|
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 ... 65 66 67 68 69 [70] 71 72 73 74 75 76
1726
« on: September 10, 2010, 19:58 »
You're still on double secret probation. 
*! I thought that was expired!
1727
« on: September 10, 2010, 19:57 »
In simple words, you are officially representing FT in certain way, and taking advantage of situation on IS to come here a try to make FT look like heaven and feel sorry for people that contribute there.
I should have clarified this before...I am definitely not officially representing Fotolia. I am a contributor just like you. I felt compelled to point out what to me has been obvious all along....that while the volume of sales at IS is higher than FT, the commissions and other aspects of Fotolia even after the changes they had made are far more advantageous to the photographers. As I mentioned before, I tried to upload to IS a while back before the exclusivity rules applied at FT and found myself very frustrated. I never went back. I am probably more well aware than anyone else that FT has pissed people off but the fact remains that at the end of the day I am making good money with them. Have there been changes made I didn't like? Of course. This business is evolving every day and the past 2 years I would say have been very dramatic as the money is very serious and we are considered more "legit" as photographers than we once were. I'm sure there are many more changes to come. I just wanted to remind people that 54% commission rates on $40 sales add up pretty quick is all. Peace, Mat
1728
« on: September 10, 2010, 17:15 »
I have to throw in my .02 on the latest Microstock controversy here. It's no secret that a lot of people have felt burned by FT on changes made in the past but in my opinion most, if not all the changes made had been done so with the sole intent of increasing business which ultimately had a benefit to us all.
So many people have asked me on many different occasions why I am exclusive to Fotolia. I received a call from a guy just the other day trying to recruit me to upload to his company. I told him I was exclusive and he said "Oh, I thought you were a Fotolia guy...not I-Stock." That made me chuckle and realize how few people are exclusive to FT like myself. Reading about the I-Stock Changes got me to thinking about why that is so I thought this seemed like as good a time as any to explain my choice.
Right now, as an Exclusive Emerald (equivalent to I-Stock Diamond right?) Photographer I earn a 54% commission on my sales. 54%! Not only is the commission high, but I set my prices at $5 for XS and $40 for XL so I'm getting a higher commission on a higher dollar amount. Every time I sell an XL file I get $21.60 added to my account.
As an Emerald Photographer I also have an Infinite Collection account to sell photos at even higher prices ($20 for XS, $200 for XL) with increased visibility and a 50% commission.
As far as I know, even non-exclusive commission rates have always been dramatically higher than those of I-Stock. I always found it shocking that so many people were so defensive of IS and their 20% commissions...now?
FT has an option for Image Exclusivity which lets contributors raise prices on individual photos. Of course you get the higher commission if you are an exclusive photographer but you can still get the benefit of higher prices on exclusive images even if not. This doesn't benefit me as I'm totally exclusive anyway but I thought I would mention it regardless.
I can upload as many images as I want as often as I want regardless of being exclusive or not. I heard there is some sort of bulk upload option for new photographers as well but I'm not too sure about that. When I dipped my toes in the I-stock water a few years ago I was puzzled and frustrated by the limits. I would never get caught up...ever! Not that I am now but being chronically behind is solely based on my procrastination through FT not on silly limitations they put on me.
FT pays commissions on promotional and free credits as though they were purchased. I heard that I-Stock does not do this? From what I understand they send out a lot of these promo credits to recruit buyers.
FT is the number one micro-stock site in Europe and is picking up speed around the world! I have always believed that FT has had my best interest in mind as their successes equate to my success. I would both love and hate it if all the top micro-stockers were at FT. Love it because the quality of imagery would be so high that the lions share of the buyers would have to be there too. Hate it because the competition would be so fierce I would really have to step up my game. I'm willing to do it if you want to give it a shot come on over!
For what it's worth guys, I'm sorry that you are getting dumped on so rough at IS. Especially those of you that are exclusive. If any of you have any questions about FT I'm happy to answer them. I'm not always a shameless cheerleader, I'll give straight answers to the best of my ability and if I don't know the answer I will try to find it for you.
Good luck all,
Mat Hayward
1729
« on: August 31, 2010, 10:58 »
This isn't going to impact you at all Cthoman. It appears that all your files are set to $1 for XS anyway. Take care, Mat This whole thing stinks of another one of Fotolia's "favors" to us. Lots of people want to delete their files, so we are helping you out by lowering the price on them. Then, when they sell, you can go through manually and adjust the prices (If you remember). And for your convenience, it will all be automated, so you'll never know it's happening.
Can I opt out of this now or do I have to wait for more details?
1730
« on: August 14, 2010, 16:05 »
In 2008 my sales dipped around 20% in August compared to July.
2009 was a 35% drop in August vs. July.
I don't know about the other sites but the August slow down has been consistent for me. September 2009 picked up considerably for me though (08 September was nearly identical to August 08).
Have a good one,
Mat
1731
« on: August 12, 2010, 22:26 »
They look great, nice job!
Mat
1732
« on: August 05, 2010, 16:26 »
Yep, it should be fine as long as it covers all the disclaimers the FT release does.
1733
« on: August 05, 2010, 15:32 »
To figure out your own sales stats in FT go to the Sold Files Tab and Click the ID link. That will sort your pics in order but you then need to do the math manually.
-Mat
1734
« on: August 05, 2010, 14:53 »
Some day I'll crunch the numbers to find out.
Unfortunate for you that FT does not provide those figures, although that has often been asked for... 
never thought in that.. it is true you cannot know how much a photo have earned there, really weird in fact!
You can, you just have to manually add it up which is very time consuming. Mat
1735
« on: August 05, 2010, 05:50 »
Regardless of the net, it's an impressive number of downloads for any one particular image. I've often wondered why buyers don't dig deeper to find shots that aren't used so often by so many people. My top 3 sellers are nearly identical shots from the same series and combine for over 1,500 sales. This thread has me very curious as to how much they've ultimately earned for me. Some day I'll crunch the numbers to find out.
Mat
1736
« on: July 21, 2010, 20:00 »
It would be inappropriate not to use those keywords.
I would put them near the top. Why do you ask?
Mat
1737
« on: July 21, 2010, 14:08 »
Way to go Lisa! Very well deserved as I think you are an amazing photographer. It is very encouraging to see you reach such a high level of success!
Congratulations!
Mat Hayward
1738
« on: July 15, 2010, 15:00 »
Wow! Amazing pictures Matt! You are certainly good enough to do entertainment photography professionally.
Mind if I ask what ISO and lenses (aperture) you used? They are tack sharp.
Thanks Lisa! I shot everything at ISO 1600, manual exposure ranging from about 1/125 to 1/250 at f/2.8. I brought 3 lenses...Canon 16-35 f/2.8L (used the most since I was so close), Canon 15mm f/2.8 Fisheye and the Canon 70-200 f/2.8L IS. Just one body (Mark III) swapping lenses during the show. One major mistake I can't believe I made...no earplugs! My ears are still ringing. -Mat
1740
« on: July 09, 2010, 14:09 »
My thought looking at it is the video camera was probably mounted on a tripod, set up by one of the guests. If it was a professional videographer, he or she would have moved out of the way to shoot the Bride and Groom as the photog was totally blocking the shot. Those of you that shoot weddings know you have to often jockey for position with the videographer to get the best shot. I always make a point to introduce myself at the beginning and come up with a game plan so we can all get the shots we need.
It doesn't look fake to me for my .02
1741
« on: July 09, 2010, 05:11 »
Does being exclusive at Fotolia gain you access to such events? Would you consider it?
No editorial options at FT for now unfortunately but the last time I checked editorial work doesn't disqualify my exclusive status either. I haven't tried to sell my red carpet stuff so I haven't looked into it lately. My "day" job has been giving me some very unique opportunities in the world of celebrity in particular with musicians. I've also had a bit of NFL and MLB experience I hope to add on to. No money in the sports but what price can you put on sideline access tickets eh? I've got a reasonable portfolio though I don't know what to do with it to earn money. Have a good one, Mat
1742
« on: July 09, 2010, 05:03 »
My goal shooting weddings is to be as unobtrusive and as "invisible" as I can possibly be while still getting the shot. I was horrified to see this guy walking down the aisle in front of them machine gunning his camera like that. What a distraction. It definitely sucks he fell in the water. I hope his gear survived and if not that he had backup gear to shoot the reception. There is a lesson in that video for us all..check your surroundings and have a plan!
1743
« on: July 08, 2010, 16:31 »
With the Shutterstock program aside is there money to be made in this market? There is a definite cool factor for sure but since I've taken my new job I've been shooting some pretty high end events including Red Carpet walks and I'm thinking unless you catch Angelina Jolie kissing Jennifer Anniston under a stairwell while Brad Pitt is holding hands with Lady Gaga any shots you get are a dime a dozen as there are typically a billion photographers grabbing the exact same shots. Where do you upload (standard) celebrity event photos and legitimately earn good money from? I am very curious about this. I have no interest in being a Paparazzi slimeball but if I am shooting an event anyway and have some usable shots I would like to make a few bucks in the process if possible.
Thanks,
Mat
Where did you get the idea that Red Carpet (access to events) has anything to do with "slimeball Paparazzi?
I don't have that idea, I didn't articulate my point well. I know you can make money being a slimy paparazzi. This doesn't appeal to me so it isn't on my agenda and I'm not looking for info on it. Shooting red carpet events is not sleazy. It's pretty basic and once you get past the initial novelty of it all, it is somewhat boring. My question is can you make money doing it? In other words, is there money in shooting Red Carpet events? If the answer in your experience is yes, would you please share with me how? It's an honest and sincere question and was not intended to insult anyone. Thanks, Mat
1744
« on: July 08, 2010, 13:19 »
With the Shutterstock program aside is there money to be made in this market? There is a definite cool factor for sure but since I've taken my new job I've been shooting some pretty high end events including Red Carpet walks and I'm thinking unless you catch Angelina Jolie kissing Jennifer Anniston under a stairwell while Brad Pitt is holding hands with Lady Gaga any shots you get are a dime a dozen as there are typically a billion photographers grabbing the exact same shots. Where do you upload (standard) celebrity event photos and legitimately earn good money from? I am very curious about this. I have no interest in being a Paparazzi slimeball but if I am shooting an event anyway and have some usable shots I would like to make a few bucks in the process if possible.
Thanks,
Mat
1745
« on: June 17, 2010, 14:36 »
He's right...it has always been two credits for non-exclusive xs files...It is 5 credits for exclusive XS files.
All the best,
Mat
1746
« on: June 13, 2010, 20:01 »
Mine started back up a couple of weeks ago. It had been probably a year before since I had been seeing them. I'm not sure what the deal is.
Mat
1747
« on: May 13, 2010, 16:41 »
I agree with you. For many it is a very respectable income and as an employer of over 100 people, most of whom do not make $50K per year I know it is a lot of money. I've been very fortunate (the harder I work, the luckier I get) to make a good living to provide for my family. Unfortunately, that has come at a huge price...65-85 hour work weeks, high levels of stress that I sometimes can't help but take home, not to mention spending 75% of 2009 over a thousand miles away from my family. I was just on the cusp of making the move to become a full time wedding photographer as I was getting more and more calls. I chickened out and made a big career change that severely limited my availability for weddings and cut deep into that income I had grown accustomed to. It turned out I would have been in good shape had I stuck with the weddings as I wound up getting more inquiries for 2009 than for all other years combined! Couple that with the increase in my income at Fotolia and things would have been well. The moral to my babbling you ask? It's going to be a risk regardless of where your comfort level is with income. It takes courage and some intestinal fortitude to go out on your own and make that decision. Even more when you are the sole provider for your family. My hat is off to those of you that have already done so and I am rooting for those of you considering it. I didn't have the stones to pull the trigger but maybe someday down the road. I'm beginning to believe I can do it long term even without weddings. Good luck all, Mat I think most of you people need a reality check: 75% of working people in the USA earn less than $50k, and 88% earn less than $75k (USA Census Bureau, 2008). Referring to $50k as "residual income" or mentioning it in the same breath as a McDonald's or student wage is way, way, way, out of touch with reality, as is regarding it as an insufficient salary to provide a good quality of life. From his grammar, I'm guessing that the OP doesn't live in the USA, which may make $50k USD even more significant. As whitechild said, if he was making that much he'd "be awfully rich".
To answer the question, I started doing this full time in Jan 2007 - with zero images and zero microstock income - and haven't ever looked back or regretted it. I'm fortunate to live in Canada, where healthcare is taken care of. For what it's worth, I agree with Microbius:
I would certainly go full time. Not because it is a lot of money-- what we are forgetting is that money isn't everything.
For me there is no better way to make a living, no boss, no awkward clients and flexible hours, need I say more
1748
« on: May 12, 2010, 09:59 »
I couldn't do it for that amount but it would be a good starting point for many I am sure as long as you had a solid plan in place to utilize your time as a legitimate full time job creating new and sellable images as well as uploading and keywording consistently.
I would assume that if you are competent (and you should be at a couple hundred bucks a day part time) that with the increase in productivity your work will also improve and your income should rise pretty steadily. I would be very wary and determined to ensure that I did put the work in however. Seems like it would be pretty easy to become complacent and relax with steady income flowing in on the work you have already completed.
Mat
1749
« on: May 06, 2010, 15:07 »
None that I know of unfortunately.
-Mat
1750
« on: May 01, 2010, 15:18 »
Let me restate this - the community aspect of things is in direct opposition to the business side of things, at this point, imo.
Well stated, and as my shrink tells me this is the fundamental quandary of the human condition - our needs are individual but our means of attaining them are social. Without an adequate number of competent competitors there would be no istock.
That was a good one! I might have to steal that line from you (your shrink)! Mat
Pages: 1 ... 65 66 67 68 69 [70] 71 72 73 74 75 76
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
