|
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 - MatHayward
Pages: 1 ... 57 58 59 60 61 [62] 63 64 65 66 67 ... 76
1526
« on: March 07, 2012, 16:47 »
$ 100 is just figurative matter, so I am surprised with your calculations ...
It represents only my desire for new technologies and abandoning dependence on oil ...
I just wanted to send a message that "moral" people should not build their own standards on other people's suffering!
Huh, I guess I'm still a bit confused because what you just wrote seems a little bit different than the first post you made opening this thread. In that post you said " But we are talking about RPI, PRD, intoxicated with our "gentle" lives, angry if oil jumps 1% ..."
That statement along with the title of the thread I interpreted to imply that you perceive us (when I say us, I mean those of us from the United States posting in this forum specifically since you mentioned our silly discussions of RPI and PRD) as spoiled or "gentle." I didn't catch the part about your desire to see technology advancements in there. Oh well, I guess it's my mistake. Oh wait...that last part of your last quote where you said "moral people should not build their own standards on other people's suffering!" Who exactly are you referring to there? I don't want there to be any more mixups. Could you please elaborate and let me know who you are referring to with that statement? Thanks, Mat
1527
« on: March 07, 2012, 14:22 »
Hey people, I like America!
Oh hey wow, so you are a good guy after all! That's great news. So I guess the only thing I'm confused about now is your hope that the price of gas will increase 100X. As far as I can tell the only thing that would happen there is the global economy would crash and burn. Millions of people would lose their jobs and be unable to provide for their families. Sounds like you love us Westerners so clearly that can't really be your "hope" can it? There are 3.78 Liters in a gallon. If gas was $100 per liter that means it would be $378.00 per gallon. It would cost me $9,450.00 for a tank of gas. I would need 27,794 subscription sales per week to be able to get to work and back. If you "like America" how can you hope for that. Sorry, but I choose to take your hatred personally. I wasn't complimenting the photo of yours I linked above but rather expressing concern that your true "hope" is revealed there.
1529
« on: March 02, 2012, 01:02 »
1530
« on: February 26, 2012, 14:44 »
Just saying that 40% as a percentage alone is still higher than what many microstock agencies offer.
40% of what though? Like I mentioned above...right now we get 50% but it's 50% of a deeply discounted sale. It seems there are more "promotional credit" sales than regular sales at 123 so the way I see it I'm getting around 20% of a bargain basement low price regular sale as it is. If we are forced to pay for their marketing in addition to a drop in commission you have to ask yourself what's the point? Any sale there is one sale that otherwise would have happened at SS, DT, FT or IS. I know FT does a lot of promo credits but they pay us the full commission rate regardless. This should be the industry standard in my opinion. We don't get to choose how much these guys send out in promo credits. At the very least we should be able to opt out of selling our images with promo credits. I never agreed to that unless it's buried somewhere in the fine print.
1531
« on: February 25, 2012, 16:45 »
Actually, Alex told us this: "With regards to sales, we're looking to more than double the figure. 2011 was great for us, we're looking to make 2012 greater. Ultimately your sales as a whole will more than just improve." Maybe it's a load of bs, but that's a far cry from suggesting they said they can't sustain their growth.
I've got a bridge I'm interested in selling you. Talk is cheap. Have sales doubled for you there in the last year? 10 months to build up? That means that a year from THEN is when you would get the higher commissions. That's assuming they don't change their mind again. The only thing consistent about 123rf is their lack of consistency in their message(s). Why continue to build this site up and take away from the sites that charge more and ultimately pay more. I just went through my sales at 123rf and am finding commission amounts with more variance than even DT. A few examples... For an XL file I was paid $1.72 Are they selling for $3.44 now? For an L file I was paid $1.12 implying a $2.24 sale Then another L file paid me $1.30. Why was this one sold for $2.60? Medium file paid me $0.60. Sold for $1.20? Now I get a Large sale commission at $.91. Really? Small size pays me $0.40 and on and on...as far as I can tell I had two medium sales that paid me $1.00. Every other sale is a very partial commission rate. Way more sales are discounted than not. I am not getting paid 50% now. Next year this site has strong potential to be the lowest paying site out there. Now they are just pretty much tied for that category. Do these sales stats mean if they give away free promotional credits to encourage a new buyer they are not paying me any commission on those downloads?
1532
« on: February 20, 2012, 14:04 »
These do look pretty great. I had bought and since broken a cable to fire a camera remotely for my PWii's that was very handy. Now I can focus with them too? Very cool.
I have to say, I enjoyed watching the lighting setups in action from these guys as much as I learned about the new toys available.
Great video, thanks for sharing it!
Mat
1533
« on: February 19, 2012, 13:57 »
This is an excellent post that brings up a very important question that needs to be answered. Are we eating the cost of discounts offered to buyers? Add the discount to our commissions and we are in very bad shape here. I am mad at myself for trusting the hype and ignoring my gut feeling on this site. I have no reason to upload new images to 123rf considering they probably wont be reviewed until the changes take place anyway. You can bs us all you want. I sure hope you arent bs'ing yourself too. Another unhappy contributor here.
One thing that hasn't been touched on much is that the 123RF commission % is based on the price the buyer paid for the credits and not based on 1 credit = $1.
It appears that 123RF seems to quite heavily discount their credit packages.
From a quick review of my last 100 credit sales, 308 credits were required for their purchase.
One would assume that at a 50% royalty that the commission would be close to $154, however the actual commission received was actually $126.
This represents an average credit discount of 18% given by 123RF to its buyers, which takes a substantial chunk out of our commission earnings.
I have had some XXL and XXL TIFF sales where the discount that 123RF must have given to the buyer is close to 60%.
Based on an average discount of 18% (from review of my last 100 credit sales) our sales are currently already being sold at what is effectively a percentage much lower than 50%, by hiding it behind buyer credit discounts.
If 123Rf are planning to increase sales dramatically as Alex says, how much of that is going to be at the cost of the contributor, by large credit discounts to buyers, even before they cut the commissions.
The proposed cut in commissions coupled with the fact that our dollars received are often based on substantial buyer credit discounts is just one step too far.
Alex if you are out there, I would like to here your reply to this.
1534
« on: February 15, 2012, 15:28 »
Whenever a business has leverage over something (employees, distributors, etc) it will almost always take advantage of the leverage to optimize its financials.
The HUGE, glaring difference between this move by 123rf and other sites that have made similar moves is that 123rf doesn't have the leverage you have referred to Paulie. I know I've only got around 1,000 images in my port there so I'm not one of their big shooters by any stretch of the imagination but still at 1,000 pics I have yet to earn even $40 in a month. Based on all the love and hype for 123rf seen in so many threads here, my expectations were far higher. As a result, if asked what I think about 123rf my answer would be "I don't." The drop in commission equates to very few real dollars for me at this point. The devaluation of my images by offering them so cheap could be far more costly.
1535
« on: February 15, 2012, 11:36 »
Price changes are very sensitive, we cannot just raise prices willy nilly. But we will take things under advisement and we'll improve from day to day.
Alex, Why are you setting your sites so low? You've got 10.5 months to work hard and build up a reputation amongst buyers that can separate you from the rest and justify a "Willy Nilly" price increase. Have faith in yourself. Heck, you will even have video to offer! Mat
1536
« on: February 14, 2012, 16:12 »
All...
Good Luck and put your helmet on. You guys aren't big enough and in my opinion haven't garnered enough loyalty to make a crazy, vague, indecisive move like this. The back and forth, contradictory messages have rattled my confidence in you. I hope you guys can get it together. As I've mentioned before, I see potential with 123rf but at this point in my opinion it's drifting away. Mat
1537
« on: February 13, 2012, 16:46 »
It's a system wide rollover for simplicity's sake,
So to make it easy on yourself you will be reducing commissions for all contributors on January 1, 2013. Am I reading that correct? Please consider increasing the prices of the files if you intend to decrease the commission. Mat
1538
« on: February 10, 2012, 16:12 »
"Many stock image agencies, including many of our direct competitors, already include a clause in their license that allows "sensitive uses."
Let's not forget that Shutterstock is politely asking for something that is the norm from smaller agencies and competitors and they plan to pay well, so it's yes from me and thanks for asking!
Does anybody have an example of which sites do this automatically as a standard practice? Thanks, Mat
1539
« on: February 09, 2012, 17:48 »
A few months ago I got an email from a brothel in Germany asking if they could use a picture of my wife for their web page. The image was exclusive on FT and their terms of service prevented the brothel from using it. I was a bit flattered they wanted it but my wife didn't seem to think it was such a great idea. I don't know why, I've paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to be with her  Don't tell her I said that! Anyway, I later learned there was a pretty big demand for images from those types of places and that the microstock sites aren't real accommodating. For some of you guys that shoot girls (and guys) in provocative clothes (or lack thereof) it could end up being a very profitable move. As for me, I'm just not prepared for the conversation that would take place from some random model I shot asking why she is in a 1-900 number ad in her local paper. Mat
1540
« on: February 02, 2012, 02:33 »
Hi All,
We can allow your files to be deactivated (not on sale) and then deactivate your account. However, we have had instances when photographers literally told us that it's a crime to keep even a backup copy of their files when they leave. So which is which? To make things simple we just made a rule when you go, we'll delete all your files, it's much cleaner and simpler to explain in this manner.
So which is it now? Do advise!
Alex.
I think I know where you are coming from here Alex. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. That being said, this whole thing has a very "Ready-Fire-Aim" feel to it. I would hope that you have at the very least a legal consultant in place to help you guys make decisions vs. relying on a photographer telling you it's a crime to keep a backup copy of your file. Reading between the lines of your post I am picking up that it is impossible to make everyone happy. This is most unfortunately true in most every business in every industry. I wish you the best of luck here sincerely as I believe 123rf is a site teetering precariously on the line of potential success. With the existing commission structure and the (too) low prices it's probably a huge challenge to remain profitable. Change it and you run the risk of pushing out the photographers that aren't making enough to stay truly loyal at this point as it is which also creates a challenge to become competitive. The way you are implying it is going to be done is also implying a Grandfather clause that in all reality probably can't remain in place for a long time. A result is that you could be setting yourself up to really burn some of your most loyal members down the road. The lack of real information with the hints and innuendos is in my opinion making it look like you guys are really struggling to figure out what to do. Sometimes you've got to just make a decision and own it. Even if it's the wrong decision it might be better than not making a decision at all. You said to advise so here it is...Raise your prices, lower your commissions. Make the dollar amount we earn higher on a lower percentage for photographers and earn more dollars yourself. You've got the database, you've got some visibility and a bit of momentum...use it.
1541
« on: January 28, 2012, 15:51 »
Is $30 about an average month for you there Luis?
Nov 28$
Dec 32$
Jan 28$
Thank you for sharing that. To be totally honest, that's more money than I would have expected from them for most everyone.
1542
« on: January 28, 2012, 15:22 »
Is $30 about an average month for you there Luis? I'm very curious as to what qualifies a site in the majority opinion as showing potential in a real and tangible Dollar amount.
$100 a month? $500? $1,000?
$5?
I would be SHOCKED if anyone was making real money at Deposit Photos.
I am sure there are many doing some "nice" money, if I do 30$ I am sure plenty are doing 10x that
1543
« on: January 28, 2012, 14:55 »
I'm very curious as to what qualifies a site in the majority opinion as showing potential in a real and tangible Dollar amount.
$100 a month? $500? $1,000?
$5?
I would be SHOCKED if anyone was making real money at Deposit Photos.
1544
« on: January 28, 2012, 13:58 »
There are 2 possible attitudes one can have. One is to scorn the agency, and the other one is to just take it as it is.
I think this is a great quote. Because there really isn't much of an alternative. As a lot of you know I'm pretty new to uploading at sites other than Fotolia. I am making less than $100 a month at Dreamstime right now and to me the reason is pretty clear. I've got just around 600 photos in my portfolio where with SS I started the exact same time and have over 2,000. There is a little bit of fear of uploading to DT because of their policy to lower your upload limits with excessive rejections which as has been thoroughly discussed come quickly and often regardless of the quality of the image or the ludicrous comparison to a moderately similar image. So to avoid having my upload limit lowered for whatever reason, I let images sit in my queue un-submitted. I am aware this is stupid because by doing so I'm not even maximizing my upload limit as it sits. I like the site. I'm getting to like the concept more now of the increased price based on sales (it took a while for me to appreciate it). I believe there is a lot of money to be made there. I just see it as a real challenge to build a portfolio there that will consistently bring in large payouts. As it stands, I put it second to last on my list of priorities when submitting images. Mat
1545
« on: January 27, 2012, 12:10 »
I had put a deposit down to hold my place in line for a 1DX at a local camera store. As time goes on I'm getting sticker shock in advance so I called them. They already had a list going for a 5D Mark III. I switched my deposit over. Couldn't get a straight answer as to whether the list was in place because they knew something or if it was just speculation. My guess is the latter. Either way, I hope a definitive answer comes sooner rather than later.
1546
« on: January 14, 2012, 21:34 »
My infinite collection photos don't fly off the shelves either but the lack of quantity in the sales is definitely made up for with the higher sales and percentage.
Now that I'm thinking of it I really should shoot more aggressively with the Infinite collection in mind.
Mat
1547
« on: January 14, 2012, 21:31 »
Hi Sandeel, Have you tried setting a custom white balance in camera? I find that my flashes don't always match exact color temperature with my studio strobes but it doesn't matter typically because no matter what even if I'm only using my studio strobes or even just one I always set the white balance manually. I use the Ed Pierce Photovision target to do it. I still shoot RAW of course because it's never just perfect and I like the flexibility. Customizing the white balance takes a lot of the guess work out though. I don't think -21 is a huge swing towards green or red either. If the pic looks right then go with it. Be sure to color calibrate your monitor though so that it looks right on your screen and everyone elses  Good luck, Mat
1548
« on: January 14, 2012, 16:58 »
These images have been there since the beginning of the Infinite Collection. Going on a few years now.
1549
« on: January 13, 2012, 16:58 »
I'm still using CS2. It does everything I need it to. My actions are set and in place, noise reduction software, all that fun stuff. I think it would be a giant pain in the tail to upgrade and I can't think of any tools I need. I suppose that makes me an old dog doesn't it?
Still using Lightroom 1.1 too. That I probably should upgrade at some point in time. I'm just too much of a tightwad.
1550
« on: January 13, 2012, 16:47 »
Shoot support an email. The files will probably appear at some point but I'm pretty sure they can do a refresh for your portfolio to expedite the process.
Good luck,
Mat
Pages: 1 ... 57 58 59 60 61 [62] 63 64 65 66 67 ... 76
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
