|
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 - RT
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 ... 77
176
« on: February 23, 2012, 16:22 »
So if your images always get first row treatment you can make serious money, at least until too many get favoured 
In which case the "low earners" would still, within your earnings, be a low earner in comparison to the top and middle tier
177
« on: February 23, 2012, 16:17 »
We all probably upload works to most or all of biggest agencies - shutter, istock, fotolia..... The goal of this thread is to find out which of the "low earners" could be good earner. (most of them earns only cents and it is waste of time to work with them)
I knew what the 'essence' of this thread was, but I don't understand why you're asking the question, there's a poll on the right whereby a number of people have entered information that means the agencies listed in the "low earner" section are, for the high majority of the people who voted 'low earners' , but now you're asking the exact same people which of the agencies they said were low earners give them a good income - so without pointing out the obvious oxymoron  none of the agencies in the poll results under "low earners" provide a good income for the majority of people here, because if they did they wouldn't be in the "low earners section" You may have noticed that one or two people have mentioned they do quite well on the odd agency in the list, therefore your answer to which one's could be a good earner is - any of them. I know your point of this thread, but the only way you'll get your answer is by uploading to them all and then make your own decision.
178
« on: February 23, 2012, 11:36 »
Isn't the title of this thread 'low earners - good income' a double negative?
it aint.. its relative actually.. it can be a good income considering its a low earner
also it wouldnt be a double negative even in theory... neither of those things is a negative. I think the word you were looking for was oxymoron
You're right it was, although being a low earner in my book is a huge negative. Either way no matter how you look at it you can't get a 'good income' from a 'low earner'.
179
« on: February 23, 2012, 10:12 »
Isn't the title of this thread 'low earners - good income' a double negative?
180
« on: February 23, 2012, 10:09 »
^ Thanks for the update, shame it still isn't working - quotes like "very soon" "hard at work" & "next few days" doesn't really install a sense of confidence in me but maybe I'm tarnished from those kind of empty promises that their biggest competitor always makes!
181
« on: February 20, 2012, 12:47 »
You are right in your initial suggestion however it is 'those who do it for business' who probably generate 90%+ of the sales and without whom no agency could grow. Therefore, at least in theory, they should hold the power if only they could stick together.
Absolutely and I'd say there's only about 1000 contributors in total that produce the 90+%, but I'm sure you're equally aware that we will never stick together, we're in direct competition with each other, sure we'll all agree that we should band together to create a better environment but in reality we'll (I) all wait until the other 999 guys have left an agency before we make our move because - A. we don't really trust each other and B. there's a good chance once the others have left we'll (I) clean up on sales. Hence this thread and it's noble and justifiable suggestion will go the way of all those before it - sad but true.
182
« on: February 20, 2012, 12:31 »
Do you know where the forums are on SS and do you take the time to read them because if you did you would know all about this!
I do know where they are, but no I don't read them and haven't for years mainly because of the same reasons others have pointed out, but thanks for the link.
183
« on: February 17, 2012, 19:17 »
There's two types of readers here: Those that do it for business and those that do it for fun.
No disrespect but as I told you in your thread about 123RF I make my own decisions on whether I upload or stick with an agency and everyone else that does this as a business will most probably do exactly the same.
Some people here do it for fun and are happy to get $10 a year from an agency.
If you're looking to start a revolution I think you're wasting your breath.
184
« on: February 17, 2012, 19:09 »
I sometimes like watching clips like these but by the sound of it yours is way too long, oh and a quick tip, just looking at your example above I suggest you blur the girls outline into the background a bit, even at this size she looks too obviously cut out, the edges are far too sharp especially the hair.
185
« on: February 17, 2012, 19:05 »
^ Thanks, looks like Shutterstock have yet another bug.
186
« on: February 17, 2012, 19:02 »
I've really covered most of the things in your last reply, I've color matched it so you won't miss it this time . me too, but as I said, the bottom line earnings are BY FAR the best, the volume is just there, so I can't really mind. I do really like SS and that's about it, I either don't have an opinion on other (meaning they're OK), most of them I don't like, they just don't deliver and there's just too much hassle with most of them (UL process, bugs, complete muppets reviewing and rejecting stuff that gets accepted everywhere else etc. All that being said I'm really thinking of deleting stuff from everywhere besides my top 2 earners (SS and IS) and give a chance to FT and DT (123RF just fell of the list obviously), those 2 bring decent earnings a couple of months in the year. 123RF is a bit better for now, well FT is looking a lot better this month, but by 2013, it'll go down for 95% of the contributors
Then the only course of action is to make your own decision on which sites you think are worth your while submitting to based on your own requirements, we all get frustrated at the various sites and their various tactics to make money from our work, personally I have my own guidelines as to what makes a site tolerable, when a site passes a level I'm not happy with I either stop uploading or pull my port altogether, done that with Crestock, Featurepics, Yaymicro and most recently Stockfresh. One thing I learnt a while ago is that no matter what you write here or on any other forum for the sake of venting, or in the vain hope that someone in power from said agency reads it and takes note, it's completely useless because each and every agency has one goal - to make as much money as they can from contributors work, which is fine by me after all it is a business.
187
« on: February 17, 2012, 18:45 »
Today I uploaded some photos, categorised and submitted them, just went into my contributor account and there's no trace of the batch anywhere, to make sure I wasn't going mad I went into my email trash and confirmed I had received the standard "we have received your upload" email.
Cleared my cache, logged out and back in but no sign of today's batch anywhere.
Has anyone else noticed a recent batch of uploads disappearing from your account?
188
« on: February 17, 2012, 15:00 »
Just buy your own castle - problem solved 
189
« on: February 17, 2012, 14:57 »
You get 38 cents commission for an XXXL on Shutterstock
I specifically emphasized I was talking about credit sales. Yet we still get this crap about SS almost every single time (usually from exclusives). Stay on topic ppl
I know you did, but my point was to highlight that you're moaning about getting $1.20 for an XL file on one site, yet on another site you're happy to get 38c for an XXL, or is it that you're happy to get 38c commission as long as you know the buyers has bought a subscription package, even though out of that purchase you might only get one sale for 38c. The point being, it shouldn't matter to you whether the image was bought by the buyer under a subscription or a credit package, at the end of the day you're selling an XL on one site for 38c and an XL on another site for $1.20. That's microstock for you - some commission sales some subscription sales, some sites pay more than others, some have higher sales some lower, as an independent contributor you should either get over it and stop moaning or do something about it - by which I mean pull your port from the sites that don't pay you enough commission, or who's upload process you don't like, or who's reviewers reject lots of your images for reasons you don't agree with. So $1.20 commission for an XL sale on 123RF isn't as much as you'd get like for like on other sites, I agree and I'd like more, but then I'd like SS to pay us more in fact I'd like every site to pay us more - at least we can vote with our feet, that's the great thing about being independent isn't it Oh and FTR I'm not an exclusive - but you know that could be a solution for you, find a site you are happy with and go exclusive there. Is there a site you're happy with?
190
« on: February 17, 2012, 13:55 »
You get 38 cents commission for an XXXL on Shutterstock
191
« on: February 16, 2012, 09:16 »
.......... at least better then before, treating reviewing as a human process, etc.
Not that I've noticed, I've just had an image rejected because it featured a credit card, however I had included a note in the description that the credit card is a mock up that it was printed and designed by myself and that all logos and details are generic, the actual credit card design is even in my portfolio with 123RF !!
192
« on: February 15, 2012, 12:54 »
I've hinted around this on other threads, but i'd like to just ask this outright.... Is it possible to start with Alamy now and make a living from it? I understand it takes time, but is it possible for an average photographer like me to make a go of it in say a year or so if i upload a bunch? (assuming i get accepted, haven't figured out what 4 pix to get to them for initial QC) Thanks for all the help. Roger
In which case the answer would be - no. No offence intended personally, I'd say you could start with any agency and make a living from it with less than 1000 images, but those images would have to be brilliant and targeted, if you're not even sure what to send in for the initial assessment my advice would be not to give up your day job.
193
« on: February 15, 2012, 12:49 »
Sorry but I live in Europe (the UK) and I generally have Sky news on in the background when I edit, I've never heard of ACTA and it certainly hasn't been all over the news for the last week here.
Maybe the best thing the reviewer should have done is a quick internet check before rejecting it, on the other hand they are paid peanuts and in the time it takes to do an internet check they'd maybe lose 50 cents - I guess your perfect caption wasn't clear enough.
194
« on: February 15, 2012, 11:16 »
Just to clarify something, when I said - "I wonder how many people would have the same level of admiration for him if next week he goes and sells SS to Getty." - it was hypothetical and wasn't intended to spark a debate on whether it would actually happen, I was trying to point out to those that think the sun shines out of Jon Oringers rear that he is just a businessman albeit a successful one (something Bruce Livingstone wasn't) and that I have no doubt whatsoever that as a businessman he would, if given the right offer, dump SS to the highest bidder, and if I was in his position so would I, but if this happened some people might not feel he is the idol they make him out to be.
Yes he's a nice bloke, and yes I could sit next to him in a pizza palour and not know, but to be honest I wouldn't care even if I did know.
195
« on: February 14, 2012, 17:11 »
Regardless, I'm not ready to nominate him for sainthood.
+1 - Lets get things into perspective, he's not running a 'not for profit' charity he's the CEO of a successful business that takes a large chunk of our commission, I wonder how many people would have the same level of admiration for him if next week he goes and sells SS to Getty.
196
« on: February 14, 2012, 06:09 »
@Microbius Just sent you a PM but forgot to add - have you considered moving to the IoM or Jersey 
197
« on: February 13, 2012, 16:10 »
In the model release, we say the image will not be used in "defamatory" manner - appearing on some sensitive issues ads would definitely qualify as "defamatory" for some people.
Which is the very reason I've opted out from their scheme, to opt in you could be deemed as knowingly breaching your own contract which you signed with the model. SS are, IMO, being very sneeky in this move, they're asking you for your permission to void the 'defamation' clause in the model release you uploaded for the image - in other words covering their backside should the model decide to take legal action. As for missing out on other sales from these 'top ad agencies' are we to believe that these agencies will get different search results and only be able to download images from those opted in to the sensitive issues scheme, I find that hard to believe, I've re-read the email and view that statement as an almost empty threat type of scare statement.
198
« on: February 13, 2012, 12:25 »
I am hoping very hard that either commission payment or license sales fall into one of the zero rated or exempt categories. If that is the case then I would probably be getting money back even with my meager expenses!
Alamy would probably be the only agency that you'd have to worry about VAT on (there's a procedure within your account settings to set it up whereby they 'self bill' you) , all the microstock sites are overseas, if you submit to any other UK based agencies then you'd have to set up something similar to Alamy. IMO what someone said earlier about the hassle involved are wise words, it may seem like an interesting prospect to get money back from the VAT man every quarter but do you really buy enough equipment to justify the hassle involved, and want to pay an account the extra for doing it for you or risk getting it wrong and getting audited? My advice would be to speak to your/a decent accountant and find out a. if you have to be VAT registered (despite what you said earlier I very much doubt you are or indeed near to needing to be, if stock accounts for 90% + of your earnings) & b. get them to explain the benefits and pitfalls involved.
199
« on: February 03, 2012, 12:00 »
Would be funny to see really bad photographers that think they're great.
You can already do that in the SS forums
200
« on: February 03, 2012, 08:40 »
omg, oh, the drama! Who will be voted out this week and who will go on to be ... the next Arcurs Idol !?! Lol.
You weren't picked then  Seriously I wish him well with this project, he's trying something different which I respect him for. My one thought though (and this has nothing to do with Yuri or his boot camp) is that when the students qualify will they be able to earn a decent living, I see photography as a business constantly being de-valued.
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 ... 77
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
