|
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 - Mantis
Pages: 1 ... 38 39 40 41 42 [43] 44 45 46 47 48 ... 219
1051
« on: August 25, 2016, 07:21 »
PP green bar have been coming in. That's mainly Thinkstock right? or does that include other things? I have had a couple of of GI connect and GI sales but they are never more than a few of cents. I am an independent.
Getty Plus (G+) fka Getty 360, (G360) is green, same as Thinkstock.
Getty Connect is black.
Getty is purple, and should only be for exclusives, but can be for tiny amounts.
Interesting. I get purples each month, usually one clump and it always comes last.
1052
« on: August 24, 2016, 07:47 »
No complain!Regular sales,port size 16547 files
That is one amazing number of assets. Are they all video or a mix of stills?
1053
« on: August 24, 2016, 07:42 »
I stayed opt in because I prefer to sale 10 EL for $15 each than 0 EL for $500 each
I prefer to sell 10 EL's for $28 rather than 10 EL's for $17, so I opted out.
Sure that opting out you will not have any $28 sales
But you if you like to fight windmills I am happy for you
Untrue. SS will contact you with the EL request and you can pick and choose which ones you take and which ones you leave on the table. For the most part opting out removes the automation of an EL.
1054
« on: August 23, 2016, 07:40 »
50% down for me over June.
1055
« on: August 22, 2016, 08:41 »
1056
« on: August 22, 2016, 08:33 »
Thanks a lot for your replies, guys. Your feedback is much appreciated! I do have to say I'm kind of surprised by your comments about iStock. As I said, I've done my research, so I knew contributors weren't happy with the way they were treated, but I thought that at least exclusive contributors were making good money. And I thought that because the poll on this site told me so.  Is it terribly outdated or am I missing something?
The polls are only indicators and the n value for Istock exclusives is probably very low. Anyone can post anything, there are no facts to back up what anyone puts in the polls. There are some exclusives who seem t be doing okay but most I speak with have left exclusivity. There are a lot of threads on the topic of Istock that discusses the frustration of exclusives, except maybe for one or two on this forum who clam exclusivity works for them.
1057
« on: August 21, 2016, 18:39 »
I'm exclusive with DT and my sales have fallen to about a third of what they used to be until a couple of months ago. At first I thought it was because of summer, although last year I didn't see a seasonal decline. Only recently did I realize that the drop coincided with a little change DT made to its search engine: the default buyers now see when they search for images is "Best selling" instead of "Most relevant." I think that benefits mostly old images, which have had time to sell a lot, and I've only been a DT member for a couple of years.
I'm thinking of not only dropping exclusivity, but leaving DT altogether. I really don't have time to upload to many sites, so I'm considering trying to become exclusive at iStock, but I've been doing research and iStockers don't exactly seem like happy campers either, and the announcement that you'll have to ask permission to delete your photos from iStock seems shady as hell... On the other hand, sales have to be better than at DT. I'm just not sure if it's worth the hassle of disabling my 3,000 images at DT (which of course you have to do one by one  ) and starting all over at iStock.
Sigh.
Do not become exclusive at Istock. You will regret that more than DT. If I were you I would drop exclusivity and get approved at Shuttterstock at the least. In the whole scheme of things you will make more money with SS than any other micro. Istock has treated contributors horribly and with the new Getty transition you no longer have the option to pick and choose what images you may want to delete later unless there is a legal reason. The only other way will be to close your account with them. They have two lawsuits against them with hefty claims that, if awarded as sought, will put them out of business. This isn't to say that SS is all peachy. They are having lots of turnover and technical issues reminiscent of Istock of the last 5-6 years. They in effect cut commissions on EL's but did allow contributors to opt out, which many did. Best of luck in your decision.
1058
« on: August 21, 2016, 12:34 »
From my last shoot I have several photos that I am working on that have money involved. Typically Photoshop will not let you edit them now days, how ever I just edited 10 photos and every time photoshop did not stop me, which is great because I didn't have to use GIMP to get the job done.
Did Photoshop reverse their policy?
Are you pulling in your image as something other than a JPG, such as an illustrator file or PDF? That is a known work-around.
1059
« on: August 18, 2016, 07:24 »
Ok I'm not alone then. Maybe another change that went wrong? My sales for last month are populating now and they are as of today, 1/2 of June. All I'm missing is that last purple bar, but I will be at $200 for the month and far short of what I was making in previous months.
1060
« on: August 18, 2016, 07:21 »
Agree with Marcvstvllivs. Sales aren't too frequent for me for the last 5-6 months. I still get a few video sales and some still sales, but not like in the past. Waiting to see where they take their business. Could be a long wait, too.
1061
« on: August 18, 2016, 07:13 »
i registered there few days ago and today they approved my portfolio so im able to upload now. the problem is, i tried to upload few and its asking for title, which cant be the same for different images. so, other option is to upload one by one. is there third option? to load a batch of 10-20-100-million :p t once?? i cant believe i would have to upload one by one....
You have to use their FTP upload. That web uploader is a pure junk.
1062
« on: August 16, 2016, 08:40 »
To GL,
I closed my account with you folks several months ago and doubt I'll try again. But I wanted to say two things:
1. Glad you are making a renewed effort to build a better business. I wish you well on that.
2. Participating in the forums is very much appreciated by many of us contributors. I would only suggest that your team continue communicating with us through these forums in a meaningful, honest manner. The one thing that frustrates us the most is a company coming into MSG with all the right messaging then they go stealth and we never hear anything again. Like SS, for example.
Best of luck and I can't wait until you turn on video and see what that system offers.
1063
« on: August 16, 2016, 08:35 »
To the OP: I sent an inquiry on an unrelated subject and it took them nearly two weeks to get back to me in an email apologizing for the delay and saying they were really backed up, so as annoying as it is, don't give up hope of hearing from them and getting it resolved. Good luck!
Same here. It's taking quite awhile for SS to respond. I suspect they are in a bit of turmoil with all the technology hiccups going on.
1064
« on: August 15, 2016, 10:29 »
Everyone is jumping to the conclusion that SS is incompetent. To me, it looks like they are doing some smart testing, at a time when it should be done -- in the dog days of summer. If you have a theory on a new search algorithm that might boost sales, you test it out in a period that is traditionally low selling, so you can perfect it and be ready to maximize sales for the high selling days coming later in the year.
Does anyone really think they're trying to suppress sales overall? Whose interest would that serve? We complain when they boost newer submissions and seemingly punish the veterans, and now we complain when older images place higher in search?
To me, these changes look OK. My sales have been a bit higher the last few days, and my new stuff is still selling, though not as quickly as before. I'm looking at my new stuff that is selling now as my diamonds in the rough -- images that are extremely unique and serving a real demand. It doesn't matter how low they place in search results because they're in a specific niche and will be near the top no matter how SS tweaks the search. This is like shining a spotlight on exactly what I need to do moving forward. If it's something that's been done a million times over, don't even bother. Find something new -- that people actually want -- and you'll be rewarded. Yes, it's tough to do these days, but still possible.
While I agree with everything you've said, there is a fault with that "Earnings From New Content" graph. It's showing $0 for me and I know fine well that is completely wrong... by nearly $100.
At the moment, new & old images seem to be selling well, especially given the the time of year.
So are you hypothesizing that we could be getting sales, but they are just not being reported?
What I am saying and seeing, without any question of doubt, is that at least $90 of my last weeks sales at SS were new content yet the graph says $0. To me that says the graph is wrong and can't be used to determine whether your new images are selling or not. If, you have looked through all your sales via your monthly earnings spreadsheet and you still can't see any sales from new content, well, that's a different matter. Just don't use that graph as a reason to say your new content isn't selling. That data doesn't appear to be reliable. Certainly from my point of view.
Got it. Thanks.
1065
« on: August 15, 2016, 07:57 »
Everyone is jumping to the conclusion that SS is incompetent. To me, it looks like they are doing some smart testing, at a time when it should be done -- in the dog days of summer. If you have a theory on a new search algorithm that might boost sales, you test it out in a period that is traditionally low selling, so you can perfect it and be ready to maximize sales for the high selling days coming later in the year.
Does anyone really think they're trying to suppress sales overall? Whose interest would that serve? We complain when they boost newer submissions and seemingly punish the veterans, and now we complain when older images place higher in search?
To me, these changes look OK. My sales have been a bit higher the last few days, and my new stuff is still selling, though not as quickly as before. I'm looking at my new stuff that is selling now as my diamonds in the rough -- images that are extremely unique and serving a real demand. It doesn't matter how low they place in search results because they're in a specific niche and will be near the top no matter how SS tweaks the search. This is like shining a spotlight on exactly what I need to do moving forward. If it's something that's been done a million times over, don't even bother. Find something new -- that people actually want -- and you'll be rewarded. Yes, it's tough to do these days, but still possible.
While I agree with everything you've said, there is a fault with that "Earnings From New Content" graph. It's showing $0 for me and I know fine well that is completely wrong... by nearly $100.
At the moment, new & old images seem to be selling well, especially given the the time of year.
So are you hypothesizing that we could be getting sales, but they are just not being reported?
1066
« on: August 14, 2016, 17:39 »
1067
« on: August 14, 2016, 14:20 »
I wish it was a bug for me. But sales of everything I uploaded over the past couple of months pretty much stopped dead with a couple of rare exceptions.
Same here. I've uploaded about 200 videos and right after that (about 2 weeks ago), everything dropped to almost nothing. Pushing almost 5200 image and video assets and am now making next to nothing on weekdays. Without a massive couple of SOD's I will not even be close to making my average. It will be like living in the past---7 years ago when I was making $300 to $400 a month. What a drag.
1068
« on: August 13, 2016, 19:00 »
It's a good way to tweak the s h ! t our of your pics and hide the flaws, too.
1069
« on: August 11, 2016, 07:13 »
For god's sake. Only 3 files per week are added for free download out of entire collection. So chances that your file will be selected are close to 0. Stop whining, and better check next time, what are you clicking.
You are missing the whol point. The issue is about the corrupt way in which Fotolia sets their default to trick artists into providing free assets. It nice that you don't seem to mind the risk, says a bit about how much you don't care what happens to your content. But those who try to manage their business to optimize returns, no matter how small, should be very concerned about how Fotolia cheats their contributors by tricking them through default settings. Those settings can easily be changed to default to NO. So it's pretty easy conclude why they do it. If you don't care, fine but don't blast others who do actually care.
1070
« on: August 08, 2016, 16:06 »
A new way to make a boat load!!!!!!!! 
1071
« on: August 08, 2016, 08:53 »
The business model is to get subscribers not to make video sales. That is where they make money and where they focus their advertising. Look at it as amazon prime for video. I am happy that the pricing is good for the artist and like it or not I think they have the best chance at the fastest growth.
This is spot on. For sales to go up for us, the number of customers have to go up exponentially. The largest the subscription collection gets the less customers will need to go into the big collection to find what they need. Theoretically, sales should become more scarce over time. VB isn't making customers happy when they pay monthly and then have to pay again for additional content.
1072
« on: August 06, 2016, 11:35 »
Well, what goes around comes around. I hate to lose the $400 a month I make there if they were to have to close, but they reap what they sow. In the end they should really care, right? After all, money isn't everything....or something like that. 
Do you think it's wise idea to stop uploading to GI until we get a result of these lawsuits?
I still upload there and will until something triggers the need to close my account.
1073
« on: August 06, 2016, 07:19 »
Two possibilities I also have r-rated as my last column, all answered no of course since I'm pure as the driven snow  It depends on the kind of cvs file you save to. There is regular CSV, Windows CSV, DOS CSV etc. I think SS uses regular. Just try saving the file in different formats and one will work.
1074
« on: August 05, 2016, 20:45 »
I like the 52% commission and all, but sales have been dead for a while now and I doubt you guys can reanimate this dead horse. Wish you all the best though.
I was going to say something similar. Agencies always use the "cut commissions" to excuse to claim they are investing in marketing. But of all the MS companies I can recall who have made this claim of cutting commissions to grow the business, none have flourished even an inch. Alamy for example, who claimed they needed the revenue to open an office in the USA so they can grow sales has resulted in a net loss for me. Sales just died there month over month. I made $33 before my cut in July. I used to make $800 average there. Peter gave it a shot, Duncan gave it a shot, Bigstock is now next to nothing, MostPhotos and the list goes on. It would take a MAJOR strategic shift with a PILE of money to even make a dent in increasing sales. I wish GL well, though. They've always been pretty fair to contributors. I closed my account there a few months ago. Made about $4 a month there with about 3500 images.
1075
« on: August 05, 2016, 19:34 »
I sent about 900 vids 8 months ago....no sales.
Pages: 1 ... 38 39 40 41 42 [43] 44 45 46 47 48 ... 219
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
