|
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 - cdwheatley
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... 20
76
« on: September 27, 2010, 10:04 »
I'd say between 200-300, the charts don't really tell us much. There could be a newer guy sitting at position 1200 selling like crazy, it would take him years to climb the chart, but he might still make the 40%. I'm at 318 and will make it.
77
« on: September 23, 2010, 11:13 »
"I'm off work due to an injury and I'm dabbling in my creative side again because it keeps me still"
This pretty much sums it up.
I'm really trying hard to be insulted by some caveman holding a camera, but I just can't, sorry 
No, it's "bushman" here in the tropics, you have it all wrong. I don't think you need any help with the insults, you do fine job all by your lonesome.
78
« on: September 23, 2010, 10:47 »
"I'm off work due to an injury and I'm dabbling in my creative side again because it keeps me still"
This pretty much sums it up.
79
« on: September 22, 2010, 17:13 »
I will bet you $1,000 he will.
Put your money where your mouth is dude.
I have done. If the money's too big then it will influence the decision __ $1000 would be several months of Sharp's earnings 
Fine, make it $500.00 then? I'm serious. I'll even sweeten the deal by throwing myself into the mix, 18 months is long time.
80
« on: September 22, 2010, 16:58 »
That being said, it does bother me when people who have no experience with exclusivity blather on and on about the pitfalls of being exclusive ... yeah sure, like they know all about it.
By definition nobody can know both sides of the fence with any certainty __ other than perhaps for a few short months after going exclusive. Things change all the time (like IS now) and the market moves too so whatever you may once have known becomes invalid if not kept up to date.
Ten of my dollars says Sharply will not be exclusive with Istockphoto in 18 months time. Put this date in your diary __ 22nd March 2012. Will Sharply still be wearing his crown? I doubt it. Any takers for my money?
I will bet you $1,000 he will. Put your money where your mouth is dude.
81
« on: September 22, 2010, 16:35 »
It really does depend on your personal situation. For some, going exclusive would be a disaster, for others it's the smartest business move you can make. People that have not seen both sides of the fence really have no idea how it would actually play out for them with all the factors involved. You can guess, but it would be just that. If your sitting at gold and Istock only makes up 20% of your income it's a no brainer. If you are diamond and Istock is 40% of your imcome then...well...that's a tough decision. Posters that come in here and say everyone is losing money by being exclusive are passing bad information.
82
« on: September 21, 2010, 16:24 »
I think "never put all your eggs in one basket" sums it up more succinctly for me. I would never feel comfortable only being able to sell RF with one site, as they have too much power and then they get greedy.
The 'all your eggs in one basket' thing has never held much credulity with me: Marketing images exclusively at one agency is, to me, akin to having a regular 9-5 job with a single employer. This is the normal employment paradigm, and not many seem to have a problem with it. I don't really understand why people in this industry are so against exclusivity. Some vehemently. I'm not really interested in learning why, either, so don't bother enlightening me.
+1
83
« on: August 23, 2010, 09:56 »
I'm pretty sure there isn't an opt out of Photoxpress since they are owned by Fotolia. Kind of makes you wonder how far they are willing to go, Ouch!!
84
« on: July 14, 2010, 08:56 »
A woman in a bikini will probably sell a lot more than an apple, but who knows?
Not necessarily. I have images of both a woman in a bikini and an apple and the apple sells much better!
Seriously I must be the only photographer who hired a model for a half-day beach/fitness shoot and it turned out that the images I took of the location, when scouting it the day before, actually outsold the images taken with the model. Nothing wrong with the model or the images it's just that they simply weren't unique enough to stand out (amongst the millions of girl-in-bikini-on-beach shots) unlike the location shot which, if I say so myself, was pretty good!
Agree, unless the "woman on the beach shot" is very unique it's not going to sell very well. With over 250,000 beach images it's pretty tough to stand out. Finding good unique ideas that haven't been done to death is the challenge.
85
« on: July 13, 2010, 10:18 »
+1 for hating video. If given the chance I will always opt for the text version. Would much rather read an article with a single image than suffer through a lengthy video with 30 sec of unavoidable advertising. Usually I will just pass on the article if there is only a video version available, with the exception being a trainwreck or similar. Video may well be booming right now, but in a couple of years I bet it will be saturated just like images.
86
« on: July 11, 2010, 11:22 »
If anyone wants to know how exclusive sales are going day to day, just read the "race" threads in the off-topic forum. 50% of the posts in those are just whines about lack of sales.
That graph in the "race for gold" thread is pretty sad. I guess the sky is falling after all.
87
« on: July 11, 2010, 09:48 »
Actually, IS does sell cheap subs. See this page:
http://www.istockphoto.com/istock_thinkstock_subscription.php
My last 10 Istock subs commissions: 3.80-m .76- xs 1.90-s .76-xs 1.58-xs 3.80-s .76 -xs 1.90-s 3.80-m .76-xs Nothing over medium size and the average commission is pretty good. I don't think advertising thinkstock is the same as selling thinkstock images from Istock searches, same goes for getty images. I would be worried about that site if they forced us to upload there. Lisa, The istock forum is a mixed bag with plenty of BME and "what . happened to my sales" It's also summer which doesn't bode well for most. Vetta images have an affect on everyone exclusive or not. If you are lucky enough to have a bunch then things are looking up for you, even a few will help. I haven't had the best luck, but keep trying. As far as falling downloads in general: comparing the past to present is tough with how fast things are growing, returns are less, I don't expect to get as many downloads off a shoot today compared to 2007-2008. If your money is up regardless of download #'s, then life is good, no?
88
« on: July 10, 2010, 16:15 »
I think if Getty wanted to destroy Istock they would just sell cheap subs through Istock. No one is holding a gun to your head making you submit to thinkstock or any of the other sites that pop up hourly. More likely they have just found a way to cut into the competition with minimal damage to Istock. Thinkstock and sub sites in general should only sell dated or slow sellers, leave the better or new stuff priced higher until demand falls like most products on the market. All you can eat buffets usually have mediocre food.
If your sales are dropping on Istock as a nonexclusive, it's not hard to see what one of biggest factors might be. best match is littered with Vetta files. If E+ files ever get a push it will only get worse. Low visibility=low sales. As mentioned before, in the past Istock made more money off of nonexclusive files, that is not the case anymore.
89
« on: June 22, 2010, 17:27 »
Downloads slightly up over 2009 for May and June, $ pretty much the same story as Nicole.
90
« on: June 15, 2010, 19:06 »
I've seen nothing, but prices going up. I've heard nothing, but the main agencies talking about increased revenue. "Free" just sounds naive. If you're worried about free, stop submitting to 8 million agencies all trying to make the same dollar. Back the sites that are making you real money and keep prices moving in the right direction.
91
« on: May 25, 2010, 18:28 »
There's been rejections in the past for having images on Flickr, photo.net, etc. I don't want to be one of them.
So, I've taken my time to have EVERYTHING removed. I don't want to be rejected and have to wait 3 months to apply again.
Right, make sure you don't have any images available for "free". The thumbs wont cause you to get rejected.
92
« on: May 25, 2010, 17:25 »
I agree. I still see the thumbnails from affiliate sites but theyare not available for sale. Will IS be ok with that?
The reply I got from Istock was "they understand". You might want to shoot them an email just in case.
93
« on: May 25, 2010, 17:18 »
The main thing is not having any images that can be bought RF anywhere. It's next to impossible to get every affilliate to remove all the thumbs, at least I didn't have much luck by way of email and I don't speak chinese.
94
« on: May 17, 2010, 11:21 »
Agree with the above. I'm also quite fond of the FT promotions where they ask you to give away the farm for "increased exposure". They will be missed. 
95
« on: April 21, 2010, 17:25 »
Congrats!! I hope you do well
96
« on: April 13, 2010, 15:27 »
.nevermind.
Yep, save your breath.
97
« on: April 11, 2010, 16:42 »
I guess I'm interested in something like SmugMug or ZenFolio - not for stock, but for people to buy prints directly without the need for me to submit an order to a print shop like WHCC on their behalf. Which is better/cheaper/easier for a nontechnical person to use? I want to post a photo, then let them order prints themselves, but some of these people can barely grip a mouse...
Smugmug works fine for that, haven't had any issues with direct sales through them. I mentioned WHCC as place to buy for your own inventory. They cater more to people/business that sell prints. Same qualilty, better quality control, better record keeping, huge discounts for bulk. Smugmug caters to the one time purchase, which is fine for an online store.
98
« on: April 11, 2010, 11:25 »
hm....so i have looked through this for a while now......
i miss an important thing: what i want to do (among other things) is having my photos exposed in cafs and the like, and customers go to my website and order a framed print for example. this means that i print the picture and frame it by myself. but in smugmug and those others you can only use their labs as print services! And I don't know if you can add customized products?
What do you think of that?
I use smugmug for a place to send people, WHCC for printing. (Just an opinion here) hope I understood you correctly? I think you're making a mistake by thinking that buyers will see a print hanging on the wall and then go online to purchase it. I would do whatever I could to get them to leave the establishment with the print while they still have their hands on it. Not saying it wont happen ,but I'm guessing the percentages would be pretty low that they would go online later. I would put them together ready to sell. I have prints in 30 stores, They sell great in the stores, but very little online action. Just my experience. I think it has to do with the fact that: A lot of people buy art spontaneously, once the buzz wears off they might change their mind. "Do I really need this print"?
99
« on: April 10, 2010, 09:12 »
Even if the agency isn't "abusing you" - being exclusive on the photographer level is too restrictive. I hate the thought of not being able to sell at other agencies penetrating new markets because I was chained by a contract. There are also the questions about the long term viability of the agency your exclusive with as a photographer. Yes, if your holding tight at 4 agencies and one sinks, you could be in trouble, but at least you are free to find another opportunity, thats not so easy if you signed the Istock exclusive contract.
Where are these new markets? If I was looking for new markets it wouldn't be in Micro. All I see is bunch of sites with same material competing for the same customers. Not worried about one of the big 4 sinking, if it happened, customers would just buy from another site. What eats me up inside is: If I strongly disagree with the way a certain top 4 company runs their business, I can't leave because of the money. No one knows what it's going to be like down the road. Maybe it will just be a everything is "free" lets make money off ads, as some have mentioned. If that happens, we're all screwed. If Istock decides they want to stop taking care of their own, they will lose what makes them the best site out there. If I had to place a bet right now on which site would be the last one standing, it would be a no-brainer. As far a "dead" images go, If it's a good image, just fix it, or upload another one from the same series. Another thing, This talk about the future and "free images", make money from ads. It reminds me of Music and MP3.com. At the turn of the Century MP3.com was giving away free music and paying contributors by the download. I think I remember it being like 5 cents a download. It was possible to make money, I think at one point I was making a couple hundred bucks a day in downloads and others were making a lot more. Short lived though, The big 5 music companies didn't like this so much, so Universal bought out MP3.com. I wonder if the same thing will happen with the free image sites? I'm sure Getty, Corbis, etc...don't like the sound of this. Plus, you really must like money to be the flag bearer for this venture.
100
« on: April 09, 2010, 21:55 »
Just speaking from my own limited experience. I don't feel I have much control as a non-exclusive. I know that I need all top 4 sites in order to make things work, it's not negotiable. Drop one of the 4 in protest, and kiss some good money goodbye, that's the reality. So, not as much freedom as I thought, being non-exclusive. This might be the case for a lot of non-exclusives counting on that money for survival. Instead of getting abused by one site, we have a chance to get abused by any of the 4. And, in case you haven't noticed, there has been quite a few non-exclusives complaining of being abused here, as of late. I don't here a lot of complaints coming from exclusives, maybe a few, but that's it. I also don't hear a lot of exclusives jumping ship. Isn't it a conflict of interests submitting the same material to competing sites. Personally, I would rather sell at the highest price, why should I want to support those sites that are selling for less.
Obviously, if you're not counting on the money, then you have freedom.
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... 20
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
