|
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 - scottdunlap
26
« on: March 01, 2012, 15:06 »
I read that to mean that anonymous contributors were benefitting by seeing the numbers of people that kept their usernames public, but not returning the favor.
Yes, I read it the same way. I am one of those that was anonymous, but did check in to see what was going on occasionally. I don't see that as selfish or "not returning the favor".
I wasn't calling you selfish Lisa. You're anything but. It just seemed from your original post you didn't get their explanation. Wasn't passing judgement, I haven't visited the site lately and I didn't even realize you were anonymous.
27
« on: March 01, 2012, 14:55 »
Well Christian, you have certainly livened up this thread and kept us all entertained 
- His personality is so magnetic, he is unable to carry credit cards. - His words carry weight that would break a less interesting mans jaw. - His blood smells like cologne. - If he were to mail a letter without postage, it would still get there. Like I said, he is... the most interesting man in the world!
28
« on: March 01, 2012, 14:49 »
29
« on: February 29, 2012, 18:13 »
That is a shame. The charts were useful, even with anonymous users. The name was blocked, but the stats were there.
I really don't get the "quid pro quo" thing. If they wanted to charge a membership fee or get some advertising, that would be fine with me. Nobody asked them to do it for free....
I read that to mean that anonymous contributors were benefitting by seeing the numbers of people that kept their usernames public, but not returning the favor.
30
« on: February 28, 2012, 17:47 »
I have lost count on how many times I have photographed everything from heart-transplants, autopsies, brain-surgery, the lot, I know the real thing. I have also been a qualified veternary surgeon for over 25 years and yes, instruments are held in the same way, to avoid them from falling, among others.
Ofcourse I have always been a full time photographer but it does help to be medically trained, even if it concerns animals.
Sean is right though, I bet they sell but that wasnt my point here and yes the IS shots are better then Gettys.
This is not anything against Getty/IS, who cares really? but it does show there are some fields where stock simply cant get inside the doors. 
I totally am envisioning you as the most interesting man in the world.
32
« on: February 03, 2012, 09:50 »
probably better than the top ten IS exclusive illustrators put together
I think probably is the crucial word here.
Could equally be replaced possibly/maybe/I'm guessing wildly but.... etc etc
Very nice work though, whatever she earns.
Yes, she does have a great portfolio. And I didn't mean to sidetrack the conversation about how much she makes, I was just curious how one could get even a vague handle on sales at SS, I didn't think it was possible. The person posting about beating the top 10 exclusives seemed pretty confident about it, but now it sounds like they pulled it out of... thin air.
33
« on: February 03, 2012, 07:01 »
...Anja deleted her port on IS soon after the September 2010 announcement was made. She didn't agree with the commission cuts for independents, stood by her word and left...
Another reason she gave for leaving IS was that they were rejecting most of her images. Incredible really. She has become without doubt the most successful microstock illustrator, by a great margin, probably better than the top ten IS exclusive illustrators put together, and IS was rejecting most of her images because there were not suitable for microstock.
If that's the case, that is truly impressive... it would mean she's making millions a year. I didn't think Shutterstock showed stats... how do you know how many sales she's had?
34
« on: February 02, 2012, 22:19 »
I think there's a difference between "buyers want platypuses" and "buyers want vector versions of copyrighted fonts"
But put 'em in a "photo" and they're fine. Same with calendars.
Nobody's trying to upload entire fonts. As John said, they figured out a way to accept them in logos.
Exactly. Exactly. Those claiming copyright infringement of typeface licenses by Anja might look at the image again. http://www.shutterstock.com/cat-23-Illustrations-Clip-Art.html#id=65754793
The only typefaces used in the image are for sample text, with the exception of the the hand lettered word 'Menu'. The elements for sale are not 'fonts'. Are the IS defenders claiming that the tens of thousands of designers who bought this image did so to use the words 'Sample Text' or 'Place Your Own Message' in their designs? The idea is ridicuolous
I don't think it's ridiculous. I think the idea is that you are benefitting from another artists work, even if you aren't including the entire font. Think about the other thread where artists were including heavily photoshopped versions of artwork on posters ( iron man, etc.). As they were layered, and not 'clean', they weren't much use to designers... But the seller was benefitting as the poster looked better because of it. Everyone agreed it wasn't cool to do, and even illegal, which btw including fonts in a design for resale is also. Put another way, why not just include generic free fonts? Because different fonts add to the design, and you are benefitting. I don't think it's so clear-cut.
35
« on: January 24, 2012, 19:32 »
Thanks, but speaking as a goose, I can definitely say my egg production is way down, LOL. Honestly, I probably would have made a lot more as exclusive over the past years, especially since they implemented the price changes. But with all the changes and upheavals the past couple of years my nerves would have been totally shot. Either that, or I'd be addicted to valium!
I remember asking you for advice several years ago, and you were really helpful and very level-headed. I decided to stay exclusive, you went the other way, but I'd guess there's a chance it may change for me down the road. Right now I am happy and doing well. But if (when?) I get crunched by Getty cutting % rates, I may leave even though I would take a hit. If I feel I'm being squeezed and it isn't fair, I'm willing to lose some money to go in a different direction. So I can totally relate to it not simply being a $ issue, though of course that's a biggie.
36
« on: January 24, 2012, 18:43 »
Quit being so level-headed, RapidEye.
37
« on: January 19, 2012, 16:43 »
I know I'm in the minority, but I think iStock is actually doing well sales-wise. However, Getty is used to paying out a lower commission % and it's killing them that iStock is higher. They see getting that number down as a natural way to increase profits, and they will continue their march to lower the % paid out.
38
« on: January 13, 2012, 19:15 »
Getty's track record doesn't give me any reason to hold out hope IS will ever improve. Maybe my experience with StockXpert has left me cynical, but I can't help but think they are actually trying to push out all the contributors so they can use the brand name iStockphoto for older Getty images they wholly own. They get 100% of the royalties for those images and minimal labor is involved. Moving Getty images onto iStock is cheap and efficient.
I agree with your cynicism of Getty. If they could pay out 15% commissions, they would. Thing is, as an exclusive obviously I want iStock to do well. But truthfully, I'm happy other sites are also doing well. It keeps everyone honest. I'd hate to see ANY one site gain a monopoly. That's when I'd set up shop for myself...
39
« on: January 13, 2012, 19:08 »
A tiny remnant of woo-wayers nowadays (seems like a lot over there because they delete so many posts and ban posters), and really only a fairly few real haters. A lot of the negativity is based in objectivity, i.e. people speak as they find. One poster spent all their year here complaining about how bad their sales were on iStock, then posted on the end of year stats thread there that they'd had a good year on iStock.   , so does that count as a foot in both camps?
Too funny! And actually what I'm talking about. There's a lot of emotion about iStock that I can understand. So post about what you don't like (me? Initial Vetta rates for Illustrators, dropping EL rates, yearly RC goals, separate RC levels for diff't media), but complaining about bad sales when they were actually good... that's not based in objectivity.
40
« on: January 13, 2012, 18:40 »
Anyone who thinks the mood on msg is "negative" towards istock, please just head over to any business forum and look at how companies get discussed there. msg is a sweet, sensitive bed of roses compared to all other places I visit.
In 2011 companies get discussed and observed with unprecedented public scrutiny in articles, blogs and comments. Any company that does business over the internet, especially a "community based business" like istock should be able to handle reality.
Personally, I don't care about iStock's feelings ... I'm just looking for objective info that I can use to help make decisions. As Paulie inferred, there seems to be a lot of woo-yahers and haters, and not too many in-between.
41
« on: January 13, 2012, 16:22 »
I don't disagree with you Scott, there indeed can be a very negative sentiment regarding iStock here, and it's not always completely objective. But if I'm correct you somehow doubled your icon portfolio during the last year, so you should take that into account for the fact you had a good year. The question is, was it good enough for having twice as much work for sale. I also hope iStock (and somehow even believe that) is just having a little break before rising again, but we should also be realistic somehow. A lot of things have happened over there, and I can't remember many of them were good news.
Hey Tom, you're right about uploading a bunch of new work. I wish a doubling of uploads would double my income...but of course older files earn less and less each year, so you can't do the math that way. I know you know that, but a lot of people have that mindset. But to answer your question "was it worth it?" I would give a qualified yes. I am happy with the year, if I could increase income each year with the amount I put in I would take it. But I do agree that there are a lot of moves on iStock's part that I don't like, and I know being on the wrong side of a best match shuffle can undo a lot. So yeah, my eyes are wide open, but I think (hope?) that things aren't as bad as they seems on this forum.
42
« on: January 13, 2012, 13:51 »
off topic: Scott I just looked at your iStock port. >110000 dl's on 390 files is one of the most impressive things I've seen in a while. Congrats.
Yes, even more impressive is that there are photos and not just illustrations. Nice work.
Thanks Paulie. I haven't uploaded photos for a good while, and last year's sales reflect it. I dropped way down to 25%. I am probably going to drop photo exclusivity as a result.
43
« on: January 13, 2012, 13:12 »
off topic: Scott I just looked at your iStock port. >110000 dl's on 390 files is one of the most impressive things I've seen in a while. Congrats.
Thanks Matt. Designing icons has become a sort of obsession for me. I just checked out your photos... you have some amazing shots. I've always admired landscape photographers like you. I always think to myself "I could do that," then always come up short!
44
« on: January 13, 2012, 11:44 »
I think it's tempting for those whose income is currently OK at iStock to dismiss the reports of others (such as in the Dec sales thread and the 2011 sales thread) about drastically falling sales. Neither iStock or Getty is going to share any real information with contributors, so we inevitably have to read things into the data we can gather. If H&F is looking for growth in income, there's only so long iStock can deliver by cutting contributor payouts to a portion of their suppliers and dumping wholly owned content from Getty onto the site.
I think I am pretty level-headed and I am not dismissing the reports of others. I come here to keep up on trends so I'm not surprised down the road. I'm listening to the reports of falling sales and factoring it in. The trend doesn't look good. But on the flip side, there's a lot of animosity towards iStock on this forum, some justified, but as a result those folks are extra vocal and may be making things seem worse than they actually are. Lagereek's posts are a good example. I especially liked when he said that a monkey playing with himself in the bush could do better than their programmers...I guess what I'm saying is I take some things with a grain of salt. There are still people doing well there, for example last year was my best at iStock, and I've been there 6 years. Maybe I've had some best match luck to help out, who knows?
45
« on: January 13, 2012, 10:28 »
Even if they have succeeded in pushing customers into paying more per download to compensate for falling sales, is it possible to imagine that next year they can repeat the trick?
And then do the same the next year and the one after?
This is where it is correct to use the word "unsustainable". You cannot endlessly increase prices to outpace a fall in sales, though maybe hiding the independent content is part of an attempt to do that.
I see it the opposite way. Increasing prices are the cause of falling sales. But I could care less about download numbers if my overall revenue is up...I wish we had some info on whether it's up or down site-wide.
46
« on: January 12, 2012, 13:31 »
I don't have time to wade through the forums for news... I'm happy they are implementing this. Besides, people have been asking for better communication for as long as I can remember. Maybe this will help.
Let's hope so.
And written in Plain English would help - none of the ambiguous stuff that causes debates in the forums about how they should be interpreted even among English speakers - easily understood by those for whom none the 'community languages' is their first language.
I'm guessing you're referring to JJRD's posts. If so, I couldn't agree more. But if Andrew's behind it, we won't have that problem.
47
« on: January 12, 2012, 13:18 »
I don't have time to wade through the forums for news... I'm happy they are implementing this. Besides, people have been asking for better communication for as long as I can remember. Maybe this will help.
48
« on: January 12, 2012, 11:53 »
actually, these days it feels like you're more of a pariah if you remain exclusive
Speaking only for myself, I don't think of exclusives as pariahs...I just don't understand why anyone would choose to remain exclusive when so many bad things keep happening at IS.
Money. And if the money well dries up then a lot of exclusives may not have any choice but to go find other sources of income.
Right. Some of us still do well there. If (when?) things take a noticeable downward turn, I'll consider dropping the crown.
49
« on: January 11, 2012, 08:34 »
Best of luck going independent, hope everything works out well for you.
50
« on: December 21, 2011, 14:20 »
Massive doesn't do it justice. Older files don't have a chance. I had the number one slot for a couple of years for the keyword "icon set." The file is less than 3 years old, and has sold almost 9000 times. Where is it listed now? Almost 4000 images back.
This one is gonna hurt.
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
