101
General Stock Discussion / Re: Are you happy or unhappy as a micro stock contributor
« on: June 27, 2009, 01:37 »
I'm a happy camper

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. 101
General Stock Discussion / Re: Are you happy or unhappy as a micro stock contributor« on: June 27, 2009, 01:37 »
I'm a happy camper
![]() 102
Adobe Stock / Re: Big drop in Fotolia sales, only me?« on: June 26, 2009, 18:04 »I can offer a theory from the perspective of a user. First I'm not surprised, and I'm sorry you have seen a drop in sales. As you may know, Fotolia requires users to purchase credits for $1 each, but a minimum of 10 credits must be purchased each time. Then, they keep any unused money once their timeframe for usage has lapsed. In New York, retailers tried to pull this stunt by voiding gift cards, and the legislators put a stop to it. It is theft, plain and simple. Unless a user knows s/he will use all 10 of those credits, they are victims of this fraud. Any business that uses this type of policy to fill a hole in their revenue should suffer in sales, and reputation. Perhaps others got wise to their nonsense and went elsewhere for their image needs. I hope you find a competitor who can provide you with the sales you hope for. Best of luck. I'm off Fotolia, and telling my colleagues to do the same! istock credits expire too 103
Computer Hardware / Re: Got external 1.5TB Seagate drive« on: June 22, 2009, 18:53 »These drives don't have good reviews. Hight failure rates... I did some research and so far 1TB Western Digital Green Series seems like one of the most reliable high capacity hard drives. 104
Computer Hardware / Re: Got external 1.5TB Seagate drive« on: June 22, 2009, 17:52 »
These drives don't have good reviews. Hight failure rates...
105
Adobe Stock / Re: What do you expect from Fotolia's new management team?« on: June 22, 2009, 16:12 »
Continuing decreasing our commissions using any way possible, but utilizing better communication. Friendly re-branding of the same thing. More like istock.
106
General Stock Discussion / Re: Are one of these stock images yours?« on: June 22, 2009, 00:52 »
Brilliant
![]() 107
Dreamstime.com / Re: Hell of rejections on "well covered..." blah« on: June 16, 2009, 07:10 »
Achilles just wrote me, that they had a discussion and decided to approve the rejected flame photo. DT is the best, I knew it
![]() 108
Dreamstime.com / Re: Hell of rejections on "well covered..." blah« on: June 16, 2009, 01:47 »
Just got another photo of fire flames rejected with the reason "We are looking for images that exceed the technical quality and creativity of the images already online. Thank you"
I have many photos of flames and I have not been able to get any of them accepted recently. It feels like there is a brick wall now built for this type of shots. The funny thing is all my recently rejected fire photos were shot with brand new Canon 5d Mark II in 21Mp quality. Half a year ago a lot of similar photos from me was accepted without a single problem. And those accepted were shot on an older 5D in 12Mp. Go figure. 109
Veer / Re: Veer Marketplace Opens for Submissions!« on: June 08, 2009, 17:30 »
The site is a pure pleasure to work with. I love the interface and attention to detail. Is it possible to send you DVD with a couple of thousands photos instead of uploading them all via FTP?
111
Canon / Re: 5D mark II firmware upgrade: manual exposure with videos« on: May 27, 2009, 06:42 »
Yes!!!!!!!!!!
112
General - Top Sites / Re: Which Are Really The Big 6? And Which Ones Are Really Worth The Time?« on: May 11, 2009, 03:03 »7 keywords used to be relevant before, not anymore. Did Fotolia customer service confirmed that too? 114
General Stock Discussion / Re: Copyright protection of photos« on: April 27, 2009, 06:06 »
The problem is how do we register a collection of thousands of already published photos if we didn't register them continuously every three months?
116
Adobe Stock / Re: Fotolia, new prices, the math.« on: April 10, 2009, 05:04 »
Of course it is not the case now. I'm talking about future scenarios. I would not want the worst paying agency to succeed.
117
Adobe Stock / Re: Fotolia, new prices, the math.« on: April 10, 2009, 03:15 »...My RPD went down last month but earnings were at an all time high, if that was a result of the money we got deducted being used for extra advertising then I'm all for it. I've said before that what is important to me is the total earnings at the end of the month not how the calculation is made to get it. Would you still be happy if say one agency almost monopolize the microstock business as a result of constantly lowering commissions and aggressive marketing? Do you think they will increase commissions once they have the whole market to themselves, or lower them again since there is no competition left? ![]() 118
Adobe Stock / Re: Fotolia, new prices, the math.« on: April 09, 2009, 15:45 »I believe that Fotolia keeps somewhere between 60 and 70% of each transaction. According to you Fred, I am supposed count myself lucky that they don't keep more. In the past few months Fotolia has devised two sneaky methods to retain more of OUR earnings. The first was increasing the number of downloads to attain the various ratings and the other was an increase the price of OUR images but decrease the commissions. Now in this thread, people are posting their experience with earnings since the inception of the second claw back method. If Fotolia can't advertise with huge commission they already retain then maybe they should go under. However I think it is just a matter of greed. And that's not all. 1 fotolia credit in Europe costs 1 Euro. But most of us, submitters, have 1 fotolia credit value set to $1 USD. So when European customers spends 1 credit on a photo Fotolia gets 1 Euro = $1.31 USD and I get 34 US cents. That makes the actual comission from all European sales about 26%. 119
Adobe Stock / Re: Fotolia, new prices, the math.« on: April 09, 2009, 05:02 »
I just did a comparison between my March and February numbers
February - 0.89c per download March - 0.87c per download How's that for "price increase" ![]() 120
Shutterstock.com / Re: Shutterstock 2009 raise.« on: March 24, 2009, 21:08 »
I've also thought about this recently and decided that most probably there will be no raise this year.
123
General - Top Sites / Re: The most unsatisfying site?« on: March 21, 2009, 18:34 »
D'oh!
![]() ![]() 124
Alamy.com / Re: Alamy Subs« on: March 20, 2009, 04:17 »
I have a great deal of respect for Alamy. The way they handle such situations should be an example for some other companies. Like Fotolia which comes to mind as an opposite example of how not to deal with submitters.
125
General - Top Sites / The most unsatisfying site?« on: March 19, 2009, 23:31 »
Sort of like an Anti-Oscar award
![]() Any of the Big 6 sites make you unhappy? Consider the overall experience of being a contributor, not the mere financial return. You can vote for two choices. You can change votes. |
Submit Your Vote
|