contributors based on port size unless they indicate that they have some other information that they base their arguments on.
Another point was made that these changes are way radical: no they aren't that radical. And the outcome can be easily anticipated using buyer behaviour and contributor behaviour - especially similar to that from previous events. May not be identical, but may be close enough to make it worthwhile using past data. We do NOT operate in a vacuum, and these events are NOT mutually exclusive.
64
« on: September 21, 2010, 10:03 »
I understand the argument that everyone has the right to complain about changes and everyone deserves a fair commission, etc. Which I 100% agree with. There's a faction here that says downloads don't matter, and there's a faction that says that past performance does matter in judging the validity of the argument. I do believe that DLs and tenure do matter because the statistical reference point that a person that has 38 downloads over 1 year or 500 downloads over 5 years carries much less weight than someone who is at 12000 dls over 3 years or something like that. Experience is a huge player in almost any job and this is obviously no different.
I'm not saying that people with crappy ports or low dls do not have valid arguments, and in a lot of cases they do, what I'm saying is that when people who are predicting the future from a such a small reference sample its hard to take that prediction seriously given the lack of data/experience to back up claims.
Then there's always those that just go off the deep end anyways....whatever it is...this off topic reply is just to try to incorporate the idea that dls and experience and portfolio exposure do matter a bit more than many peopel here are willing to admit.
65
« on: September 21, 2010, 07:41 »
let me remind you that i didn't bitch about 20% or whatever. and instead of bitching i kept working at it
Maybe you should have bitched and not been such a compliant little doggie? Now they hold all the cards (because you gave yours away). Remind us what % of your microstock income you'll be losing for your loyalty? That Gold canister you've been striving for isn't going to mean much now is it?
I won't lose anything. In fact, I may actually gain the next level  Maybe you shouldn't have been so compliant either.
Please , but please
So , why are you writing obvious lies , if your sales are 4 times up u still want make nothing , actually you are down like most of us.
This is childish
who are you to say what I make? year over year I'm up. Every month is pretty constant with the previous, and i have no issues with my sales. The 'summer slowdown' isn't that bad for me, and whatever you want to believe you can.
WHy do I need to have more respect? I have plenty of respect for a lot of people in this forum, especially those that deserve it. its obvious that 0 dls over there doesn't have any for anyone else. I clearly haven't attacked dgilder for his decision to remove his portfolio. While I may not agree with it, I have been, I blieve, respectful about disagreeing.
Childish is making assumptions that you don't know anything about. So believe what you want, but don't tell me to have more respect.
Ichiro, m8 , you know I have nothing against u or nobody , but how can u say u are not loosing nothing , and that u might actually go up ?
What are u saying , that u had less than 10 000 dl in so many years and now you wont be affected or your part is going to stay the same ?
Its not assumption , its a fact , you will be downgraded , and for same % you'll have to work much much harder then now , and only contributors know
how many hours we invested in our work with only one goal , and then they lift the bar in a second and u have to jump like u never thought its possible
to stay at the same level.
Man , somewhere deep inside u know most people here are right , please don't try to trash them with empty theories and impossible endings.
If u really believe what u say , hats down m8 , you are are hard worker and u deserve to come where u headed to , but it certainly wont be easier , not for u,
not for me , probably not for anybody.
You have no idea what you are talking about. And I'm going to leave it at that.
66
« on: September 20, 2010, 17:37 »
let me remind you that i didn't bitch about 20% or whatever. and instead of bitching i kept working at it
Maybe you should have bitched and not been such a compliant little doggie? Now they hold all the cards (because you gave yours away). Remind us what % of your microstock income you'll be losing for your loyalty? That Gold canister you've been striving for isn't going to mean much now is it?
I won't lose anything. In fact, I may actually gain the next level Maybe you shouldn't have been so compliant either.
Please , but please
So , why are you writing obvious lies , if your sales are 4 times up u still want make nothing , actually you are down like most of us.
This is childish
who are you to say what I make? year over year I'm up. Every month is pretty constant with the previous, and i have no issues with my sales. The 'summer slowdown' isn't that bad for me, and whatever you want to believe you can. WHy do I need to have more respect? I have plenty of respect for a lot of people in this forum, especially those that deserve it. its obvious that 0 dls over there doesn't have any for anyone else. I clearly haven't attacked dgilder for his decision to remove his portfolio. While I may not agree with it, I have been, I blieve, respectful about disagreeing. Childish is making assumptions that you don't know anything about. So believe what you want, but don't tell me to have more respect.
67
« on: September 20, 2010, 15:40 »
let me remind you that i didn't bitch about 20% or whatever. and instead of bitching i kept working at it
Maybe you should have bitched and not been such a compliant little doggie? Now they hold all the cards (because you gave yours away). Remind us what % of your microstock income you'll be losing for your loyalty? That Gold canister you've been striving for isn't going to mean much now is it?
I won't lose anything. In fact, I may actually gain the next level Maybe you shouldn't have been so compliant either.
68
« on: September 20, 2010, 14:26 »
Ichiro,
no links, no names, no port, no sales.
No argument.
A nobody.
Yup just a nobody. At least no one knows that for sure. Unlike you and your big mouth and little portfolio with no sales to back it up. Don't start picking on who and what, because if you were around for any decent amount of time, you would know who I am as I've been a member on this forum forever. Oh and btw, my port is 10000 dls at iStock and my 12,000 SS sales before I went exclusive (not that thats impressive to you, because you're a bigshot with your 150 lifetime sales)
Maybe you've forgotten where you started. Let me remind you:
Hey everyone.
I only have 12 photos on Big stock right now with 17 pending. I was wondering how much people are making on the site and how many photos they have uploaded to this "BIG FIVE" site.
As well, does anyone have any tips. I just bought a Digital Rebel XT and I would like to get some sales to make back some of that money. 
Joseph
YAY
Finally got into iStock. Its about time too. I was waiting because I feel so left out since everyone (even nubes) get in on iStock before me (being involved with this for 3 months and not being in, gets you down) but I'm finally in. Hopefully I can be successful on it - any tips for them?
Whats with this 30 uploads per week business? I'm not sure what thats all about...will that change for me? I have like 300 photos that could potentially meet the iStock bill. 
How are you all doing with iStock? What are your photo niches?
-gareri
let me remind you that i didn't bitch about 20% or whatever. and instead of bitching i kept working at it
69
« on: September 20, 2010, 13:09 »
Ichiro,
no links, no names, no port, no sales.
No argument.
A nobody.
Yup just a nobody. At least no one knows that for sure. Unlike you and your big mouth and little portfolio with no sales to back it up. Don't start picking on who and what, because if you were around for any decent amount of time, you would know who I am as I've been a member on this forum forever. Oh and btw, my port is 10000 dls at iStock and my 12,000 SS sales before I went exclusive (not that thats impressive to you, because you're a bigshot with your 150 lifetime sales)
You're the one who started the pissing contest, I support Eieann's right to post what ever she well pleases. Ignore her if it bothers you so much
whatever, she has no respect for others because they don't feel like posting portfolio links yet she demands respect from an agency that she has not even made a decent contribution to. I have no problem with people complaining who will actually suffer from the loss and the cuts, but she doesn't even average 4 dls a month. Don't tell me to ignore that because her whining is the most pathetic thing I've seen in a while.
70
« on: September 20, 2010, 12:55 »
Ichiro,
no links, no names, no port, no sales.
No argument.
A nobody.
Yup just a nobody. At least no one knows that for sure. Unlike you and your big mouth and little portfolio with no sales to back it up. Don't start picking on who and what, because if you were around for any decent amount of time, you would know who I am as I've been a member on this forum forever. Oh and btw, my port is 10000 dls at iStock and my 12,000 SS sales before I went exclusive (not that thats impressive to you, because you're a bigshot with your 150 lifetime sales)
71
« on: September 20, 2010, 11:58 »
I've heard this argument before - the other sites, Dreamstime and Fotolia ...
What about Dreamstime and Fotolia?
Today IStock is the only agency that offers me a 15% commission.
No other site has gone this low.
I'll cross one bridge at a time.
Contributors who are upset and post on IStock forums are jerks.
Thing is, historically speaking it's because of 'jerks' like them, people who have the guts to ask questions and demand answers, that we have evolved into free, democratic societies.
I'll take the jerks anytime.
As opposed to incognito posters who can't even muster enough courage to reveal their true identity.
Not to be trusted.
Trusted or not, i think the ridiculous amount of complaining you do is over the top. You complain about 15% commissions, meanwhile, what does that even mean for you. Are you even losing any money. I mean, you have 150 downloads in forever, so what does the 25% reduction in commission cost you? maybe $40 a year (i think i'm being generous here)? For the amount of complaining you do, why not just stop uploading. You can probably make more money selling dandelions on the street corne. and you get to keep 100% of that.
72
« on: September 16, 2010, 09:03 »
Derrick Rhodes is a dumbass. I will offend him until I see more crap from other 'talented' photographers
I had a short look at Fstop.
"Snapshot in a jam with blown out sky"
http://www.fstopimages.com/collections/showimage.php?id=10612&c=init
It's yours for only 700$.
Suddenly, I feel very pity for all those great iStock exclusives. 
Why would anyone pay for that piece of crap. My point and shoot has better dynamic range
73
« on: September 16, 2010, 07:40 »
No offense to the photographers who took the images but I don't understand how these images will sell for top dollar on a site already stuffed with cheaper images. Why would a buyer not just look for a cheaper version?
Why no offense? Please, offend.
Wow, I may decide to offend after reading this post by Derick Rhodes. It's from 2007 but arrogance usually doesn't change over time.
http://www.abouttheimage.com/2811/editorial_microstock_in_context/author7
Derrick Rhodes is a dumbass. I will offend him until I see more crap from other 'talented' photographers
74
« on: September 15, 2010, 20:08 »
75
« on: September 15, 2010, 20:07 »
not sure how these get through. i don't have all great photos, and i'm sure a lot of mine are so-so, but those were early on when I was learning. Maybe I'm missing the point here of this Agency Collection
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 ... 33
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
