|
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 - cthoman
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 ... 145
151
« on: November 29, 2017, 11:20 »
Running an agency is a pain in the behind, so most contributors don't want to bother unless it is just their own stuff. It's also difficult to get 20 people to agree on anything.
152
« on: November 27, 2017, 17:04 »
That's correct, rank shows someone's position compared to others but if someone would pay attention to what I said, it were clear that I was not talking about the rank itself as a measure of comparison.
I was talking about the relationship between overall rank and weekly rank of a single person, no matter what the numbers are.
Overall is relatively constant until you upload a huge number of new images, at least in my case. Weekly rank on the other hand is variable depending on sales so yes, this means money.
I hope I was not too mathematical for those few here who don't know math, but it is easier for me to describe an abstract notion in English this way.
I understood what you meant in the OP. I just didn't put much stock in the cap theory. I know mine can vary widely, although I don't pay attention to it much.
153
« on: November 27, 2017, 09:42 »
I thought it was a rank? Doesn't that mean me vs everyone else? It's doesn't mean more downloads, or more money, it's just how many I get vs anyone else. I could be the same and they went down, or I could be the same and somebody else went up. It's only relative numbers. Did I understand that? You can guess I don't care about rank, I care about dollars. My dollars have been up since Adobe bought FT. I don't know what my rank was, I didn't take reports or copy.
Correct. It is compared to everyone else, and the positions don't really matter other than curiosity.
154
« on: November 26, 2017, 23:58 »
Sounds reasonable, we don't know the maths, and can I ask, how much does this weekly or overall rank pay? Like views, I don't ever get money for those.
They are just download counts. So, a high weekly rank means you had a lot of downloads that week which probably translates to some money even if they are all subs. A higher overall rank means you have a high lifetime download count which will bump you up into higher percentage of the earnings.
155
« on: November 24, 2017, 00:03 »
Too bad it's going to take that long. I would have been happy if the list on the right, anyplace below 10 should be gone already. I'm not supporting them. I'm still surprised that so many people do. That just hurts our own interests and the general market, mostly our earnings.
Why? Some of those are the best ones. Small agencies that actually cater to a smaller number of contributors. Some of them are down there because they don't get 50 votes (or whatever the minimum is).
156
« on: November 12, 2017, 11:15 »
I guess it raises the question of where all the other images (person, grass, buildings) came from as well.
157
« on: November 10, 2017, 19:21 »
Ladies,
I'm not making this man up. He was a regular but is taking a break
Seems weird to be 'taking a break' but get someone else to make an extensive post on his behalf.
A bit like chap-door-run, leaving the dopey kid in the firing line.
I need to figure out how to take a break and have somebody else still do my work. 
158
« on: November 10, 2017, 08:50 »
I would expect GL to at least keep up with MostPhotos and Stockfresh. They pay 50% as well and I get a trickle of sales with them. I've even sold more this year on FeaturePics than GL and they've never sold much.
I guess as an illustrator I have the different perspective of experiencing a lot of different agencies move into selling vectors and it taking time to see results for the new format while they continue on getting good reviews from all the original contributors. You don't see the reverse a lot, so I guess it is a new perspective for photographers.
159
« on: November 09, 2017, 10:59 »
There are other sites I use that pay 50% and have reasonable sales, like Pond5 and Alamy. I don't believe the profit margins are that tight, if you sell enough.
Isn't some of that expected? Some sites sell video better, photos better or illustration better. Not saying that as an excuse because GL has probably been selling photos long enough that everybody knows they are there. Still, I chuckle a little when I see P5 in the top 4. I like P5 too, but it isn't the strongest seller for illustration. Alamy either, but they seem to be slowly finding their footing.
160
« on: November 09, 2017, 09:28 »
I've seen that before too. I wonder how often they have to refund those. They can't actually make you remove the image from other sites. I kind of wish they would just get rid of that feature.
161
« on: November 08, 2017, 17:16 »
I've been happy with the changes so far, so it isn't all grumbling over here. You guys hit my sweet spot of $10 RPD (which the whole industry should be at but is nowhere near). I'm interested to see where sales go over time. They are OK for me now, but better is always nice too. Plus, it isn't all on an agency to build sales. Unique content makes sales as well.
162
« on: November 07, 2017, 09:19 »
Selling all image sizes for the same price is their biggest mistake IMO.
That's one of the best parts (along with setting prices). I'm glad they aren't like every other agency. A few sales there actually add up to something.
163
« on: November 06, 2017, 23:03 »
I guess I haven't uploaded there in a while. Did they actually fix the mess that it was before and break it again?
164
« on: November 05, 2017, 09:36 »
Other than poor stats reporting, Adobe seems like an improvement. Although, FT wasn't that amazing to begin with, so it may not have been a high bar to clear.
165
« on: November 03, 2017, 08:37 »
The sad thing is you might actually make more money.
166
« on: November 02, 2017, 19:29 »
Don't do it, P5. It's nice having a handful of agencies with healthy prices that you actually don't feel guilty submitting to.
167
« on: October 28, 2017, 23:24 »
I think the idea is to let people set their own prices, like Pond5 have done successfully with video. So if you don't want to sell cheap, then you don't need to.
Setting your own prices always interests me. I'm not sure about the weird internet currency stuff. That's not really a selling point at all for me. Although, I'm not sure I'm invited to the party at all as an illustrator anyway.
168
« on: October 25, 2017, 14:42 »
Probably just some new 'contributor relations' guy at Getty, starting out with a survey so he has something for his next PowerPoint. Nothing ever comes of these things.
LOL. I can imagine that first day at the job and seeing the responses come in. Day 2 is probably sending out resumes.
169
« on: October 24, 2017, 20:01 »
That was fun.
170
« on: October 23, 2017, 11:54 »
LOL. Maybe I'm daft, but is just selling images for prices that make everybody money really so terrible.
171
« on: October 22, 2017, 22:58 »
It's pretty easy to run a portfolio site (if that is what we are talking about). Doesn't really seem any reason to have Shutterstock involved in that.
172
« on: October 21, 2017, 16:46 »
I don't think you understand what symbiostock was. Not the hosted pls form.
Anyways, I'm not interested. I don't have time or interest in finding my own buyers. That's why I split the fee with an agency. "Blockchain" sounds cool and trendy, but I don't see how that helps anything.
If people want custom work, they can just get in contact. I don't need a platform for that.
Yeah, sounds like the original Symbiostock. Where individual sites were grouped into networks. Unless, I'm misunderstanding the P2P aspect of it. It would be nice to have a new software platform to run my site on. Everything seems to get old and broken in a short period of time though.
173
« on: October 16, 2017, 10:36 »
"Sales Solution Manager" who has left wasn't positive. (emphasis mine):
"For some reason they keep bringing on new sales agents, which is taking away the only "quality" leads they have from the other agents. I can go on and on."
This sounds familiar. What exactly do they mean by product? Is that their sales packages, website or the images themselves?
174
« on: October 11, 2017, 22:39 »
Welcome back. 
175
« on: October 10, 2017, 08:27 »
Or just curate the larger catalogs with the talent and proper keywording you think works and would be useful to buyers. That would attract both a customer base on the buyer side that you could either make referrals off or give you some market to attract paying contributors. I've always thought the idea at PE was interesting, but I never saw the reason anybody would find my site there over Google enough for me to pay to play.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 ... 145
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
