pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Lot of Red on the Right  (Read 4846 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

WarrenPrice

« on: January 04, 2010, 14:14 »
0
How often do the ratings get posted.  I don't remember ever seeing so much red in that right-hand column.   :-\


« Reply #1 on: January 04, 2010, 14:17 »
0
December is typically slower than the Autumn months due to the holidays, etc, so last months earnings are typically lower across the board.

« Reply #2 on: January 04, 2010, 14:20 »
0
How often do the ratings get posted.  I don't remember ever seeing so much red in that right-hand column.   :-\

Don't hold your breath.. we will see more red arrow in then next months... crisis isn't over.

Patrick H.

« Reply #3 on: January 04, 2010, 14:34 »
0
Even more interesting that the ONLY one, of the top 6,  green is Fotolia !!

How strange is that !  with all that's going on   ???

« Reply #4 on: January 04, 2010, 15:10 »
0
I would expect to see mostly green next month.  December is always bad for me and January starts slow but picks up later.

« Reply #5 on: January 04, 2010, 15:32 »
0
Even more interesting that the ONLY one, of the top 6,  green is Fotolia !!

How strange is that !  with all that's going on   ???


no, i don't think that's strange.
i never stopped nor reduced uploading to FT, even though i have reduced my contributions to
the other Big 5 , and stopped Veer,etc..

FT , as bad as many here make them, is consistent. i know what they like, and when i give them those images, they get approved really fast.  in that sense, i feel FTL has a direction , and therefore, will in the long run sell my images better than the others.
while the other Big 5 keep fudging and re-fudging to dethrone SS, or stifle their own arm (viz Getty, IS, with StockXpert), etc..

or maybe it's because more ppl hate FT, so it's... as someone once said... i think it was Gene..
"that's fine, go hate them, so much the better for me !!!"



 

« Reply #6 on: January 04, 2010, 21:37 »
0
Hi Persue-d,

 I agree with you on the sales at Fotolia. I have always had good sales there and get responses when I ask questions. I have been as happy with them as any other site, if I am making comparisons. There hasn't been a company that has not changed their agreement somewhere along the line in Micro ( some several times ) but it does appear that most here do not care for Fotolia. As long as they are making me more money than the next agency then it's all good. They are my second leading money maker in Micro. Dreamstime is the one I see having major trouble trying to sell my work.

Best,
Jonathan

« Reply #7 on: January 04, 2010, 22:19 »
0
There hasn't been a company that has not changed their agreement somewhere along the line in Micro ( some several times ) ...

Shutterstock? They are undoubtedly the No2 micro agency and I can't think of anything negative that they've changed with their agreement. I can think of lots of positive things that they've done though.

« Reply #8 on: January 04, 2010, 23:07 »
0
Hi Persue-d,

 I agree with you on the sales at Fotolia. I have always had good sales there and get responses when I ask questions. I have been as happy with them as any other site, if I am making comparisons. There hasn't been a company that has not changed their agreement somewhere along the line in Micro ( some several times ) but it does appear that most here do not care for Fotolia. As long as they are making me more money than the next agency then it's all good. They are my second leading money maker in Micro. Dreamstime is the one I see having major trouble trying to sell my work.

Best,
Jonathan

Hey Jonathan, so good to know you take my comments seriously, lol.

I think it is good that so many hate XXX and others find them excellent. this way, it ensures we have more choices in the stock business. I'd dread to see a monopoly in any business, and micro stock is the last one I'd wish to have a monolith rise over the rest. although I already feel there is one such monolith who is succeeding in doing such a monopoly, though via devious means.
but who am I to tell others who to like or dislike. I am a small fish, and , to quote Flemish, a free poor one, lol.

It is never healthy to give any one site the keys to the kingdom. We will be sorry if we did.

RacePhoto

« Reply #9 on: January 04, 2010, 23:18 »
0

Hey Jonathan, so good to know you take my comments seriously, lol.

I think it is good that so many hate XXX and others find them excellent. this way, it ensures we have more choices in the stock business. I'd dread to see a monopoly in any business, and micro stock is the last one I'd wish to have a monolith rise over the rest. although I already feel there is one such monolith who is succeeding in doing such a monopoly, though via devious means.
but who am I to tell others who to like or dislike. I am a small fish, and , to quote Flemish, a free poor one, lol.

It is never healthy to give any one site the keys to the kingdom. We will be sorry if we did.


Yes, I go to the greasy spoon down the street. They have average coffee, the burgers a kind of good, they charge a little more than most places, and the waitresses are kind of slow with service not that good. But I'd hate to have some good restaurant that works harder and that has earned the business, to be the "monolith" in the neighborhood.

Kind of sarcastic, but you are saying, we need to support the small sites with poor sales, low commissions, slow reviews, mixed up search engines and crappy service, because we don't want the ones that work hard to provide a bigger and better product and earning us more money, to beat them?

Do you buy inferior products to support companies who make them, just so the big ones won't get your business?  ???

Why should we put up with inferior agencies, just to get back at the big ones?

I don't get it? Can you explain for me.

« Reply #10 on: January 04, 2010, 23:47 »
0

Hey Jonathan, so good to know you take my comments seriously, lol.

I think it is good that so many hate XXX and others find them excellent. this way, it ensures we have more choices in the stock business. I'd dread to see a monopoly in any business, and micro stock is the last one I'd wish to have a monolith rise over the rest. although I already feel there is one such monolith who is succeeding in doing such a monopoly, though via devious means.
but who am I to tell others who to like or dislike. I am a small fish, and , to quote Flemish, a free poor one, lol.

It is never healthy to give any one site the keys to the kingdom. We will be sorry if we did.


Yes, I go to the greasy spoon down the street. They have average coffee, the burgers a kind of good, they charge a little more than most places, and the waitresses are kind of slow with service not that good. But I'd hate to have some good restaurant that works harder and that has earned the business, to be the "monolith" in the neighborhood.

Kind of sarcastic, but you are saying, we need to support the small sites with poor sales, low commissions, slow reviews, mixed up search engines and crappy service, because we don't want the ones that work hard to provide a bigger and better product and earning us more money, to beat them?

Do you buy inferior products to support companies who make them, just so the big ones won't get your business?  ???

Why should we put up with inferior agencies, just to get back at the big ones?

I don't get it? Can you explain for me.


Race, don't put words in my mouth!  ;D  and yes, I can explain it for you.

When I say monolith, I don't mean to support the hopeless little sites that promises big commissions and sell nothing. I mean just that we don't give one site to control the market that it would be tempted to exploit the contributors.  It's what monopoly does in any real world.
you're old enough to know that  ;)

What I mean is it's healthier when we have a variety of top sites that can provide both the buyers and  contributor with a choice. Not one giant site that dictates what is micro stock or mid stock or whatever stock.
I like to be able to be a contributor to say Alamy, 3 d studio, Dreamstime, StockXpert , Fotolia...etc..
and be able to  submit different niche or different images to each of them,
rather than have all the sites in the Top 5 having reviewers choose the same old same old images as say SS . If so, then what is the point of going with the rest? We may all go to SS and leave it at that.
Less work, and if tomorrow, SS decides that you should all give away your images free,
well, ok... we give it away free because there is really no other place that will sell our images anyway.

Do I make myself clear-er?   
Good to hear from you , as always, you shoot straight and hard...
With ppl like you , we know there will always be someone who is unafraid to speak out.


RacePhoto

« Reply #11 on: January 04, 2010, 23:55 »
0
I know from the PMs that you would understand the question.

What I mean is it's healthier when we have a variety of top sites that can provide both the buyers and  contributor with a choice.

Got it now. Yes, we agree. Diversity and choices are good for all of us.

I was afraid you wanted people to keep supporting "Crapstock" just because they were little.  ;)



Hey Jonathan, so good to know you take my comments seriously, lol.

I think it is good that so many hate XXX and others find them excellent. this way, it ensures we have more choices in the stock business. I'd dread to see a monopoly in any business, and micro stock is the last one I'd wish to have a monolith rise over the rest. although I already feel there is one such monolith who is succeeding in doing such a monopoly, though via devious means.
but who am I to tell others who to like or dislike. I am a small fish, and , to quote Flemish, a free poor one, lol.

It is never healthy to give any one site the keys to the kingdom. We will be sorry if we did.


Yes, I go to the greasy spoon down the street. They have average coffee, the burgers a kind of good, they charge a little more than most places, and the waitresses are kind of slow with service not that good. But I'd hate to have some good restaurant that works harder and that has earned the business, to be the "monolith" in the neighborhood.

Kind of sarcastic, but you are saying, we need to support the small sites with poor sales, low commissions, slow reviews, mixed up search engines and crappy service, because we don't want the ones that work hard to provide a bigger and better product and earning us more money, to beat them?

Do you buy inferior products to support companies who make them, just so the big ones won't get your business?  ???

Why should we put up with inferior agencies, just to get back at the big ones?

I don't get it? Can you explain for me.


Race, don't put words in my mouth!  ;D  and yes, I can explain it for you.

When I say monolith, I don't mean to support the hopeless little sites that promises big commissions and sell nothing. I mean just that we don't give one site to control the market that it would be tempted to exploit the contributors.  It's what monopoly does in any real world.
you're old enough to know that  ;)

What I mean is it's healthier when we have a variety of top sites that can provide both the buyers and  contributor with a choice. Not one giant site that dictates what is micro stock or mid stock or whatever stock.
I like to be able to be a contributor to say Alamy, 3 d studio, Dreamstime, StockXpert , Fotolia...etc..
and be able to  submit different niche or different images to each of them,
rather than have all the sites in the Top 5 having reviewers choose the same old same old images as say SS . If so, then what is the point of going with the rest? We may all go to SS and leave it at that.
Less work, and if tomorrow, SS decides that you should all give away your images free,
well, ok... we give it away free because there is really no other place that will sell our images anyway.

Do I make myself clear-er?   
Good to hear from you , as always, you shoot straight and hard...
With ppl like you , we know there will always be someone who is unafraid to speak out.



« Reply #12 on: January 05, 2010, 00:50 »
0
Hi Race,

 I kind of got the ball rolling on the mistake there. I wouldn't follow an agency that didn't make me more returns that it cost me to upload them. It was really like you felt on your last post. I think the diversification of several agencies all with reasonably equal power would be best for all photographers because they would have to compete against one another for the content we provide and we would be safe by having our eggs so evenly distributed. I hope that makes more sense.

Thanks,
Jonathan

« Reply #13 on: January 05, 2010, 05:10 »
0
Sales are good with fotolia but after two commission cuts and missing out on the canister level raise I should of had, I am sure I am making less money with them now than I would of been.  I like earning more but this feels like having a 1% raise when I should be earning 10% more.  They are making a lot more money and perhaps taking away some buyers from the other sites that pay me higher commissions.  I am also amazed by how badly they have handled the withholding tax situation, giving us little notice over a holiday period, failing to provide people with the appropriate letter and not answering questions properly in the forum.  They should of learned from the way shutterstock handled this 6 months ago but they have made a shambles of it so far.

KB

« Reply #14 on: January 05, 2010, 10:30 »
0
Getting back to the OP ....

I've always wondered how others vote on this poll. Myself, I assign 10 to my #1, 9 to my #2, 8 to my #3, etc.

I wish there was a better, more accurate way to reflect reality. But if I assigned by percentages [80% = 8] IS would get a 3, SS a 2, and everyone else a 1.  Obviously that's no good.

So how do YOU answer this poll?
« Last Edit: January 05, 2010, 13:42 by KB »

WarrenPrice

« Reply #15 on: January 05, 2010, 11:25 »
0
Getting back to the OP ....

I've always wondered how others vote on this poll. Myself, I assign 10 to my #1, 9 to my #2, 8 to my #3, etc.

I wish there was a better, more accurate way to reflect reality. But if I assigned by percentages (80% = 8), IS would get a 3, SS a 2, and everyone else a 1.  Obviously that's no good.

So how do YOU answer this poll?

Excellent question ... I'd love to hear the answer.

ap

« Reply #16 on: January 05, 2010, 13:34 »
0
Getting back to the OP ....

I've always wondered how others vote on this poll. Myself, I assign 10 to my #1, 9 to my #2, 8 to my #3, etc.

I wish there was a better, more accurate way to reflect reality. But if I assigned by percentages (80% = 8), IS would get a 3, SS a 2, and everyone else a 1.  Obviously that's no good.

So how do YOU answer this poll?

yes, it's quite true...the yardstick seems pretty relative now that you've pointed it out. i don't give a 10 unless it was an outstanding month (not even bme). bme starts at 9, and all the other agencies fall in line percentage wise. ie 85% of bme is a 8, etc.


« Reply #17 on: January 05, 2010, 17:44 »
0
Getting back to the OP ....

I've always wondered how others vote on this poll. Myself, I assign 10 to my #1, 9 to my #2, 8 to my #3, etc.

I wish there was a better, more accurate way to reflect reality. But if I assigned by percentages (80% = 8), IS would get a 3, SS a 2, and everyone else a 1.  Obviously that's no good.

So how do YOU answer this poll?

yes, it's quite true...the yardstick seems pretty relative now that you've pointed it out. i don't give a 10 unless it was an outstanding month (not even bme). bme starts at 9, and all the other agencies fall in line percentage wise. ie 85% of bme is a 8, etc.

yes, yes, all good point but there is something else you have not considered.
   i don't see as many "regulars" here that used to partake in the forum , say, 6 months ago. therefore, it may not reflect accurately as if i may say so, many of these "regulars" were selling well almost regularly.

so, i wouldn't take this poll as written in stone, as to whether a site is doing better or worse.
« Last Edit: January 05, 2010, 17:48 by PERSEUS »

lisafx

« Reply #18 on: January 05, 2010, 18:32 »
0
Getting back to the OP ....

I've always wondered how others vote on this poll. Myself, I assign 10 to my #1, 9 to my #2, 8 to my #3, etc.


^^ This is how I do it too. 

« Reply #19 on: January 06, 2010, 01:15 »
0
Getting back to the OP ....

I\'ve always wondered how others vote on this poll. Myself, I assign 10 to my #1, 9 to my #2, 8 to my #3, etc.

I wish there was a better, more accurate way to reflect reality. But if I assigned by percentages [80% = 8] IS would get a 3, SS a 2, and everyone else a 1.  Obviously that\'s no good.

So how do YOU answer this poll?
I had updated my system. Now I\'m answering like that:
Total earnings divided by site number = average site performance = 5 note
Example for 600$ (total earnings) from 6 sites -

site with 100$ get 5

site with 200$ get 6
site with 300$ get 7
site with 400$ get 8
site with 500$ get 9
site with 600$ get 10

site with 80$ get 4
site with 60$ get 3
site with 40$ get 2
Dt get 1.......... not true, just kidding;-0

« Reply #20 on: January 08, 2010, 18:56 »
0
It's more indicator of how people feel about sites. It seems like all are doing worse than before. If this trend will settle you can start seeing green if a drop is lower than before. I think earnings should be expressed in absolute numbers (ranges of numbers).


 

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors