MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Show Posts

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 - Noedelhap

Pages: 1 ... 69 70 71 72 73 [74] 75 76 77 78 79 ... 90
1826
iStockPhoto.com / Re: iStock PP has started for November
« on: December 29, 2013, 17:57 »
Number of sales is slighty down, but the most alarming thing is the lower RPD compared to last month. 

1827
iStockPhoto.com / Re: iStock PP has started for November
« on: December 29, 2013, 10:01 »
I've sent a support ticket. I want to know what's going on. I'll probably get a canned response.

1828
iStockPhoto.com / Re: iStock PP has started for November
« on: December 28, 2013, 17:04 »
I think October PP sales were a one-time special month only, and now it's back to the normal, low-RPD. I always considered October's PP sales completely out of range compared to 'normal' PP sales.

However, they should give an explanation as to what happened.

We are not talking about a few contributors.. everybody,  without exception,  had a good month.. and now everybody is having a bad month.. what's the deal here?

I'm not saying it was about a few contributors.

1829
iStockPhoto.com / Re: iStock PP has started for November
« on: December 28, 2013, 13:21 »
I think October PP sales were a one-time special month only, and now it's back to the normal, low-RPD. I always considered October's PP sales completely out of range compared to 'normal' PP sales.

However, they should give an explanation as to what happened.

1830
iStockPhoto.com / Re: iStock PP has started for November
« on: December 28, 2013, 08:35 »
Yeah, what happened to the big sales?

1831
Bigstock sucks big time and my low earnings have been roughly the same as last year.

1832
Doesn't it give you the same results if you'd search for illustrative AND editorial? In my experience, a keyword phrase limits the possibilities of finding an image, since the phrase must be typed exactly as it is keyworded.

1833
iStockPhoto.com / Re: November and December sales
« on: December 22, 2013, 08:22 »
Kind of stupid they couldn't run the PP sales this weekend so we could cash out our money before the end of the year...

1834
iStockPhoto.com / Re: November and December sales
« on: December 19, 2013, 20:25 »

I think the OP was only meaning the blue bits, i.e. sales directly out of iStockphoto.

Exactly.

1835
iStockPhoto.com / Re: November and December sales
« on: December 19, 2013, 16:14 »
I cannot say as I do not see the PP sales   >:(

What about your iStock-only sales bar (the blue one)?

1836
iStockPhoto.com / November and December sales
« on: December 19, 2013, 15:25 »
Is it just me or is anyone else having a back-to-back Worst Month in two years as well?


1837
iStockPhoto.com / Re: iStock's Mevans Passed In the Night
« on: December 13, 2013, 06:38 »
I wonder if he seriously upset someone. Was there a head on row? Was he still an admin/inspector at the end?  It doesn't make sense otherwise.  The iStock forum is almost defunct, 20 threads per month, yet a few of the older members of the community have still picked up the remembrance thread, but Lobo hasn't bothered to offer sympathy, it's crazy. What does that make Lobo look like? What does it make iStock look like?

I think it's ridiculous to bash Istock or Lobo for this. How iStock handles this or how Lobo responds to this (or how anyone responds to the death of a relative) is an entirely personal matter. You can't blame them for dealing with it their own way, nor can you force them to publicly express their grief. Besides, I'm sure they care about his death just as well as you do.

But I can see you've already spoken to someone from Istock, so that's that.

1838
I read that IS's whole idea of removing money from the contributor's account after a refund (often probably because of credit card fraud) is to prevent contributors from buying their own images and then refunding the whole batch to make money.

Quite a bollocksy argument, I might add.

1839
iStockPhoto.com / Re: Holiday slow down worse than normal?
« on: December 10, 2013, 14:25 »
SS is way up, IS is way down.

1840
Thank you very much for you time and advices, it was very helpful.
Yeah, i know they are pretty simple and made of simple shapes. The things is I didn't do it
from the sketch and I didn't use my style, I wanted to try something completely different, but I guess
i failed big time.
This is what I do, for example http://www.artween.com/var/artween/storage/images/students/barbara-ismailovic/theme/mermaid-animal-spirit/1029364-1-eng-US/Mermaid-animal-spirit_oeuvre_grand.jpg but it's not vector.

I will practice more with illustrator and I will listen to you advices.

Thanks again a lot guys!


That's great work. You should really draw on paper, scan it and (auto)trace* it in Illustrator. The hardest thing would be to replicate the color in vector style, but it's not impossible.

*Keep in mind, autotrace almost always needs clean-up with the pen tool afterwards.

1841
Frankly, it looks a bit like beginner's vector graphics. The vector illustrations are very simplistic and basic, almost devoid of a recognisable style.
You could pass it off as a artistic choice, but to be able to do that, the style must be consistent and the execution must be flawless. And that's what's lacking in your illustrations.

For instance:
1 The kitchen illustration is made up of standard shapes, some outlined, some without a stroke. The fonts are ugly. Some shapes appear rounded, others are flat. There's one gradient shape that looks off. The color palette is dull.
2 The perspective is incorrect. A deliberately distorted perspective could work as an artistic choice, but here it just looks amateurish because of its inconsistency. The banner and font are too basic. The face is anatomically incorrect and a bit skewed.
3 This one has the most potential in my opinion, but its composition is boring. Also, use a better color palette and be consistent with the level of detail.

Maybe it's because of your technical skills (which need a lot of work), but your artistic skills could use some work as well. My advice would be to take a good look at some professional artwork on istock and try to reach that level.

Could you show some of your freehand work?

1842
iStockPhoto.com / Re: No regular sales in stats
« on: November 30, 2013, 08:20 »
I've had only 25% of my usual number of downloads, and the worst month of the year. This can't be right.

1843
iStockPhoto.com / Re: iStock's Mevans Passed In the Night
« on: November 29, 2013, 18:32 »
That's sad. My condoleances.

1844
iStockPhoto.com / Re: My Uploads Is Down (No Pun Intended)
« on: November 27, 2013, 08:46 »
I don't know whether to laugh or cry at this.

1845
Yes, we get at least 50% less RPI.

1846
As if prices weren't cheap enough already...

I have not received an email telling us about this sale, so where's this coming from all of a sudden?

1847
Shutterstock.com / Re: Shutterstock site down?
« on: November 18, 2013, 13:01 »
The https thing worked. I have regular Monday sales.

1848
Shutterstock.com / Re: shutterstock down
« on: November 18, 2013, 08:44 »
How long has this been going on? What made them break their own site?

Hopefully this will not cost us sales, although it seems the buyer's side is up and running...?

1849
iStockPhoto.com / Re: PP Sales October 2013 started
« on: November 14, 2013, 21:49 »
Does anyone know if these Getty 360 sales will show up on the "Stats from Partner Sites" page? You know, if you click on Details in your portfolio and then select the Partner Program section.

1850
iStockPhoto.com / Re: PP Sales October 2013 started
« on: November 14, 2013, 10:53 »
The extra money this month is something to do with the Getty 360 scheme.  Lobo has confirmed that Getty 360 sales are being reported in the PP.

For those who are not aware, a few months ago Getty announced a new scheme called Getty 360.  This is a private web site available only to Getty's largest customers.  The site merges all Getty, iStock and PP content into one place and allows those customers to browse everything on the one site.

I presume that one reason for reduced 'normal' sales from iStock is the transfer of large accounts to the new Getty arrangement.  However, 'lost' sales from those accounts are now being credited in the PP numbers.

I hope this makes sense.

This makes total sense, Hatman.  There must then be a phase two because Shadysue (Liz) brings up a good question about exclusive income. I wonder what the whole value proposition is by Getty 360, whether it's simply customer convenience, or a better, less transparent way to keep chipping away at commissions.  People who don't understand and may be blinded by the hike in commissions must ask how much would they have made if those same images were sold on Istock? Moreover, since they are recorded as PP, it's a RC KILLER, thus ensuring that the lions share of contributors on IS do not meet their current levels and drop to a lower commission.  While I too like the hike in revenue, I am suspicious of the broader intentions.

Yeah, me too. I suspect the proverbial fly in the ointment will rear its ugly head soon.

Losing out on RC's is not that bad for me anymore, as illustrators have a standard 20% again since the change this year. So for now, I'm gladly welcoming the sales.

Pages: 1 ... 69 70 71 72 73 [74] 75 76 77 78 79 ... 90

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors