|
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 - RT
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 ... 77
26
« on: December 22, 2012, 20:07 »
Judging by your guess, I suspect that you don't contribute to either SS or 123rf.
Well you're wrong and to be honest I'd have thought it was plainly obvious I contribute to 123RF otherwise why would I be commenting on a thread about them!! Why are you only focusing on the 30%? What about quality contributors with a large portfolio that are dropping from 50% to anywhere above 30%? They may be having trouble selling enough to get 50% for lots of reasons. They may have entered later in the game meaning their content is taking longer to be seen.
Apart from the obvious oxymoron I believe 123RF are basing it on a 12 month rolling scale so those who joined 'later in the game' have the ability to climb up to a higher percentage irrelevant of historical statistics. Nothing personal but the rest of what you said just comes over to me as 'sour eggs' towards 123RF in general, read what I've said a couple of posts above, work harder to produce stuff that sells and you'll reap the benefits across all the sites you decide to submit to. If you really feel as bad about 123RF as you seem to I really can't understand why you just don't leave. Seriously why would you want to stay on a site where you don't like the - content, prices, search results and royalties. I'm genuinely intrigued as to why you're arguing over this, if I felt that bad about a site I'd just leave.
27
« on: December 22, 2012, 19:38 »
RT I do think you are an intelligent guy and sure you add a lot of value to this forum but I don't think showing off or bullying other will ever work out, maybe only for the person who does it, anyway I believe you know why iStock dropped you too back in 2009, don't forget we are all on the same boat, yes yours will take longer to sink 
Umm..... thanks but I think you've got the wrong guy, by that I mean the "dropped by iStock" not the intelligent part  And sorry if you think I'm showing off or bullying others (although I haven't got a clue why you'd say that), I work dammed hard to reach the levels I have, I admit I'm easily into the level to retain 50% but that's because I've done the work to get there, as have many others. As I said early I sympathise with anyone who's taking a drop.
28
« on: December 22, 2012, 19:29 »
@RT
I think you are missing the point of what most of the members are trying to tell you here:
1. The issue with 123RF is not only the % they are paying their contributors, but the price of their image packages, which COMBINEDLY will make it one of the worst (if not the worst) paying sites.
2. 123RF will not go to this extreme lengths to get rid of smaller contributors, if there was a much easier and less risky method of just refusing most of their work. It has nothing to do with good or bad the reviewers is/are/should be. It is about the business strategy.
This is why no one so far agrees with your analysis of 123RF's actions.
Actually I'm fully aware of the point some members here are trying to tell me, they're not selling enough and as a result they are going to drop down. The point most of those members are missing is that - The reason they're going to drop is pure and simply down to them, nobody else, nothing to do with the amount of "crap" on the site and nothing to do with the price of image packages. And they don't agree with my analysis because it's easier to blame someone/something else than accept the truth.
29
« on: December 22, 2012, 12:13 »
35 percent of nothing is still nothing. Their 21 cents is the lowest in the industry apart from IS. I am getting 25 cents come january, but 25 cents at a low volumes is not good enough. 123 is not SS, they cant pull a stunt like this.
Sorry to tell you but I think you'll find they can do what they like. I can understand you're angry and I'm not justifying or advocating anything they do, just giving my theory as to why.
30
« on: December 22, 2012, 12:09 »
If thats the case, why would they accept everything you throw at them? They can easily hit the LCV button on small timers and only accept high quality pro stuff
Most microstock sites accept pretty much anything if it passes a technical criteria, to be able to determine whether a file is LCV requires a extremely good knowledge by the reviewer of what sells, by the very nature of microstock those who know what sells are out there uploading and selling it. Do you know of any successful contributors who are reviewers? There's some exceptions on iS because they have different incentives to be an inspector there, but generally speaking those who review are not big sellers.
31
« on: December 22, 2012, 12:00 »
123rf has more crap than other site and now you're saying they've suddenly decided to get rid of anyone with 4999 and below yearly downloads? That's a lot of sales to let go don't you think?
And you're correct, 'threats' of leaving won't have much effect on them. Actually leaving might though.
I'd have thought SS has the most "crap" as you call it, as more people submit there than anywhere else. And if you read what I wrote you'll see I said they may be trying to get rid of those contributors who's work doesn't sell (therefore no they won't be losing much), there's some mid tier contributors who may take a 5% drop, will they leave - I doubt it very much, and I expect 123RF know this as the royalties they pay are still higher than most. As I said I'm only guessing, they are many contributors I know of who produce stunning work albeit in low quantity, those are the folks I feel sorry for because they're taking a drop purely because they can't produce enough, anybody that's got a substantial portfolio and yet is getting dropped to 30% really need to look at why there stuff isn't selling - or is that the "crap" you're referring to?
32
« on: December 22, 2012, 09:24 »
Have you read 'Fast Food Nation' by Eric Schlosser? It features, as one of MacDonalds' suppliers, Jack Simplot, aka 'The Potato King of Idaho'. At the time the book was written he was well into his 80's and a multi-billionaire ... but working just as hard as ever to make more money and expand his empire. There's a photo of him sitting atop a pile of potatoes and cackling away "Most people sell out once they've made $10M or 20M but I just kept on going".
I think Livingstone falls into the "most people" category of entrepreneur whereas Oringer is the other type (like Branson or Trump for example) for whom business becomes an all-consuming game, their primary source of pleasure. Those people can never sell out. If Jon was going ... he'd already have gone. He's now in the game to win it.
Jon's given several interviews recently (since the successful IPO) and, if you read his answers carefully, he does actually drop quite a few clues as to his plans. In my view he is intent on wiping out his competition in dominating the image/footage industry, and that would include Getty and Corbis, but he's also a patient man and a strategist. I think he's enjoying the game immensely.
I haven't read the book you mention but have read similar one's, however a quick search on the Simplot company and the first thing of note is that it's a Privately owned company, so by your own testimont Jon has already broken Jacks rule. Either way one thing I do know is that you should never compare companies or people that run them in different industry sectors. As I said none of us know what Jon's plans are, I do know however that he's quite a shrewd businessman and if he's hinted at something there's a reason, that reason may just be to halt any panic of what might be to come, I'd do the same if I we're him. What do you think would happen if he came out and said "I've sold half the company but I've got to stay on and run it for two years after which I'll sell up my half and be gone, then the 'suits' will bleed it dry". Jon is astute enough to know that the way Bruce Livingstone sold out has been a complete disaster for all concerned. I doubt anybody knows what he's going to do until he does it, and because of that speculating is, IMO, pointless. On another note, I got a hand signed Christmas card from him in the mail this morning, which I thought was a nice touch (yours will probably have kisses on it ), whatever he does I'm sure he'll be successful as he appreciates that there are human beings at the other end of the supply chain. Apart from Alamy every other agency sent me the usual e-card, no doubt they'll say it's to save money but I've always thought that if someone has gone to the trouble of signing and posting a card in the mail it is more meaningful.
33
« on: December 22, 2012, 05:15 »
I would hazard a guess that lowering the royalty percentage for the contributors who don't sell much is a deliberate attempt by 123RF to get those contributors to leave by their own freewill, I've often said that if I were to ever start an agency I would only feature the work of the top 500 and market it as such.
Maybe that's what 123RF is trying to create, who knows, but I doubt threats of leaving by those who are dropping is going to have the effect you want it to, if anything it may be exactly what they want.
34
« on: December 22, 2012, 05:05 »
I'd say that SS is extremely sustainable longer term. Don't forget that Jon still owns 56% of the business so he gets to do want he wants. Whilst that remains there will be no pressure from shareholders.
None of us know for sure and everybody is entitled to guess as to what Jon's long term plans are, and it's only that a guess. My guess is that Jon learnt from the huge mistake that Bruce Livingstone made when he sold iStock to Getty for much less than it was worth and then had to stay on for two years at the 'beck and call' of the Getty management, made even worse by seeing his company sore in profits. So I'm guessing Jon has learnt from Bruce's business naivety, has 'sold out' wisely retaining the majority share so that he still controls the company until such time (by contract or freewill) that he can get out, and obviously because he's the main shareholder he'll still get a big chunk of whatever SS is worth at that time. I don't for one second believe Jon is looking to remain any longer than he has to, and I certainly don't share the optimism you have about SS.
35
« on: December 19, 2012, 12:33 »
Had a few good exchanges with him in the early days, nice guy and I was sorry to hear the news.
36
« on: December 18, 2012, 08:03 »
Rights managed .... exclusive rights to use the image for specific purposes....
There's no exclusivity included when buying a standard RM license
37
« on: December 13, 2012, 06:24 »
Personally I couldn't care less about 'more communication from her or others from Getty', I don't go to iStockphoto for social networking I go there to see if they're selling my images which, correct me if I'm wrong, is the purpose of the site. I'd rather nobody from HQ communicated with me, instead I'd prefer they got on and did what they're meant to do and sell our content.
The problem is, as we've seen on many occasions, there will be a select number of naive contributors that will believe this BS and reply with some heart felt, vomit inducing dribble thanking her, and to this end as normal nothing will get done and the site will continue along the downward slope that it's been on for the past couple of years.
So Rebecca if you read this, don't bother replying, not even on your precious weekend, just get on and do the job you're being paid for, it's not an impossible task as thousands of other bigger companies than yours can/do run and maintain a sales website completely trouble free, oh and stop pretending that everything is fine at iS, I,we,you and the rest of the industry all know it's sinking rapidly, it may come as a surprise but quite a lot of us keep track of sales figures you know.
38
« on: December 12, 2012, 15:04 »
Drop me a PM and I'll sort you out
39
« on: October 18, 2012, 10:13 »
Customer support is extremely helpful and friendly.
And don't ever change that, costs nothing and yet lacking it is probably one of the biggest reasons for iStockphoto's downfall.
40
« on: October 18, 2012, 06:23 »
RT>>Exactly what I thought, so how do you guys and girls work aroun this? Is double releases the only way? BTW, Thanks for your great replys...
I don't have to work round it as I'm in England, what others have suggested seems a good idea although if another agency actually looked into it I'm not sure they'd be too happy for the reasons I mentioned earlier. The most important thing is that the release is legal and valid for you the photographer and your model/s, the rest is just a work round to get your image accepted through xxxx agency.
41
« on: October 18, 2012, 06:14 »
But DT & FT aren't more expensive than SS; image prices at all 3 agencies are roughly similar. The main reason that there is a difference in RPD between them is their success or otherwise in selling subscriptions. SS is obviously the clear winner in that regard presumeably because buyers who require a subscription prefer their product/service over that of DT or FT. As it happens both DT and FT are actually cheaper than SS for long-term subscriptions and of course they both pay us less per sub-sale than SS. You can't knock SS for their success over the competition.
You're right DT & FT aren't more expensive than SS, and yet by your own admittance your RPD is higher there, as you said it's because they don't push to sell subs as much as SS, and you think SS selling more subs is a good thing! However SS are also a substantial agency for OD's EL's and SOD's in their own regard. So far this month I've made more money at SS from non-sub sales than I have in total from DT & FT combined __ and that includes sub sales within DT and FT's total.
I haven't seen many others saying the same and it certainly isn't like that for me and nothing to indicate it will be, but believe me I would love to sell nothing but single image sales at SS, so subs are bad now then? I've also made more money this month at SS from single-image sales, etc than I have in total at IS. Yes really.
I don't doubt it, shame though because iS would have paid you more. The fact of the matter is that, even if you were to remove all sub sales, SS would still be my biggest selling agency for single-image sales. Single-image sales is where almost all the growth has been generated over the last couple of years and fortunately that shows no sign of slowing down.
So subs are bad now  Btw, SS are often 'credited' on MSG (or 'blamed' if you prefer) for having invented the sub model. They didn't. There were several other sub-only agencies at the time however they invariably had wholly-owned content. SS just happened to be the first sub-only agency to open their doors to outside photographers. The huge risk Oringer took in doing so, by paying commissions, meant he could have lost money on every subscription if the customer downloaded anything like their full entitlement.
I know, there were also the 'CD collections' which were like subs on a disc, all Oringer did was copy two ideas, sell loads of images in one package (which he nicked from the trads) and sell them dirt cheap (which he nicked from Bruce), I guess he got the idea of paying the least amount possible to the creators himself, but in fairness he was targeting those who couldn't sell elsewhere with the 'upload the contents of your hard drive' campaign. To this day you'd be hard pushed to find anyone with a larger or even similar size portfolio on other sites as they do on SS and I'll hazard a guess there's a large amount of people who only sell on SS because of quality reasons. I know you like SS because they nett you the largest monthly income, there's nothing wrong with that, and yes they're extremely successful in doing what they do (mostly thanks to iS giving them customers no doubt) which is why Jon Oringer has just got all that cash, all I ask is that you remove the blinkers every once in a while and see them for what they are which is a business intent on making as much profit from us as possible, which is exactly the same as iS although you get more insults there.
42
« on: October 18, 2012, 04:25 »
No I work in Sweden. But if I cahnge it to "laws of sweden" will the release still work at the other sites you think? I rather not carry around extra releases for specific agencies....
None of the other sites have a problem with the Getty release, it's only Dreamstime that do. What Dreamstime don't understand is that by telling you to alter the wording to Sweden if there's ever a legal issue DT's legal team will be dealing with Swedish law. There's a reason Getty have listed the states/countries they have and it's because it's where they have legal representation - hence the 'nearest to the address of the model' part.
43
« on: October 18, 2012, 04:18 »
It's very strange to me that all the SS bashers seem to have a blind spot when it comes to OD's, SOD's and EL's. As should be clear, in recent months Jon has increased the range of PPDs and there are more non-sub sales than ever.
No, you just don't understand what RPD is, see my post to Sharpshot above.
44
« on: October 18, 2012, 04:15 »
Do you ignore the RPD for shutterstock pay per download, SOD's and EL's? They're not a subs only site and my non-subs RPD there is probably better than most other microstock sites. RPD is so meaningless to me, I can't be bothered working it out but I think if I did, I would want to compare subs with subs and PPD with PPD. Surely if you do that, SS is going to have a good subs RPD and a good PPD RPD?
And there's the fact that istck, FT and DT have all cut their PPD commissions. So their RPD could be much worse in years to come, as they haven't said that they have stopped cutting commissions. I really wouldn't want more buyers going to those sites, giving them more power over us and making it easier for them to cut commissions. I know some people think if istock had dominated the market, they wouldn't of needed to cut commissions but I think that's nonsense.
No 'average RPD' takes into account all sales whether it be Subs,SOD,EL,PPD or whatever fancy term a site uses for a sale. You should try, it's a two second job, just take your last months sales on SS, divide the cash amount by the number of downloads and you'll get your average RPD. It will fluctuate slightly as obviously some months you'll have more EL's etc than others but that's the whole point of it, to gauge an Average. Year on year it gives you a good indication of which sites pay you more commission than others, trust me give it a go for the big 4 and then you'll see why I keep telling you that percentages mean nothing, and maybe you'll finally understand why I don't encourage buyers to go to SS. You will see why Jon is now a multi millionaire! Doing it the way you describe is pointless, if you try and work out your average RPD for subs only on SS I'll bet you end up with 38c Mine is pretty similar to Gostwyck's with the highest paying being DT then iS, FT and finally SS a long way back. I'll be surprised if yours is any different.
45
« on: October 18, 2012, 03:58 »
They don't understand the model release, when I first started using it I got it rejected because all the models use to write UK as their address, I guess the reviewers didn't understand that England was in the UK, since then I get them to write England instead of UK and never had a problem since.
My only guess is that some reviewers on DT are not English speaking.
I've seen others mention that they take that line out and then get it through, or as they've suggested just change it to your country.
46
« on: October 17, 2012, 13:19 »
http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-81p1.html
Is this Jon's Port? Are you sure?
It would explain why that portfolio contains so many images with copyright infringements in it, I mean there's a couple reading 'Timeout' magazine with other photos on the page visible, a woman reading a newspaper with adverts on it and a guy holding a 'webber' surfboard wearing a 'Rip Curl' rash vest, and I only looked on the first two pages, all being sold as RF!
47
« on: October 17, 2012, 11:21 »
I really don't understand your obsession with 'RPD'. At FT this month my RPD is $1.21 and at SS it is 74c. However my SS income is more than 4x higher than at FT. At DT my RPD is $2.10 but my earnings there are less than one fifth than my earnings at SS. RPD is not important, earnings are. RPD doesn't pay the bills, earnings do.
Because you've answered it within your own statement, both FT and DT pay you more and yet you still routinely comment about how great it is that more customers are going to SS. If more customers went to a site with a higher RPD (like FT, DT as you pointed out) then your overall earnings would increase, as things stand the more customers SS take from other sites can only lead to one thing, less earnings, how are you going to pay the bills then?
48
« on: October 17, 2012, 10:12 »
Can I just point out that if all the subscription sites shut their doors we wouldn't see anything like the same volume of sales "on demand". The lower total cost and zero marginal cost (as most won't use their full quota) means that we are selling a lot more licenses at SS with the subs model than we would be without it. Not saying that makes it a good model for us, or the total is necessarily higher one way or the other, but it does mean it isn't as simple as saying we would make the same 3000 sales on demand that we made on subs, just for more money.
Sorry missed your post earlier. - We'll never know because it won't happen, just as we don't know whether people would use 'on demand' or not (although you brought the 'in demand' topic up not me), and just as we don't know whether we'd see the same number of sales. Other sites have subscription packages just like SS and yet they manage to produce a higher average RPD with lower sales figures, and they manage to do that by selling our images at scaleable sizes/prices as oppose to the XXL you get on SS. Shutterstock sell the most but pay the least, - some people seem happy with this, and happy with the email from Jon Oringer, and even more incredible happy that he's personally just got millions whilst not having raised commissions for years. No doubt they'll be happy if commissions are cut to appease the new shareholders, so long of course that they get an email saying thanks!
49
« on: October 17, 2012, 05:47 »
How do you recon the old industry would look today, without RF and micro? better or worse? or the same as before? whats your thoughts.
Crikey that's too deep a question to answer properly here. I think things have gone too far now to be rescued, or even to find a level field. Scrape an existence while you can!
50
« on: October 17, 2012, 04:57 »
.........so we have to make the most of what we have.
Indeed we do, but we don't have to say how wonderful it is
Are you the 'what's wonderful' police? (LOL)
What constitutes 'wonderful' will be different for each of us when weighed against the events of our lives. I'm not here pretending something is wonderful for me when it isn't. Perhaps my expectations and needs are very different to yours, but I don't think it's necessary to be 'down' on people for enjoying and celebrating the things that happen to work for them.
No I'm not but I wasn't addressing you I was replying to Sharpshot. But you are right we all have different needs and wants. You're free to have low expectations and think it's wonderful, I'm not stopping you, just don't expect me (or as it happens more people than I thought) to understand or join you.
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 ... 77
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
