Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on May 21, 2012, 17:11

I'm the brilliant mind that suggested putting your money where your mouth is and you say you have, and have even designed the site yourself. Of course you have put SOME money into it, but you hold up the $1m-$3m for DP as an example of the heavy capital investment needed to boost a site ... yet I seem to recall that anecdotally you are meant to be a multi-millionaire from the sale of StockXpert. If so, why do you appear to find DP's investment impressive when you should be able to match that yourself? If you have and have not got results then I am sorry but that also fails to inspire confidence.

I never said DP's investment was "impressive" to me. It seems to be a reasonable amount for their size / purpose if you ask me, but it was merely an example to show how ironic it is that many photogs complain about "selling out" while obviously expecting companies to sell out so they can grow their customer base more aggressively which means a lot more $$$ to them. There are a lot of ironic things on this forum, for example it's also an interesting phenomenon to root against new players in the market (who try to work out a better deal for everyone) while complaining all the time that X agency lowered royalty rates again. It doesn't really matter though, it's just an observation.

As for finances, I'd like to respectfully point your attention to the fact that this forum is not a shareholder meeting and the company is not publicly traded. I'm happy to read feedback and answer questions, but I'm not going to talk about my personal finances or discuss how much we've invested in the company, how and when we're using that money and what our exact future plans are, even if that makes you skeptical. We are doing our best to grow the site by using our funds wisely and we're happy with the results we have achieved so far. Of course there's still a long road ahead of us, but the notion that it doesn't make sense to exist just because some other companies seem to grow faster is just ridiculous to me. You never know what goes on behind the scenes and how it will all play out in the end. You can waste a lot of money in a very short period if you don't do things right.

I'm not trying to draw out any company or personal secrets, I was remarking on how things appear to one  observer from the outside... i.e. me. You obviously know your business best and if you are meeting your goals, that's fine.  I certainly never said that it "doesn't make sense for you to exist", I actually pointed out in an earlier post that Scanstock seems to be a nice little outfit for the couple of guys running it though it doesn't do much for the contributors providing the stock. One man's feast can be another man's famine.

Maybe you do have a subtle strategy that will make your contributors a fortune some time in the future. However, as a successful businessman I suppose you would agree that it doesn't make a lot of sense for me to commit myself to a strategy on the basis of being told "it will be great, trust me, but everything is secret and the apparent inertia is all part of a hidden master plan". 

All this negative - pseudopragmatic - s**t is typicall for this forum. Someone starts a thread to support a good company and to help the situation of all contributors and gets so attacked that he finally closes his account.

Whats the problem with you guys? SF is a good company, they are self-sustainable and even if I just earn 50$ a month now, uploading costs nothing! All this -Iwannabeabusinessman- talk and -Ionlyuploadtocompanieswhichgivemeimmediateprofitbutcomplainlaterwhentheybehavelikecompanies - is total nonsense to me.

You guys really have a problem and deserve to get bled out by guys like istock.

I really don't know who you're talking to here.  You appear to be painting with a broad brush. 

There have been a lot of opinions expressed in this thread, by a lot of different people - some more supportive of SF and the OP, and some more skeptical.  All, or nearly all, have been expressed rationally. 

Now you come in and indite the entire forum in one sweeping condemnation.  Exaggerate much?

All this negative - pseudopragmatic - s**t is typicall for this forum. Someone starts a thread to support a good company and to help the situation of all contributors and gets so attacked that he finally closes his account.

Whats the problem with you guys? SF is a good company, they are self-sustainable and even if I just earn 50$ a month now, uploading costs nothing! All this -Iwannabeabusinessman- talk and -Ionlyuploadtocompanieswhichgivemeimmediateprofitbutcomplainlaterwhentheybehavelikecompanies - is total nonsense to me.

You guys really have a problem and deserve to get bled out by guys like istock.

You said a mouth full there buddy!...the beauty of life is that we all have our own individual way of thinking...even you!...so, if I ever need help in changing mine, I'll make sure to let you know, until then take your rants elsewhere and stop trying to convince and persuade other people to think like you.

My frustation was not towards everybody. I ment those who constantly attack those with ideas to improve the situation or who think they know everything better without haviong own solutions.

Thanks for the clarification.  I agree it is difficult at this point to drum up support for new ideas.   

Stockfresh definitely is not the problem in this industry.  But they may not be the solution either. 

Quote from: sharpshot on May 22, 2012, 04:18

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on May 21, 2012, 17:11

....I remain sceptical. If you start soaring up the lists then I will probably sit up and take notice and start offering submissions (though you might not want me on your site) but until then it looks to me like a wasted effort.  

That's the chicken and egg situation that new sites have to face.  Buyers want a big collection and don't have much of a reason to move to a site that has less choice.  We want sales but wont get them without buyers.

I think the best way to break this is for us to upload as much as we can, not thinking about earnings.  Then the site has something to offer buyers and they might be more attracted to them.  We will then see earnings.  Unfortunately, most microstock contributors don't think like that.  This is nothing personal, I know my view is in the minority  but I wish that wan't the case.

Of course it's not personal, we're all trying to understand the market and the more serious opinions people present, the better.

One obstacle I see to your argument is that if we supply, say, 100 sites and they all succeed in attracting an even spread of customers, then we could end up having earned thousands and thousands of dollars without achieving a single payout.

After a year or two we might start getting payments but until then, we have to invest time and effort for no return. Inevitably, some sites will fail and we will lose money. With the industry "spend" spread so widely, no sites will have the income to mount strong advertising campaigns, so overall earnings will fall, and the funds for support staff, servers etc. will be hard to come by.

Eventually, someone will notice that these weak sites can be bought up cheaply and the background stuff can be merged, cutting staff and commissions, reducing management costs and allowing for more advertising that will generate higher revenues to allow other ailing sites to be bought out and closed (StockXpert) or run in parallel (BS).

And we end up back at the start again, with a bunch of new sites popping up and promising good times if only we will stick with them until the cash starts coming in.

Obviously, this is a somewhat exaggerated description of the process but I think the logic is good and fits with what we have seen happening in the real world.

I agree there's no point in backing every site that comes along but sites like Stockfresh and Graphic Leftovers aren't like all the others.  They have a great design, easy to use sites, good prices for buyers and are easy to upload to.  Their owners have often listened to our suggestions and made positive changes.  The list of sites like that is very small and I wish we could all back them 100% instead of wasting so much time complaining about the sites that have so many problems for buyers and contributors.

All this negative - pseudopragmatic - s**t is typicall for this forum. Someone starts a thread to support a good company and to help the situation of all contributors and gets so attacked that he finally closes his account.

Whats the problem with you guys? SF is a good company, they are self-sustainable and even if I just earn 50$ a month now, uploading costs nothing! All this -Iwannabeabusinessman- talk and -Ionlyuploadtocompanieswhichgivemeimmediateprofitbutcomplainlaterwhentheybehavelikecompanies - is total nonsense to me.

You guys really have a problem and deserve to get bled out by guys like istock.

Oh, well, lets have a look at what you are saying.
You claim that supporting SF and trying to push buyers away from other sites to SF will "help the situation of all contributors". Tell us how hit will help iStock exclusives, or anybody who doesn't have their portfolio at iS, please, because I can't understand that.
You say SF is a good company - define good. In my book, a good company is one that is delivering results as well as one espousing noble intentions. And, yes, I do accept it takes time to produce results and maybe they will eventually.
What does "self-sustainable" mean?
I haven't uploaded anything so I don't know their system. Don't you have to do anything with the keywording/categories? If you do, that is costing time, if not then that is a very strong point in favour of them .... heck, if all I have to do is set up an FTP link and shove a couple of thousand files across then I might change my mind about not submitting.
Finally, I don't see why you get uptight over people presenting diverse arguments about things. If you want people to come round the Helix's point of view then you need to explain why you think so, not just launch ad hominem rants which achieve nothing at all.

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on May 22, 2012, 17:28

I haven't uploaded anything so I don't know their system. Don't you have to do anything with the keywording/categories? If you do, that is costing time, if not then that is a very strong point in favour of them .... heck, if all I have to do is set up an FTP link and shove a couple of thousand files across then I might change my mind about not submitting.

Nope.  No categories to assign or anything to do with keywords, etc. if they are already in your IPTC.  If you don't have models then no releases to worry about.  Just FTP, press one button to transfer the images from FTP, and then move on with your day

I think there is a 50 image a day limit, so you can FTP a heap, and then you just have to remember to hit some button every day to move the next 50 over. If you have no releases that is all you have to do, If you have releases then you need to deal w/ that. It is pretty quick and easy though.

Is it still possible to join StockFresh?  All I get is a "Your application is waiting to be reviewed" - that has been the position for more than 8 months!

Yes, still possible. Drop them a line and they`ll approve your account, it looks like sometimes the application system is stuck.

Peter!  why just FTP and browser uploading system?  dont know how many times I have mailed SF, telling them that this FTP, simply doesnt work here for me. Your browser uploading accepts 3 shots, thats it, no more AND you cant even see the thumbnails.

Whats wrong with Java, Flash, etc, etc, etc?

I put most of my recent work in a flickr account, watermarked of course, and in the description I link to the corresponding image page at SF.

I found out Its against Flickr TOS, they will cancel your account if they cop on, just as FYI.

I tried the other day to add a stock link to my portfolio and  got flagged for spamming

Quote from: Poncke on July 05, 2012, 05:29

I tried the other day to add a stock link to my portfolio and  got flagged for spamming

Because of that, I link my Flickr images to a blog page ( could be a website ), and from there I can link to any agency.

or maybe the "buyer" take if from Flickr 

So are you now accepting new contributors?

Stock who? Nothing fresh about them, more like stale. I have my port there but waiting for that inevitable email that says thank you for supporting us but........we tried.