|
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 - pancaketom
Pages: 1 ... 78 79 80 81 82 [83] 84 85 86 87 88 ... 91
2051
« on: February 10, 2011, 18:05 »
A lot of the sites are trying to improve things with various tweaks, but they are mostly all hampered by the weak link - the keywords, this is especially bad at the sites that split apart multiple work keywords. The problem for contributors is different for buyers, because if there are 100 images (or 1000s) that would work for the buyer, any of them would be fine, but the contributor wants the buyer to at least see their specific image. Looking at the search terms that DT provides most of the searches are one or 2 words, but if a buyer wants to drill down to more specific images they need to have more specific searches.
Still, for example in SS you can choose various properties that are linked to model releases.
IS could have locked things up with their CV, but in my opinion the way they implemented it both encouraged spam and makes things that aren't in the CV but are similar just not work at all. They could still come up with something that works well, but I haven't seen much encouragement there lately. The few times I tried their search it just didn't work at all, so who knows what is happening with it.
2052
« on: February 08, 2011, 20:49 »
I think they also set targets a bit high because if they had to raise them that would have brought an even bigger s@#$storm and if too many people made them that would have been "unsustainable". Still, with all the site problems I think people aren't getting what they were expecting.
2053
« on: February 05, 2011, 19:25 »
350 $ per month at all the sites once all the images are up with the vast bulk coming from SS at first. If you do 200 new images per month, this will rise rapidly. (DT will drop to about 50/mo)
I just pulled these #s out of the air, but it is vaguely based on the ratio I get between DT and the others. Please tell us how it works out.
2054
« on: February 05, 2011, 13:36 »
it seems to be working now. Thanks for the replies.
2055
« on: February 04, 2011, 21:06 »
I would say that the last quarter of the year was quite a bit different from the first half (as far as SS / IS) go, but looking at the whole year makes IS look stronger than it seems lately (and SS has swung up lately) at least that's how it seems to be, but the long term trends are more useful in the long term. If IS ever get's its collective act together they could come back.
ETA: oops, I was thinking about the yearly poll, not the monthly one - never mind, carry on.
2056
« on: February 04, 2011, 17:36 »
for the past few days I've gotten this message
"Upload Stopped
Sorry to inform that uploads will be temporarily stopped to facilitate a scheduled maintenance of our storage system. "
when I try to process my ftp images. Do others get this and does anyone know how long this temporary event is?
2057
« on: February 03, 2011, 13:41 »
This is not IS specific, or directed at them specifically, it's for any forum run by anyone. Consider the other agency which announced that what we write on blogs or outside public forums, could be cause for having our sales account closed. Now that's beyond and over the top and censorship. But the problem is, it's legal because they can do whatever they want.
Cheers for your insight RacePhoto,
Could i ask which agency made this bold statement and maybe even a link to it ?
I wonder how far they can strecht statements like that... "We hereby inform you that we have come to your house and slapped your kids around a bit because you said our agency smells like a dead hamster. Please don't make us come over there again. Sincerely yours."
Sounds like fauxtolia (well, that isn't how you spell it, but it still sounds like the sort of crap they'd pull).
2058
« on: February 02, 2011, 09:52 »
DT exclusive, last full month of being exclusive at DT.
Up almost double my previous four month average in money earned. Total files online is 805 for DT. Working hard to prepare images for the new sites coming later this month.
Most seem to report that DT is anywhere from 10-15% of their total income. That being said, if I can make an addition 85% off the images I currently have, I will be pleased.
You will likely take a hit in the commission % and placement at DT, so although after you get established at all the sites DT might be making 10-15% of your total, the amount at DT will probably be a bit lower too. Hopefully you have a good number of level 3 and above images which seem to make most of my returns at DT.
2059
« on: February 02, 2011, 09:45 »
They need to spend the $ from the commission cut to try to take some of Fotolias international customers that Fot is planning on retaining with the $ from their commission cuts so IS will need to cut commissions to counteract that move....
I wonder if money isn't what makes Nick King happy?
2060
« on: February 01, 2011, 19:22 »
It does seem more epic and across the board than anything I've seen before. They really crushed my income with a few of the best match shake ups but it always seemed like some other contributor was a winner there. This seems more global in its swath of damage, I don't know if it is even helping their bottom line, especially not in the long run.
2061
« on: February 01, 2011, 13:21 »
This is cut and pasted...
SS: No ELs or video sales but more DL than any month since Nov 2008 (perhaps because I uploaded a lot of new images?) and a pretty good $ return (would have been 4th best of 2010).
DT: One of my worst months here in a while, low sales, low RPI.
IS: The new lower royalties kicked in the 11th. IS has been plagued with site problems. a poor month with no real optimism there.
FP: No ELs but a few decent sales.
123RF: not bad.
BigStock: Pretty poor - still just barely alive for me.
Veer: It picked up again with an EL and some other sales - BME here not counting the DFC.
Overall it was a decent start to the year thanks to SS, 123RF, and Vr but it is sad to see the commission cuts at IS (and at Fotolia too - one of the reasons I don't submit there). Hopefully it isn't the start of the second round of commission cuts.
2062
« on: February 01, 2011, 11:03 »
I think that sites can compete on 3 things for buyers, price, search engine/site design, and portfolios. I think that the search engine is the one most open to making a huge difference. Hopefully we have seen a bottom price point (and it seems that a lot of designers are relatively willing to pay a bit more to get the image they want more easily). If you get sales, then you will get the images from the photographers, so that leaves the search engine. This is where IS could have really taken over with the CV etc. (and they still might if they can get their act together). Unfortunately for a lot of the sites like SS and DT that split apart multiple word keywords it would be an enormous task to go back and fix the keywords. I wonder if a site could do that though, maybe starting with the most popular sellers and slowly cranking through the database and really improve things. I have always thought the problem with "bad" images isn't their existence, but showing them too high in the search.
2063
« on: January 31, 2011, 23:12 »
It is my understanding that SS and IS want the opposite types of editorial material. IS wants (maybe eventually?) stocky images that you don't have a model or property release for - Times Square crowds, recognizable products, that sort of thing. SS wants news related editorial - current events, famous people, and so on.
I haven't tried submitting either of them, but if you aren't going to be exclusive and you aren't anti-subscription then you really want to be on SS.
2064
« on: January 31, 2011, 23:07 »
It is a little odd, and basically it boils down to how afraid the sites are that the company that made the product will sue them. In the case of Apple or big car companies, that is a very real fear. Pretty much any manufactured item had someone design it, but luckily they don't (yet) require property releases for every item of clothing, or other object in every pic. what a mess that would be.
2065
« on: January 26, 2011, 17:55 »
I never thought I'd say this, but.......despite Fotolia's latest commission decrease, despite three years of seemingly never-ending frustration with them, my business is now at a point where I'm seriously considering exclusivity in the next year or two, and Fotolia is at the top of my list.
I'm not in anyway considering going exclusive but if I did it would be at fotolia.
They haven't screwed exclusives much YET (unless you count moving the levels goalposts away).
2066
« on: January 26, 2011, 11:34 »
The devil is in the details and the survey doesn't really have the details.
For example, do I want my images sold by partners - well, that depends on the terms, prices, commissions, etc. etc. of those partners. I do think if you do a bunch of partners it would be nice for the contributors to be able to check them off individually. It would also be nice to have data on those specific partners to help us make the choice.
here is another "Do you think that contributors should be rewarded based on the size of their portfolio? *"
once again - that depends. I think in general size of portfolio would be a rather poor way of differentiating. # of sales, $ total of sales, etc. makes more sense. But the real meat is, compared to what? If we get 50% now, and you want to make it 55% with a larger portfolio, more sales, whatever, that is fine. If you want to make it 45% with a smaller portfolio, less sales, etc., that is not fine. Your questions are too vague. Dropping commissions is the worst thing you could do as far as I am concerned. In general the contributors should be rewarded based on their sales, not how many other images they have or how many sales they had last year.
2067
« on: January 25, 2011, 22:33 »
It has decreased my motivation to spring for new expensive gear.
2068
« on: January 24, 2011, 20:55 »
For DT it would be more accurate to say that individual image prices and % commission may increase as the specific images are sold more. For more detail see here: http://www.dreamstime.com/sellimagesNote that they state the $ listed are maximum values, so they aren't as helpful as if they stated the average or the range. so for a non-exclusive, level 1 =30%, level 2 (over 5 sales) =35% up to level 5 (over 50 sales) = 50% of a significantly higher price. For subs, level 1 and 2 = .35, level 3 and 4 = .70 and level 5 =1.05 The prices of credits varies too, so in actuality the lowest I seem to get for an XS level one sale is .26
2069
« on: January 24, 2011, 13:38 »
DT pays 30% of the sale price and .35 per sub sale for the base. If the image is a higher level you can get more.
2070
« on: January 22, 2011, 23:31 »
Few moments ago I sold one of my photos, large size, I got 2,5$ ...
So:
2,5$=16%
2,5/16=0,156*100=15,60$
The buyer bought it for $ 15.60, and I earned $ 2.5 ... Excellent! 
It's time for own marketing...
You would have gotten $3.12 for that last year, maybe it was time for your own marketing then too... 20% was barely sustainable, now this.
2071
« on: January 22, 2011, 12:47 »
2072
« on: January 21, 2011, 23:03 »
...
another - putting higher value images into higher priced collections = good. IS implementation = a mess / exclusive only.
...
But just think about this proposition for a minute - or at least what the issue is if you think that the higher price collections should be open to exclusives only. You can't have a high price collection if the same stuff is selling for less elsewhere.
Only doing it for exclusives is fine (if you are exclusive), but does me no good as I am not, so I am less impressed with it - it sounds like all sorts of issues with lowering commissions and clubby acceptance into it etc. too. Had IS done image exclusivity back before their first huge best match shakeup, they would have wrapped up almost all of the good sellers there as exclusives, but they didn't .
2073
« on: January 21, 2011, 20:03 »
For all the IS bashing we do here (myself included), they have tried to do a number of very positive things. Unfortunately they don't usually do a very good job of it in my mind, or it is closed to exclusives only.
For example, the CV combined with all the data they collect on search terms and sales could really make searches precise and great and punish the spammers. Instead they sort of muddled it.
another example - they continue to increase prices, which in general as a photographer I agree with. Unfortunately that is coupled with decreasing royalties, moving canister goal posts, and us vs. them exclusive only deals.
another - putting higher value images into higher priced collections = good. IS implementation = a mess / exclusive only.
and so on. If some other site (or IS) could do these things right, they would rule the microstock world.
It does sound like he has some sort of sweetheart deal in the works though.
2074
« on: January 21, 2011, 19:56 »
I think they have always done that - sales one through 5 are level one, 6 through 10 are level 2, and so on (after the 5th sale it is a level 2). As long as they don't move the goalposts away that is fine with me (in fact they have moved them closer a few times through the years).
2075
« on: January 21, 2011, 11:22 »
It seems like they list a lower price for buying your own files as a tiff.
I could be wrong about that though.
Pages: 1 ... 78 79 80 81 82 [83] 84 85 86 87 88 ... 91
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
)
