Author Topic: Will Getty buy Shutterstock? (Read 28467 times)

farbled · « **Reply #50 on:** March 31, 2021, 16:00 »

Quote from: thenatureguy on March 31, 2021, 15:02

As a publisher myself, I know all about the limited free giveaway promotion period that amazon offers. But my point stands that you don't see books selling for a penny anymore, and they are way more books available now than when I was selling over 20 years ago. So mass supply does not have to equal any value you, as many microstock sellers think. Just because there is an almost unlimited supply of images, does not make those images worth less. People bought books for a penny on amazon back when I was selling, NOT because they would not pay more, but because that is what sellers were valuing their books at. People will pay a lot more for pictures then they are now, but why pay more when they can get them for little or nothing, because that is what people are selling them for.

These free sites are not free. They are making money on ad revenue, because they can make more money from ads, than trying to sell them outright. Once the market balances out and people can make decent money from selling images, all that content on the free sites will go away. Those sites only exist because the stock agencies have made it less profitable to sell images than to give them away for free and make money from ads.

Well we disagree on one part. I think mass supply or unlimited supply does mean they are worth less than what they were previously worth. As for Amazon, yes, they don't sell for a penny anymore, but an increase in price across the board is not the same as an increase in sales. As an indie author and part of many groups, I can tell you that it is very similar to micro in that you can set whatever price you wish, but it does not necessarily mean it will sell. The volume of new books nowadays does mean that unless you are lucky or spend the effort on marketing, you won't sell at all. So what is is actually worth? I guess it depends on the perspective of buyer vs. seller.

I have over 12k stock photos just sitting on a hard drive and only 5k or so left online. There is no value to me to put them up somewhere for sale. So, they'll sit there til I need the drive for something else, then I will delete them probably. Am I valuing them higher or lower because I wont sell them for pennies? It's irrelevant if they don't sell. IMHO.

thenatureguy · « **Reply #51 on:** March 31, 2021, 16:21 »

Quote from: farbled on March 31, 2021, 16:00

Well we disagree on one part. I think mass supply or unlimited supply does mean they are worth less than what they were previously worth. As for Amazon, yes, they don't sell for a penny anymore, but an increase in price across the board is not the same as an increase in sales. As an indie author and part of many groups, I can tell you that it is very similar to micro in that you can set whatever price you wish, but it does not necessarily mean it will sell. The volume of new books nowadays does mean that unless you are lucky or spend the effort on marketing, you won't sell at all. So what is is actually worth? I guess it depends on the perspective of buyer vs. seller.

I have over 12k stock photos just sitting on a hard drive and only 5k or so left online. There is no value to me to put them up somewhere for sale. So, they'll sit there til I need the drive for something else, then I will delete them probably. Am I valuing them higher or lower because I wont sell them for pennies?

You are misunderstanding me. Just because books don't sell for a penny on amazon anymore, does not automatically mean they sell for a hundred bucks. There is a balance. Rarity does equal high value, but abundance does not have to equal zero value. Demand plays a part, but so does valuing your work. 20 years ago, stock images use to sell for hundreds each. That was because photographers that had the capacity to create and upload images were few and there was a ravenous market demand for content. Honestly, those images were sold way above their value. Now they are selling way beneath their value.

There is a value for stock images. What that value is, is simple to calculate. It is, Cost+Labor+Profit = Value. The amount of time, energy, and equipment invested in creating the content is part of the value of the content. But people cannot work for free, they must have food and shelter too, so profit is part of the value. In order for something to be worth doing, it must be able to sustain you.

Right now there are tons of people running around wasting endless amounts of time energy and resources to capture photos and sell them at a loss. With time, when they see that it is is not worth it, they will stop and this well of free slave labor that stock agencies are taking advantage of will begin to dry up. It is already happening. You are an example of this in that you have tons of images that are worth nothing and you may delete them. I too, like you have not uploaded any new images for over a year and have many thousands of images on a drive. How many more are there like us? Well, this trend will grow, slowly, but it will grow until the agencies will start to cry out for new content and will have to raise prices to bring back creators. How long in the future will this be? I do not know. I may not live long enough to see it. But regardless, there is a value to images. That value will never be what it once was, and it is definitely what it is now. The value of images is greater than the cost and labor to create them, that is what it is, and one day the market will reflect this.

farbled · « **Reply #52 on:** March 31, 2021, 16:42 »

Quote from: thenatureguy on March 31, 2021, 16:21

You are misunderstanding me. Just because books don't sell for a penny on amazon anymore, does not automatically mean they sell for a hundred bucks. There is a balance. Rarity does equal high value, but abundance does not have to equal zero value. Demand plays a part, but so does valuing your work. 20 years ago, stock images use to sell for hundreds each. That was because photographers that had the capacity to create and upload images were few and there was a ravenous market demand for content. Honestly, those images were sold way above their value. Now they are selling way beneath their value.

There is a value for stock images. What that value is, is simple to calculate. It is, Cost+Labor+Profit = Value. The amount of time, energy, and equipment invested in creating the content is part of the value of the content. But people cannot work for free, they must have food and shelter too, so profit is part of the value. In order for something to be worth doing, it must be able to sustain you.

Right now there are tons of people running around wasting endless amounts of time energy and resources to capture photos and sell them at a loss. With time, when they see that it is is not worth it, they will stop and this well of free slave labor that stock agencies are taking advantage of will begin to dry up. It is already happening. You are an example of this in that you have tons of images that are worth nothing and you may delete them. I too, like you have not uploaded any new images for over a year and have many thousands of images on a drive. How many more are there like us? Well, this trend will grow, slowly, but it will grow until the agencies will start to cry out for new content and will have to raise prices to bring back creators. How long in the future will this be? I do not know. I may not live long enough to see it. But regardless, there is a value to images. That value will never be what it once was, and it is definitely what it is now. The value of images is greater than the cost and labor to create them, that is what it is, and one day the market will reflect this.

I think we are coming to the same point from different directions. Yes, there is value in some/many of the images produced and someday we may see the balance you refer to. I highly doubt it, but it is possible, and I don't think anyone around today will see it. I suspect there will be innovations that make the entire pyramid redundant and kill the industry much the same way micro killed off most of the RM market.

How I value my work is exactly how I did in the beginning when I saw the RM Pros jump into the RF market and devalue quality work. I preferred the original MS premise, b-roll or hobby shots sold to an audience that otherwise either could not afford RM or to hire their own photographer. I tailored my entire RF career around that premise. The extras from paid shoots, my 30 second shoots of my meals, a walk outside, all earning me the exact same as the "pros" who took hours to get that special shot. I've travelled the world a few times on my earnings.

Anyway, interesting discussion. Thanks.

thenatureguy · « **Reply #53 on:** March 31, 2021, 17:40 »

Quote from: farbled on March 31, 2021, 16:42

Quote from: thenatureguy on March 31, 2021, 16:21
You are misunderstanding me. Just because books don't sell for a penny on amazon anymore, does not automatically mean they sell for a hundred bucks. There is a balance. Rarity does equal high value, but abundance does not have to equal zero value. Demand plays a part, but so does valuing your work. 20 years ago, stock images use to sell for hundreds each. That was because photographers that had the capacity to create and upload images were few and there was a ravenous market demand for content. Honestly, those images were sold way above their value. Now they are selling way beneath their value.

There is a value for stock images. What that value is, is simple to calculate. It is, Cost+Labor+Profit = Value. The amount of time, energy, and equipment invested in creating the content is part of the value of the content. But people cannot work for free, they must have food and shelter too, so profit is part of the value. In order for something to be worth doing, it must be able to sustain you.

Right now there are tons of people running around wasting endless amounts of time energy and resources to capture photos and sell them at a loss. With time, when they see that it is is not worth it, they will stop and this well of free slave labor that stock agencies are taking advantage of will begin to dry up. It is already happening. You are an example of this in that you have tons of images that are worth nothing and you may delete them. I too, like you have not uploaded any new images for over a year and have many thousands of images on a drive. How many more are there like us? Well, this trend will grow, slowly, but it will grow until the agencies will start to cry out for new content and will have to raise prices to bring back creators. How long in the future will this be? I do not know. I may not live long enough to see it. But regardless, there is a value to images. That value will never be what it once was, and it is definitely what it is now. The value of images is greater than the cost and labor to create them, that is what it is, and one day the market will reflect this.

I think we are coming to the same point from different directions. Yes, there is value in some/many of the images produced and someday we may see the balance you refer to. I highly doubt it, but it is possible, and I don't think anyone around today will see it. I suspect there will be innovations that make the entire pyramid redundant and kill the industry much the same way micro killed off most of the RM market.

How I value my work is exactly how I did in the beginning when I saw the RM Pros jump into the RF market and devalue quality work. I preferred the original MS premise, b-roll or hobby shots sold to an audience that otherwise either could not afford RM or to hire their own photographer. I tailored my entire RF career around that premise. The extras from paid shoots, my 30 second shoots of my meals, a walk outside, all earning me the exact same as the "pros" who took hours to get that special shot. I've travelled the world a few times on my earnings.

Anyway, interesting discussion. Thanks.

Liekwise. Good conversation. I have traveled a lot as well, but was not doing serious photography at that time 40 years ago. I still take pictures though. I was out at the lake just yesterday with my 600mm lens shooting pictures of coots. Not the best shots but, I just enjoy doing it.

farbled · « **Reply #54 on:** March 31, 2021, 17:51 »

Quote from: thenatureguy on March 31, 2021, 17:40

Liekwise. Good conversation. I have traveled a lot as well, but was not doing serious photography at that time 40 years ago. I still take pictures though. I was out at the lake just yesterday with my 600mm lens shooting pictures of coots. Not the best shots but, I just enjoy doing it.

Nice! I got my first camera in the 80's but never got serious about photography til around 2003 as an add-on to my web design side of things, and fell in love with the camera. I discovered stock later as a nice enhancement to shooting events and industrial gigs. I do miss vacation shooting through.

thenatureguy · « **Reply #55 on:** March 31, 2021, 18:28 »

Quote from: farbled on March 31, 2021, 17:51

Quote from: thenatureguy on March 31, 2021, 17:40

Liekwise. Good conversation. I have traveled a lot as well, but was not doing serious photography at that time 40 years ago. I still take pictures though. I was out at the lake just yesterday with my 600mm lens shooting pictures of coots. Not the best shots but, I just enjoy doing it.

Nice! I got my first camera in the 80's but never got serious about photography til around 2003 as an add-on to my web design side of things, and fell in love with the camera. I discovered stock later as a nice enhancement to shooting events and industrial gigs. I do miss vacation shooting through.

You and I share a lot in common. I also have taken pictures since the 80s,but only family stuff. It was not until I got into digital photography in 2003 when I got my first serious digital camera, which was the Sony Mavica CD500. I went with the Mavica CD because, at the time, memory cards were about a dollar a megabit (100MB card = $100). The Mavicas CD used mini CDs which could hold 200MB and cost about $2 a disc. I was running a remote Malaria clinic in the Amazon jungle at the time and I needed a camera that I could take hundreds of pictures with, without needing to offload the pictures to free up memory. The Mavica CD was the only camera that fit that bill, and it was not a bad camera for its time. 5MP and Carl Zeiss lens. Some of my highest-selling pictures today were taken with that lowly camera back then, and I really had no clue what I was doing. But because of the freedom of having unlimited storage with the mini CDs, I could just snap away to my heart's content. Man, I wish I had the strength and youth to go back and shoot those shots today with my equipment now. I look at those shots often and am just amazed at the opportunities I had back then that I did not appreciate. That is why I continue to take the best shots I can today. They may be worth nothing to sell, but they are with something to me.

Here is a picture I took in 2003 with that camera. This is called a Rooster-tailed Cicada.

farbled · « **Reply #56 on:** March 31, 2021, 18:42 »

Quote from: thenatureguy on March 31, 2021, 18:28

You and I share a lot in common. I also have taken pictures since the 80s,but only family stuff. It was not until I got into digital photography in 2003 when I got my first serious digital camera, which was the Sony Mavica CD500. I went with the Mavica CD because, at the time, memory cards were about a dollar a megabit (100MB card = $100). The Mavicas CD used mini CDs which could hold 200MB and cost about $2 a disc. I was running a remote Malaria clinic in the Amazon jungle at the time and I needed a camera that I could take hundreds of pictures with, without needing to offload the pictures to free up memory. The Mavica CD was the only camera that fit that bill, and it was not a bad camera for its time. 5MP and Carl Zeiss lens. Some of my highest-selling pictures today were taken with that lowly camera back then, and I really had no clue what I was doing. But because of the freedom of having unlimited storage with the mini CDs, I could just snap away to my heart's content. Man, I wish I had the strength and youth to go back and shoot those shots today with my equipment now. I look at those shots often and am just amazed at the opportunities I had back then that I did not appreciate. That is why I continue to take the best shots I can today. They may be worth nothing to sell, but they are with something to me.

Here is a picture I took in 2003 with that camera. This is called a Rooster-tailed Cicada.

Very similar! I had a Panasonic something or other and then got serious with an Olympus e-500 when they came out in 2005 (I think). Hands down the single most user friendly camera I ever owned, which was perfect for event shooting. Your clinic sounds fulfilling. I was (am) on the other side of the health spectrum, and took my earnings to see the world while I could. I am happy I did, pandemic notwithstanding.

And yes, I wish I could go back with my "stock brain" and what I know now about shooting, and do it again. I'd be doing things much differently for sure.

Pauws99 · « **Reply #57 on:** April 01, 2021, 01:16 »

Books are physical entities you can download a lot of kindle books for free and there are other sites that allow the download many "classics". People seek out individual authors or books. This only applies to a tiny number of photographers so I don't think its a very parallel comparison. People also pay to have their books published.

thenatureguy · « **Reply #58 on:** April 02, 2021, 07:30 »

Quote from: Pauws99 on April 01, 2021, 01:16

Books are physical entities you can download a lot of kindle books for free and there are other sites that allow the download many "classics". People seek out individual authors or books. This only applies to a tiny number of photographers so I don't think its a very parallel comparison. People also pay to have their books published.

Okay, have it your way. There is zero hope and anyone who gives a reason why there might be is wrong because you desire that everything they say to the contrary to be wrong because you want it that way, and will dig as deep as you need to to find a way to argue about it. Geez! Some people's children! ROFL!

Pauws99 · « **Reply #59 on:** April 03, 2021, 00:59 »

Quote from: thenatureguy on April 02, 2021, 07:30

Quote from: Pauws99 on April 01, 2021, 01:16
Books are physical entities you can download a lot of kindle books for free and there are other sites that allow the download many "classics". People seek out individual authors or books. This only applies to a tiny number of photographers so I don't think its a very parallel comparison. People also pay to have their books published.

Okay, have it your way. There is zero hope and anyone who gives a reason why there might be is wrong because you desire that everything they say to the contrary to be wrong because you want it that way, and will dig as deep as you need to to find a way to argue about it. Geez! Some people's children! ROFL!

Wishing the world was different doesn't make it so.

cascoly · « **Reply #60 on:** April 04, 2021, 00:55 »

Quote from: thenatureguy on April 02, 2021, 07:30

Quote from: Pauws99 on April 01, 2021, 01:16
Books are physical entities you can download a lot of kindle books for free and there are other sites that allow the download many "classics". People seek out individual authors or books. This only applies to a tiny number of photographers so I don't think its a very parallel comparison. People also pay to have their books published.

Okay, have it your way. There is zero hope and anyone who gives a reason why there might be is wrong because you desire that everything they say to the contrary to be wrong because you want it that way, and will dig as deep as you need to to find a way to argue about it. Geez! Some people's children! ROFL!

yet another pot calling the kettle.... at least they had actual content rather more blather

Uncle Pete · « **Reply #61 on:** April 04, 2021, 09:20 »

Quote from: thenatureguy on March 31, 2021, 16:21

The value of images is greater than the cost and labor to create them, that is what it is, and one day the market will reflect this.

Keeping things simple, I don't think so.

We have digital cameras, digital editing, world distribution for anyone who cares to take a picture of something and a world of people who think they can make money with their snapshots, taken with phones.

Folk music is not coming back

, printed books are just about dead (ask Borders, B. Dalton, Crown and a long list of others), stock photography is inundated with material that far surpasses any demand.

Maybe people aren't selling books on Amazon or eBay for a tiny profit by over charging for shipping, but they aren't making money and there's not much demand. I see books that are way over valued, that will never sell. Asking price is not selling price. But just like the fallacy of the Internet wisdom, an infinite echo chamber of disinformation, people see someone else has a price of $29 on an old book, so they price theirs at $29.

Resale shops don't even put books out for sale in many places. They just recycle them as paper. You can't sell old books for a quarter and books take up space, low demand, almost no market. Sad because I like and save and collect books, but that's the real world.

Most common books are of virtually no value, no market anymore. Just like the market for the flood of common Microstock images has driven down the price for our work.

Neither is going to make some comeback in value, ever.

ps Getty will not buy Shutterstock, Shutterstock will not buy Getty. Neither is for sale and no one wants either of them as they are not growth businesses right now. All the value has been drained from Getty, for a long time and SS has to find something other than stock images or they will just be flat. Investors want growth. Buyers want untapped resources, that can be turned into profits. Neither Shutterstock nor Getty has either.

farbled · « **Reply #62 on:** April 04, 2021, 10:35 »

Quote from: Uncle Pete on April 04, 2021, 09:20

Folk music is not coming back , printed books are just about dead (ask Borders, B. Dalton, Crown and a long list of others), stock photography is inundated with material that far surpasses any demand.

Maybe people aren't selling books on Amazon or eBay for a tiny profit by over charging for shipping, but they aren't making money and there's not much demand. I see books that are way over valued, that will never sell. Asking price is not selling price. But just like the fallacy of the Internet wisdom, an infinite echo chamber of disinformation, people see someone else has a price of $29 on an old book, so they price theirs at $29.

Folk music will never die.

As for print books, as an indie-author I can tell you that Amazon charges through the nose for it to be done. For me to make even a few cents I have to start pricing (for a 300 page paperback) at 9.99. They say you get 60% royalty, but first, they do the print cost which is 5 bucks. So I should be making 60% on the other 4.99 bucks right? Nope. I make 70 cents, and the customer still pays shipping on top of that. Why? Because they are a public company and those are all run by accountants who find interesting ways to math things to increase profit. I had it explained to me once but I cannot remember exactly how they justified it. Anyway, wasn't worth the effort so I don't do print anymore.

Pauws99 · « **Reply #63 on:** April 04, 2021, 10:48 »

I can't agree about Folk music. Live music as a face to face experience will always have a following I think and Folk music especially as an "authentic" experience. Before lockdown some artists were making a small living by playing private gigs in people's houses. Things that can't be mass replicated on the internet will do well which is why if I wanted to make a living at photography I'd be looking at workshops/coaching/events rather than web based activities...other than marketing. If you have good interpersonal skills and live in a photogenic location it seems you can charge very good money to "teach" photography which with todays equipment is hardly challenging.

ShadySue · « **Reply #64 on:** April 04, 2021, 11:08 »

Quote from: Uncle Pete on April 04, 2021, 09:20

Folk music is not coming back ,

It never went away, and it's thriving, at least here.
E.g. the Celtic Connections festival in Glasgow has been growing by the year and their virtual series this year was hugely popular, and of course attracted a much more international audience than can usually attend physically.

Pauws99 · « **Reply #65 on:** April 04, 2021, 11:44 »

Quote from: ShadySue on April 04, 2021, 11:08

Quote from: Uncle Pete on April 04, 2021, 09:20
Folk music is not coming back ,
It never went away, and it's thriving, at least here.
E.g. the Celtic Connections festival in Gasgow has been growing by the year and their virtual series this year was hugely popular, and of course attracted a much more international audience than can usually attend physically.

As with many towns we have a regular Folk club in normal times....I wouldn't say people are flocking but it has a decent regular following.

Uncle Pete · « **Reply #66 on:** April 05, 2021, 12:01 »

Quote from: farbled on April 04, 2021, 10:35

Quote from: Uncle Pete on April 04, 2021, 09:20
Folk music is not coming back
Folk music will never die.

There's a positive view. OK everyone calm down... Folk Music is making a comeback was something I heard in the 70s. The some people in the 80s. It was always people who played folk music.

Sure Bluegrass also has a solid following, so does folk music. But you aren't going to have the Kingston Trio and the wave of fans of the 60s. There will not be a resurgence of Folk Music on the popular scene. (and hopefully not disco either?) Remember coffee houses and the blues? Not the modern blues, the kind of, hmm, Folk Music, blues? The beat generation is gone, replaced by the Hippies and they have been replaced by some other version of the same, with a new name.

A Mighty Wind, if you love folk music and haven't watched it, you "must". I bought a copy after the first time. But it's not going to mean as much to anyone who didn't grow up playing folk music or anyone who didn't live through the era when Folk Music was on top of the charts and a wave of popular music.

When folk icon Irving Steinbloom passed away, he left behind a legacy of music and a family of performers he has shepherded to folk stardom. To celebrate a life spent submerged in folk, Irving's loving son Jonathan has decided to put together a memorial concert featuring some of Steinbloom's best-loved musicians. There's Mitch and Mickey, who were the epitome of young love until their partnership was torn apart by heartbreak; classic troubadours The Folksmen, whose records were endlessly entertaining for anyone able to punch a hole in the center to play them; and The New Main Street Singers, the most meticulously color-coordinated neuftet ever to hit an amusement park. Now for one night only in New York City's Town Hall, these three groups will reunite and gather together to celebrate the music that almost made them famous.

Sorry just like Microstock will not make a big comeback when we start to get paid what we should, and books will not make a comeback in print form, Folk Music will not be making a comeback, along with many other things that people wish would return to popularity, but something, interests and passions, pass into history. Especially when the WWW and internet and digital things have replaced them.

Who here still has a dial phone, or a modem? Who still uses a flip phone (besides people who refuse to accept smart phones?) How many people still shoot film? Where do you find it? Film will always be, but it's not going to make a comeback. Now hula hoops and yoyo's yes they might come back around again?

Tenebroso · « **Reply #67 on:** April 05, 2021, 12:10 »

I think the hula hoops, I think a study came out that it was not good for the hip. However, perhaps it can be back in fashion. Mad World. It is used in fitness and is sold on Amazon today.

cascoly · « **Reply #68 on:** April 05, 2021, 21:39 »

Quote from: Uncle Pete on April 05, 2021, 12:01

.....

A Mighty Wind, if you love folk music and haven't watched it, you "must". I bought a copy after the first time. But it's not going to mean as much to anyone who didn't grow up playing folk music or anyone who didn't live through the era when Folk Music was on top of the charts and a wave of popular music.

beyond folk alone there's blues, zydeco etc - the Portland Blues festival was growing every year before covid & will be back eventually - wonderful site on the banks of the Willamette & 2 large stages so no wait between acts for setting up, plus several smaller venues for acoustic, etc

Mighty Wind is great but my favorite is still "Best in Show" - watch the Westminster RL show before or after for as long as you can stand it & you'll appreciate it even more. Christopher Guest has a loyal band of brother/sisters who appear in most films. I used to attend cat shows w friends - one with a cougar, another who raised siamese and Berstbin Show fits that action as well

Waiting for Guffman is a take on community theatre - all are watchable many times. (Guest was also an actor in Spinal Tap)

and Eugene Levy & son just finished a run of their series 'Schitt's Creek', well w/in the Guest tradition

these are all streaming on netflix, and at least some on amazon prime or hulu

Pauws99 · « **Reply #69 on:** April 06, 2021, 01:51 »

There have always been crazes now more than ever maybe https://www.classical-music.com/features/articles/the-viral-sea-shanty-trend-sweeping-tiktok-we-explain-the-phenomenon/. These are short lived and by the time most people have jumped on the band wagon they are on the way out.

Uncle Pete · « **Reply #70 on:** April 06, 2021, 10:48 »

Quote from: cascoly on April 05, 2021, 21:39

Quote from: Uncle Pete on April 05, 2021, 12:01
.....

A Mighty Wind, if you love folk music and haven't watched it, you "must". I bought a copy after the first time. But it's not going to mean as much to anyone who didn't grow up playing folk music or anyone who didn't live through the era when Folk Music was on top of the charts and a wave of popular music.

beyond folk alone there's blues, zydeco etc - the Portland Blues festival was growing every year before covid & will be back eventually - wonderful site on the banks of the Willamette & 2 large stages so no wait between acts for setting up, plus several smaller venues for acoustic, etc

Mighty Wind is great but my favorite is still "Best in Show" - watch the Westminster RL show before or after for as long as you can stand it & you'll appreciate it even more. Christopher Guest has a loyal band of brother/sisters who appear in most films. I used to attend cat shows w friends - one with a cougar, another who raised siamese and Berstbin Show fits that action as well

Waiting for Guffman is a take on community theatre - all are watchable many times. (Guest was also an actor in Spinal Tap)

and Eugene Levy & son just finished a run of their series 'Schitt's Creek', well w/in the Guest tradition

these are all streaming on netflix, and at least some on amazon prime or hulu

We never watched "Schitt's Creek" maybe I'll give it a try. Yes, Best in Show is much more popular overall. My personal take on that is, people who played guitar and sang and did the whole folk thing as kids, will have a better appreciation of what it was like, living at the time and the music.

There's a place local that has folk music, open stage Wed. This is actually one of the historic centers for the Blues Trail and Blues recording (who would imagine that, when there are obvious other places like Chicago, Memphis, New Orleans and... more!) What do we have? Country bars, many of them. No make that too many of them.

Blues bar? miles to the closest in the city.

So the obvious, when I win the lottery, is open a Blues BBQ joint. We may have no music business but will have good food. I've always said, and I've been in the business, the only way to have a bar or restaurant, is have so much money, that you can run it, without caring that you'll never make a profit. Nothing but headaches.

Reminds me of Microstock. Some do well, some make it, most are running a losing business, where expenses are greater than profits.

Just going to ad this which won't show as new, but does anyone care? I'm pretty sure, not.

Amazon: Amazon has an extra $1.80 fee per book, and the normal 99 cent per-item charge. That plus shipping, and if you sell a book for $5.78, not including packaging, tape, labels... it would be a loss. There's a big reason why we don't see 1 cent books anymore.

cascoly · « **Reply #71 on:** April 07, 2021, 20:57 »

Quote from: Uncle Pete on April 06, 2021, 10:48

Amazon: Amazon has an extra $1.80 fee per book, and the normal 99 cent per-item charge. That plus shipping, and if you sell a book for $5.78, not including packaging, tape, labels... it would be a loss. There's a big reason why we don't see 1 cent books anymore.

yes, my breakeven point on amazon is $13-15 - i dont have minimum wage folk to fulfill my orders, so i've taken almost all my books off (if you pay a monthly fee, amazon's take fes down to $1/item, and a % still hits - basically you get 75-85% of the listed price + shipping gross & minimum cost to ship is $3. and to do well you need to subscribe to a non-amazon service that automatic ally reprices your items against the competition saving many hrs a week. however, my comics inventory still does well at $20-24 each - just not the volume i'd like to see!

cascoly · « **Reply #72 on:** April 07, 2021, 21:00 »

Quote from: Pauws99 on April 06, 2021, 01:51

There have always been crazes now more than ever maybe https://www.classical-music.com/features/articles/the-viral-sea-shanty-trend-sweeping-tiktok-we-explain-the-phenomenon/. These are short lived and by the time most people have jumped on the band wagon they are on the way out.

yes, the classical music fad is fading after 400+ years (Bach - Glass)! (i do take your point tho)

as yogi said, "nobody goes there anymore - it's too crowded"

Pauws99 · « **Reply #73 on:** April 08, 2021, 00:32 »

Quote from: cascoly on April 07, 2021, 21:00

Quote from: Pauws99 on April 06, 2021, 01:51
There have always been crazes now more than ever maybe https://www.classical-music.com/features/articles/the-viral-sea-shanty-trend-sweeping-tiktok-we-explain-the-phenomenon/. These are short lived and by the time most people have jumped on the band wagon they are on the way out.

yes, the classical music fad is fading after 400+ years (Bach - Glass)! (i do take your point tho)

as yogi said, "nobody goes there anymore - it's too crowded"

Gorecki....symphony no3. Lisztomania.

Uncle Pete · « **Reply #74 on:** April 08, 2021, 09:12 »

Quote from: cascoly on April 07, 2021, 21:00

Quote from: Pauws99 on April 06, 2021, 01:51
There have always been crazes now more than ever maybe https://www.classical-music.com/features/articles/the-viral-sea-shanty-trend-sweeping-tiktok-we-explain-the-phenomenon/. These are short lived and by the time most people have jumped on the band wagon they are on the way out.

yes, the classical music fad is fading after 400+ years (Bach - Glass)! (i do take your point tho)

as yogi said, "nobody goes there anymore - it's too crowded"

That's the problem with classical, the songs are too long and the attention span is too short. Just a passing fad...

César Franck: Symphony in D minor

Holst - The Planets

But for a road trip, I always keep some Django Reinhardt with Stéphane Grappelli, and the group. Nothing better for heading down the highway.

https://youtu.be/vVsC4UNYOHM

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Will Getty buy Shutterstock? (Read 28467 times)

farbled

thenatureguy

farbled

thenatureguy

farbled

thenatureguy

farbled

Pauws99

thenatureguy

Pauws99

cascoly

Uncle Pete

farbled

Pauws99

ShadySue

Pauws99

Uncle Pete

Tenebroso

cascoly

Pauws99

Uncle Pete

cascoly

cascoly

Pauws99

Uncle Pete

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors