|
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 - ThomasAmby
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 ... 18
101
« on: June 16, 2011, 07:30 »
$5 would sound ok if they didn't offer the XXL Jpeg version for $20.. Under their model, $10 is the only acceptable price for vectors.
Isn't it ridiculous that they value a vector at $1 but price the xxl jpeg version of it at $20? How ridiculous is this?
Would you pay $20 for the XXL jpeg while there is an option to get the vector for $5 or $1? By deleting vectors I am actually giving myself a chance to sell the $20 XXL sizes..
I have always thought that was weird, but I'm putting up with it at Fotolia. In case of vectors being more expensive than XXL's, Stockfresh would have to price them at at least $20, and that seems a bit too much in this day and age. I don't know what the solution to this would be, but I'd be happy to get my vectors back at the $10 price point. Fotolia has driven prices down to $4 worst case scenario, and that's bad enough. My point is vectors can't be offered for less than jpegs... How many $20 XXL size sales do you expect to get?
These vectors are NOT $5: http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-illustration-14127267-zodiac-star-signs.php?st=f681069
http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-illustration-14127267-zodiac-star-signs.php?st=f681069
http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-illustration-14127267-zodiac-star-signs.php?st=f681069
and even though it's not my best image, this is NOT $1: http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-illustration-6674366-healthy-lifestyle-female-version.php?st=f681069
Absolutely not, and I find it odd they would put any of your images in that price category
102
« on: June 16, 2011, 07:03 »
It's not quite as bad as I thought. As opposed to Vectorstock, most vectors appear to be priced at $5 - $10. Didn't bother to go through all of mine, but I don't think I have any. Maybe they just haven't got to my port yet, but if some of them suddenly turns into $1 vectors I'll pull them. I think they should rather reject vectors if they don't think they'd have the potential to sell for $5-$10.
The worst part is, with this model in place, they're likely to realize that $1 vectors will (obviously) outsell $5/$10 vectors and push more and more vectors into this category. That's what Vectorstock has based its success on, isn't it ? Of course it's working now, but it's ruining the market and I wouldn't want Stockfresh to compete with Vectorstock on pricing
103
« on: June 16, 2011, 06:46 »
What ? Where do you see this ? For me it says 5 credits, also for new vectors (didn't it use to be 10 though?)
If this is really the case, I'll have to delete mine too. Not submitting to Vectorstock under that model, and the same would apply to all other agencies attempting to try the same
Some are 5 and some less detailed ones are 1. Still, I don't agree with offering vectors for much less than the XXL Jpeg. How are you going to sell the $20 Jpeg when there is the $5 vector available.. Anyway I already deleted all the images and reuploading as JPEGs at the moment. Attempting to sell even a fraction of my port for $1 is a disgrace and solely for that reason I have deleted the whole port.
They will have to make to with Jpegs, as I have no vectors for $1.
Yes I agree. I think I'll go about it by finding my $1 vectors and replacing them with JPEGs. I'm fine with tiered pricing, but $1 is bad for everyone - and as you put it, a disgrace to contributors. $5 is in the low end as well. I hope Stockfresh will come in here to explain
104
« on: June 16, 2011, 06:43 »
I just saw some vectors at 10 credits as well, but have yet to see the $1 ones. Are they trying to tier their vector contributors based on quality ? 
105
« on: June 16, 2011, 06:33 »
What ? Where do you see this ? For me it says 5 credits, also for new vectors (didn't it use to be 10 though?)
If this is really the case, I'll have to delete mine too. Not submitting to Vectorstock under that model, and the same would apply to all other agencies attempting to try the same
106
« on: June 15, 2011, 15:43 »
I think actually some illustrators at iStock who are doing very well as exclusives would get disappointed as non-exclusives. Some of the illustrations I see are made in a special iStock-"style" that is unique to the site, but those blue flames could easily drown and never make it when uploaded to the other sites, especially this late. At FT for instance, it appears they're not giving any attention to new uploads at the moment.
107
« on: June 15, 2011, 08:27 »
Btw if you're an illustrator and people are using your work as (a sort of) logo for their company, remember to check if they have a photo page on their website. Found one of mine on a big sign that way
108
« on: June 15, 2011, 08:14 »
Too funny. Way more efficient than Tineye! Love to see how people modify my images for their needs. Although it's mainly to the worse  Lots of watermarked images in use as well, which is bad but I don't bother contacting any of them for a 30 cent settlement by pointing them to the stock sites
109
« on: June 13, 2011, 13:29 »
My earnings are the same or up, but I noticed the best match change as well - my best seller suddenly slowed down a bit, but two other images took off at the same time (images that had been sitting there for long, a year or maybe two). So I won't complain about that. No views on new images is a serious problem though, I noticed that too. Doesn't make people want to continue uploading...
110
« on: June 09, 2011, 05:40 »
For a long time I've had the feeling they wanted to increase profits short term (by cutting commissions) to make the site look attractive to potential buyers ("look at this chart how our profits have skyrocketed over the past year") - But it seems more and more likely they want to kill the site (and microstock altogether) and get buyers back to Getty. I'm really confused and right now I've no idea how this is going to end. Aren't they aware of the alternatives, such as Shutterstock, Dreamstime and Fotolia ? Maybe they're only interested in buyers willing to pay macro-prices and the rest, the "poor" micro-buyers who switch to other sites, are "good riddance" anyway ?
I don't think they're trying to kill Istock. I do think they're trying to shuffle pricing and define pricing tiers to prevent Getty buyers from defecting to Istock. Some micro contributors are now producing such high value imagery that it's eroding the value at Getty.
If Getty has a good selling image for $200 and on IS a somewhat similar one is $20, why would a buyer get it from Getty? So, increase the price on IS by adding it to Vetta/Agency.
A few years ago micro buyers were getting Buicks for the price of a Chevy. They're now able to get a Rolls Royce for the price of a Buick.
I get your point and agree, but what's their long term plan? Apparently everything is falling down at IS - they're losing buyers and seem to be doing nothing about it, so in my eyes the case is either 1. This is actually working for them despite of contributor frustrations or 2. This is part of their plan to get rid of the small buyers (supported by the recent unsatisfied buyer who was told "too bad" or something like that when complaining in the iStock forums) or 3. They were seeking to boost profits temporarily for a sale, but bad management has now ruined that plan. Surely they must know that the current situation at IS is unsustainable, or at least will be, long term ? Which originally lead me to believe they were planning to sell the site. The problem is that if this continues, soon they won't have a product to sell
111
« on: June 09, 2011, 04:29 »
I fail to see the benefits of choosing RM over RF in any situation. If the image is not even exclusive when being sold as RM, then why pay more for restricted usage - RM - when you can get almost unlimited usage - RF - for less ? Never understood the concept of rights managed. When is it beneficial ? Makes no sense to me
112
« on: June 09, 2011, 03:04 »
I just noticed something odd. As I get paid in EUR from Fotolia I have to set Fotolia Credit, USD to 1,46 (current EUR to USD exchange rate). When I do that, the charts change but comparing the chart results to actual results the numbers are a bit off. I divided the chart revenue with the actual revenue for May and got 1,28 instead of 1,46. For April it's 1,18. For March it's 1,37
113
« on: June 09, 2011, 02:54 »
I tried this and love it. There was quite a lot of duplicates for some reason, and was about to suggest a way to join two files when I noticed it's already in place (select two files > right click > join files)
There's one thing that confuses me though. For instance, for one of my files the 2 years estimated revenue is $179.3, but monthly estimated revenue says $4.53 - multiply by 24 (months) and you get $108.72. Why is that?
And maybe I'm just stupid but I don't get "revenue dynamics" and "download dynamics"
The charts are very neat, and it's great to be able to compare agency performances. For the first time I'm able to visualize how iStock sales have dramatically decreased over months while Shutterstock has loyally taken over its place, making up for any loss - this trend is fairly obvious in my charts
I'd love to see more agencies being added over time. Canstock (Better than Dreamstime for me), Bigstock, 123RF, Graphic Leftovers, Veer etc..
114
« on: June 08, 2011, 18:27 »
I've had two of those $3.9 vector sales so far
115
« on: June 08, 2011, 10:31 »
I would pay for a service with advanced statistics on external images, images that aren't uploaded through your system. Total earnings per image across all agencies (including small ones), on individual agencies, charts of performance over the years for individual files and altogether, RPI, RPD - all time revenue stats, revenue from new content, charts comparing growth on different agencies, stuff like that. Just really detailed stats and numbers that take a LONG time to enter into Excel. Don't even know if it's possible, but I'd love that.
Remember that iSyndica closed for a reason. I did subscribe for a few months and liked their service, but as I'm not a volume contributor I decided it wasn't worth it.
I would say $5 per month and hope that more contributors would sign up due to the low price. But I have no idea if this is even profitable after hosting expenses. Maybe supplement with ads?
116
« on: June 08, 2011, 09:33 »
For a long time I've had the feeling they wanted to increase profits short term (by cutting commissions) to make the site look attractive to potential buyers ("look at this chart how our profits have skyrocketed over the past year") - But it seems more and more likely they want to kill the site (and microstock altogether) and get buyers back to Getty. I'm really confused and right now I've no idea how this is going to end. Aren't they aware of the alternatives, such as Shutterstock, Dreamstime and Fotolia ? Maybe they're only interested in buyers willing to pay macro-prices and the rest, the "poor" micro-buyers who switch to other sites, are "good riddance" anyway ?
117
« on: June 08, 2011, 05:06 »
Buyers wont use smaller sites because they have smaller collections and less choice. The only way to change that is for us to give them a chance but unfortunately most people would just prefer to complain about their low sales. It's one of the few positive things we can do to make a change, much better than wishing the big sites would pay us more. I made money with a few small sites before they closed and I haven't regretted giving them a chance. What really annoys me is that the solution to our problems is there but people aren't even willing to try it.
Well said.
118
« on: June 01, 2011, 17:46 »
OK, this is how I see it based on the pricing from the video.
New earnings for a Small image is $.90 instead of $.50. An 80% increase.
New earnings for a Med image is $1.5 instead of $1. A 50% increase.
New earnings for a Large image is $2.7 instead of $2. A 35% increase.
New earnings for a XL/Vector image is $3.9 instead of $3. A 30% increase.
I'm excited. I may have to open up the doors again to Bigstock. 
Yeah, but the price for a vector will be ($3.9 / 0.3) = $13 instead of 6 credits that start at just $5.4 - I'd actually rather have $3 of $5.4 than $3.9 of $13.
Not saying this new structure is completely bad, but I don't think it's something to get excited about really. It's a trick all the agencies use, like when iStock raised the prices of my images from $10 to $12 while reducing my royalty percentage. Now $3.12 sales are frequent while the highest amount I'd get for a sale prior to that would be somewhere around $2.9 - $3. According to them I should be excited about this, cause afterall I'm getting more right ?
It might be that most buyers are using small credit bundles at Bigstock, and so it would seem like a good deal and a raise for contributors, but I seriously doubt that. Only Bigstock has the numbers and so the ability to call this a raise or a cut. The fact that we get PAID more for the new sizes vs. the old makes Bigstock able to announce "bigger commissions" as they phrase it in the newsletter.
I finally found a quote I remembered in this thread - goes back to May 2009 Hi Guys,
Most of the downloads are from $1 credits; therefore, you are getting 50% commission for almost every download. So, if this was, and still is, true it means a drop in commission from 50% to 30%.
119
« on: June 01, 2011, 17:28 »
OK, this is how I see it based on the pricing from the video.
New earnings for a Small image is $.90 instead of $.50. An 80% increase.
New earnings for a Med image is $1.5 instead of $1. A 50% increase.
New earnings for a Large image is $2.7 instead of $2. A 35% increase.
New earnings for a XL/Vector image is $3.9 instead of $3. A 30% increase.
I'm excited. I may have to open up the doors again to Bigstock.
Yeah, but the price for a vector will be ($3.9 / 0.3) = $13 instead of 6 credits that start at just $5.4 - I'd actually rather have $3 of $5.4 than $3.9 of $13. Not saying this new structure is completely bad, but I don't think it's something to get excited about really. It's a trick all the agencies use, like when iStock raised the prices of my images from $10 to $12 while reducing my royalty percentage. Now $3.12 sales are frequent while the highest amount I'd get for a sale prior to that would be somewhere around $2.9 - $3. According to them I should be excited about this, cause afterall I'm getting more right ? It might be that most buyers are using small credit bundles at Bigstock, and so it would seem like a good deal and a raise for contributors, but I seriously doubt that. Only Bigstock has the numbers and so the ability to call this a raise or a cut. The fact that we get PAID more for the new sizes vs. the old makes Bigstock able to announce "bigger commissions" as they phrase it in the newsletter.
120
« on: June 01, 2011, 14:38 »
So, 18 says "yes", and 5 says "no". Very surprised by the poll results so far. I thought most people were against it as I've read many posts over time encouraging not to submit micro images to Alamy. Maybe these people have been more sound than others and I've just misunderstood the situation.
Think I'm going to start reading their agreement and consider selling my images there
121
« on: June 01, 2011, 14:22 »
Doesn't seem to be good news, but who knows but Bigstock.
With the current pricing the royalty percentage for a vector file (6 credits) bought with different credit packages is:
12 credits package = $2,41 / credit = 20,74 %
25 credits package = $1,96 / credit = 25,51 %
60 credits package = $1,65 / credit = 30,3 %
140 credits package = $1,35 / credit = 37,03 %
350 credits package = $1 / credit = 50 %
700 credits package = $0,9 / credit = 55,55 %
I'm guessing most credits spent are 140 credit bundles and up, so they chose a fixed royalty percentage in the low end of the scheme. It seems. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
122
« on: June 01, 2011, 09:53 »
Does anyone know how you request payment? I can't find anything on their site and I'm over the $50 limit.
Thanks!
Hit the "sales" tab and right below the "sold files" icon there's a link that says "request earnings". It's gray and doesn't look clickable so it's quite hard to see. Had trouble with it myself
123
« on: June 01, 2011, 09:44 »
Your poll question doesn't ask the question you need to know.
In your post, you ask whether it's OK to submit micro images to Alamy, but in your poll you ask whether we submit our micro images to Alamy.
Yes, you're right that they are two different questions. The poll and the title really does ask what I want to know, but there's room for a discussion of morals in the thread as well - I'd like Alamy contributors to answer the poll, then backup their answers in the threads, which will inevitably touch the topic of morals. Sorry for not being clear
I know this has been eagerly discussed before but didn't manage to find a poll here at MSG asking the exact question I'm seeking an answer to (not saying it's not here somewhere though). I'd like to see the share of people respectively for and against.
But that's not what you'll get from your question. I voted no, as I'm currently iStock exclusive, but if I were independent, I might, IYSWIM.
I'm sorry, but it should be pretty clear that the poll is meant only for people submitting to Alamy - hence "Alamy contributors:" in the poll & thread title. Exclusives like yourself are welcome to join the discussion, about whether or not you should or would, but voting as an IS exclusive will ruin the poll results. But this is not the direction I want the thread to take. So far I've got some valuable and interesting views
124
« on: June 01, 2011, 09:18 »
I currently get this error on the tool:
Parse error: syntax error, unexpected T_CONSTANT_ENCAPSED_STRING, expecting ',' or ';' in /home/microsto/public_html/tools/keyword.php on line 507
Steve
+1 It's a great tool! just made use of it for the first time I'm used to dusegard's tool ( http://dusegard.se/PhotoKeywording.aspx), so I'm missing an option to select only vectors / illustrations and sort out photos. Other than that, very nice tool
125
« on: June 01, 2011, 09:04 »
Your poll question doesn't ask the question you need to know.
In your post, you ask whether it's OK to submit micro images to Alamy, but in your poll you ask whether we submit our micro images to Alamy.
Yes, you're right that they are two different questions. The poll and the title really does ask what I want to know, but there's room for a discussion of morals in the thread as well - I'd like Alamy contributors to answer the poll, then backup their answers in the threads, which will inevitably touch the topic of morals. Sorry for not being clear I know this has been eagerly discussed before but didn't manage to find a poll here at MSG asking the exact question I'm seeking an answer to (not saying it's not here somewhere though). I'd like to see the share of people respectively for and against.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 ... 18
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
