|
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 - FD
Pages: 1 ... 57 58 59 60 61 [62] 63 64 65 66 67 ... 82
1526
« on: February 15, 2010, 08:50 »
I'd love to know how the process works. Any input would be appreciated. "Those who know don't tell and those who tell don't know." 
1527
« on: February 15, 2010, 08:45 »
Thank you for choosing to transfer your StockXpert credits into your iStockphoto account. That was intended for buyers, not contributors.
1528
« on: February 15, 2010, 08:43 »
The biggest issue I have with uploading to BigStock is their ridiculous automated category system Well that's simple; it's all people>women and places>beaches, even if your title/description/keywords spell loud and clear: man male classroom teacher. 
1529
« on: February 15, 2010, 03:34 »
Poser 8- Is output readily accepted by stock sites? - Is there a copyright issue about the derivative images made with a 3D model? - What is the learning curve before you can come up with decent illustrations?
1530
« on: February 15, 2010, 03:12 »
http://www.stockxpert.com/my_account
it does work. Or if I try to log in on the top right box on that page it doesn't work, but the log in box in the middle of the page does work. Correct, thanks. I deleted my images but I can still log in there although not on the top of the main page. I think I'll backup the earnings page offline as proof of my balance before they close that loophole too.
1531
« on: February 15, 2010, 03:04 »
I would like to see them consolidate the upload and review process for dual account contributors. A "Big Stock opt in" button at Shutterstock would improve everyones productivity. And get a clash between the two clans of reviewers with a different culture and acceptance rules? The integration of both sites is, technically and management wise spoken a very costly process that will inevitably produce many glitches, hurting sales and worrying buyers. SS already did some experiments last year by discouraging OD for some content/contributors and that turned out not too well. If Toyota would acquire Mercedes, they couldn't share the same production belt to make different models. The synergy can only be in developing common parts, sharing the dealers network, get some scale advantage out of shared marketing. All very marginal gains and a long term process. Microstock is very volatile and short-term. BigStock suffered a major blow after March 2008, probably because some of their major resellers broke down. Anybody remembers the big row after it was discovered that BigStock content was sold on some design sites for 70$ and we still got our 0.5-2$ commission? That was never sorted out decently, just swept under the carpet. Probably SS got it for a bargain. Most likely is the StockXpert scenario, where BigStock will serve as a redirecting front for SS with some perks for BigStock customers to join SS, pointing them to ODs. SS didn't acquire any fresh content with BigStock since most contributors are uploading on both sites. The only real asset that SS acquired are the BigStock customers. So why keep two different production belts, especially since BigStock customers are bleeding away by the hour to other sites than SS?
1532
« on: February 15, 2010, 02:17 »
The good news is that DT (after silently having the 30% in effect the past week) What 30%?
The reduction to 30% commissions for level 1-2 images they announced last year. The pill was a bit sweetened then by Achilles stating that it would be implemented gradually and only after careful follow-up of sales. It might even never reach 30%. Well it did... as some people on the forum found out.
1533
« on: February 15, 2010, 02:09 »
Is there any of you who opted out are in similar case? Yes me. Can't login any more, can't see any earnings still there of course. That means all proof is gone, and Getty deleted the accounting. Got no email at all they will pay out and when. Got no notice on Paypal of any payment from them. It's not my problem they are "overwhelmed". This procedure and the way it is handled smells like fraud. They should have kept SX accessible at least to check the balance due.
1534
« on: February 15, 2010, 01:37 »
I'd re-word this question to "Does any?" (at this moment I am aware only about IS) BigStock does. More on the topic: I know a high volume image producer that used to do micro-auditing himself by buying one of his own less popular images now and then at "suspicious" sites. I forgot what came out but I remember it was interesting to see how long it took before the sale was booked. Anybody in doubt can try that. It only costs the commission. Why not generalize this kind of micro-auditing and report the results in a dedicated thread? As for now, contributors just have to trust... You will have to make a separate buyer's account though, with the name of your "room mate".
1535
« on: February 14, 2010, 11:48 »
I would agree with that, but maybe SS bought BigStock to pump up their presence so they can sell to Getty. That would suck. Ahem...
1536
« on: February 14, 2010, 06:39 »
Why do so many people find that SS is their biggest earning site in dollars? Not because it has the highest return per download, or highest commissions. It's because they sell the most licenses. Aaaahhhh.... I think I'll put it in big red letters too  SS and TS both give 0.25$ to starters, yes. At TS you will be a starter till hell freezes over. At SS, you have a growth path and with a decent port you'll be soon on 0.33$. I'm for a while on 0.36$. Then, SS has regular ELs at 28$ and frequent ODs, giving an effective RPD of 0.60$ or so. TS will give a maximum of 0.80$ on image pack sales, so even with 50% IP sales on TS, you'll still have a lower RPD. Finally, since TS will only be accessible through IS, they'll throw your full sizes to the crocodiles, while at SS, most of us upload reduced sizes.
1537
« on: February 14, 2010, 06:23 »
Geez, amateur coding. They used the CSI content management system but left the backend admin interface exposed to the world...
1538
« on: February 14, 2010, 05:55 »
Cubestat domain value estimation:
Website Worth: $321,540.18
Daily Pageviews: 146,822
Daily Ads Revenue: $440.47
1539
« on: February 14, 2010, 05:27 »
Well they removed a pile of car images a while ago.
I am guessing they starting pretty close 1 on their images.
Check out Jon Oringer's images - they start counting at 20  My latest image (end last week) has an ID of 46369687. My first (2005) has ID 535896. Would that mean they have an overall acceptance ratio of 25%? I can't imagine those 75% would all be cars. Or are people culling their portfolio? That many went exclusive to iStock? 10,002,094 royalty-free stock photos 215,027 photographers (that past the entrance exam) = on average 46.52 images per portfolio.
1540
« on: February 14, 2010, 04:51 »
All the updating stats seem to have got a bit flaky in the last few days. Everything is off right now. Approved images don't show up after 24 hrs, # of sales different on all stats pages with at least 48hrs delay. No reported sales past 3 days (unusual for me). I think they are in a mess. Update: I checked the DT forum and some large sellers reported exactly the same.
1541
« on: February 14, 2010, 03:57 »
I hope we don't get ANY news. No news is good news The good news is that DT (after silently having the 30% in effect the past week) did not announce an IS scheme of 20% today. Tomorrow is another day. Hopefully, it will a good/no news day too then.
1542
« on: February 14, 2010, 02:07 »
I had been wondering what was up at DT. Hoped it was just a site problem and not my images falling off the face of the Earth My new ones have fallen off the face of the earth. More than 14hrs after approval (under review for 12hrs), they don't show up at my profile page (included # online there) and I can only see them in my management area. Sales are still 2 off on different pages and I didn't have any d/l the past 36 hrs, which in itself is highly unusual. Delays of several kinds run up to 48hrs there.
1543
« on: February 13, 2010, 19:22 »
I hope this time it's good news... There is no such thing as "good news" in microstock.
1544
« on: February 13, 2010, 18:17 »
9,997,213 9,997,246 9,997,592 9,997,875 royalty-free stock photos 112,984 113,378 new stock photos added this week Less than 3,000 away now, 15,000 added per day. I just wanted to be the first.
1545
« on: February 13, 2010, 18:08 »
If thinkstock doesn't work shutterstock will be bought out and destroyed. Aren't there anti-cartel laws in the US that would forbid that? If Getty bought SS-BigStock, there would be no meaningful competitive microstock agency left in the US, if we consider DT as European. And even so,
1546
« on: February 13, 2010, 15:26 »
I had CS4 for a while in its demo version on two PC's. The only differences I saw (but there must be more) are the preview of the clone tool, the better RAW treatment for Nikon, better navigating during selections, and the fact that all filters are 16-bit, unlike CS2. I didn't like the layout of the right toolboxes though. For me, the layout in CS2 is more handy. In short, the upgrade from CS2 to CS4 isn't worth the 200 euro for me, considering the very low yield of images on microstock. The jump from PS7 to CS2 was huge though.
1547
« on: February 13, 2010, 15:04 »
Getty is run by corporate "managers" that can't tell a photo from an illustration, and their loyalty is with themselves. This year they sell photos, next year they sell cookies. They want to please the shareholders that want short term ROI. Those corporate sharks aren't concerned with the long term. As soon as they have their bonuses, they move on to another pond.
Sites run by and privately/wholly owned by photographers themselves are different, since they have to work for long-term goals. iStock and the guys running it are in a very awkward position. They are (mostly very good) photographers and they love their child. On the other hand, they have to defend the Getty policy in public, as employees. They did a great job till know to keep the sharks out of the carps' pond and as long as they can realize this 50% growth, iStock is safe.
1548
« on: February 13, 2010, 13:35 »
The real horror scenario (more for IS exclusives than for independents) would be that the PP on IS becomes mandatory. As Getty obviously doesn't care really about its contributors, that might be a possibility when TS doesn't make enough profit fast by its meager content.
1549
« on: February 13, 2010, 09:11 »
I think you'd struggle to find an accountant willing to accept 'the customers' as an asset on a balance sheet audit. They all do, certainly for something immaterial enterprise as a web store that sells digital assets. What would the other assets be? No cars, production halls, offices, shelves, closets, patents. Even the servers are leased. The value of a domain name is determined by its clicks, and in case of an agency, by its customers and images it represents. Every image online for an agent represent the cost gone into QC and reviewing it. I would say both customer base and QCed portfolio of an image agency are its only assets. As for portfolio, they've thrown that asset away since it's not moved to IS, but its has to pass by IS QC again. Even the stuff they moved to TS is "selected" which means re-review. As for customers, less than 100% will go to IS, so yes, they destroyed assets.
1550
« on: February 13, 2010, 03:04 »
I'd hate to be a buyer, SS just accepted an image of mine with keyword "brainstorm" - so I searched newest first and page after page is filled with models gathered around laptops or standing in random groups doing nothing but flashing too white teeth - also loads drawing meaningless flow charts on transparency boards.
Having worked in the corporate arena for 20+ years I know we don't work in offices cleaner and brighter than operating theatres and everyone walks around with faces like smacked arses (apart from Friday afternoons).
I keep hearing that buyers want realistic images of serious people doing serious work in non-studio locations, but don't see much of that being uploaded.....is this a gap to be exploited or not?
Hahaha, good stereotyping. But when it comes to buying, those designers always choose the Colgate perfect girl on her PC that looks like it just came out of the box. Maybe because advertising shows the world bigger than life?
Pages: 1 ... 57 58 59 60 61 [62] 63 64 65 66 67 ... 82
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
