Quote from: Dantheman on September 03, 2012, 20:58
Why not delete images that have not had a sale in 6 months (or a year). That should reduce the images on sale by quite a bit!

Great and very simple idea. And they should make sure people don't reuplod them.

Or even better, search positions influenced by RPI. Collections would look 100% better over a week, imagine what would happen in a month or a year.

Quote from: disorderly on September 03, 2012, 18:40

Quote from: stan on September 03, 2012, 17:40

Quote from: disorderly on September 03, 2012, 17:35

Quote from: stan on September 03, 2012, 16:17
Great, they should reinforce that policy, punishing everyone who's earnings depend on quantity and not quality. There's too much substandard content on the micros anyway, not allowing the buyers to find what they want, that's why they're leaving in droves, some of them willing to pay 10x, 20x or even 5000x the price on the macros (5000x comes from the comparison of average sub sale price compared to a 1500$+ RM sale).

No search algorithm can ever be as good to put only the best images in front of the buyers from millions crappy ones.

Your rant is based on a number of misperceptions.  Some of us rely on both quantity and quality; I upload many photos from a shoot because I believe that some customers will want a specific look or pose, while others will buy a number of shots from the same session if they can. On every other agency I will see sales the same day for multiple photos from the same session.  I've had it happen on DT as well, despite their determination to keep me from having multiple "similars" in my port.  When I see three or four sales at the same time of the same subject on DT, I have to wonder how many more they might have purchased if DT weren't so restrictive.  I've seen a dozen sales on other sites, sales that suggest someone doesn't see my work as a triumph of quantity over quality.

Yes, first day sales. But what about first month, year, decade sales? If no one will be able to find what he's looking for because of shooters like you 2 that post 100 from the series instead of narrowing it down to 20 or even 10 best photos. That is what agencies are asking us, not only DT with their policy (they must have a reason to do it, I guess data that they see across the board supports their decision), but also Veer in their latest newsletter for instance.

Who said anything about first day sales?  I see continuing sales from series I uploaded months and years ago.  I see them on SS, I see them on 123 and DP, I even see them on DT.

If this were really such a problem, it would be easy for agencies to solve it.  Just pick one (or three or five) from a given photographer/model combination to include in search results, with an option to see more from that combination when a client wants a specific pose.  Or be even more granular and either combine photographer, model and matching keywords (to get the same outfit and setting), or use creation time (embedded in the EXIF data) or give me a quick and easy way to mark related images.  Don't stop me from offering images that clients want, because they buy when they're available, to solve a scale problem for the site as a whole.

You did, bold text.

Well surely not that easy if so many of them are having a ton of bugs. Sometimes they can't solve even the simplest for months. So I would expect them to offer advanced features (perhaps not that advanced, but in light of what I wrote, it is).

Quote from: fotografer on September 03, 2012, 17:37

Quote from: stan on September 03, 2012, 17:28


But you can lower your prices at FT.

I doubt that would work for me as most of my images that sell are level 2 so I would risk the possibility of halving my earnings.

Well then the theory that your images are too expensive just doesn't hold water, now does it?

Quote from: disorderly on September 03, 2012, 17:35

Quote from: stan on September 03, 2012, 16:17
Great, they should reinforce that policy, punishing everyone who's earnings depend on quantity and not quality. There's too much substandard content on the micros anyway, not allowing the buyers to find what they want, that's why they're leaving in droves, some of them willing to pay 10x, 20x or even 5000x the price on the macros (5000x comes from the comparison of average sub sale price compared to a 1500$+ RM sale).

No search algorithm can ever be as good to put only the best images in front of the buyers from millions crappy ones.

Your rant is based on a number of misperceptions.  Some of us rely on both quantity and quality; I upload many photos from a shoot because I believe that some customers will want a specific look or pose, while others will buy a number of shots from the same session if they can.  On every other agency I will see sales the same day for multiple photos from the same session.  I've had it happen on DT as well, despite their determination to keep me from having multiple "similars" in my port.  When I see three or four sales at the same time of the same subject on DT, I have to wonder how many more they might have purchased if DT weren't so restrictive.  I've seen a dozen sales on other sites, sales that suggest someone doesn't see my work as a triumph of quantity over quality.

Yes, first day sales. But what about first month, year, decade sales? If no one will be able to find what he's looking for because of shooters like you 2 that post 100 from the series instead of narrowing it down to 20 or even 10 best photos. That is what agencies are asking us, not only DT with their policy (they must have a reason to do it, I guess data that they see across the board supports their decision), but also Veer in their latest newsletter for instance.

Quote from: lisafx on September 03, 2012, 16:38

Quote from: stan on September 03, 2012, 16:09
I'd say no, I stopped ULing to the non top 4 sites after a few months. Not only you're wasting your time, but also support agencies that compete only with the lowest prices and lead the race to the bottom. And that is bad for all of us. They also never earned me more than 10-15% and I'm talking about 10 agencies or so, not just a couple. Besides most of those agencies put your files on dozens of partner sites, you can't even track where your content sells and there is often a problem with deleting those files. OTOH FT do that as well.

I'm glad I didn't follow this advice^^.  I have seen my income at two of the top 4 agencies drop by more that 50% in the past year, thanks to search engine changes that penalize top selling (read expensive) contributors.  Thank goodness I am on some of those "low sellers" because they are the only thing keeping my numbers to a tolerable level.

But you can lower your prices at FT. DT aside, the prices are the same. And DT doesn't seem to sell much for anyone, so you're not the only one hurt.

Quote from: stockmarketer on September 03, 2012, 13:18
SS, FT and DT all changed their best match, severely cutting my downloads. IS lets in so few of my shots that I decided to stop uploading there.  And DT implemented its ridiculous similars policy that cut my uploads there by 95%. 

Great, they should reinforce that policy, punishing everyone who's earnings depend on quantity and not quality. There's too much substandard content on the micros anyway, not allowing the buyers to find what they want, that's why they're leaving in droves, some of them willing to pay 10x, 20x or even 5000x the price on the macros (5000x comes from the comparison of average sub sale price compared to a 1500$+ RM sale).

No search algorithm can ever be as good to put only the best images in front of the buyers from millions crappy ones.

I'd say no, I stopped ULing to the non top 4 sites after a few months. Not only you're wasting your time, but also support agencies that compete only with the lowest prices and lead the race to the bottom. And that is bad for all of us. They also never earned me more than 10-15% and I'm talking about 10 agencies or so, not just a couple. Besides most of those agencies put your files on dozens of partner sites, you can't even track where your content sells and there is often a problem with deleting those files. OTOH FT do that as well.

And one more important thing; mid/bottom tier agencies are usually all sweet when you're joining them, but show their dark side when you want to remove your images. DP only deactivates them, not deletes them and someone reported they haven't even deleted them, since he got payed for the period of his absence.

Quote from: djpadavona on August 31, 2012, 14:12
I do want to point out that there should be no rush to join Warmpicture. We are a Low Earner in every sense of that description. As you would guess, trying to attract attention in a mature marketplace is very difficult.

We do have contributors which get small payouts most months. And we are seeing sales and traffic growth. But the RPI is very, very small. Nobody is "missing out." I can assure you that when our contributors are making returns which are comparable to upper Low Tier (per the poll results to the right), I will announce it proudly. Until then...let me build a buyer base for this pseudo co-op so that people who join can actually have it be worth their effort.

Wow, this is a very honest response. I didn't sell anything at WP and when I saw so many people recommending it, I just thought to myself, why, it's a waste of time (and some big names didn't sell much as well, 2 digit earnings yearly, as you hinted). But I never posted it publicly, although it is a discussion board. The reason is, of course, that I don't want to interfere with something that might become good over time, prices are high, royalty % is fair...

Quote from: traveler1116 on August 30, 2012, 23:23
Looks like they will be paying people for levels they passed earlier in the year, that's a bit surprising to me if that's what this means:

"Regarding people who have gone up a level this year: we'll have a follow up post next week with the details of how that will all be credited."

Why is that surprising? That is what they should do and they're only going to have to do it because the RC targets were announced 8 months over the deadline. If they did announce them in time, people would start getting the higher percentage the moment they've reached their (next level) target.

Quote from: leaf on August 29, 2012, 22:51

Quote from: Duncan_CSP on August 29, 2012, 20:56

Quote from: enstoker on August 29, 2012, 16:27
Duncan, my friend, are You on holliday?

Nope, no holiday for me I'm afraid! I still check MSG whenever I can.

While everyone's mileage will vary, we are continuing to set monthly sales records nearly every month in a row - which is especially nice to be doing through the traditionally slow summer months. I'm surprised to see our ranking on the right, which never seems to reflect our actual performance, but it's good to hear some people here have been noting our steady progress.

Cheers,
Duncan

For me Canstock has nice steady sales and is worthwhile uploading to as it is easy to do and is supported by StockSubmitter for automatic submission so it really doesn't take any extra work.

In terms of the poll, I think if people could vote higher values for Shutterstock, Canstock would have an even lower ranking.  For me Shutterstock earns 16x what Canstock does and I have a larger portfolio on Canstock.  The poll suggests that Canstock earns 1/10 of what Shutterstock could earn a photographer.  That said, I'm sure everyone's numbers vary a fair bit.  In terms of your nearest neighbors though, Photoune, Veer - they seems pretty spot on as I earn a similar amount with them as I do on Canstock.

Indeed, I earn at least 50x more on SS. But then again BS brings me only half as much as CS and it's ranked higher. I guess only old members are earning good money at BS. CS is a constant low seller for me, no improvement whatsoever after adding hundreds of new images, so I don't even bother anymore although the UL process is simple. But why do it, if it's futile? To be fair, I must add that I stopped ULing to all the sites except for the top 4, since they earn me less than 10% combined.

.

Quote from: disorderly on August 28, 2012, 17:54
I don't compare 123's plan to what iStock and Fotolia did.  iStock already offered the lowest royalties in town when they cut them a further 20%.  Fotolia had adjusted royalties twice already; the third adjustment was the last straw for me.  123 hasn't made me quite that angry yet.

If you forget about royalty % for a second and compare the royalties at a certain file size, you'll see that FT pays you at least 50% more on average (depends on the level you're on and the pricing you set etc) and IS pays you a few times more, the largest size at 123RF gets me around 2$ while I get (on average) over 5$ at IS. And most people get more sales with FT and IS so that again makes a difference. That being said I don't like any of those agencies particularly, So I judge them by the money they bring me. And since both bring me a lot more than 123RF, IS for instance at least 10x more, then you can know 123RF is the least favourite among the unfavorite. The bottom line is the most important, their attitudes towards us are more or less the same anyway, so that doesn't really make a difference.

Quote from: ruchos on August 28, 2012, 15:02

Quote from: stan on August 28, 2012, 14:46

Quote from: Mantis on August 28, 2012, 12:41

1. With regards to sales, we're looking to more than double the figure. 2011 was great for us, we're looking to make 2012 greater. Ultimately your sales as a whole will more than just improve. We are having month after month of improving sales, spurred on by the growth - We are spending more on advertising and promotions than ever before with more campaigns coming up soon, we're allocating a large proportion of sales revenue into various marketing channels and this is bearing fruit - I believe that most have enjoyed the increased sales throughout 2011. We're not slowing down on this.

So they're earning more and more and still that isn't enough for them, so they have to take money from our own cut. Does he know he doesn't make any sense? Does he even care if it does, since he knows the vast majority won't quit.

Sounds just like iStock, report increasing and fantastic profits, but to help us survive, we're going to need all you contributors take a pay cut.

But at least IS announced it right away, unlike 123RF that was misleading us with grandfathering everyone with over XY DLs. Meh, I don't even know why I bother complaining about it. I'll just delete my account at the end of the year.

Quote from: Mantis on August 28, 2012, 12:41

1. With regards to sales, we're looking to more than double the figure. 2011 was great for us, we're looking to make 2012 greater. Ultimately your sales as a whole will more than just improve. We are having month after month of improving sales, spurred on by the growth - We are spending more on advertising and promotions than ever before with more campaigns coming up soon, we're allocating a large proportion of sales revenue into various marketing channels and this is bearing fruit - I believe that most have enjoyed the increased sales throughout 2011. We're not slowing down on this.

So they're earning more and more and still that isn't enough for them, so they have to take money from our own cut. Does he know he doesn't make any sense? Does he even care if it does, since he knows the vast majority won't quit.

Why do you even have to start a company to do MS?

How can you check your number of RCs? I haven't found that option.

My last 3 today's sales were all sold for 8c. Well one was for 16c since it was a P+.

Quote from: Mantis on August 27, 2012, 00:27
123 is basically screwing every contributor by thinking (and knowing) they will reap huge financial rewards by integrating an RC system.  Do they care? Nope. REMEMBER......this all happens come Jan 1, 2013.

When I'll be long gone...

I'm unable to check for daily DLs, instead the revised agreement pops up. The agreement was put in place in Feb, so I don't know why is it showing up now. When I try to check my earnings they're at zero for the last six months (since the latest agreement is in effect). Is anyone else getting this?

Monaco. But will you be able to afford a flat there?

I'd say Cyprus is the best choice, corporate tax rate is 10%. And the costs of living are not high, lots of beautiful Mediterranean looking women and nice warm climate ( contrary to Poland, Hungary, Lithuania and Latvia for instance).

Stopped ULing:
- DT (sales nosedived after search and level changes)
- 123RF (moral reasons)
- CS, DP, BS, Veer,PD (very low sales, peanuts)
- Alamy (low sales and UL process that takes way too much time, too much time spend for relatively small return)

Deleted ports:
- GL, Scanstock, warmpicture, Zoonar (1 sales max at each on average in 3-4 months)

It looks like the royalty % was in the ballpark we always thought it was. Well most people thought it was a bit lower, because of the subs, for which they speculated that we get around 15% from.

I hope Yuri will chime in with his math. Although I find your calculations logical and in fact correct.

Quote from: Wim on August 21, 2012, 20:15
I just noticed the search engine is changed yet again.
Popular looks good although it has been a while since it showed the true populars, lots of new images.
At least it's a sign they are still working on it.

So that's why my sales are starting to look normal as of today, I'd say from a few hours ago. Well, it was about time, the last couple of weeks were pretty bad

I am not exclusive,  have reached my last year's RC target and also a higher level a while ago (you're missing that one, so I couldn't vote)

And now I just have to sit tight for retro payment

Luissantos84: I can't remember which article I've read it in, a read a few. And went through a couple of IPO threads here as well, not to mention earnings and trends threads (general climate in MS changing etc). I also remember someone, I think he was an IS exclusive saying that as well, that SS royalty % is below the lowest of IS. I'm sure someone will chime in with the info, link, quote or whatever, since I know quite a few people are aware of that part of the IPO report/article.