|
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 - etudiante_rapide
Pages: 1 ... 55 56 57 58 59 [60] 61 62 63 64 65 ... 79
1476
« on: October 03, 2014, 12:01 »
This isn't really that kind of business. But there's plenty out there for you to learn from.
jonmkay, consider urself lucky! he seldom answer thread like this . the best mentor u can find has already shown himself 2 u. hint hint he has 7 pluses so far 
1477
« on: October 03, 2014, 11:57 »
Stockxpert?
ah yes, stockxpert. thx much sgoodwin. btt, it 's high season , so it's not unusual to see an increase in earning at dreams..slumber.. comatose world 10 sales after 10 months of one sale per month. yayyy !!! (cough cough). seriously, i wish they would wake up... they used 2b an excellent site. meteorology says the global-warming worsens, so perharps the ice is melting and comatose is slowly moving into dream state.
1478
« on: October 03, 2014, 11:51 »
the numbers to the right of this page says it is. last time i read it was slipping down close to 92, 90. today it says 96.8 so maybe ss finally got their act 2gether . hope so. yayyy ss rocks !!! ... just kidding. 
1479
« on: October 03, 2014, 11:46 »
I would need 18,000 to 20,000 images, but, sales on Shutterstock aren't as consistent as they used to be. I used to be able to know almost exactly how many sales I would get on a weekday. Now it's up and down more.
Hi All,
Just a quick share in case it is of help. We uploaded 3,200 images 6 years ago we have not uploaded since, last month was $1,007 at Shutterstock. In the six years those 3,200 images have returned $95,800 at Shutterstock. If people share numbers we can all get a much better idea of what we can expect from our efforts. Hope this helps.
Cheers,
J
the first poster sums it all up . Mr. Jonathan Ross said repeat 6 YEARS AGO, HAVE NOT UPLOADED SINCE  ie. it worked 6 years ago . not today since new images are scant earners. my case is the same, ie. consistent earners were uploaded many years ago. and robhainer's point i agree too. uploading xxx,000 today will not make an increase in earning in equal expectation six+ years ago.
1480
« on: October 03, 2014, 11:39 »
i find this ironic, even coming from leaf himself.
why should this be a hypothetical question when we can extrapolate from real earners
from the sean locke to yuri arcurses to dolgachoves etc
Using Sean, Yuri, Dolgachov, Monkeybusiness and the like to suggest what someone will make on Shutterstock is like using Brad Pitt, George Clooney, and Julia Roberts to figure out what you will make if you go into acting.
LMAO, hey... we can't dream, can't we? seriously, good point.
1481
« on: October 02, 2014, 17:25 »
Stockal is a PERFECT example of a start up who wasn't ready to start. While there were plenty of mis-messages, the biggest red flag for me was 78% commission. I think Sean said it right.....it's not sustainable. But there were other deterrents for me, too. All of the retitling and re-descriptions, etc. on my 3,000 images. The resizing - yes, no, yes, no, I don't know. The categories - yes, no, yes, no, I don't know....etc. These kinds of responses make my personal comfort level queasy at best and that's why I wasn't about to give it a go. Then Jack said bye bye. That didn't help either. I am ALL FOR NEW, COMPETITIVE sites who have a real differentiator, not just commission. We already have those in P5, GL, SF, etc...50%-55%. Stocksy & Canva come to mind as having more differentiation.
Something just didn't feel right I all I am, saying.
jack whatshisname did an elvis , no doubt , because he got the middle finger from us here... like so many new sites. playing devil's advocate, i really don't think we can cheer for his quitting us ... because even with the new sites u mentioned, mantis, they r not making anything incredible either if u look at the right column on this page. all the aforementioned, all single digit after what? how many years? i like to wish dt, alamy, big, to at least get into the mid %-age like 50 % after so many years. as for stocksy canva which i cheer much for their success, even they too could turn out to be the next veer, if u know what i mean. still , stocktal is not a dark horse either. without ss we would all be better off flipping burgers, really.
1482
« on: October 02, 2014, 17:17 »
i find this ironic, even coming from leaf himself. why should this be a hypothetical question when we can extrapolate from real earners from the sean locke to yuri arcurses to dolgachoves etc i know it is about ss and when sean locke was earning big money, he was with IS and no doubt could have earned less with ss being that he just joined. also, that exclusives of IS are difficult to extrapolate with ss since they earn no doubt alot more with IS ie before the great eff-up when the owner sold it to big gorilla. guerilla G still, the number is more realistic if u took these real people, don't u think? 
1483
« on: October 01, 2014, 12:20 »
This is my last post on this thread. I wish you all well.
Jack Stocktal. the only way 2 give us the middle finger is to have your talents come in here to tell us they made sales. that alone will even make Mr. Locke eat his words p.s. Mr. Locke, it's not meant to slight u, but more so 2 let Jack know that we r all interested in any agency that sells. btw, how is Stocksy doing with sales, Mr. Locke
1484
« on: October 01, 2014, 12:16 »
this is the first time i hear someone complaining about this !
to all of us at SS, seeing zero on the first day of each month is what we all wish for.
seriously, u will not wish to ever see a c/f every day #1 of the month.
ever !!!
1485
« on: October 01, 2014, 12:12 »
2 me, dreamstime should be re-named comatose-time it all started to fall apart that day when they rejected anything more than 2 similars and when they introduced likes for fb. shame, as this was an agency aimed for success to unseat IS and SS. serbian got cocky and now look where they r? frankly, i wish they resurrect from their comatose, as they used 2b my best earner, during the days of that other potential which got hijacked by IS. forgot that agency's name already. i think everyone old here will help me remember . it was that agency where we used to promote each other's images and we were earning well with them too. good agency, good PR, good everything... until IStock bought them and killed it.
1486
« on: October 01, 2014, 12:06 »
They are your files. You can give them away for nothing if you want to, provided you're not bound by any contract which forbids you to do so.
Why you would want to sell cheaper than SS beats me, but you can do it.
well said Sue. heavens, in a phase when most of us are looking to make more money in microstock, we have someone here who is promoting to earn less. u r unique my friend whoever u r but as Sue says, it's ur work, u can undercut yourself all u wish to. then again, why not just go be a squegee kid at the street junction? u make a lot more money that way
1487
« on: October 01, 2014, 12:00 »
I can't believe that anyone would even bother offering something so obviously time wasting and irrelevant - but for what it's worth for anyone new happening upon this discussion:
Your first priority should be your images - usefulness and technical quality.
Your second priority should be assembling a complete and relevant list of keywords. Come up with a useful title.
Nonsense claims about magic numbers of keywords or title words are just that.
one again , well spoken . but every once in a while, someone wants to sell horseshit secrets of my successand the web is full of horseshit secrets of my successwhich in the old days we used to call them snake-oil. oh btw, i have a fail-safe method to making lots of $$$$$$$ it's available to anyone for a P.O. of a quid shhhh, don't tell anyone, after u receive my method, ok?
1488
« on: September 16, 2014, 12:46 »
i have never found a site that will reject you for having both color and bnw. i prefer to do my own monochromatic version because not everyone is satisfied with simply desaturating a color original. some sites too prefer the original monochromatic instead of a desaturated color pix. u r right, some subjects do take on a life on its own in monochrome. i find when shapes and lines and shades are too distracting in color, they become more meaningful in black and white. like paul simon used to say "kodachrome gives us those bright white colors"; then again ansel never did think much of kodachrome
1489
« on: September 16, 2014, 10:21 »
No, it's never too late to work like a sweatshop worker to earn enough for a coffee or two every month.
correction PaulieWalnuts, these days sweatshop workers actually earn a lot more + dorm perks = free bed , pail of water & face-towel to wash urself every morning, + medical coverage = empty pail under bed for employees with incontinence + free coffee in factory
1490
« on: September 16, 2014, 10:13 »
Bad bad bad and badder...............
i think the proper word for it is ... Bad bad bad and badder bladder
1491
« on: September 16, 2014, 10:10 »
ETA: We purchase a license from our contributors each time we use your images for our own marketing. If you read the agreements you'll find most (if not all) microstock agencies reserve the right to use your images for their own marketing without any compensation to you, the contributor.
I'm not saying we're better, but it's all the little things like this that add up to a respectful relationship.
ok then , Mr Torrens, ... then let us say it
...
u r better
1492
« on: September 14, 2014, 11:43 »
As has been pointed out earlier (in this thread? maybe another, but within the last 24 hrs) iS's exclusive rating on the poll has fallen off a lot.
Reading iS's July and August threads shows most people with rapidly falling dls and $$, other than newbies and a tiny handful of oldies - a continuation of a trend since they introduced subs in April.
OTOH, we don't know if/how many people were maintaining or increasing sales, or just having a 'summer slump' rather than the major crash, because they might keep quiet for fear of copy-cats.
thx Sue, yes, i think that was my first impression. u don't come in to the forums to complain when u have good earnings. regarding ur opening statement, even that with quote (rapidly falling earnings), IS exclusive numbers here still surpass SS. maybe we r not getting all the story of how bad good IS is , for many some ie. scare them away
1493
« on: September 14, 2014, 11:01 »
according to the poll results here to our right,
IS exclusive 138.8 vs SS 91.7 (and sinking)
does it mean that IS is doing much better than SS???
if so, IS is still not doing badly. just wondering. perharps exclusives can tune us in on that.
(thx in advance)
1494
« on: September 14, 2014, 10:55 »
1495
« on: September 14, 2014, 10:45 »
Back when peter started stockfresh he stated that categories were useless and that's why he did not integrate them into stockfresh. He would know since he used to run stockxpert for so long. So I don't think stockal is sacrificing and value whatsoever by killing categories.
yes, i remember stockxpert . that was one agency that would have succeeded if it had been left alone. pity!
1496
« on: September 13, 2014, 17:43 »
they paid for it, so just be happy u got a dl .
1497
« on: September 13, 2014, 17:39 »
100 vectors on Pond5 for 8 months. 1 single sale.
Same 100 vectors on Shutterstock = $200 per month easy.
Going to answer no.
so i guess , based on P5 pricing (between 2.50 and 6 for smallest , 25 and 10 for the largest) u only need to sell 8 to 20 largest size to earn the same $200 p.m. with P5 +1 ... Mantis They pay fair. They just need more buyers.
1498
« on: September 11, 2014, 13:03 »
That's done mate, got the email 10 minutes ago. Good call actually, need more constructive stuff like that. Also found objects is now objects as suggested. They took an hour to decide if they should send it to me...
Keep your particular suggestions coming.
cheers Jack. i like it when a new site is open to improvement, as we all have growing pains with our maiden voyage. as Jo Ann Snover mentioned at the on-set, any site that is promoting more earning than pennies and subs is always welcome. your coming in here at Tyler's site is daring, and as you see here, not everything that is said is meant to be personal, but more so, in the interest of all contributors here. of course there are exceptions, but really, the world is big enough for everyone and we cannot be the flavour of the month for every cousin's cousin's cousin (to quote another commentor here on msg). all the best to Stocktal.
1499
« on: September 10, 2014, 21:43 »
Sue, where did u find that section re owning the rights?
I didn't say 'owning the rights'.
Their front page, pointed out by starling, says:
"When you take purchase of a Stocktal image, you own it (the single instance of the image NOT the copyright)"
IMO, it would be more helpful for buyers to understand they they are buying a licence to use the image within allowed parameters. They don't 'own' the image in any sense, just have the right to use it as specified.
Someone who 'owns' something can do what they like with it, including give it away. The verbiage should make that absolutely clear.
ah, ok. it was not in the linked page i attached earlier. thx Sue! yes, i agree, it's much like the problem we have with RF, and many ppl think it means using it for free. or with the case of certain newbie models who thought that since u asked them to sign an MR it meant that u ask them permission to transfer the ownership of "their" photos to you. they are supposed to be based in Australia, Stocktal 15 Winterton St 250 Hallam 3976 Melbourne Victoria AUSTRALIA so one would assume they speak English. last time i heard they do down-under
1500
« on: September 10, 2014, 20:32 »
http://stocktal.com/pages/customer-agreement.htmli just looked at the customer's agreement, and here it did not mention anything about transfer of ownership. it looks similar to all the other sites re. the contributor retains the ownership. Sue, where did u find that section re owning the rights? re: free images. all i can find is where u open an application to submit 10 images for approval, you have the options to choose - RF, RM, then at the bottom after keywords,etc.. Free, Editorial. so i suppose when they offer 500 free images, they r giving the clients the choice of these images where the contributor selects the FREE option. i cannot see why anyone would give anything away free, so i would think they are doing what dreamstime do, offer to give the rejected images free. but i like to hear from their official spokesman about this , of course before submitting anything to them. hopefully, the delay in coming back to us is to correct what Jo Ann has pointed out so profoundly , as always. i would love to have another choice to add here, viz, Canva, Stocksy, Alamy, Pond 5, 500px, anyone who is working away from subs is always welcoming. and given that there is something to amend for new sites.
Jack, pls acknowledge Jo Ann's pointers, as we are all waiting to join if we get the go ahead from her. me at least
Pages: 1 ... 55 56 57 58 59 [60] 61 62 63 64 65 ... 79
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
