|
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 - KB
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 13 14 ... 57
201
« on: May 01, 2015, 17:04 »
so, based on the -1 I got I'll assume that this is a thread for IS non-exclusive income only or something.
Apparently the person disagrees with the idea that you had a BME at SS.  I plussed you, because I agree. 
202
« on: May 01, 2015, 16:27 »
Just as curiosity, I have left exclusivity on 2012. I wonder once you are there since 2008, how much your April earning are down from your latest Feb/13?
I have just posted in another thread that:
Yes, in my case, the exclusive income started to drop like a crazy starting on Mar/11 (35%+). I quit the exclusivity on 04/12. Since then I didn't get to make even the income as non-exclusive based on the latest income as exclusive, but the times were other and the income was better in that time for exclusives. The things has changed a lot since then and as you said, the market is really oversaturated now. So in sum, after 3 years as non-exclusive, summing up all agencies income/month, the actual income as non-exclusive, represents 52% of the income I was receiving as exclusive at iStock in 2012 average month. By reading that you assume that non-exclusive doesn't worth, but it is hard to say, once I have my doubts if I was exclusive today it would be the same average income as I was receiving on 2012.
Your portfolio is about 5x the size of mine, so there's a very good chance that it would act differently from mine. But to answer your question, Feb '13 happened to be the third-best month of that year for me. Removing GI sales from the comparison, April 2015 was down 60% as compared with my Feb '13. As a more accurate comparison, compared with the "average" month in 2013, April 2015 was down 55%.
203
« on: May 01, 2015, 11:52 »
Don't worry KB it was terrible all round even for a none exclusive
I understand what you mean (and appreciate hearing it) -- but are you sure that isn't a reason to worry even more?
204
« on: May 01, 2015, 11:24 »
I've been selling clips on SS ... well, for quite a while now. I don't recall ever seeing a month quite like April. There were so many sales well below the "average" selling price I'm used to getting. Has there been a price cut, or a month-long sale?
A few examples follow.
Cart sales, which are normally $5.70, $14.70, and $23.70:
$12.84, $20.19, $22.50.
Sub sales, which are more difficult to follow, but are usually in the range of $12-14 for SD and $20-22 for HD:
$3.97, $10.80, $17.43
Anyone know what might have happened?
205
« on: May 01, 2015, 10:08 »
In honor of my worst month ever as an exclusive iStock contributor, and my worst month as a contributor since 2008 (when I had a few dozen images in my port), I thought I'd start this month's earnings thread. My April earnings were down 34% from last year's April earnings (exclusive of subs and GI), and down 35% from March earnings. To give an idea of how far I've fallen, April earnings were almost exactly one third of my BME (which was only in Sep 2013) ... and over 40% off my average earnings from just last year (which itself was my worst year as an exclusive).
206
« on: April 24, 2015, 23:50 »
iStock has repeatedly demonstrated over the years that their software development department does not know anything about proper design, development, or deployment procedures. I worked for a company that put a very large emphasis on creating and refining Best Practices. I very much doubt anyone there has even heard of the term.
207
« on: April 23, 2015, 09:49 »
The bad news is that the WooYay and efforts do not seem to be hitting my monthly payout bottom line at this point. They've definitely been hitting my monthly payout bottom line. (I rec'd your post; I assume you meant they weren't having a positive effect. I just wanted to emphasize that their changes have been having a massive, negative effect.)
208
« on: April 22, 2015, 11:26 »
I wonder what I'm doing wrong. I UL'd the top-performing 20% of my port (which means only about 100 files, granted, but the ones that have sold the best) -- and I've yet to get a single sale. Maybe if I UL the other 80% ...?
209
« on: April 08, 2015, 23:19 »
Will this mean more sales for us or more freebies for the world at large?
"Getty and Microsoft ..." -- do you even have to ask? Perhaps you meant that to be rhetorical. 
210
« on: April 06, 2015, 23:44 »
At this point I would be happy just to sell any three images in 5 minutes- heck in one hour 
Just be happy you aren't an iStock exclusive. You might be happy to sell any three images in one day nowadays. 
211
« on: April 01, 2015, 17:25 »
(iStock exclusive)
Another wonderful month on iStock, with credit sale revenues dropping 39% as compared to March 2014.
212
« on: March 20, 2015, 19:37 »
Just in case anybody is in any doubt about the wisdom of starting out with iStock for video uploads, I've just hit rock bottom with a $3.42 royalty for a HD video. Dreadful.
And what are you going to do about it? 
213
« on: March 13, 2015, 21:50 »
stockastic & PaulieWalnuts win the prize! (Which, unfortunately, is nothing more than "thank you".)
I got a reply from FAA in less than 2 hours, telling me it was via DesignerPrints.com. I had forgotten about that program, but it says so right on the invoice ("Designer Prints"). I just didn't know what that meant.
They do claim "FOR DESIGN TRADE ONLY" and that "Membership is open to interior designers, corporate art buyers, and industry professionals who specify and purchase artwork for large-scale projects and/or resale.". I hope that they take that seriously, but obviously there might be some abuse.
214
« on: March 13, 2015, 18:22 »
It doesn't make sense, since FAA claims to be your site and it is just a hosting service of your images.
However, I did notice small discrepancies from my own price, I thought it was due to my cropping of the original size.
Ok, thanks. I'll shoot FAA an email and see what they have to say. I just wanted to make sure this wasn't a common occurrence that I somehow wasn't aware of.
215
« on: March 13, 2015, 18:21 »
Dont you have a discount set up in your settings? Check your promotions.
http://fineartamerica.com/controlpanel/index.html?tab=promotions
Phew. I don't remember this page, so I was worried. But it states: "You do not have any active promotions." So, no, AFAIK I don't have a discount set up in my settings.
216
« on: March 13, 2015, 18:15 »
I just had an FAA sale. It's not my first one there, but admittedly I haven't had many. But it's the first one for which I did not receive my "markup" price. The FAA artist info page states: The prices that you specify are exactly how much you'll earn when someone buys one of your prints.Well, no. This was a large print sale, that shows this: Normal Price: $192.00 Discount: $132.50That's right, the price was discounted by 70%!!!! I was supposed to make $170 profit, but instead I made $60.  Has anyone heard of this happening before, and why? PS - Are my prices too high? $170 profit sounds ... high. I priced these awhile ago, based on a post by someone here, as I was clueless.
217
« on: March 06, 2015, 11:41 »
Yes, the numbers were quite different a few days ago; I mentioned it in the Feb earnings thread.
Mysteriously not only did the iS non-exclusive number climb up by about 3 pts, the exclusive number zoomed up to heights not seen this year. Very ... interesting.
218
« on: March 04, 2015, 17:28 »
According to the current poll results, iStock exclusives are now earning only a little more than 50% above what independents are getting at SS alone.
And Fotolia is now firmly in the #2 position for independents, with iStock dropping to #3.
It's certainly a different world out there today.
(Edited for clarity)
219
« on: March 02, 2015, 17:16 »
You don't need to be exclusive to contribute videos to iStock.
No, you don't. But anyone who isn't exclusive and contributes videos to iStock really needs to <fill in your favorite slur here>. $6-$8 commission for an HD video (for most independents)? It's shameful.
220
« on: March 02, 2015, 17:08 »
This kind of advertising has to be explained to contributors as to how their clips will really be commissioned. 100% of $49 is already going to hurt the video market, but what about subscription downloads as per the ad? How will commissions like this be treated?
From the OP above:
3. Everything you upload is published to the marketplace only. Your files won't end up in our subscription library.
Thanks, KB. I am getting so knee-jerky these days and lack full trust in anything these agencies claim. Thanks for pointing that out.
Yes, for us contributors it seems it's a case of "Fool me once, shame on you; fool me 100 times ...".
221
« on: March 02, 2015, 14:41 »
This kind of advertising has to be explained to contributors as to how their clips will really be commissioned. 100% of $49 is already going to hurt the video market, but what about subscription downloads as per the ad? How will commissions like this be treated?
From the OP above: 3. Everything you upload is published to the marketplace only. Your files won't end up in our subscription library.
222
« on: March 01, 2015, 20:26 »
I have a hard time trusting an agency that claims to return 100% of sales. Is any one getting money from these people?
Yes, I did!
I thought they weren't selling non-subscription videos until April. How did you get money from them?
223
« on: March 01, 2015, 17:17 »
Revenues down 13% from last Feb, and 35% from Feb 2013. I think I'm doing better than Getty.
224
« on: February 28, 2015, 16:59 »
I just remembered this quote from Rebecca Rockafellar on IS forum:
"... We get it, you guys are mad. And reading the forums for the past year has made it clear that some of you think we are lazy, incompetent, greedy or uncaring..."
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=349591
I hope someone pointed out at that time that there were some of us who think they are lazy, incompetent, greedy, and uncaring. And probably more who feel that way by now.
225
« on: February 28, 2015, 12:58 »
I guess their internal algorithm didn't find any similars, which isn't at all the same as you not having similars. Oh. Wonderful. I had looked at several of my images that have obvious similars, and so just assumed it wasn't working yet.  Edit: Ok, so I just did a more in-depth study, looking at a dozen of my files. Only 4 of them had the similars carousel. And of those 4, just a very, very few of the similars were shown. Epic. Fail. It is totally worthless, based on my own portfolio. It will surely have a huge affect of my sale of similars, which was probably the last thing keeping my portfolio (barely) afloat. Great job, Getty!
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 13 14 ... 57
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
