|
MicrostockGroup Sponsors
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 - cmannphoto
101
« on: July 16, 2012, 11:51 »
Flipside is the volume of sales at Thinkstock appears to be really huge. I've not counted, but I suspect that I get more Thinkstock sales per month then I do for the rest of my sales accross all other sites combined. Those are sales that would likely pay me more at another site or on Istock itself. Long term I think Thinkstock accelerates the inevitable race to the bottom.
And for a tiny price gets your images onto really huge number of places from which they can be stolen.
You can say the same thing with images licensed through IS. I found numerous images of mine, that have been used, where you can click on the image and it takes you to a full size unmarked file, just ready for the taking. Nothing is safe anymore online.
102
« on: July 16, 2012, 11:11 »
The six month period is my biggest deterrant, one or two months and I think you could gage how it was working without risking much, (thats one hard working retrever BTW!)
I could live with a 3 month long lock, but in my example it could be a whole season with fewer DLs. Yet it could be a nice jump in $$$ and RCs you never now. Right now I will leave it alone until I see more concrete stats and the moving of files to Getty working smoothly. Thanks, any dog in my house has to work for their food and a roof over their head  I have to say they are doing a good job. 
103
« on: July 16, 2012, 08:24 »
I have been wrestling moving some good sellers to E+, because I have read mixed reviews on how well people are doing.
I have a file (17764850) that has done pretty well over the last 10 months.
It has earned $405.88 in the 76 DLs for and average of $5.34 per DL. Out of those 76 DLs only 6 have been XSmall.
The six month lock it the biggest deterrent. Also the slow migration to Getty is not helping either.
104
« on: July 15, 2012, 18:45 »
Yes, I have used the Keyword thread and Dave has been very helpful.
In this case it was an accident, not intentional. Once I read your post I understood where you where coming from and corrected my error.
As far as the "anonymity" comment, I don't appreciate KB criticizing my keywording. I guess I am to assume that all their keywords are 100% correct, I doubt that.
I am always willing to learn and I am man enough to admit I made an error.
105
« on: July 15, 2012, 18:16 »
Fine, hear you two and I have removed "equestrian" which also removed "horse", but because it was taken at the "Markopoulo Equestrian Center", I left that in.
HAPPY???
I am.
However, the fact that you wrote: I have removed "equestrian" which also removed "horse" sounds to me as if perhaps you don't fully understand the DA process? 'Equestrian' DAs to 'horse', therefore it IS horse. 'Equestrian' was not in your keyword terms (even though you put it in) because it DAs to 'horse'. (Note I'm not saying I necessarily agree with that DA, just that that's the way it works.)
All I can say is when I went into edit the Keywords, the only one I deleted was "Equestrian" which removed "horse". I have been an Equestrian Photographer for over 25 years and have gone by this Definition of EQUESTRIAN1 a : of, relating to, or featuring horseback riding <equestrian Olympic events> b : archaic : riding on horseback : mounted c : representing a person on horseback http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/equestrianWith "Equus" meaning 'horse' Definition of EQUUS: a genus of the family Equidae that comprises the horses, asses, zebras, and related recent and extinct mammals Also, please don't hide behind anonymity when you are criticizing someones elses work.
106
« on: July 15, 2012, 16:57 »
Fine, hear you two and I have removed "equestrian" which also removed "horse", but because it was taken at the "Markopoulo Equestrian Center", I left that in.
HAPPY???
107
« on: July 15, 2012, 16:49 »
Hey that is my Olympic flag from the "Equestrian" venue during the 2004 Olympics
So, where's the 'horse'?
There was a couple hundred under that flag. Just following the editorial captioning rules ;-)
Your examples fits with my post above yours about what IS said about the best match results.
No offense intended, but it's disappointing to read this from someone who I think should know better. The rest of the keywords in that file are perfectly relevant, but 'horse'? Do you really think that a buyer who searches for 'Horse' AND 'Summer Olympic Games' would be looking for this image (or 'Horse' AND anything, for that matter)?
I went back and looked and I did NOT put in "horse", that came up because I put in "equestrian" and the CV added "horse"
108
« on: July 15, 2012, 10:09 »
Hey that is my Olympic flag from the "Equestrian" venue during the 2004 Olympics
So, where's the 'horse'?
There was a couple hundred under that flag. Just following the editorial captioning rules ;-) Your examples fits with my post above yours about what IS said about the best match results.
109
« on: July 15, 2012, 09:57 »
Hey that is my Olympic flag from the "Equestrian" venue during the 2004 Olympics
110
« on: July 15, 2012, 09:50 »
It's interesting you said that. I just looked at my port best match, hardly any E+ in the first page although there seems to be a boost for Vetta. Perhaps it explains why my July is so terrible. If IS is boosting E+ in best match but excluding mine, it only makes sense that my sales are down.
You got to remember that what you see in the best match is NOT what others see. After Aprils HQ Update I asked a couple friends to look at my portfolio, one was a buyer and another was not, each of us saw a totally different selection of images in the best match sort.
Here is a link to that thread http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=343053&page=1
"All of these factors also affect the searches that contributors are doing as well, making it difficult for you to assess what you're seeing or to understand how it might look from the perspective of a specific customer. So bear in mind when you look at a set of results that it won't be the same across different segments. "
112
« on: July 14, 2012, 06:53 »
The "crap" might sell when IS gets the Dollar Bin working again.
113
« on: July 12, 2012, 10:12 »
Add me to the list of having a big downwards turn on IS this week. Yesterday was down over 50% compared to the rest of this years weekday average, only July 4th was worse.
114
« on: July 10, 2012, 17:05 »
I don't know of any "All in one place" but you can click on the DL # on the Uploads page to see all the DLs for that image, if that helps.
115
« on: July 10, 2012, 06:30 »
OMG! right there in the upload section, what a plonker (ive been using DM!)
Thank you
FYI, you can also see it in DM in the "Statistics" tab as well
116
« on: July 09, 2012, 18:14 »
117
« on: July 06, 2012, 06:26 »
Actually it was June 3rd last year. http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=330116 Someone else asked earlier today in the Help Forum and Kelvin locked the thread. What worries me is if they cannot pay the correct royalties from back in January, how can we expect them to pay back royalties for contributors that have moved up a level?
118
« on: June 25, 2012, 19:57 »
No real lose for me as each time I tried to order them, it never worked. But it would be nice to see IS replace that perk with something that works all the time.
119
« on: June 22, 2012, 12:00 »
You might want to remove those image numbers so not to offend the contributor
120
« on: June 04, 2012, 06:45 »
121
« on: May 30, 2012, 09:37 »
122
« on: May 18, 2012, 12:47 »
I would forward this e-mail to Lobo, because I don't think you can access contributors from outside iStock site mail, so it must be from an iStock account within their site mail.
124
« on: May 15, 2012, 20:34 »
I too am up to the 20th.
Didn't they stop and start it last month, so it ran over the weekend only?
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
