|
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 - PeterChigmaroff
Pages: 1 ... 51 52 53 54 55 [56] 57 58 59 60 61 ... 72
1376
« on: April 17, 2009, 16:33 »
And well, as you know any contributor with 500 dl's can be exclusice at IS. Or not. It's just matter of choice.
How true. Not sure what that has to do with the topic of this thread though...?
As I understood the OP they wanted to know about placing exclusive images with Dreamstime.
That is correct LisaFX, and no, not anyone can be an exclusive at iStock. Most longtime pros have too many images in the market with long contracts, even if they wanted to, to abide with the rule of no RF with any other agency.
1377
« on: April 16, 2009, 13:15 »
Is anyone placing images exclusive to DT? Does it seem worthwhile?
1378
« on: April 16, 2009, 12:33 »
Brian,
Should we continue uploading to SV? Assuming we are currently accepted to VMP will the new uploads to SV get transfered over?
Peter
1379
« on: April 15, 2009, 22:52 »
http://www.cgbgroup.com/media.htmlI've used these folks for years. Their prices are reasonable and the PhotoPac policy is very comprehensive. It includes a million or so of 3rd party. Contact Judi Heron.
1380
« on: April 15, 2009, 13:01 »
However as opposed to becoming a doctor (I guess you meant a physician),
Not really, I meant doctor actually.
Right now I am making over $1600.00USD per month as a part time business/hobby in photography for which I knew nothing about 4 years ago.
What if you could be making $16,000 instead?
1381
« on: April 15, 2009, 11:51 »
1382
« on: April 15, 2009, 09:52 »
Yes we help each other out __ but we don't charge for it.
This is of course true, but you have to weed through a minefield of derogatory comments and information from sources that lack experience. Too often you get what you pay for.
1383
« on: April 14, 2009, 19:44 »
Sorry, I don't see how were are supposed to know
BTW, were does need an apostrophe and get rid of the are.
1384
« on: April 14, 2009, 08:32 »
1385
« on: April 13, 2009, 16:26 »
I have owned the 70-200 f2.8 and the 70-200 f2.8IS. The IS is really nice but the non IS version was way sharper. I sold the IS version because of the weight. I will buy the 70-200 f4 IS because shoot handheld a lot. However if I only shot from a tripod I would buy the non IS version because I believe them to be sharper and of course a bunch cheaper.
1386
« on: April 13, 2009, 10:18 »
Jupiter was a fairly big conglomerate of which StockXpert was a small part. They have a large collection of wholly owned content and were on the verge of going under. Jupiter was acquired for a very good price. Except for the customer base, there isn't a lot of sense of purchasing another micro since they really won't get much in the way of new content.
1387
« on: April 12, 2009, 13:30 »
Normally I wouldn't put these images up for sale in an RF market because of the lack of model releases. They are pure silhouettes and am wondering what others would do. If they were your images would you offer them for sale on micro?
1388
« on: April 12, 2009, 13:14 »
Everybody kept saying that, how deep the pockets of Gates and Corbis were. But when you see how crappy the programming and approach of SV was for over a year, and they later were expelled to Ireland, you can only conclude that SV was the black sheep in the Corbis family and Gates wasn't interested in it at all. It was flawed technically from the start, and it didn't get any better.
In fact they don't like to tell it but it was phased out and Veer will take up the market concept of microstock. They try to make it sound nice, like "absorbing", of course, that's part of the soft corporate newspeak. Let's just hope they can get their stuff together by November, as they promised "fall". Wait and see. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. Till now there has been a lot of talk about the pudding, how good it will taste.
Many good agencies work through Ireland and have for a long time, I'm too sure why, maybe the tax advantages, but I don't think it's a situation of exile or anything like that. What I don't think wise is to paint every site with the same brush. I think some, although performing poorly now, have better long term prospects. In the end, it is up to all of use to individually judge where their efforts are best served, and that may include leaving agencies that perform reasonably well while sticking around with what look like losers. There is still plenty of shaking out that is going to occur with microstock sites and the titans of the day may end up pan handling in the future to get by.
1389
« on: April 11, 2009, 14:24 »
I don't understand the people who refused to upload to SV simply because it lacked FTP - some of them with rather small portfolios.
They changed my keywords and left some essential ones out, so I couldn't find my own images back. So didn't buyers since how you can find a palm tree as main subject if the rekeywording genius deletes "palm" and "tree"? They waited months to add a decent watermark. There were no views. There was no real development, except the blog that kept stating that the features asked for would come "soon". I gave them up after a year and a view count of 4 on the keyword-tampered shots. They had that LuckyOliver style of predictable failure on prozac. I deleted all shots except 3 a long time ago.
If Veer didn't fire all their management and programmers(?), it will be just the same.
I'm not sure about your overall knowledge of the market but I think your only hoping this will happen so you don't feel too silly for deleting your images. SV is owned by Corbis which is owned by Gates. Sometimes it takes a while to find the right equation but comparing it to LO is too simplistic. The resources available-- financially, organizationally and artistically -- are immense.
1390
« on: April 11, 2009, 09:16 »
It doesn't really matter now but the SV method was certainly no more difficult than a lot of the other sites. FTP would get the images to a site with ease but then you had screw around placing releases, selecting useless categories, acknowledging you indeed understand and agree to an agreement most likely to change against you, on and on. With SV the trick was to have it running in a separate window off to the side and have releases in the same folder as the images your uploading. I praise any site that doesn't make you pick those dang categories.
1391
« on: April 10, 2009, 09:44 »
Good point Zeus...I guess what gets me is that not only are the companies feeling this punch from our current economical condition but so are the contributors...proubably more so than the big comapnies because we are just the little fish swiming in the shark infested waters.
The other point I'd like to make is where are the additional customers coming from? Are they bering lured over from other sites that pay more? Are you getting more income from Fotolia but less from elsewhere? Will this trend increase as Fotolia captures more market share? Will other sites have to reduce commissions to stay competitive?
1392
« on: April 10, 2009, 09:31 »
No. The math you need to really know is the effect of the increased marketing that FT state they intend spending on __ and that'll take time to show.
Fotolia could have raised prices and used the money to advertise more without reducing commissions.
1393
« on: April 09, 2009, 18:36 »
I know where you are coming from on this. I was disappointed that the commissions were lowered too.
Unfortunately it seems like you have to pick your battles in this business and this hasn't been disasterous incomewise, so I am trying not to get too worked up over it.
Good point lisafx. No reason to get all riled up with moot calculations when all that matters is that Fotolia sells . Look right and choose from the list leaf has for you
if you want a bigger percentage in commission. If you're not happy with the commission why are you still with Fotolia. pfft ! 8 
I'm not sure why things should be black and white in these circumstances. How can someone get their earnings reduced and like it? Is that honestly what you think? Liking and disliking it, staying and leaving; they are two different things. I just don't see the link. It's always about earnings, i won't argue there, but when someone does something to lessen those earnings I can't help but get miffed.
1394
« on: April 09, 2009, 09:32 »
For March my DL's on Fotolia are up 8% and Royalties up 5%, so I see your point. RPI is definitely going down a bit.
I am not too worked up about it as long as total $ are going up though.
I guess the thing that gets ones' goat is the $$ would indeed be higher if Fotolia didn't greed out and yank $$ out of the fotog.
Yeah our dollars would be up everywhere if the sites just quit spending money on marketing and distributed it to the contributors. That would probably last a few months but over time you would have fewer and fewer sales. Is that a better plan?
fred
I believe that Fotolia keeps somewhere between 60 and 70% of each transaction. According to you Fred, I am supposed count myself lucky that they don't keep more. In the past few months Fotolia has devised two sneaky methods to retain more of OUR earnings. The first was increasing the number of downloads to attain the various ratings and the other was an increase the price of OUR images but decrease the commissions. Now in this thread, people are posting their experience with earnings since the inception of the second claw back method. If Fotolia can't advertise with huge commission they already retain then maybe they should go under. However I think it is just a matter of greed. Peter
1395
« on: April 08, 2009, 19:49 »
This is getting way OT, and I wouldn't bother responding save for the fact that people might think $750 USD per month is enough to live in Canada. As I said earlier, making this amount
I'd say for a family that $7500 per month is a bit of a stretch in most urban centers in Canada.
1396
« on: April 08, 2009, 10:59 »
For March my DL's on Fotolia are up 8% and Royalties up 5%, so I see your point. RPI is definitely going down a bit.
I am not too worked up about it as long as total $ are going up though.
I guess the thing that gets ones' goat is the $$ would indeed be higher if Fotolia didn't greed out and yank $$ out of the fotog.
1397
« on: April 08, 2009, 10:26 »
Mine is not as clearly defined.
Nov08 0.880
Dec08 0.780
Jan09 0.970
Feb09 0.673
Mar09 0.854
1398
« on: April 07, 2009, 19:55 »
Not bad at all for the first month really, ahead of FT, StockXpert, IS.
1399
« on: April 05, 2009, 18:30 »
It seems there is an exceedingly large number who think they should make less than a $100 per day. Did I read that right? Can anyone live for less than $100 per day and carry on a business?
1400
« on: April 05, 2009, 18:25 »
It took me about a second to figure out it was a cup of coffee ...
Which reminds me of something I've always wanted to ask: What is your avatar a picture of, Zeus?
It's a Turaco. I really should change it to a cup of cappuccino or perhaps a doughnut. Something a little closer to my personality.
Pages: 1 ... 51 52 53 54 55 [56] 57 58 59 60 61 ... 72
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
