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 - heywoody
Pages: 1 ... 38 39 40 41 42 [43] 44 45 46 47 48 ... 58
1051
« on: June 17, 2012, 05:45 »
.... The sales per image of an LCV shot where only half-a-dozen like it have got accepted will probably be higher than the sales per image of the most popular, highly copied, concept.
It's a lot easier to get a "half-a-dozen like it" image accepted at SS than the "1000's like it already" because they lose nothing rejecting something where the buyer is spoiled for choice, the popular ones tend to keep selling (no competition) and some can have a first sale after being on line forever.
1052
« on: June 16, 2012, 10:04 »
At least your RPD is good;)
RPI not the best though
1053
« on: June 15, 2012, 10:03 »
DT is pretty "democratic" as it's more about high performing individual images than contributors so I think it's unlikely that the big guns are disproportionally affected by the slump which seems to be hitting most people, big and small. On FT, is it not the case that higher ranks can set higher prices (the punter pays more as well as / instead of just a higher cut for the contributor)? If so, is it not just possible that buyers are simply taking cost into account thus favouring the small timer?
1054
« on: June 14, 2012, 09:25 »
Can someone please tell me that this is a coincidence.
 Looks like we should use the forum more
1055
« on: June 13, 2012, 17:33 »
Your point? That reviewer could be very much related to this topic and also the reason I started it.
I believe the point being made is that threads are locked because of personal comments and the items in bold are personal comments...  I don't think there is any relationship between the Atilla that frequents this forum and the mythical SS reviewer.
1056
« on: June 13, 2012, 05:24 »
"Inconsistency" seems to be the word to describe Microstock lately (sales and reviews)
If you discard the data from the top 2, then yes.
I was under the impression that you thought reviews inconsistent in 50% of the top 2???
1057
« on: June 13, 2012, 03:15 »
Probably the best argument against exclusivity (anywhere) that I've seen...
1058
« on: June 12, 2012, 07:46 »
5th place so far, behind IS with 28 images and 123 with 150
1059
« on: June 11, 2012, 17:33 »
... With art/intellectual property, it's not about the size of the image, but about the value and quality of the idea and its execution.
Yeah!!
1060
« on: June 09, 2012, 06:31 »
Off topic - fotorob's posts where showing as ignored and, sure enough, there he was on my ignore list all on his own. This is very wierd as I've NEVER ingored anyone
1061
« on: June 08, 2012, 08:57 »
It just shows the up to date number of sales. So if your page shows an image with 3 sales and there is then another, both will show 4 sales.
1062
« on: June 08, 2012, 04:11 »
I have a strong feeling that "out of focus" is the first item in the dropdown list...
Yeah, if they are being accepted at IS it's unlikely there are actual technical issues - more likely a case of SS feeling they have the subject matter well covered
1063
« on: June 06, 2012, 02:55 »
in fotolia
Extended X price range is [10-50], if i set to 50 which is maximum to me, i saw my share is 23% which is 11.5, does it mean I will only get 11.5 for extended license? it is very little.
Yeah - also the terms of the EL are less restrictive than on other sites...
1064
« on: June 05, 2012, 03:31 »
@rimglow - make a search after "remote control isolated" on SS, you'll get nearly 5000 images. HOW MANY of these do you think they want? You need to expand a bit.
I think there are 2 kinds of LCV: 1. This is crap and will never sell 2. Could sell loads but we have plenty already (HCV for contributor but LCV for site).
1065
« on: June 03, 2012, 13:42 »
It's against Flickr terms of use
1066
« on: June 03, 2012, 05:20 »
Notwithstanding I dont have the 1500 images that qualifies for an opinion, a few observations: Why would SS introduce exclusivity, they have good coverage of subject matter, the simplest model out there and are doing very nicely as they are? Other sites still generate a lot of sales, IS in particular gives good return per image and closing doors / burning bridges simply reduces options. For those that have marketable images rejected, other sites provide a market place. In this forum, there have been quite a few threads about accounts being suspended / deleted by SS. Im sure this is justified in some cases but there does seem to be a lack of due process (an accusation of wrongdoing seems to be enough) and no appeal. Anyone who depends on MS income and finds himself in this situation would be f***ed.
1067
« on: May 30, 2012, 17:40 »
As my return to DT was relatively recent (June 2011), my portfolio is still relatively bottom heavy (lots of uploads and not so many level 3 and up images).
My RPD has been climbing with their recent changes, but not enough to offset the decreased downloads. So the net is that I see this as a loss, not a gain.
For example, in March, my RPD was $1.11 and this month it's $1.77, but I had nearly twice as many downloads in March as May, so the net is a lower total for May.
November had an RPD of 98 cents, but beat the pants off every month this year.
I'd love to see a survey showing what buyers think of this enormously complex pricing scheme at DT
Never looked from a buyers perspective but, if anything like commissions, yes, bound to be off-putting. I dont have the volumes to make any real judgement but I tend to be unaffected by search algorithm changes and my gut feel is they are simply moving much less product and the higher price is not enough to compensate.
1068
« on: May 29, 2012, 09:22 »
I don't buy into this fair and unfair bit at all - these companies are all there to make money for themselves, not us - it's commerce and fairness doesn't come into it except as a marketing ploy. So, while I agree with you all from a moral viewpoint, the work in making the image, uploading it etc is all done. The very same image could be licenced from less than $0.10 to tens of dollars depending on artificial criterial like size and licence and, on a practical level, I prefer a $10 commission to a 10c commission.
And this kind of attitude makes it possible for them to get away with it (millions of ppl are thinking that way)
Nothing to do with attitude - they get away with it because they can.
1069
« on: May 28, 2012, 09:46 »
I don't buy into this fair and unfair bit at all - these companies are all there to make money for themselves, not us - it's commerce and fairness doesn't come into it except as a marketing ploy. So, while I agree with you all from a moral viewpoint, the work in making the image, uploading it etc is all done. The very same image could be licenced from less than $0.10 to tens of dollars depending on artificial criterial like size and licence and, on a practical level, I prefer a $10 commission to a 10c commission.
1070
« on: May 28, 2012, 07:52 »
So, instead of getting 2.5 credits, you are getting 20 credits for the same file - not seeing a problem here
1071
« on: May 25, 2012, 15:22 »
Lol, yeah, good images make more than $1 a year. Much more.
Even bad ones do
1072
« on: May 23, 2012, 06:54 »
So overwhelmingly folks don't want exclusivity but open to image exclusivity - makes a lot of sense. I still can't understand why even the agencies bother with total exclusivity.
1073
« on: May 23, 2012, 05:18 »
I'm guessing a lot of stock photos have elements inspired by tutorials, even if it was Classroom in a Book. For example, I use a technique I saw in an online tutorial for enhancing models' eyes to bring out the eyes in wildlife shots (for stock, I wouldn't do it for a nature competition, obviously) How would they know (other than I have now posted it here) whether I'd seen it in a tutorial, learned it in a class or stumbed upon it on my own?
Agree - everything we do is a result of having learned to do it somewhere.
1074
« on: May 22, 2012, 05:55 »
How do you manage to get five rejections a week on DT?? 
Well, you could upload your 140 and be unfortunate enough that their "IS" reviewer gets a bunch of them
1075
« on: May 21, 2012, 16:49 »
Funny, I interpreted the question as one about the uses for which you would be licencing images... If so, lots of variety.
Pages: 1 ... 38 39 40 41 42 [43] 44 45 46 47 48 ... 58
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|