|
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 - tickstock
Pages: 1 ... 36 37 38 39 40 [41] 42 43 44 45 46 ... 151
1001
« on: January 29, 2015, 15:20 »
They aren't charging for PC, it's free.
Since when? I never got that memo.
I think it's been a year now.
1002
« on: January 29, 2015, 14:22 »
Yea, I assisted a Digital Vision / Getty photographer about 12 years ago and she had a personal editor in Getty, she had done some advertising prior so that is how she got in with Digital Vision. If I remember Getty bought Digital Vision slightly before I assisted her. Then, she was hired by Getty once or twice to shoot stock for Getty, which she got paid directly, no royalties.
So this Moments collection is turning out to be such a frustration, I see so much potential but I can't spend the time and money putting together a shoot only to have one or two (if I'm lucky) images selected out of possibly 12 or more. I've asked to get into Getty's other collections but they've said no. I'm also part of the Photographers choice collection but I've only paid to have a few images in that collection and have just broken even so, not worth it. $50 per image is too much, maybe $25 I would consider it, but nothing more.
They aren't charging for PC, it's free.
1003
« on: January 17, 2015, 23:37 »
The #1 best selling photo probably makes about $2,500-$3,000 in one year.
1004
« on: January 14, 2015, 15:09 »
I didn't say iStock didn't cut rates or fotolia or 123rf or any other company. My response was to the person claiming that Shutterstock had never done it cut earnings. They have, that's the only point I was making.
What was that? Could you just clarify your point (for about the four-hundreth time on this and other threads)? When did SS ever cut rates?
They haven't explicitly cut our earnings,
Sorry, I meant to say earnings. Edited to fix that.
1005
« on: January 14, 2015, 14:34 »
They haven't explicitly cut our earnings,
They did cut my earnings. I referred a few people to sign up with the understanding that the referral income was forever.
Was this forever? Canisters for royalty rates?
Effective January 2011
Royalty rates will no longer be associated to your lifetime download totals, represented by the canister icons. Canisters will now be separate from royalty rates and continue to reflect total lifetime downloads (but they will no longer indicate royalty rates).
Thinkstock and IS subs seem to be at .28 forever, when do I get a raise? You want greed and selfishness.
I didn't say iStock didn't cut rates or fotolia or 123rf or any other company. My response was to the person claiming that Shutterstock had never done it cut earnings. They have, that's the only point I was making.
1006
« on: January 13, 2015, 21:58 »
Doesn't just mean not one is searching "Shutterstock, Inc". I thought Google Trends was just whatever people were actually typing into their search bar. I'm not sure using the disambiguation is meaningful in this instance.
That was my point. But beyond the disambiguation issue I doubt buyers search for stock photos by searching for "iStock" or "Shutterstock" they either already know the site and go directly there or they search for "stock photos" or something like that. I doubt you can get much meaning from knowing how many people are typing in a stock agency's name into the google search bar.
1008
« on: January 12, 2015, 14:54 »
1009
« on: January 09, 2015, 13:06 »
They didn't cut earnings, they limited the period for Referral payment credits. 
Interesting that Shutterstock called them earnings: "The Referral program is a great way to earn additional income through Shutterstock, aside from selling your images and video." or "The royalty payable to you for such referred downloads is set forth on the Earnings Schedule." They were earnings and they were cut, they cut earnings. I don't see how you can argue with that?
1010
« on: January 09, 2015, 12:12 »
Odd, why do I get 4 cents for referral DLs?
Let me see if I understand:
Most of the agencies, cut pay, cut commissions, cut prices and changed the incentive levels. Most have ended referrals all together or limited the time.
SS held the pay promise and changed the referrals from (implied) lifetime to two years, and what people are complaining about is:
1) It should have been forever
and
2) We should have received a raise.
What about the places that gave no raise, took back income, changed promises, cut levels, cut commissions, opened sub and partner sites (With no Opt Out), sold to API partners with no accountability or notice, some in secret calling them subs. They also offered new discounts to customers, re-valued credits, threatened artists and did other underhanded things to contributors.
And people are upset because "we should get a raise" from the one place that puts four times in money in the bank, over the rest? Really?
Yes, I'd agree, we should get a raise, but I'm not calling out SS or complaining about it. I'm happy getting the monthly commissions. There is a difference.
They haven't explicitly cut our earnings,
They did cut my earnings. I referred a few people to sign up with the understanding that the referral income was forever.
they never said it was forever; nothing is forever. dreamstime also has a limit 3yrs , i had all my affliates cut off after 3 yrs without notice too
http://www.shutterstock.com/blog/homepage-tools-part-1-make-money
"If someone signs up, you will earn a $.03 commission every time one of their images gets downloaded."
I guess by "every time" they really meant something else, honest mistake right?
My reply was in response to the statement that Shutterstock has never cut our earnings. They did. It's as simple as that.
1011
« on: January 09, 2015, 10:04 »
1012
« on: January 08, 2015, 20:22 »
My subs RPD is about $1.50.
what is your lowest sub royalty ?
I think we all have the same royalties for subs.
Have you seen any lower than 0.34 ?
It's .34 for main files, .75 for signature, $2.50 for S+
1013
« on: January 08, 2015, 20:13 »
My subs RPD is about $1.50.
what is your lowest sub royalty ?
I think we all have the same royalties for subs.
1014
« on: January 08, 2015, 20:02 »
My subs RPD is about $1.50.
1015
« on: January 08, 2015, 17:19 »
They haven't explicitly cut our earnings,
They did cut my earnings. I referred a few people to sign up with the understanding that the referral income was forever.
they never said it was forever; nothing is forever. dreamstime also has a limit 3yrs , i had all my affliates cut off after 3 yrs without notice too
http://www.shutterstock.com/blog/homepage-tools-part-1-make-money"If someone signs up, you will earn a $.03 commission every time one of their images gets downloaded." I guess by "every time" they really meant something else, honest mistake right?
1016
« on: January 08, 2015, 15:10 »
You should focus on creating content. Even if going exclusive is a better decision it will only make you a couple dollars more because of how small your portfolio is. After you create a few hundred or thousand images you'll be in a much better place to decide what's best.
1017
« on: January 07, 2015, 17:00 »
They haven't explicitly cut our earnings,
They did cut my earnings. I referred a few people to sign up with the understanding that the referral income was forever.
1018
« on: January 07, 2015, 10:58 »
Unless it's someone just playing the fool to create discussion. I don't believe that they are real or sincere.
I gotta admit, SSArtist is the first artist or contrbutor I can remember thats so excited about not getting a raise and so eager on making up reasons we should not have one.
SSArtist/SSContributor sounds an awful lot like the Ron/Ponke/Semmick Photo from a few months ago, minus the emoticons of course. I guess things have changed a lot since he was a SS ambassador or is he still doing that under another name?
Ron's back as Semmick Photo.
I know he's back (he never really did leave though, did he?).
1019
« on: January 07, 2015, 10:11 »
Unless it's someone just playing the fool to create discussion. I don't believe that they are real or sincere.
I gotta admit, SSArtist is the first artist or contrbutor I can remember thats so excited about not getting a raise and so eager on making up reasons we should not have one.
SSArtist/SSContributor sounds an awful lot like the Ron/Ponke/Semmick Photo from a few months ago, minus the emoticons of course. I guess things have changed a lot since he was a SS ambassador or is he still doing that under another name? PixelBytes, you may not remember but Ron has made some passionate arguments why SS should not give raises and how they already have so now they don't need to.
1020
« on: January 04, 2015, 11:12 »
Probably about 2000 extra images, 30% down in royalties.
Total income (GI, PP, subs, etc..) or just iStock regular sales?
1021
« on: January 04, 2015, 10:50 »
Was 2014 better than 2013 for you? For me it was almost exactly equal.
1022
« on: December 29, 2014, 11:00 »
It's a big part of why I have so few images there - I had travel images from Newport Rhode Island that I could not upload because "Newport" is a forbidden term and was constantly rejected, and my ticket to scout went nowhere. I have images from Muir Woods in California where the trees are not properly identified because they narrowed my choices. Again, my suggestions for additions to the controlled vocabulary were ignored.
It's so time consuming and annoying to upload there though the software plug in helps.
Fun Fact:
It takes just as much time to post here to whine and complain and improve nothing at all and not have your images show up on a search as it does to suggest keywords of which they most likely will approve then add to their CV to have your images found and make more sales.
I suggest keywords whenever this happens to me, and almost 100% of the time they add the keyword to the CV.
So quite whining here and do something constructive and suggest a keyword "Newport - Rhode Island" with this link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newport,_Rhode_Island and I am 100% certain it will be added, then your images will be found.
"Newport - Rhode Island" is already in the CV
1023
« on: December 22, 2014, 15:06 »
December is going to be the first month since iStock introduced subs that I beat the previous year in terms of income. With GI sales and subs I'm expecting a best December ever. Also GI sales for November were the best I've ever had so for me things are looking up.
1024
« on: December 19, 2014, 17:21 »
I don't argue about 40% of distributor cut,
I think that if image was sold for $100 and distributor got $40 - Alamy should get commission from $60, since that's what they received.
Isn't the normal royalty split 50-50 so in this case the distributor gets 40% and then Alamy and the contributor get a 50-50 split of the remaining 60%?
1025
« on: December 19, 2014, 15:41 »
Somewhere in the last week my sales got updated with one additional October 2014 partner program sale for a royalty of 11 cents. I have a copy of the earlier CSV file and one I just downloaded and it shows a new PP download on October 1st for 11 cents.
I didn't think anything in the PP royalty set was 11 cents.
I'm not going to write to support about it - it's not worth the hassle and I'm still waiting after months for my last ticket to get addressed - but wondered if anyone else got something like this and if they know what it's for
Probably getty 360 sales.
Pages: 1 ... 36 37 38 39 40 [41] 42 43 44 45 46 ... 151
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
