There's a difference between reporting events and putting your own spin on things, personally I don't like Pickerell's way of reporting it's too self speculative for me, there are dozens of blogs and web based infomagazines (I might have made that term up) that report pretty much everything about this industry as is so I can then form my own opinion, but it's a free world and everyone can make their own choice.

By the way check out Tom's daily stock project blog if you haven't already, I don't think he's claiming they're the worlds greatest stock photos but for me I just enjoy seeing how he can find a stock photo every day and everywhere.

Hi All,

 Just to offer some information that some might not be aware of. Jim started producing stock photography years before RF was even a gleam in someones eye. His modest price for subscription offers up news stories by the day about the stock industry. He travels the globe to be at every event that is of importance to our industry and then reports back the information he has gathered with a non-biased approach. Think of him as the only reporter that is out to tell the stock story from a clear view point, if he didn't he wouldn't have followers.
 Don't get me wrong, Tom Grill and John Lund are good friends and a great asset to us all but they do not blog or post a newsletter every day, they are busy with other parts of their business, I consider us incredibly lucky to have people like John and Tom offering up great advice for free.
 I wish we had more people in this business willing to report back what is taking place in the industry on a daily basis. That's just me talking because I love receiving and sharing info. Macro/Micro it doesn't matter anymore we are all the worker bees and the more we stay together and educate ourselves the stronger we will be as a group. Power to the shooters. Just my two cents.

Best,
Jonathan

I just thought I'd echo this. 
I appreciate Jim's writing and the time he spends producing articles.  I don't agree with everything he writes (particularly microstock related topics )but he is great at analyzing the market, watching trends, gathering information, giving his thoughts and packaging it for us who don't have time (or desire) to collect it ourselves.  He speaks from vast experience and a long career in traditional stock - His knowledge fills in the void in stock knowledge most of us (at least me) know too little about.  It is certainly substance to think about, and as was the case with this article, definitely got me thinking about my shooting and how I could be making it better.
Jim was nice enough to post the article on the blog here as a guest post (I contacted Jim, no the other way around).  I thought the article was a great inspirational piece.  Yes I know how profitable microstock can be, but Daniel's story still surprised and impressed me.  I wasn't originally aware that Daniel wasn't keen on having the article written, but when I asked him about having it on the MSG blog he said he was OK with it.

So thanks again Jim ...
And thanks Daniel for giving the OK to have the post on the MSG blog... I am sorry for the negative sidetracks this thread has taken....

He also said, �I would appreciate that you do not tell 'my story'.� (Just so we are clear this story or this post was not authorized by Daniel or Yuri.)

I made a comment earlier that Daniel didn't seem to be involved which I said seemed sneaky.

If I'm understanding correctly, in fact Daniel was involved. Daniel asked that this story not be published and Jim ignored/denied the request. If that's accurate that's beyond sneaky. Seems like a pretty scummy move in my opinion. Integrity means more to me than analytics and experience. Maybe this was an isolated case but I kind of doubt it.

Quote from: SNP on January 17, 2011, 18:49

Tyler - it's curious that you're so present and apologetic in this thread. has a thread ever NOT gone negative and then full circle on MSG? why is this one any different. I think the negativity has actually just been some fair questions and comments. frankly if you wanted to step in regarding negativity...there are other threads that could have used some moderation.

It's called a discussion Sweetie. Discussions happen when people have differing points of view. If we all agreed with each other it would be called a concensus and that would become very boring, very quickly.

If you want a heavily moderated forum then stick with Istock. Or do you come here because it is far more interesting when people are having discussions? As opposed to a place where half the people with anything to say have been banned, half the others simply don't bother because if they do then they'll be banned too and threads get locked or deleted if it pleases TPTB. What's the point of that?

Leaf is to be congratulated on the lightness of his hand on the tiller here, not told by you that he should moderate more heavily. It already works very well indeed. I can tell you that he does occasionally step in where necessary __ but not so you'd notice.

+1, and it's obvious to most, he's more active in this thread because he linked to the blog article in the second post of this thread.... not surprised that flew over your head

Quote from: PaulieWalnuts on January 17, 2011, 19:13

If I'm understanding correctly, in fact Daniel was involved. Daniel asked that this story not be published and Jim ignored/denied the request. If that's accurate that's beyond sneaky. Seems like a pretty scummy move in my opinion. Integrity means more to me than analytics and experience. Maybe this was an isolated case but I kind of doubt it.

Jim's not being 'sneaky'. He contacted Daniel, asked for his cooperation, told him about the article, sent him a copy and gave him a week before publication to advise of any inaccuracies or objections. Jim describes himself as a 'reporter' and that's what reporters and journalists do isn't it? Well, usually not as nice and up-front as that. If nobody wrote any articles about someone else because they might object to it then your newspapers, magazines and books would be pretty thin stuff. As Jim points out most or all of what he wrote was already in the public domain, much of the detail being gleaned from Daniel's own blog and his post here where he wrote about his incredible 1400+% increase in sales. It was almost certainly that post that grabbed Jim's attention and from which he thought there was a story to be told and industry lessons to be learnt. Daniel has simply reaped what he sowed hasn't he?

I didn't realize he considers himself a "reporter". I thought he did an industry newsletter and blogs. Makes more sense now.

Regarding the information being publicly available, you have a point. I guess when you stick your head up and talk you shouldn't be surprised when someone decides to kick you in head. Even after you ask not to be kicked in the head.

Maybe my view is a bit different from most here but things like this really irk me.

Hi RT,

 I know Tom very well and I swear I have never met a person more on the ball when it comes to stock. He ran Comstock for 20 years and is an increadibley open and willing to share with individuals. He can make a photo out of anything and he knows what and how to shoot it to create the greatest profit. I remember when I was talking with Tom once, he asked me " so how many sock images did you create last year " I was pretty happy with our results and boldly said " over 1,000 ". He didn't drop a beat and said " why not 4,000? " That next year we produced over 4,000 images for Macro. It was like watching someone complete the mile in under 4 minutes. Once I was told it could be done that was the fire that got me started really producing. To this day I owe him a great deal from those early lessons. I will say if you ever have a chance to speak with him I would look upon him as a sort of Yoda in stock, listen and learn. If he were a race horse I would bet the bank on him

Best,
Jonathan

well there many different possibilities.

Socks isolated on white
socks isolated on black
socks with headphones
socks with goldfish jumping into them

hey I'd better stop letting out all my ideas.

Quote from: gostwyck on January 17, 2011, 19:16

Quote from: SNP on January 17, 2011, 18:49

Tyler - it's curious that you're so present and apologetic in this thread. has a thread ever NOT gone negative and then full circle on MSG? why is this one any different. I think the negativity has actually just been some fair questions and comments. frankly if you wanted to step in regarding negativity...there are other threads that could have used some moderation.

It's called a discussion Sweetie. Discussions happen when people have differing points of view. If we all agreed with each other it would be called a concensus and that would become very boring, very quickly.

If you want a heavily moderated forum then stick with Istock. Or do you come here because it is far more interesting when people are having discussions? As opposed to a place where half the people with anything to say have been banned, half the others simply don't bother because if they do then they'll be banned too and threads get locked or deleted if it pleases TPTB. What's the point of that?

Leaf is to be congratulated on the lightness of his hand on the tiller here, not told by you that he should moderate more heavily. It already works very well indeed. I can tell you that he does occasionally step in where necessary __ but not so you'd notice.

gostwyck - if you weren't so quick to jump at everything I say, you might have noticed that I made the same point you just made. I was actually mildly criticizing Tyler for moderating in this thread--and commented sarcastically that I was surprised he moderated this one but left other threads untouched--it wasn't a request for more moderation. why don't you stop being so hard on me and other people and truly treat this as a discussion--a discussion typically includes two people allowed to state their opinions without feeling threatened or intimidated.

I'm not always a fan of Jim's spin on microstock...and this one in particular struck me as an unwelcome spotlight on a contributor. despite that, I think the discussion that ensued has been interesting and valid and Tyler shouldn't be stepping in and apologizing for the negativity. IMO. THAT was my point.

Like gostwyck guessed, I am apologetic and involved in this thread because I am responsible for bringing Jim's guest post to the blog and linking it from this thread.  It was with good intentions for both Jim and Daniel's cases, so when the thread turned sour I felt the need to make sure my opinion was clear.

In regards to moderation, I haven't touched anything in this thread.  I would have made a note of it if I did.

Discussions happen when people have differing points of view. If we all agreed with each other it would be called a concensus and that would become very boring, very quickly.

...  not told by you that he should moderate more heavily.

So people should be allowed have different opinions but only if they are in agreement with yours?

you make me rofl

well there many different possibilities.

Socks isolated on white
socks isolated on black
socks with headphones
socks with goldfish jumping into them

hey I'd better stop letting out all my ideas.

Socks shaking hands
Socks alone eating salad
Socks typing on a laptop
Socks wearing stethoscopes
Socks looking at the open dryer door with looks of horror on their faces

Only if the mcdonalds is property released-this is editorial lite afterall!

Quote from: Jonathan Ross on January 17, 2011, 23:27

I remember when I was talking with Tom once, he asked me " so how many sock images did you create last year " I was pretty happy with our results and boldly said " over 1,000 ". He didn't drop a beat and said " why not 4,000? " That next year we produced over 4,000 images for Macro.

Are images of socks popular in Macro then? Must be if you produced 4000 of them in a single year. Didn't you think about shooting something else though __ despite Tom's advice?

You couldn't resist, could you?