|
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 - Jo Ann Snover
Pages: 1 ... 93 94 95 96 97 [98] 99 100 101 102 103 ... 291
2426
« on: November 28, 2015, 15:46 »
I don't normally share specific numbers, but just to put this increase of 24->33 downloads and 100->162 subs from a portfolio of 9,000 exclusive images in perspective...
I was independent in November 2012 (I left exclusivity in June 2011) and with a portfolio of about 2,000 images at iStock I made just shy of $800 with just shy of 1,000 downloads - partner program and iStock combined. The earnings were a small fraction of what I made in November 2010 (my last November as an exclusive).
I was not an iStock star - I used to refer to myself as part of the iStock middle class. Your sales numbers represent - not criticizing you or your images - a total collapse of what iStock was once able to achieve. I'm aware that without having seen the prior earnings potential, you think people talking about a collapse are just whiners, but you just don't have the basis of comparison that others do.
Seeing a small bump up from one very small number to another, especially with a portfolio of 9,000 images, seems not to be any sort of good news. There are a few people I've heard from with some unexpectedly large GI sales, which is obviously wonderful when it happens, but the norm is much more even very low value sales from GI (where once they were much larger, apparently).
2427
« on: November 27, 2015, 19:58 »
It's relevant because a BME of 5 sales is just random luck. An increase from 200 to 300 says something else.
In addition to the above, quoting portfolio size doesn't mean much. I can think of an exclusive with more than twice the portfolio size of the poster above but who is barely past the gold mark. iStock has accepted things with technical quality but little sales potential, meaning that not all portfolios are of equal commercial appeal.
2428
« on: November 27, 2015, 11:14 »
Most agencies pay you more if you've sold a lot. I get 38 cents at SS, 34.something at 123rf, 35 cents at DT (was 70 cents once for higher level files)
When the volume is high "...or thereabouts" matters:)
2429
« on: November 26, 2015, 21:11 »
...After all, they are still THE original microstock agency, and they're doing a hell of a better job than Shutterstock or Fotolia!
I don't understand the above. DT was one of the early agencies, but it wasn't the original - iStock was. As far as DT, Canstock, SS go, I don't know which came first, but they were all new-ish in 2004 when I came upon them. Fotolia didn't start until 2005 And how is DT doing a better job than SS? Not in earnings or collection size or search or anything else I can think of.
2430
« on: November 26, 2015, 21:00 »
.. Is it really the case that CanStock only pays 25c for subs?
https://www.canstockphoto.com/payout_schedule.phpVery, very occasionally I'd get a 35 cent XL subscription sale (I didn't upload any of my vectors to Canstock; only JPEG illustrations). Given the price difference in the two subscription packages, apparently the majority of subscription buyers went with the cheaper one that excluded XL images and vectors.
2431
« on: November 24, 2015, 18:12 »
Thanks, didn't know that. So it's only possible to see that by clicking each image...
Contributor tools certainly need some improvement on 500px...
There's a brief explanation here (second section) https://support.500px.com/hc/en-us/articles/204031108-500px-Marketplace-Buyer-FAQIf you have statistics (I have temporarily) it will tell me how many you have in the store - not which, but they show up at the beginning of your portfolio. Contributor tools are virtually non-existent unless there's something I've missed.
2432
« on: November 24, 2015, 10:58 »
I very rarely buy, but a few months back did a job that required using and modifying a couple of vector images. The client made the purchase but I had to figure out which ones and where to make the purchase.
I searched on Shutterstock (because the size of the collection and search behavior made that the best place to look) and purchased from 123rf.
At the time, I think the 2 vectors were $29 from SS, $24 from CanStock, and $20 from 123rf. For occasional buyers like that, you don't want to have to buy credits you may not need so it's about finding the best price on the few items you need now. If the images had not been at 123rf,
2433
« on: November 24, 2015, 10:33 »
It's somewhat complicated for 500px: all the images are searchable in the market, even the ones not for sale, I think. And the buyer can request to buy any images; the photographer can accept or not.
I don't understand why their reviewing is so very slow if they really want to offer sales. I have uploaded 235 images there from November 3 to 19th, all marked for sale. 5 have been approved (2 prime and 3 core) and the rest are in that limbo that says they can be requested. They do show up in searches, but I'd imagine it'd be off-putting to a buyer to think they'd have to wait to make the purchase versus just be able to pay and download the file. Possibly they put reviews on hold pending some decisions about what the marketplace will become, but I've stopped uploading until we hear more about what they'll be doing with Marketplace now it has a new boss.
2434
« on: November 24, 2015, 10:24 »
My lowest recent extra small was 26 cents (level 0 image) but I think the problem is not any one sale but the amount the portfolio brings in each month compared to (a) before on DR and (b) other agencies. The ratio of 35 cents subscriptions to the higher credit sales is rising - and it could just be perception, but as the images rise to the highest level I think the credit sales drop off. There are some, and they're great when they happen, but it's not enough to make up for the drop in sales volume. The only way their pricing model could work, IMO, is for exclusive images where there really weren't any alternatives to the expensive level 4 and 5 images at DT. Common images (fruits and veggies on white, for example) won't do well even if exclusive because there's a bazillion of them everywhere. I see DT sinking in monthly performance even though their RPD number is reasonable. I'd rather have the larger monthly totals  As a comparison, an image I uploaded to both SS and DT in 2011 (after I returned to being an indie following iStock exclusivity) has one tenth the number of downloads at DT and about one quarter the earnings. I'm not uploading there (I stopped when sales took a nosedive) and just collect the payouts as I reach $100. I assume at some point they'll get acquired or fold, but until then (or until they make some pricing or royalty changes I can't live with) I'll leave what I have there
2435
« on: November 24, 2015, 01:58 »
The most recent investment in 500px - $13m in July - was led by a company described in this article as China's equivalent of Getty Images. Visual China contributed $8m of the total $13m http://techcrunch.com/2015/07/21/500px-raises-another-13m-to-take-on-getty-and-flickr/The rest of the money came from the VC firms who gave them money in the previous round. On paper, having a CEO who has held that position before at a roughly comparable company probably looks like the right move to someone with no real knowledge of the details of the last decade in the stock business in the US. The quote in the above article that this deal will open up the China market to them seems not to offer much to those of us based outside of Asia - why would content from Boston, the Caribbean, the Pacific Northwest (for examples - they're locations I shoot) be of more than occasional interest to the Chinese market? This round will also open the door for us to the Greater China market by working with the market leader Visual China Group.
2436
« on: November 22, 2015, 17:39 »
I don't see, why it wouldn't be worth it. If you already prepare images for other agencies and put the Titles and keyword in IPTC data, all you have to do is upload and submit. You don't even have to choose categories, so it's really fast.
A 25 cent royalty for a subscription is pretty terrible. The way I got my head around that was the larger royalties for the FotoSearch Sales - $19.80 for an XXL or whatever the largest size was and somewhat reasonable royalties for the smaller sizes. ELs were somewhere in the $30 range I think. As sales volume decreased, subscriptions increased as a percentage of total sales volume. Then the amounts for the distribution sales dropped so they were about the same as those on Canstock istelf, and it seemed to me that prolonging the existence of the site was just siphoning off income from other sites that paid contributors more. Even 123rf's royalties are better (or at least they are for me at the 45% royalty, for as long as that lasts). If any one of those things were different I might have stayed (I stopped uploading a while back) but there just doesn't seem to be a place at the table for Canstock any more and any promise the Fotosearch acquisition once held has long since petered out. It's a shame that all Duncan's hard work didn't pay off with sales volume.
2437
« on: November 21, 2015, 20:59 »
I just left Canstock, largely because the Fotosearch sales are now much lower than they used to be. Many at the same as Canstock instant sales
Illustrators have said Canstock works for them.
2438
« on: November 21, 2015, 19:37 »
$89 for unlimited downloads in November 2004 - "878 New Photos added in the past week!" https://web.archive.org/web/20041102014141/http://www.shutterstock.com/$129 for unlimited in Jan 2005 "Over 64,000 photos available for download" https://web.archive.org/web/20050109033332/http://www.shutterstock.com/$139 for 25 a day in March 2005 - "Over 109,000 photos..." https://web.archive.org/web/20050301015437/http://www.shutterstock.com/$159 for 25 a day in December 2006 "1,350,176 royalty-free stock photos" https://web.archive.org/web/20061231205025/http://www.shutterstock.com/?$199 for 25 a day in June 2007 "1,932,712 royalty-free stock photos" https://web.archive.org/web/20070607052540/http://www.shutterstock.com/?$249 for 25 a day in April 2008 "3,567,335 royalty-free stock photos" https://web.archive.org/web/20080430042206/http://www.shutterstock.com/A total of 6 price increases - I might have missed one, but I doubt there'd be more than one. We received a raise every time the subscription price went up. It would usually be about 2-3 months later, after they had a chance to see how the buyer behavior panned out
2439
« on: November 21, 2015, 18:56 »
I don't know whether customers will perceive this has value, but there are many collections - Able Stock, Banana Stock, Moodboard, Ingram, etc. - at Thinkstock that are not available on iStock.
When SS had fewer images in the collection it used to charge $89, then $139, $199, $249 and so on for the same number of images per month. The idea seems to be that a larger choice makes your allotment of images pricier.
There are also StockXpert images (Hemera collection) on Thinkstock that would have no other home if they shut Thinkstock down.
BTW, they should update the Thinkstock front page which points to iStock subscriptions and says "Plans start at $199 for 250 downloads per month." Follow the link and you see $40 a month as the entry point.
2440
« on: November 20, 2015, 01:12 »
...In all honesty I am not sure it's all his fault at iStock. Getty likes to blame him but my guess is they tied his hands.
It absolutely isn't all Kelly Thompson's fault - there's lots of blame to go around. However,... He handled the initial 2010 cash grab badly, and then when it blew up in the contributor community he tried to smooth it over and was so inept at that and clueless as to what he was dealing with that he made it much worse instead of better. Jonathan Klein's scorched earth policies and greed caught up with him in the end, but Kelly was just so out of his depth it wasn't funny. Prior to that, during 2009 when the site was in one of its many stages of being broken because they'd tried to "improve" it, he seemed completely out of touch with what a mess things were (this from a Q&A at the iStockalypse in Calgary). I don't know what he was supposed to be good at - other than being Bruce Livingstone's friend I don't know why he was there
2441
« on: November 20, 2015, 01:02 »
That's a massive bummer. I am very new at 500px but was very much hoping that it could be a good supplement for the more traditional stock sites.
Kelly Thompson being hired there is terrible news - it could be worse though. If they'd hired Jonathan Klein...
I'm not going to leave 500px just because they hired him, but I think I'll just stop uploading and go focus on something else (or find something else to focus on - we're a bit short on agencies with potential!)
2443
« on: November 18, 2015, 12:52 »
I haven't uploaded there in a long time. I had some sales at the beginning, but then nothing (and I sell via FAA too and have seen things slow down a lot there as well). I'm not uploading unless there's some signs of life, but they don't even send a newsletter to contributors, so I'm assuming things are not going well for them (but I know nothing specific; just my best guess)
2444
« on: November 17, 2015, 10:28 »
Since it's been happening on weekly basis I started to worry it could be the same buyers to avoid buying an Extended Licence.
It seems to me that's not a likely scenario. If the buyer is going to cheat, why buy more than one license? Just abuse the license terms and use the image however you want... There are some agencies, like Fotolia, that permit usages that elsewhere would require an extended license with print on demand sites. They allow the would-be purchaser to offer images for prints without purchasing any license and to purchase one license for each print sale actually made. Other sites require an extended license to offer prints on physical media like T shirts or wall art. As far as finding your images in use, have you tried searching for your name (or your login name at whatever agency)? That can turn up the credit lines (on web sites, sometimes it's in the alt text so you won't see it on the page) for web uses
2445
« on: November 16, 2015, 20:31 »
My best guess would be some event that has multiple customers looking for images of that type or from that location. Different buyers have their preferred sites and so go there when they need something.
I have some images from San Antonio, TX and I can generally tell if there's something that gets San Antonio into the news as there's a little bump in sales for that image.
Way back when I was offering free image of the week to various sites, I noted that people were buying an image at other sites when it was free that week and one site. That told me that people don't shop around much (except when making the decision about where to buy in general).
Why subscriptions versus credits? Because they've gone to "their" agency and used an existing subscription.
But this is all just educated guesswork
2446
« on: November 16, 2015, 16:02 »
Well it looks like they finally converted my whole portfolio over to the new V2 watermark. I'm happy with it now.
Of my spot check images, there is one that is still the V1 watermark. Other images around the same group of ID numbers have been converted...perhaps they're not done?
2447
« on: November 14, 2015, 18:16 »
I sold a license back when it started, but since then nothing. I'm not surprised as I didn't see any reason licensing would take off there.
I wonder if someone who had art and did not license stock through agencies might have seen a bit more business?
2448
« on: November 13, 2015, 18:55 »
Excellent. Thanks for the detective work stvagna
2449
« on: November 13, 2015, 16:06 »
The CA on the rock edges just shouldn't be there - Lightroom will automatically take care of that for you. I'm guessing that's not why they rejected it.
Did they reject it for lighting? SS doesn't like prominent shadows and although the light is soft, there is a large area of dark rock in the foreground that they may have taken exception to, especially because there's a light area right next to it.The white T shirt's a little gray.
On the other hand, if they rejected it for focus there's nothing to say. Their automated pre-screening software tags masses of stuff as out of focus and if you get a reviewer who just follows the software's lead, perfectly good images get rejected.
Here's what I would have done in post - very quick and dirty but just to give you an idea
2450
« on: November 13, 2015, 15:46 »
There's clearly something very wrong here - have you reported this to iStock?
It's great that you're finding these, but with more than one image containing elements from multiple other portfolios, this isn't some inadvertent slip up and this person's portfolio needs to be shut down.
Pages: 1 ... 93 94 95 96 97 [98] 99 100 101 102 103 ... 291
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
