|
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 - ShadySue
13776
« on: May 04, 2011, 05:57 »
The queue of files awaiting inspection at the moment is 63358. Pretty high, but a couple of weeks ago, it looked as though it was going to top 100,000, though I didn't catch it actually hitting six figures.
I'm exclusive and have several editorial files from the 28th not locked for inspection yet and a couple of main collection files not locked from the 29th, which is slow. I'm guessing independents are a few days slower than that.
Don't always expect files to be inspected in strict upload order: they can be two or even three days 'out' at times. Also they can be locked and unlocked several times during the wait. Neither of these necessarily means anything, though sometimes a delay means an inspector has requested a 'second opinion'.
13777
« on: May 03, 2011, 09:01 »
I would never report a good month while others report a bad one. Don't seem tasteful to me. And, btw, May has begun very well.
Conversely, in the Good Old Days, I remember some people saying they were embarrassed to post poor results when everyone else seemed to be donig well.
13778
« on: May 03, 2011, 05:33 »
I'd be interested in the UK forum too, any chance of seeing that link?
It's probably a 'special' link only open to the very top professional photographers who remember the 'good old days' well and have lots and lots of personal contacts who keep popping up to buy images directly when they can't find them on the agencies.
Yeah, the very top "hundreds" of UK togs who are now on iStock. Not open to Nobodies.
13779
« on: May 03, 2011, 05:32 »
Youre forgetting something! these are just the ordinary forum people reporting, what about the thousands that never report, that cant be bothered with the forum. Well in the UK, theres another forum or conglomerate and there every single one, hundereds are just down and out.
I'd be interested in the UK forum too, any chance of seeing that link?
Me2
13780
« on: May 03, 2011, 04:46 »
First page?? oh well fair enough then, begging you pardon, I was thinking more of the next 11 pages. If you notice, the ones reporting BME are mostly Bronze/Silver cannistors with small ports, etc, which doesnt give any indication at all. Its like when somebody here say they have a fantastic day!, like 3 dls with a port of say 100 files. means nothing.
Actually, if I had 3 dls per 100 files in my port that would more than double my second best day ever, so I guess I'd be having a fantastic day. The only day which would beat it was the day in my first year here when I had a small port and someone bought 17 of my monkey photos at once (all XSm).
Just because someone doesn't have a big port with widely lauded photos or a gold or diamond doesn't mean they are "nobody".
13781
« on: May 03, 2011, 04:45 »
double post. Sorry.
13782
« on: May 02, 2011, 18:45 »
Zazzel? Never heart of it, I can't even google it up. Awesome jump last month.
Probably Zazzle.
13783
« on: May 02, 2011, 13:36 »
I had thought I'd wait out 2011 before deciding about dropping the crown; I have been hoping that things would turn around - that IS couldn't be that self destructive.
Fear not, they're partying in London while iStock burns.
13784
« on: May 01, 2011, 18:30 »
I wish they post the RC targets already... Expecting a bump to 30% in 7-8 days if they stay the same as last year.
Unless I'm wrong, if you hit a target for this year, your percentage will go up as soon as you hit the target.
The sometime-to-be-announced targets will affect our percentage for NEXT year.
Not true, they'll get the missing earnings when RCs will be announced. I've read this on IS forum
This is what I've read: official post by Roger Mexico, iStock's Spindoctor: "As you meet each "Next Target" number, your chart will update with the next target and corresponding royalty rate. Once you reach the target for a royalty rate higher than your current percentage, you will immediately bump up to this new number and start earning this higher percentage."Taken from the article: http://www.istockphoto.com/article_view.php?ID=951
13785
« on: May 01, 2011, 17:34 »
I wish they post the RC targets already... Expecting a bump to 30% in 7-8 days if they stay the same as last year.
Unless I'm wrong, if you hit a target for this year, your percentage will go up as soon as you hit the target. The sometime-to-be-announced targets will affect our percentage for NEXT year.
13786
« on: May 01, 2011, 14:08 »
There's a thread on iStock which has raised doubts, but has never been answered by admins.
The start of the thread was this post, dated December 11th. It's been bumped several times with a request for official clarification, which has never been forthcoming.
Note that it is not uncommon for two people asking the same question to Support to get two conflicting answers. Also, some advice from Support (on various other issues) has no backing from the ASA and seems to be 'made up out of their head'.
Notwithstanding that, here's the OP from Dec 11th:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I just wanted to share with you this information because some time ago there were threads telling that Facebook was OK for exclusives.
My models always ask if they can upload images received from me to Facebok (when the shoot is TFCD).
I also have a personal Facebook profile fan page where I would like to put web-sized versions of my images. I agree Facebook gives a great visibility and it is nice to get potential new contacts/clients this way. I see that many exclusives upload images there, even inspectors and admins. Some exclusives even use the images with the iStock logo (Download a comp) on personal sites and on Facebook.
For a moment I thought - well, if they do it, then it should be ok. Still I wanted to be sure. So I asked support several times about Facebook and showing images on web in general (what size, yes or no for personal and iStock-logo watermarks etc). They told me they had especially consulted iStock's legal team about this. So here is the reply:
As for facebook, when you upload an image, you represent and warrant that you have full rights to the image, and are in a position to grant facebook a perpetual Royalty Free license. So in this respect, your models, or any customer who purchases the file should never be uploading the images to facebook, as they do not have any rights granted to them.
As for photographers, technically you are the copyright holder, and are able to grant these rights, however you are essentially granting facebook redistribution rights without compensation. Watermarked images with the iStockphoto watermark should not appear on facebook or any other live site. Using facebook to advertise your iStockphoto collection is generally not a good idea, because you are giving away rights to your images and opening yourself to misuse or piracy which facebook will not protect you from.
In short, I cannot tell you that it is OK for you to post images to facebook, however if you choose to do so we may or may not take any action. Models or customers however should not be posting any content to facebook.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Several contributor posts suggest this is not correct, but nothing official has been posted.
13788
« on: May 01, 2011, 05:20 »
Istock exclusive.
BMY for $$, because of 2 ELs. Better than April 2010 for $$$ - no ELs April 2010.
Dls down on March 2011, $$ up.
It would have been so much better had they not clawed back the EL exclusive bonus and I got my canister change bump.
DLS:
April 2011: 106
April 2010: 143
April 2009: 179
April 2008: 253 (sic!)
Anyone know why they've as good as stopped print advertising in relevant magazines? I was getting plenty of downloads back in the days when I saw iStock adverts everywhere. Seems odd to imagine they weren't cost effective. Couldn't they even have half-page adverts, if not the double page spreads they used to have?
13789
« on: May 01, 2011, 05:10 »
so how are they earning any money then?
Flickr Collection at Getty Images.
So I guess Getty contact you and ask you to provide MRs AND/or PRs if they choose your pics?
13790
« on: April 30, 2011, 15:39 »
Sure, flickr's great to find pictures from people who just walk around shooting and upload random things from their day. If that's what they want...
I'm guessing such as Nat Geog don't have much need for models in studios and setups. Horses for courses. Years ago, a guy I met showed me a super photo he had which Nat Geog had sourced from his totally personal website, which looked as though the oft-mentioned "12 year old nephew" had done in FrontPage. No matter, it was the photo they needed, and they paid what I assume was the 'going rate'.
13791
« on: April 30, 2011, 09:18 »
I sell only on IS and more then 50% of purchases are from the USA.
Where did you get that figure? The last time I saw an official figure, which was ages ago, it was c40% from the US.
13792
« on: April 30, 2011, 05:47 »
I've been with Alamy a few months, and I recently had my first sale - a $40 RF sale, no less! I'm not accustomed to that much money for RF! On other sites, I'd have to rack up 100 sales or more to get that much money.
Was that $40 to you or $40 total? For newbies, it's worth noting that on Alamy, when they talk about the value of a sale on their forums, they talk about e.g. a $100 sale, which is the total price, of which we get either 60% (if sold directly) or 40% (if sold through an agency). To be fair, also note that you can get $40+ sales on micros, e.g. iStock via ELs. And conversely that for some uses you'll get less on Alamy, e.g. for the Newspaper Use scheme, than you would with an EL on a micro (but only if the print run was over 500,000!). (Note that you can opt out of newspaper sales if you choose). Finally, it's your life and your business, but I'd seriously reconsider sites that regularly returned me 40c or less per sale. Tiny sales are always possible, e.g. with XSm size, but not that regular.
13793
« on: April 30, 2011, 05:11 »
I have been browsing Alamy's stats page looking at what popular and I notice that, for a one month period, there are not that many sales!
If I sort for sales or keyword searches, many of the top results seem very low. Am I using it correctly?
How do I best use those stats to my advantage?
Thanks
Chad
The system is very primitive. The notes tell you that sales don't register unless the actual visit which elicits the view gets the sale. If someone marks a photo and returns to buy it, that doesn't show up as a sale. The stats are only taken from a selection of Alamy's top buyers, not all visitors or even all buyers. The order of the search is relevant. For example a search for High Street Anytown won't show up in the stats for Anytown High Street. (This is a real pain if you're trying to check out what the popular searches are for Anytown). Be aware that the search feature is also very primitive. I've repeated over and over here my astonishment at such 'hits' I've had, like "Elizabeth House" because my first name is Elizabeth and there was a house in the photo, and "office party" because I have a photo of the head office of a polictical party. Note that although your pseudonym will show up in searches ("Joe Bloggs" will show up in searches including Joe, Bloggs or Joe Bloggs), the date doesn't (so if your photo is of April in Paris, make sure you put April in the keywords). False hits, even when it's the fault of the system and not your bad keywording, hits you in Alamy Rank (but that presumably affects everyone equally). New one this week: a hit on a search for "two rats" puzzled me, but it was a photo of two people walking in front of the Canyon des Rats. Finally, check Alexa for Alamy on a comparison with the Big 4 micros. I would love Alamy to do better. Have you ever seen an advert for Alamy? I certainly haven't, although iStock's advertising is almost non-existent these days (my dls there were much better when I was seeing their ads all the time). But, as they say, "it is what it is". When you read on the Alamy forums that people have 'good months', which can mean 'more than five sales', they usually have many thousands of pictures uploaded there.
13794
« on: April 29, 2011, 20:28 »
Regardless of what the license is called if a designer can find a suitable image on Flickr under a commercial license they can use it.
Clearly with a caveat emptor and caveat vendor if some MR or IP issue was in a photo which was used commercially.
13795
« on: April 29, 2011, 16:39 »
Just one low-average sale and one newspaper sale which I know of but hasn't come through yet, but will be low $$ - tiny use. I've even got the tear sheet.
13796
« on: April 28, 2011, 12:12 »
... If they set them to low then they give away the farm. ...
The only people giving away the farm on a continuing basis are the IS contributors. Nothing short of splitting revenues 50/50 will change that fact.
Which micros, that actually sell at decent prices and at good volume, split 50-50 or better?
http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/agencies-with-fair-commissions/
That only tells of the commission, not of the volume of sales or sales prices. 50% of very little is still very little.
13797
« on: April 28, 2011, 10:04 »
... If they set them to low then they give away the farm. ...
The only people giving away the farm on a continuing basis are the IS contributors. Nothing short of splitting revenues 50/50 will change that fact.
Which micros, that actually sell at decent prices and at good volume, split 50-50 or better?
13798
« on: April 27, 2011, 03:55 »
Actually, my one vice is MSG; when I take a break I check-in here. iStockCharts is just the topic of this thread; this community is so much into stats that one must do one's homework before posting else one is found to be a fraud, poser or lurker.
That probably applies only to the anonymous.
13799
« on: April 26, 2011, 19:06 »
VI - Don't you have anything better to do that worry about istockcharts?  Obsessing about charts makes you go blind.
13800
« on: April 26, 2011, 09:54 »
I'm pretty sure that iStock would accept your original bag [1]. I can't see why they wouldn't accept the paper bag either: I've got a brand label carrier bag in. What's been discussed above is not about iStock but LV's apparent litigiousness. Thank you for reply.You are right. But this time i am asking if the quality is ok to submit. Since the bag is made in paper. when you zoom th pic looks not clear.. which makes me confused.. I am pretty sure too that this will not have a copyright issue by the way.. [/quote] Trying to shoot things around which i think may sell well. [/quote] It all depends on which inspector you get, but I know what you mean about the paper; I've had a few printed on paper acceptances I wasn't sure about beforehand.
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
