|
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 - Noedelhap
Pages: 1 ... 52 53 54 55 56 [57] 58 59 60 61 62 ... 90
1401
« on: October 12, 2015, 09:07 »
What are your thoughts?
If Yuri Arcurs had any credibility as a stock photographer, he's lost it since his cooperation with Getty/IS. A completely biased review from a (now) non-independent photographer isn't worth the read.
1402
« on: October 12, 2015, 08:30 »
I expect the royalty for extended licenses via Adobe stock to be at 33% as well, so that would be $26.40? I'd prefer a price of $99 instead.
1403
« on: October 10, 2015, 13:55 »
As long as I'm getting a good royalty compared to what the buyer pays, I don't care how much money the agency makes from buyers who don't download all they can.
1404
« on: October 07, 2015, 17:35 »
How long before the sale is cleared, refund-wise? I haven't had a refund yet, but it would be annoying.
1405
« on: October 05, 2015, 15:52 »
They just put the final nail in their own coffin, then.
1406
« on: October 05, 2015, 15:51 »
Uploading is possible again since a few weeks. I still support them, despite low to non-existent sales. I don't think they'll ever flourish again, but I like their 52% and the simple uploading process.
1407
« on: October 05, 2015, 15:49 »
CS is doing just fine for me.
1408
« on: October 05, 2015, 15:48 »
Set it to maximum. It's very normal to price something according to its value. And extended licenses have a lot of value. You could appeal to customers who want good stuff for low prices, but in the end you're just cutting yourself short and devaluating your images. Over at SS, EL's sell for way more than $60 (netting you $28 per EL).
1409
« on: October 03, 2015, 17:44 »
Their ranking system is a joke. It is INTENDED to control YOUR commissions. Think of the payouts they would have to make to people who keep uploading content if their ranking system were honest. I could never get a high ranking there even when uploading 3,000 images. This system was adopted by Istock and 123 as ways to control commissions. By pushing new contributors they would pay less because they are in the base tier and lucky if they ever hit silver. With all the other scum bag moves FOTOLIA has done I am SOOOOOO HAPPY I am no longer with them. It is also hilarious that Mat is in here inferring that you sell your EL's at a lower price to get more sales. That is every agencie's go to logic when they want you to accept less so they can enjoy more.
Mantis, once again you are proving that you have no clue what you are talking about (despite being oh so experienced)...
This topic is about the weekly ranl which is a simple ranking by the number of sales during the last week. It has nothing to do with number of uploads or contributor level.
Yes it does. The more images you have, theoretically, the more sales. When more sales happen, your rank goes up. When your rank goes up, your rating goes up. When your rating goes up, your commissions go up. Get it now? Sounds like you haven't a clue about how to assess a business tacit from end to end.
And I forgot to mention that when they control the rank it really doesn't matter a discussion revolves around weekly, monthly, yearly ranks. Look at FT's shady history of misleading contributors. This ranking system is one of them. It's one of control. FT's control.
The weekly position/overall position is something entirely different than White/Bronze/Silver/Gold/Emerald tier system.
1410
« on: October 02, 2015, 10:54 »
Reply: "The previews probably appeared after we updated our search engine; however, there is no way to purchase your files on our API re-seller websites." Then why do they show up at all? 
1411
« on: October 01, 2015, 02:26 »
Probably one of the best in terms of conceptual execution and quality. The fact that it's repetitive doesn't matter, only the bottom line counts. And I think they're pretty successful, at least until those business concepts become outdated.
1412
« on: September 29, 2015, 12:24 »
It sounds like even more excuses and a lot of financial mismanagement.
1413
« on: September 29, 2015, 06:58 »
After I opted out, my images could still be found there. But they said:
"Your images were removed from all our API websites. You could only see the previews since we were working on our search filters. However, it was not possible to purchase your files there since your files uploaded directly to our website are available for sale only on our website. "
Now I can still find my images on ibudgetphoto (via imagenumber search and keywords) so I'm still wondering if they can actually be purchased. Above reply was from april 2014, so now I'm thinking it was another lie.
1414
« on: September 29, 2015, 06:50 »
My images did not show up again at partner sites after my opt-out, so that's something. Apparently my images can still be found there But they have reduced commissions a couple of weeks ago, so if I were you I wouldn't jump right back in.
1415
« on: September 29, 2015, 02:43 »
Nowadays it would be rejected at SS for 'poor lighting' and 'out of focus'.
1416
« on: September 20, 2015, 13:20 »
I find that hard to believe. What's in it for SS to single out contributors based on their earnings?
It's not singling them out, it's levelling them out. Huge difference. You expect a greater degree of overall "enthusiasm" from your contributors if they all get something. "You can please some of the people some..."
Enthusiasm cannot be measured, and they get plenty of images anyway, so there's no benefit for SS. In fact, you'd expect more enthusiasm if contributor actually see some growth in their earnings, instead of hitting the 'wall'. In my opinion, the 'wall' is simply an effect of diminishing returns because of oversupply, causing your sales to be eroded because your images get less exposure. Not because SS is screwing their contributors. They have better things to do than micro-managing earnings caps of individual contributors.
1417
« on: September 20, 2015, 10:57 »
So that's it then? Has Microstock Group forums been taken over by conspiracy nuts with tin foil hats?
1418
« on: September 19, 2015, 16:13 »
Possible answers to some questions (theoretically - I have no solid proof of anything, so this is a speculation):
- An agency can easily limit a contributor's exposure in search results. It's fairly easy to do, just some not too complicated code.
- Why would they do that? They are interested in getting fresh content daily. For someone starting now, it would be nearly impossible to sell anything, unless their new content is pushed up in searches. If someone's content is being pushed up, someone else's has to be pushed down. How much down? - now here is a big question. Some time ago I had an interview with SS's contributor's department, and first thing I was asked if I was happy with my earnings. I wish I said no (which was the truth - I feel I should be earning more with my portfolio), but I misunderstood the purpose and the context of the question and said yes. My earnings have been on that level ever since. It could be that they would pay you whatever they think you'd be happy with to keep uploading.
- Why wouldn't they display they "best" results to customers? Well, is there even such a thing with over 60 million images? It's A LOT of images, and even if most of them are mediocre, there is still A LOT of good ones to choose from even if they do cap people's earnings. Customers won't lose anything, and the agency would still get their sales.
Again, in the absence of any proof or statements from agencies this is all speculation. However, something's definitely going on, I wish agencies kept us informed about thing like that, at least we'd know what to expect. Most likely they won't of course, but I am fairly convinced that we're not dealing with the "let the best man win" environment like it was in the early days of microstock.
But whether SS pays one contributor $0.38 or another contributor $0.38 doesn't matter to them. Of course newer contributors are less expensive, but not by much. Why go through all the hassle of capping their most productive and most successful contributors just to save a few cents per download? They might even lose out, because the best contributors often produce the most valuable work (because of more experience, a better track record, etc.)
1419
« on: September 19, 2015, 13:06 »
I find that hard to believe. What's in it for SS to single out contributors based on their earnings? How does it profit SS by focusing on individual contributor earnings instead of optimizing their search algorithm? How high would the supposed earnings cap be? Would customers see different search results if contributors are left out? Does it apply to all search orders? Too many questions are left open. It doesn't make sense to me.
I think it's confirmation bias. I'm surprised the OP's conspiracy theory is getting +'ed so often.
1420
« on: September 18, 2015, 10:06 »
If there is such a market for it, why are they removing it?
You make it sound like there's any logic in iStock's decision-making.
1421
« on: September 16, 2015, 05:12 »
Video RPD is relatively low compared to other agencies (taken from http://www.dreamstime.com/sell-stock-photos-images, video tab): Level 0 (0 dls, older than 6 months): approx. $11 for HD, $22 for 4K Level 1(0 dls, new files): approx. $15 for HD, $30 for 4K Level 2 (1-4 dls): approx. $24 for HD, $49 for 4K Level 3 (5-9 dls): approx. $33 for HD, $66 for 4K Level 4 (10-24 dls): approx. $42 for HD, $85 for 4K etc. These are maximum values. As you can see, the first couple of levels are way below the industry standard. Then it gets better, but it's very unlikely you'll ever hit level 3. I didn't like the fact that my first sale would only net me $11 or $15, so I decided not to upload video to DT.
1422
« on: September 13, 2015, 12:34 »
I had the same thing sometimes. A series would be accepted, except for one or two images. Very odd.
I was able to resubmit them successfully a few days later, but your mileage may vary.
1423
« on: September 07, 2015, 18:56 »
Relevance is the only thing that matters, not quantity.
1424
« on: September 07, 2015, 03:49 »
Site is up for me, first time I opened it. Your website is full of nonsense, which I've seen before on several other 'scroll to the bottom' websites. Useless statistics like "78 Chewed up pencils". Such obvious 'wanna-be quirky hipster' image building. It would be more useful if there would be images and royalty schedules. 85% discount in September, 75% discount in October, 65% discount in November, 55% discount in December. So basically you're saying: don't buy credits now, just wait till December. How does that help you? Unrealistically big discounts, even for a pre-order. And you haven't even started yet. We know, we're crazy! Yes, you are. But not in a good way.
1425
« on: September 06, 2015, 18:54 »
It started off well for me with a Thinkstock EL of $24.02
Pages: 1 ... 52 53 54 55 56 [57] 58 59 60 61 62 ... 90
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
