|
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 ... 55 56 57 58 59 [60] 61 62 63 64 65 ... 90
1476
« on: July 17, 2015, 07:55 »
Perhaps they're also moving over to the new Getty Forum.
1477
« on: July 16, 2015, 09:33 »
Hi,
I have about 300 images on Shutterstock and am starting to upload the images to Fotolia.
Does anyone have any idea or experience if it could mean a drop in sales at Shutterstock?
Generally speaking, no. Otherwise that would mean being an independent contributor is not worth it and everyone would be better off being exclusive. Surely there are some buyers who shop around, looking for the cheapest deal, but I believe most buyers tend to buy at the agency they're familiar and happy with. Uploading to multiple agencies means more exposure, therefore you'll get more sales.
1478
« on: July 16, 2015, 08:41 »
I want to know your thoughts on promoting your own video portfolio on YouTube, i.e. uploading watermarked comps of your footage/animations and providing a download link in the description to whichever agency you want viewers to go to (Pond5, SS, etc.)
Does it actually attract buyers or is it a useless way to promote things? I wonder if people looking to buy footage actually use YouTube to search for footage. However, if I could convince 1 or 2 potential customers to purchase one of my videos they found via YouTube, that would be worth a try.
1479
« on: July 14, 2015, 12:52 »
Now this isn't some newbie trying to make a few dollars, and willing to learn about the game. This is a professional team, who, let's admit it, should understand the business and (particularly in the case of graphic designers) know what sells at the moment.
Looking at the cheap quality and copycat images (can I say plagiarism?), I wouldn't say they're professional. More like a team of amateurs trying to make a quick buck, but who have no genuine creativity to come up with something truly original.
1480
« on: July 13, 2015, 14:05 »
I have yet to see the new forums, but I'm surprised people actually LIKED this old forum. I think it's a non-intuitive, hard to navigate piece of garbage, with the worst search functionality I've ever seen. Whenever I search for something, it digs up threads from 2005 without any way to sort the search results on date.
1481
« on: July 13, 2015, 13:58 »
kelvinjay says:
If anyone is having trouble finding the email that was sent to them in June - try a search for [email protected] - as that's the address where it came from. Or simply do a search for your iStock password and you'll find it all the same!
1482
« on: July 13, 2015, 13:47 »
My thoughts:
1. Don't upload to Colourbox, their policy devaluates stock images.
2. Your usage of words and fonts gives your photos a cheap look.
3. I've seen those 'finger faces' before, is this a copied idea?
4. Your business images aren't really original. I've seen those concepts many times before.
I'd say: don't get your hopes up. Focus on originality and image quality, rather than quantity.
Huh? Like Sean, I only saw 3 pics.
I saw 48 pics in his portfolio.
1483
« on: July 13, 2015, 13:40 »
My thoughts:
1. Don't upload to Colourbox, their policy devaluates stock images.
2. Your usage of words and fonts gives your photos a cheap look.
3. I've seen those 'finger faces' before, is this a copied idea?
4. Your business images aren't really original. I've seen those concepts many times before.
I'd say: don't get your hopes up. Focus on originality and image quality, rather than quantity.
1484
« on: July 13, 2015, 09:10 »
Great!
One thing, since the latest update, I get notifications from iStock reporting the same sale(s) over and over again, every 30 minutes or so. The balance doesn't update however, so it must be phantom sales?
Could not reproduce that but I have one more user reporting the same issue.
I'll keep watching.
Could be a temporary iStock-issue as well, since people are reporting balance fluctuations over at the iStock forum.
1485
« on: July 13, 2015, 08:58 »
thank you, much appreciated.
Is any batch/multiple submit tools that you will suggest for these sites. Is this FTP?
Thank you
Try StockSubmitter, works for many agencies.
1486
« on: July 12, 2015, 15:23 »
Great!
One thing, since the latest update, I get notifications from iStock reporting the same sale(s) over and over again, every 30 minutes or so. The balance doesn't update however, so it must be phantom sales?
1487
« on: July 12, 2015, 10:42 »
The only reason I'd have for deleting my portfolio is when sales are so low it takes more than a year to reach a payout. If the agency goes bankrupt in the meantime, will we get our money?
1488
« on: July 10, 2015, 15:45 »
Just got word on the forum that 4k is not at a different price point then HD! It is the same as now. They said they would not get into a price war but they just did for video! They are undercutting SS and most other places now!
I expected a low price, but certainly not this! They never cease to amaze me. That means $7-$10 for a 4K footage sale, unbelievable. I wouldn't worry about them undercutting other sites, though. They're no threat anymore. Their regular buyers and traffic are long gone.
1489
« on: July 10, 2015, 11:43 »
Another weird thing I noticed: their video platform is apparently incapable of handling MOV PhotoJPEG or MP4 H.264: 3840x2160, the preferred frame size, will be accepted with the Apple ProRes 422 (HQ) and Apple ProRes 4444 codec only.
4096x2160 will be accepted with Apple ProRes 422 (HQ) codec only. Name one other agency that limits uploaded 4K files to only 1 specific codec.
1490
« on: July 09, 2015, 19:15 »
I'm not gonna bother if the 4K prices are going to be in the $30-ish range (and HD remains in the $7-10 dollar range, or whatever sad price they have now)
HD prices are in the 50-60 dollar range. Compared to SS which is in the 68-79 dollar range (lower resolutions offered for down to $14). Both of those are for nonexclusive video, exclusive video at iStock is in the 150-170 dollar range. Getty video is in the 175-575 dollar range, 4k and HD is $575.
I meant our royalties, which is roughly 7$-$10 for an HD sale (non-exclusive). At SS the royalty is roughly $23 for an HD sale or $60 for a 4K sale (used to be roughly $90). In other words, unless a 4K sale will net me at least $50-$60 at iStock, I'm not going to bother.
1491
« on: July 09, 2015, 18:53 »
The thing that worries me most is that a Fiverr seller gets a bigger commission than the contributor who created the image. What are they thinking?!
Posted By Maulsmasher:
Does that mean the Fiverr gig owner, who gets 25%, will get a larger commission than the Getty/iStock contributor?
Posted by Lobo:
It means we get a percentage and fiverr gets a percentage. How they choose to allocate that percentage to the gig creator is entirely their call.
So no matter what we might think about Fiverr, they are less skinflint than Getty.
No surprise there.
Exactly. I think it's a disgrace and a big 'screw you' to all contributors. And that deranged Lobo acts as if it's totally normal. I'm somehow glad my iStock revenue is declining so rapidly, because eventually it's going to make the decision to delete my iStock portfolio a lot easier.
1492
« on: July 09, 2015, 18:18 »
I'm not gonna bother if the 4K prices royalties are going to be in the $30-ish range (and HD remains in the $7-10 dollar range, or whatever sad price royalties they're paying now)
1493
« on: July 08, 2015, 08:35 »
Since Fiverr is a cesspool of copyright infringement and a platform focused on the devaluation of images, video, animation and graphic design in general, it doesn't surprise me that Getty has decided to do business with Fiverr. Birds of a feather flock together.
The thing that worries me most is that a Fiverr seller gets a bigger commission than the contributor who created the image. What are they thinking?!
1494
« on: July 08, 2015, 08:23 »
The selling price is the price the buyer pays if he want to buy the full rights to the image. Naturally, this should be a higher price than the standard RF prices.
If you want to be able to sell the rights to your image, check the box "Sell the rights (SR-EL, SR-EL 1, SR-EL 3)".
You can use either the Recommended price (check that box as well) or set your own price.
If you never want to sell the rights, uncheck the box "Sell the rights (SR-EL, SR-EL 1, SR-EL 3)".
Okay, if i uncheck the box "Sell the rights (SR-EL, SR-EL 1, SR-EL 3)", than i should not think about the check box about the "set price" ? Does the box about setting the price is only for selling rights? So which means that if i dont want to sell rights, i can also uncheck the recomended price box, because it not matters?
Exactly. In my case the "Set price" checkbox is still checked, but it shouldn't matter if "Sell the rights" is unchecked. In my opinion, the "Set price" checkbox should be greyed out to prevent confusion.
1495
« on: July 08, 2015, 05:21 »
The selling price is the price the buyer pays if he want to buy the full rights to the image. Naturally, this should be a higher price than the standard RF prices.
If you want to be able to sell the rights to your image, check the box "Sell the rights (SR-EL, SR-EL 1, SR-EL 3)".
You can use either the Recommended price (check that box as well) or set your own price.
If you never want to sell the rights, uncheck the box "Sell the rights (SR-EL, SR-EL 1, SR-EL 3)".
1496
« on: July 06, 2015, 08:52 »
Personally, my June was pretty good, by current standards on IS - BMY for credit sales in fact, thanks to two ELs. But one swallow doesn't make a summer, as they say - it'll take a few more good months before I feel there's any sort of improvement in the trend.
Good to read that someone is at least stable.
BTW, your post in this thread, and the total thread, highlights the problem with iStock's management. No matter how stupid their decisions, they are always right.
If I were you, and no reply with a day or two, I'd deactivate and resubmit. This is totally insufferable: http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=365797&messageid=7108599
What the...?  (I don't mean that as a reaction to your post, but to the weirdly retitled image in that thread)
1497
« on: July 04, 2015, 06:49 »
It looks messed up. I checked some of my own files. Some keywords have been left out, some have been replaced with wrong synonyms ('scary' becomes 'skittish'), or have been translated to their Latin names ('human' becomes 'homo sapiens').
1498
« on: July 03, 2015, 11:37 »
Sales on iStock are horrible, compared to last year. If this continues I will be down 25% compared to 2014. Huge drop.
I blame the horrible decisions of iStock management and the September 2014 changes.
1499
« on: June 30, 2015, 17:31 »
The same number of sales, but higher royalties.
1500
« on: June 29, 2015, 05:18 »
As I am new to Fotolia, so far I have earned 3.56 credits. Is this money or not ?
If you have a US ($) account, it's $3.56 when you convert your credits into cash. If you have a European () account, it's 3,56.
Pages: 1 ... 55 56 57 58 59 [60] 61 62 63 64 65 ... 90
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
