|
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 - Zero Talent
Pages: 1 ... 89 90 91 92 93 [94]
2326
« on: June 25, 2015, 09:02 »
$4-$9/HD clip is a shame. Don't encourage their shady business.
Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk
2327
« on: June 25, 2015, 08:43 »
I understand that a lot of us see a massive increase of $0.38 SODs, today.
These used to be FB sales, but I've never seen so many in a day.
What happens?
2328
« on: June 25, 2015, 06:47 »
Fair means everybody gets the same % from what FT is charging the customers when selling our photos.
Right now, FT is paying you a fair % for what you sell in euros, but retains a higher % from my euro sales. This is what is not fair.
I expect a % from my euro sales, instead of a % from a bogus currency called FT credit.
Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk
2329
« on: June 24, 2015, 13:40 »
I talking about the outrage seen when DPC was launched, name it as you want.
Why don't we see a similar outrage when we get a spit in the eye with these $0.19 commissions?
If you think the outrage over DPC was all about the commissions you completely missed the point.
Your objections to the istock tracking, reporting delay, lack of transparency and lack of opt-out all have merit - but the secretive and tricky way DPC was imposed on suppliers and the sales model it created was far worse. I'm glad to see that in the Fotolia/Adobe era they seem to be sidelining DPC.
PS: I'm no great fan of iStock, despite having almost 5,000 files there I haven't bothered to upload to them since February.
I understand. But what makes you believe that these 0.19$ sales are not a coming from secret "IS/Getty DPC"? Doesn't it look like $1 sales you get 19% commission for? Imposed in a "secretive and tricky way"? PS. I'm not a fan of DPC and I'm happy to hear Adobe is sidelining it.
2330
« on: June 24, 2015, 10:57 »
Greetings
This is one of those "what if" questions but I just wanted to know.
If ShutterStock offered exclusivity (seeing what is happening in stock industry at this time with AdobeStock) in this terms:
subscription download 50c, on demand 5$, enhanched 50$ and 50% from single and others downloads and no other "better search" placement, maybe new category like "newest, popular, relevant and exclusive".
Will anyone accept that? Maybe to explain why not or why would you?
My opinion... calculating my last month now...
nope... without increasing sales volume I dont think I would go exclusive. What about you?
Thanks
For the time being, SS accounts for 45% of my total. So your "offer" is not good enough. I would need $0.84/sub, $6.33/ODD, $62/EL ... etc while they keep their current sales volume.
2331
« on: June 24, 2015, 10:15 »
FT as whole pays more that IS. It's not easy to separate the DPC part. But these PP sales are for IS worse than what DPC is for FT.
Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk
But you were talking about the DPC boycott, not about Fotolia (and you were the one who chose to start it) so why are you changing the subject? And why is it hard to separate out DPC, I thought it was a flat-rate $1 sale and a flat rate commission? The 19c PP credits are extremely unusual, which is why I bought them up. My PP commissions last month averaged 72c (unusually good, I'll admit, as there were a couple of $25 sales among them). If you seriously want to compare commission rates you have to look at the overall average, not at freak low-value or high-value sales.
The boycott of DPC, though, was not about the commission-per-sale, it was about the entire business model and the effect it would have on dragging down the industry.
I'm talking about the outrage seen when DPC was launched, name it as you want. Why don't we see a similar outrage when we get a spit in the eye with these $0.19 commissions? Moreover, 1. it is impossible to track them if they keep on reporting with 6 months delay 2. 6 months delay is an outrage in itself. 3. we don't really know what kind of sales are these, do we? 4. what if the "unusual" will become the "usual" or "very usual"? 5. Why don't we have the option to opt-out from this 0.19 joke?
2332
« on: June 23, 2015, 23:49 »
FT as whole pays more that IS. It's not easy to separate the DPC part. But these PP sales are for IS worse than what DPC is for FT.
Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk
2333
« on: June 23, 2015, 23:35 »
Why there is no IS boycott movement since they pay much less than DPC?
Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk
DPC pays much more than 60c per sale? I find that hard to believe.
not always, but definitely more than $0.19 or the industry's disgrace!
2334
« on: June 23, 2015, 18:40 »
Why there is no IS boycott movement since they pay much less than DPC?
Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk
2335
« on: June 23, 2015, 17:31 »
@PixelBytes Actually you are implicitly suggesting to pay less the euro-contributors for their sales made in US, in US$.
Anyway it is hard to imagine that The "Bank of Fotolia" will give away 7.9% or so coming from their artificial exchange rate (see above) even if it is fair for us.
Otherwise, I also praise their recent move and the improved communication coming from Mat.
Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk
2336
« on: June 23, 2015, 17:05 »
I just realized that I have sales from the previous months reported these days:
November '14: extra $0.19
January '15: extra $0.76 = 4 x $0.19(?)
March '15: extra $11.59 = 61 x $0.19(?)
1. It is hard to comprehend why sales from November '14 are only reported now.
2. See the above numbers. Is it only a coincidence that the extra amounts are multiple of $0.19? Aren't these shameful $0.19 sales purposely delayed, since it is so hard to track them when buried so deep in their dysfunctional reporting system?
There seems to be a bunch of sales for PP attributed to Getty Images from November to April reported over last weekend - some are 19c but higher amounts also - your 11.59 might be a single sale or maybe a big and a few tiny.
Possible. But it is almost impossible to verify, neither with the chrome extension nor the Android app especially if these files sell frequently. And why is Getty sitting on our money for so long?
2337
« on: June 23, 2015, 16:52 »
Resolution: Minimum: 320 x 240 / Maximum: 3840 2160
Hey smart guy, learn the difference between UHD (or 2160p) and 4k.
I'm not downsampling to UHD, I'm asking them to take my 4k content. And my 4k content is in full 4k, aka 4096 x 2304, not UHD. I never mentioned UHD. :*
There is more than one flavor for 4K Helloitsme talks about 4K TVs. Most of these TVs are 16:9 with 3840 x 2160 resolution The other 4K standard is not really 4096 x 2304, but rather 4096 x 2160 with a 1.9:1 ratio. A 4096 x 2304 clip will most probably be cropped to fit in a 4096 x 2160 format. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4K_resolutionSo FT can claim they have (a flavor of) 4K.
2338
« on: June 23, 2015, 16:18 »
While being paid in Euros is an advantage, FT has already countered that effect.
By moving files from Euro contributors to the back of the search on the US site. This also explains the real low number of US sales for Euro contributors - your files will not be found on the US site.
@Mat: any plans to change that?
I'm an US contributor and, as said, I only have 20% of sales (or less) coming from US. What is your ratio?
2339
« on: June 23, 2015, 15:37 »
if the deal with greece fails and the euro falls, you might all be glad you get paid in dollars...the exchange rate is not fixed, right now it might be a benefit to get euros, but this could easily change.
i understand people want to always get the best rate, but how will an agency fix exchange rates forever? they cant.
maybe they can give artists an offer between euros and dollars and yen, but once you make that decision, you will have to live with the results.
If the euro tumbles, don't be surprised if FT/AS will suddenly make a move, presented to us as "contributor friendly", by restructuring their credit system and starting to charge EU customers at the official euro/US$ exchange rate and paying everybody in US$ (eg. the way SS is doing it).
2340
« on: June 23, 2015, 15:20 »
Here are the questions I believe were unanswered. Let me know if I missed anything and as always feel free to email me directly if you would like: [email protected]
SNIP
Thank you for your questions, keep them coming if you have more!
-Mat Hayward
Mat, maybe I missed it but I didn't see an answer to my question about when or if FT/AS will correct the disparity between sellers who are paid in euros and ones paid in dollars. This is unjustified.
It is justified for FT. FT is strong in Western Europe where it gets paid euros. Only 20% of my FT sales come from US. I can probably assume that this ratio is roughly the same for all of us. At the same time, a huge majority of contributors from outside EU is being paid in US$. So if 80% of the sales are made in euros and 80% (just a guess) of payments are made in US$, there is a nice $7.2 gain for every 100 credits sold by the "Bank of Fotolia" (assuming a real 1.12 euro/US$ exchange rate) It can become an issue, if the euro falls below the US$ or if FT/AS gains a lot of market share in US flipping their EU/US sales around. The breakeven point is US/EU sales ratio = share of contributors paid in US$. Until then, FT/AS has no incentive to give-up their lucrative currency exchange business.
2341
« on: June 23, 2015, 14:21 »
I just realized that I have sales from the previous months reported these days:
November '14: extra $0.19
January '15: extra $0.76 = 4 x $0.19(?)
March '15: extra $11.59 = 61 x $0.19(?)
1. It is hard to comprehend why sales from November '14 are only reported now.
2. See the above numbers. Is it only a coincidence that the extra amounts are multiple of $0.19? Aren't these shameful $0.19 sales purposely delayed, since it is so hard to track them when buried so deep in their dysfunctional reporting system?
Pages: 1 ... 89 90 91 92 93 [94]
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
