MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Show Posts

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 - Jo Ann Snover

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 233
...The issue for me is I am a top earner so I don't want to subsidising other creators when I draw in buyers.

Then you have a problem, if you count being a "top earner" as being a problem. The agencies who set things up are not going to see this as undesirable as they want to get traffic to the web site and make sales, and aren't all that concerned that it's your image versus someone else's.

Another way to look at this is that possibly you became a top earner because of all the times buyers came for someone else's image but bought yours instead. Possibly the system has been subsidizing you not the other way around...

New Sites - General / Re: ColorStock?
« on: Yesterday at 23:16 »
Not sure, but if it's this outfit, it's closed as of March this year <snip>

I don't think it is the same. I am asking about ColourBox, while your link is ColorStock.  CBox has nothing to do with images of 'people of color' as far as i can tell from looking at portfolios there.

Check what you wrote in the first post and the title - you put ColorStock in both (or somehow the forum changed what you typed to that)

There's tons of stuff on MSG about ColourBox if you search, including:



New Sites - General / Re: ColorStock?
« on: Yesterday at 21:16 »

New Sites - General / Re: New site
« on: Yesterday at 17:03 »
...Who is JimP?

I assume Jim Pickerell who has just announced he is retiring.

So this post is for folks with knowledge of how websites, search engines, links etc work. So I did a search of one of my images.  Some of the results show my pic in the thumbnail but link to others work. I have seen this before with other images of mine. Is this normal? If not who is responsible for this? The stock site or google? How can I fix this? Is it fixable?

Many thanks in advance for your responses. :)

I don't think there's anything to be done about it. Your image is probably on the page, just not the primary one - at least that's when I've seen this in searching for uses of my own work.

I believe it's that your work shows up in the "similar" section below someone else's image and that gets found in searches. For some types of searches you'd probably want to find things other than the "main" image on a page, so I don't expect to see a "fix" in the search engine.

A stock site might be able to make one of the small "also" thumbnails invisible to a Google search, but I don't think you'd really want that.

I don't expect this would bother any buyer - who probably wouldn't look for images that way anyway.

Other than puzzling you, what problem does this artifact of how agency pages are set up (with images from other artists around the item a user clicked on in search results) cause?

New Sites - General / Re: New site
« on: December 06, 2018, 14:13 »

For reasons that have been discussed fully in the other threads Artist posted a link to. Discussing it again won't change any of the issues.

Tell Chad to do his own sales pitches. Sorry you've decided to help OnePixel on their latest "undercut on price to see if we can grab some market share" enterprise.

... DT has my highest rpd but not a lot of downloads actually

Anything times zero is zero - RPD isn't in any way interesting unless you also have decent volume.

Once upon a time, DT was the solid #3 in the list of agencies, but they've fallen on very hard times in the last few years. My sales there are pathetic and a fraction of what they once were.

With essentially the same size portfolio (I no longer upload there, so DT doesn't have the most recent work) in November, DT made 0.036% of the money I made at Adobe Stock.

DT made one tenth of the money I made at DT in 2013 for November (2018 vs 2013). November has historically been my best month at all the agencies

I wouldn't waste your time uploading to DT

Image Sleuth / Re: Copyright violations on Zazzle
« on: December 06, 2018, 11:48 »
Thanks for the heads up. I think it's clearly someone who doesn't understand - or doesn't care - that he can't sell products based on stock photos. He almost certainly didn't buy an extended license for all of those and the only way to check if he was buying a license for each new sale from whatever agency he obtained the files from would be to a copyright holder test him out to see if a new download shows up.

I didn't see anything of mine.

General Stock Discussion / Re: Alamy "good news"!
« on: December 05, 2018, 10:08 »

...Btw. I'm curious -  is there any active contributor from some really rich and expensive country like Norway or Switzerland?

Tyler Olson, who runs MSG, is from Norway (and I think still lives and works from there)

General Stock Discussion / Re: Alamy "good news"!
« on: December 04, 2018, 11:20 »
I find the utterly unpolished and apparently unscripted video a little bit charming - it clearly hopes to suggest honesty and trustworthiness in contrast to the slickly-produced PR stuff. That's offset by Mr. West's inability to speak clearly that they are cutting/reducing contributor royalties - he's talking about it as a change, as if it were neutral. It's also a bad idea not to prepare some notes about what you're going to say so that you're wasting our time while you're staring off into a corner trying to remember what to say next.

I originally had one of the 60% contracts and I seem to remember the rationale for the cut to 50% was that they were going to open a New York office and grow sales in the US market that way.

Mr. West clearly connects Alamy's rising total revenue to the 2010 "investment" based on cutting contributor royalties, but there could be many other reasons for that growth. I didn't hear much in the way of specifics on the future investment or on how cuts in future royalties on future sales really helps if you have a project in the here and now you want money for.

I'm not hung up on any particular royalty rate - I don't see any specific number as "fair" as it depends on what the agency is doing for their share of the buyer's money and how much business the agency can bring in. Back when iStock paid 20% to independents and made more per month for a given portfolio than any other agency did, I was OK with that. Earnings as an exclusive - and that lovely 40% rate with a great sales volume - was a *very* good deal for contributors. Very sad that they, with lots of Getty help, demolished that business.

Alamy just doesn't bring in the business, for me, that other agencies do. My beef with them is lack of sales volume - and I didn't see any rise as a result of their 2010 "investment" with 10% more of the buyers' money than earlier. I'm not holding my breath for anything magical to happen this time either.

I await a pleasant surprise should Alamy mange to do something useful - for contributors - with the extra cash :)

Adobe Stock / Re: Important Fotolia Announcement
« on: November 28, 2018, 10:08 »
...Anyone else notice the Adobe Stock website being slow?

Yes, very slow - assuming you're talking about the contributor interface. When I sit down in the morning to check stats on SS and then AS (I'm trying to break the habit of checking FT for stats so changed my bookmarks), I notice how much time it takes to load the AS "dashboard" versus SS's contributor dashboard.

Given how little information is in the AS interface when it loads, it really shouldn't take that long. Every day I notice that tiny (for me unreadable) number up in the top right corner which is the one piece of information I want to see first and clearly - current balance.

Then I go back to FT's interface (which requires two clicks on the bookmark as the first one always loads the "go to AS now" interface, and the second the requested FT contributor dashboard) where I can see weekly sales so far in $$ and downloads, current balance, weekly and overall rank all without any additional clicking on my part.

It's not that FT's interface is so great, but AS's contributor interface has virtually no useful information.

I've never smoked, so I can't make that comparison, but it's a bit like Google vs Bing for searches - why would you use Bing when Google's so good?

Adobe Stock / Re: Privacy and permissions
« on: November 27, 2018, 19:52 »
Wow! That's a lot of stuff (and no easy way to just opt out of all advertising options).

I expect you're right that it's not shown to US users. I'm assuming that's all pertinent to the US as well though, but we don't get to see any of it or opt out.

Thanks for clarifying

Adobe Stock / Re: Privacy and permissions
« on: November 27, 2018, 16:26 »
I haven't seen anything like this. On Adobe Stock (contributor interface) I just went to look at Manage My Adobe ID (top right drop down) to see what privacy settings were there. There are some for how they may contact me - mail, phone email - and what newsletters/Adobe Create I want.

If there were some type of privacy settings, that is where I'd expect to see them. Perhaps this is rolling out over time and just hasn't reached all of us yet?

Did you get any email about this head of seeing the options? An explanation of what was changing would be nice.

In general I expect to opt out of sharing any information with anyone - in the US there are no privacy laws to speak of; you can't get back anything you've shared but no longer want to; and anyone who wants information is going to be selling to someone or using it to sell me something (which is already a massive nuisance, so why make it worse). This isn't just regarding Adobe, but anyone who wants to gather and keep information.

...well, I am not sure, just will give you an example, what 40 keywords for the attached image would you remove? :)

50 keywords:
Europe, Iceland, Icelandic, Nordic, adventure, arctic, attraction, backpacking, beverage, coast, coffee, doing, drink, drinking, environment, field, flowers, force of nature, freedom, grass, hiking, hot, island, journey, land, landscape, making, meal, morning, mountains, nature, outdoors, polar, process, remote, scene, scenic, sea, seashore, self-made, skogarfoss, summer, tent, travel, trekking, volcanic, volcano, wakeup, warm, waterfall

Did you mean this to be an example of keyword spam?

Many of those keywords are just wrong - sea, coast and seashore, for example - and some are unlikely to be useful in a search - attraction, self-made, force of nature, scene, process, and doing, for example. Others are a real stretch - I can's see any flowers anywhere; how can you include both Nordic and Icelandic - one of those is wrong; polar - do you mean the latitude is north of the arctic circle?; volcano - where?; hot; meal, backpacking - do you see a backpack or anyone wearing a backpack in this photo?;

As far as how I'd order these for AS, I'd choose (assuming this is in Iceland, not Norway) waterfall, Iceland, tent, coffee, camping, (name of waterfall if it's well-known), remote,.


...yes, it is very logical to me, but this is a theory, unless, somebody did analysis of this algorithm in a real situation, basically a test, an experiment with real numbers, not assumptions... :) I would assume somebody did it already here or elsewhere and can share the knowledge... :)

Mat Hayward - Adobe's contributor rep - relayed information from one of Adobe's product managers about how it worked. It's possible that it has since changed or the information was wrong in the first place, but not sure how you could possibly do a valid test live, given the need for the same file with the same sales record and upload dates with two different keyword orders to check differences in search rank. Given that, why not go with what Adobe says about how they made it work?



Ordering keywords for newly uploaded files isn't hard. For older files, I would only make changes for your known (from other sites) best sellers to save time.

Microstock News / Re: Onepixel stock new agency????Help
« on: November 24, 2018, 18:21 »
Today I saw an ad for OnePixel on Facebook (where ad = "sponsored" post)

Photos only.

To some extent this will depend on portfolio content - contributors with content not much in demand in the US market, such as homes or food that wouldn't appear here, will see different results from those with a more world-wide appeal or more US-focused subjects or styles. Hyper-local content can be great, but it will dictate sales patters, I would expect.

I've been surprised to see house-related stuff in my portfolio show up in SS's world maps all over the globe, not just in the US. With SS, my non-US sales have typically been 50% or higher (I think 61% non-US was the highest)

This month so far, Adobe Stock has been beating the pants of SS, but AS is now almost all US (average non US for 2018 is 10.68%; this month so far it's 3.05%) where SS has held to its 50/50 split. When Fotolia was new-ish, it was almost all non US (2007 it averaged 87% from outside the US).

Microstock News / Re: Onepixel stock new agency????Help
« on: November 19, 2018, 15:56 »
Waiting for more Info before I do anything.We could use something fresh.....If it's real and actually fresh.For a Lot of us. this ain't our first Rodeo.

There were people - typically larger contributors - who went for the Dollar Photo Club too. They heard all the arguments against this approach - good for the agency and buyers; deeply unfair and destructive for contributors - but supplied them anyway.

I expect the same portfolios, probably for the same reasons, will supply OnePixel.

The good news - from the contributor point of view - is that this time there's no established agency behind the startup, so there's no strong-arming of unwilling portfolios into the dumpster fire of an bargain-basement agency.

That's about the only good news about a parasitic business like this. It adds no new buyers, no new features or business model; it's just predatory on price trying to poach business from other agencies where contributors can make more in royalties.

First, you need a plan to market your site to buyers before you start thinking about trying to attract contributors.

Second, you need to find someone who can translate your site into good English - right now it's really not adequate.

Third, you need to think like an international site if you want to sell world wide. You have a business team photo titled "Foreign businessman" and it's a team of caucasian men and women. They may be foreign in Japan, but they are not foreign everywhere.

Fourth, you need a decent search. I did a search on your site and on Shutterstock for palm trees - your first page was full of hands (palms), nuts, daisies in an egg and so on. Shutterstock had a page of palm trees. I understand why your search behaved as it did, but it's not useful

Fifth, get rid of the free small sizes if you want to attract serious contributors

Sixth, answer the question about why anyone would buy from you versus Shutterstock or Adobe Stock.

I looked at the description of royalties and if I understand it, I would get 3 yen per download. Google tells me that's 27 cents. No deal.

There is no way I would upload under these conditions. You're sincere but really misguided, in my opinion.

I just did a search and was able to see my whole portfolio, including my sets. Things seemed about normal in responsiveness too.

I'm in Western Washington, USA, in case this is a regional thing

Adobe Stock / Re: Why is my adobe sales almost nothing?
« on: November 15, 2018, 15:01 »
...My keywords are all using adobe automatic keywords, I did not fill in myself, but the title is my own to fill out

Just because you did not fill them out yourself does not mean you are not allowed to (a) modify their suggestions or (b) enter your own.

You asked why your images aren't selling. If you care about sales, keyword images yourself and store those in the metadata of your image files. If your English isn't good then you'll have to hire a keywording service or take your chances with Google translate.

On the issue of the quality of automated keyword suggestions: If those keywords came from Adobe's keywording hints then they need to improve the software - even considering the rather unusual subject, having horse three times should be a firing offense. Not to mention offering multiple different animal keywords when there's only one animal in the picture.

Adobe Stock / Re: Why is my adobe sales almost nothing?
« on: November 15, 2018, 09:51 »
I have no idea what "very good" means to you for Shutterstock sales, but I think your main problem on Adobe Stock is probably keywords. The few I checked were pretty bad - not descriptive of what's in the image; repetitive - horse is shown twice for this image of a pig in a dress; not ordered so the first 7 keywords are the most important.

Keywords on the above are:

horse animal grass farm pasture horse meadow nature field mare animal grazing green summer white foal mammal black brown equine rural pony fast horse beautiful domestic

Assuming for the sake of argument that someone was looking for a pig in a dress in a field, your keywords would not help them find this image.

Edited to add that I looked at another from the above series and the keywords were different, but equally bad:

dog animal grass pet green puppy sheep horse canino white meadow nature farm mammal cute animal field young grazing pasture outdoors agriculture weimaraner dog black

Adobe Stock / Re: New design is confusing and awkward.
« on: November 15, 2018, 09:40 »
How do you edit or add more keywords once accepted ?

From the contributor dashboard, find the image to be edited (that's the hard part!). Click on the thumb and then the pencil next to the keywords. Make the changes you need and then save.

Adobe Stock / Re: Before you go.....
« on: November 12, 2018, 18:12 »
I don't know about this specific site, but this type of licensing has come up a number of times over the years - starting a decade ago I think. Fotolia permitted - and marketed - their API to sites that wanted to offer prints and murals where they could show the entire collection and then any time a specific customer ordered a print, a license would be purchased for that customer's print. In theory, if a second customer ordered a print of that same image, another license would have to be purchased.

There was contributor fuss that print sales required an extended license; lots of back and forth over the pros & cons. Fotolia's bottom line, if I recall, was that if the customer purchased a license he could go make a print himself for his own use (not for resale), therefore it was no different if the businesses offering prints and murals purchased the license on their behalf. I still don't think that was the right approach, but that's how it's been for a long time.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 233


Microstock Poll Results