|
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 - StockManiac
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12
176
« on: March 01, 2007, 09:21 »
You can't please all of the people all of the time.
Obviously, no matter what the default search is, it will affect submitters. Some submitters will gain, while others will lose.
You are correct, that the current default sort order (by downloads) markets images that have more sales, and thus those images will benefit. So submitters that have images that are popular will gain, while submitters that don't have many sales will lose.
The old default sort order (by newest first) marketed new images. The problem there is that you might get one or two sales and that is it. You basically have to keep uploading in order to get more sales. Once you stop uploading, the ride is over. So submitters that don't upload images all the time won't sell as much.
Either way, someone will be affected.
So to me it should come down to total sales. For StockXpert, this is about making money. IMO, if sales are up 30%, then that is a good thing.
This will give StockXpert more money to market. More money to market everyone's images: yours and mine. And it will allow them to put more money back into the site and create more features.
That is why I say let this run its course. Give StockXpert a chance to make some money so that they can help all of us benefit.
177
« on: March 01, 2007, 08:33 »
Just wanted to let you gyus know that we realize this new default ordering is not a viable long term strategy, so we will be changing it.
If sales are up 30%, why change it? Why not let it run its course?
178
« on: March 01, 2007, 07:03 »
| Jan | Feb | | IS | 55% | 50% | | DT | 15% | 17% | | SS | 13% | 13% | | StockXpert | 6% | 13% | | FT | 10% | 7% | | LO | <1% | 1% | | BigStock | <1% | 0% |
179
« on: February 26, 2007, 18:43 »
The reason why they are prohibiting this is because the creator could potentially take the users passwords and take the accounts funds. Of course we know Daneel wouldn't do that.
My understanding is that the program only stored passwords locally and it never transmitted information to any "home base". And if he were planning to do that in the future, then why would he use his real name and give links to all of his stock accounts? The fact of the matter is that they don't have any legal right to stop him from creating a program that can access their site. The only thing that they can do is stop him from using their logo. But they can bully him, since they know who he is, and threaten to remove his account from their site. If only he had done his program anonymously, then they would have had no recourse, especially since he lives half way around the world from them...
180
« on: February 26, 2007, 18:11 »
I find it very interesting that they are quick to sue someone that is trying to help others, but they wouldn't help a photographer the other day who had an image used illegally by a newspaper (see here for more details http://www.microstockgroup.com/index.php?topic=961.0). What's this world coming to? SS is my favorite stock site, but this just left a very sour taste in my mouth.
181
« on: February 23, 2007, 07:29 »
I would bet that they have already chosen the 1 millionth image, but there is no way to prove that...
182
« on: February 13, 2007, 13:00 »
LOL! I can hear the rejections coming: "Sorry, but we have too many of these" 
183
« on: February 12, 2007, 15:52 »
In my opinion, SS has the best inspection policy in the business.
They basically check that an image is "technically" excellent. They don't try and second guess the customers needs with statements such as "This is not stock-worthy" or "We don't need this" or "We have too many of this". As most of us have learned, it is next to impossible to predict what will sell and what won't. And if you can tell the future, then please tell me who will win the NCAA Basketball Championship (so I can make some real money)!
If you have read any of the threads by designers, they basically state that they are always looking for new and different images, which means you can never have too many of anything.
And if you ask most of the artists (on this forum or almost any other stock forum), most of them will tell you that SS is their biggest seller.
So, if you want some good advice, change your inspection policy to accept anything that is "technically" excellent. You'll be doing everyone a service.
184
« on: January 23, 2007, 06:47 »
and they never gave him that childish rap on the knuckles for posting in the wrong forum thread that everyone else cops.
They definitely have a double-standard over there. Admin are allowed to pimp their images and create threads for themselves. But try to do the same and you will be lambasted and ridiculed, and your thread will be locked faster than you can keyword an image.
185
« on: January 23, 2007, 06:45 »
No offense to anyone, but DT is full of BS. Some of their rejections are complete crap and this "we have too much" garbage they feed photographers is pathetic because they end up having 3/4 as many pictures as SS and IS. No offense taken and I totally agree. There have been quite a few times when I received the infamous "we have too many" rejection and when I did a search on their site, less than a dozen similar photos appeared. What a crock! And then when I resubmitted them again a couple of weeks later (with absolutely no changes), they accepted them. As I stated in another thread, I think that they have a power-complex at DT. They are rejecting lots of images that are being accepted and selling at other sites so that they can feel more powerful.
186
« on: January 20, 2007, 07:49 »
FreezingPics:
I respect your opinion, but I think there are some major differences in the subscription plan at SS and DT, and I don't think that you can compare the two.
1. A subscription at DT is $89.99/mth, and the buyer is allowed to download up to 10 images/day for a total of 300 images/mth.
A subscription at SS is $159/mth, and the buyer is allowed to download up to 25 images/day for a total of 750 images/mth.
The first thing that you might notice is that it will be a lot easier to download 10 images in a day than 25 images. Thus, most subscribers will probably max out their downloads at DT, which means that there will be a lot of .25 royalties (which will cut into the higher-priced individual royalties).
2. If a user downloads all 300 images at DT, it will cost DT $75 in royalties. Thus, DT will make ~ $15 at the least on the subscription. So DT NEVER loses on a subscription, whereas the artist does.
If a user downloads all 750 images at SS, it will cost SS $187.50 in royalties. Thus, SS will actually LOSE $28.50 at most on a subscription.
This shows that SS is relying on the fact that a subscriber will NOT download all 750 images, while DT is thinking that a subscriber might actually download all 300 images.
3. The break-even point for a buyer to consider a subscription on DT depends on the resolution size of the images that are purchased.
For example, if a buyer purchases 23 max-size images (> 8 MP) in a month, it would cost them $92, so it would behoove them to purchase a subscription. Not only would they save a little money, but they would then be able to download another 177 max-size images at NO additional cost. IMO, the decision-point is actually much lower.
For example, if a buyer was going to purchase 20 max-size images in a month, it would cost them $80. But for an additional $10 more, they can download another 180 max-size images. So I believe that anyone that is planning on purchasing 15 or more max-size images in a month will consider a subscription. If this is true, then the artists will lose out tremendously (since 15 max-size images would payout a royalty of $30, whereas 15 images via subscriptions will only payout $3.75 in royalties).
4. I think that most people are assuming that the subscriptions at DT won't make much of an impact, because they are very seldom at this point. But I think the new plan will be very popular. It undercuts SS and will steal away many customers from that agency. Personally, I think that SS is one of the best agencies out there. They have the best customer service in the industry and they truly respect their artists. For the most part, SS will accept any image that is technically good. They let the buyers decide if an image will sell or not and they don't give you a rejection that states "not suitable for stock". The only criteria that they seem to reject on is noise. While this can be a pain at times, at least you know where they are coming from. Most artists have no clue as to what the other agencies are looking for.
DT on the other hand is becoming a nasty agency. They don't take their artists opinion into consideration (unless some of the big guns get together to complain) and they make implementations without interaction with their artistic community. For example, take their "editorial" image implementation. DT demanded that logos be removed from images and that identifiable people would need model releases. Artists tried to notify them that a newsworthy image shouldn't be altered and that it goes against the very idea of photojournalism. But did DT care? Absolutely not.
Or take one of their implementations last year, where they raised prices but wanted to keep images online for a minimum of a year. DT wouldn't have changed their policy if it weren't for some of the big guns threatening to remove their portfolios. They then reduced the requirement to 6 months to appease everyone. When people asked about what would happen if they wanted to go exclusive at some point with another agency, DT said that they would gladly comply and remove images for extenuating circumstances. Well, that was a bold-faced lie. There have been quite a few artists that have tried to remove their images for extenuating circumstances and DT has NOT complied. They have forced artists to keep their images on DT against their own will.
Because of all of this, I would hate to see SS decline, while DT grows.
But that is just my opinion...
187
« on: January 19, 2007, 18:19 »
I used to like Dreamstime a lot, but I don't trust them anymore.
First, they seem to have a power complex. They lock threads almost as much as iStock and they are very rude to their artists. Some of their biggest supporters have jumped ship and quite a few others have told them to shove it as DT seems to lack any sense of customer service.
Second, they seem to be very sneaky about their implementations of new release. You might have noticed that the way they implement things is to first add the new issue in a way that makes it seem great to artists. Once artists have accepted it, they then implement the new version within a year and slam the artists that they say they so love.
For example, take subscriptions. The first time they implemented subscriptions, the royalty was 0.50/image. The artists thought that it was much better than SS' royalty. Now, less than a year later, DT is changing the royalty to 0.25/image. A 50% pay cut.
A second example is their implementation of Extended Licenses. At first, they had a royalty of between $50 and $150. Once again, something to appease the artist. But now, DT plans on cutting that royalty to just $25. A pay cut of between 50% and 600%!
A third example is their implementation of the Free images. At first, the only had a Free Image of the Day. Artists lined up to try to offer a free image because it would bring them some free marketing. But now DT plans on opening up a whole Free Image Section that will have thousands of images for free that will compete against images for sale. An infinite paycut!
Finally, as many of you have noticed in this thread. They have awful reviewers that make up reasons for not accepting photos. There have been many times that I have uploaded images and had them rejected. I waited a week or so and reuploaded them (without ANY changes) and they were accepted. I suggest that you all do the same. They obviously don't have any sort of inspection standard and are just trying to reject a certain % of images so that they can all feel powerful.
Well, as they say, "every dog has his day" and their day is coming...
188
« on: January 18, 2007, 11:21 »
Are they down again?
They seemed to be up this morning, but I can't seem to access them now.
Maybe they need to take some Viagra in order to keep it up!
189
« on: January 03, 2007, 08:31 »
FYI: LuckyOliver has over 126,000 images...
190
« on: December 21, 2006, 11:57 »
Well it looks like Fotolia is about to go over 1 million images.
Even though their site says it is nearing 2 million, we all know that they exagerate greatly on their site.
Don't believe me? Just look at their image sizes: medium, large, and xlarge. Where is small???
191
« on: November 29, 2006, 06:45 »
yeah salaries are probably one of their biggest expenses (assuming there are a few people working there).
They have at least 9 staff: Bryan Zmijewski - Head Honcho Robert Konves - Lead Designer Joel Michael - Developer Jill Goodell Amy Maven - Publicity & Marketing Jeremy Britton - Director of ZURB Hunter Block - Business Development Ryan Wilke - Web Designer Nichole Nye That is a lot of mouths to feed. Even if they make only $35,000/yr., then you are talking about $315,000/yr in salary overhead alone. And salaries are probably much higher than that, considering that they are based near San Francisco (which has some of the highest property values in the world). And that figure doesn't include anything else, such as office space, hardware, software licensing, internet connectivity, etc. It ain't cheap to run a business.
192
« on: November 29, 2006, 06:13 »
it seems like they are working somewhat hard at least, and that there is more than one person involved which often means there is wages to pay and the site HAS to make sales. But there is the rub. First, as many of you know, salaries are usually the largest cost for a company. And from what I am hearing thru the grapevine, they aren't making many sales. Most of you that are reporting hardly have any sales. Here is a short synopsis of this thread recently: 637 images - 7 sales 120 images - 9 sales 90 images - 0 sales 500 images - 66 sales So that adds up to 1347 images and 82 sales. If we assume that they have 50,000 images and extrapolate the sales, you end up with 3,048 total sales. Even at $5/sale, that is barely enough to cover one persons salary, let alone a whole team. Second, LuckyOliver has pretty much missed the biggest sales season of the year (Christmas). A large percentage of sales come from the holidays. My prediction, they won't last another year...
193
« on: November 09, 2006, 07:41 »
And yet they have images like this: http://www.crestock.com/image/5573_Finally.aspx
(Warning: Do not click on this link if you are of a sensitive or squeamish nature)
That image pretty much sums up Crestock for me...
194
« on: November 01, 2006, 13:17 »
It is possible that Kacper is trying to throw everyone off the trail by providing disinformation...
Or maybe not...
Who knows for sure?
195
« on: November 01, 2006, 07:50 »
I whole-heartedly agree.
There is no reason that an agency should take 80% of the profits.
Here are some ideas to get you started:
1. I believe that you would need to gather a consortium of submitters with large portfolios to make a difference. If you could get a few dozen members with over 1000 images that would be a good start.
Once some of the larger submitters joined, many smaller submitters would fall in line and join.
2. The consortium would need to wield their power against smaller agencies first. This would strike fear into the hearts of the larger agencies. You don't want to pick on an agency that is too small, because you might put it out of business. But you also don't want to start on a large agency, because if your first attempt fails, then people might disband.
For example, I would start with Fotolia first. They have some of the worst royalties in the business. Not only is the royalty percentage low (@ 33%), but their average payouts are small as well. For me, they average 0.49/image (if you don't include Extended License sales).
Their Extended Licenses are also among the lowest in the business ($6.60), and there are no limits to their licenses (i.e., they allow unlimited runs).
3. IMO, the best way to "strike" would be to stop uploading for a while (such as a month). This would drop sales at the agency, since many buyers sort by Newest Images. The drop in sales would gain the attention of the agencies real fast.
Anyway, those are some of my thoughts. Any feedback is welcome...
196
« on: October 25, 2006, 19:32 »
First - Yes, there are limits on their extended licenses.
You might want to do some research before you make such claims. The following quote is from Fotolia admin (@ http://www.fotolia.com/forum/?thems=4466&step=0#6918): "The extended license does allow a buyer to place the image on an item like a coffee mug or calendar and then sell the image as a significant part of the product. This image may be placed on multiple items at once. Their are currently no printing limitations for this license such as 50,000 or 100,000 copies."So, let me say it once again, there are NO limits on an extended license at Fotolia. That is why Fotolia gets lots of Extended licenses (because they have the lowest prices in the industry and there are no limitations). And while you can raise the price of the Extended license when you achieve a new ranking, the prices still pale in comparison to Dreamstime, iStock, or Shutterstock.
197
« on: October 24, 2006, 18:59 »
The biggest problem I see is that the site will miss the big Christmas season.
I'm not sure if they can survive a year until the next big season...
198
« on: October 23, 2006, 13:01 »
I was unaware of their war efforts. Thanks for the history lesson.
199
« on: October 23, 2006, 11:58 »
I didn't know that Canada had veterans!!!
What wars have they fought in???
200
« on: October 23, 2006, 11:55 »
I've been on FT since April and have seen increased views and sales every month. I've also sold more extended licenses through them than on any other site I submit to.
No problems getting paid and I really like the commission increases as you sell.
Fotolia isn't the worst in the industry, but they are quite close. First, Fotolia probably sees a higher rate of Extended licenses since their rates are so low (usually $20 for the buyer), plus as far as I know there are no limits to an Extended license. So someone could buy an image and make millions of products from that image (such as mouse pads). Most other sites have a limit and require another Extended license for higher runs. Second, Fotolia has one of the lowest royalty rates in the industry. At 0.33 for a small image (which they call a medium by the way!), it is the third lowest rate (behind iStock and Shutterstock). At 0.66 cents for a large image, it is the bottom of the barrel (when you consider that you can make a $1 or more at most sites).
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
