|
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 - jm
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 ... 29
26
« on: July 25, 2013, 16:25 »
Believe it or not - few of us don't speak Danish. To be honest I find using Danish in this thread impolite.
27
« on: July 25, 2013, 16:12 »
I'm not stock [exceptionally not talking micro] expert at all - so what's the reason on SS stock drop mentioned in article? Looking at Getty Images, they closed on 33,98 yesterday but 52 weeks figures are 21.80 - 51.00. Why is 12% drop that tragic?
28
« on: July 25, 2013, 08:34 »
This is right strategy. It's important to scare contributors first. Now we're going to celebrate despite the fact that majority of our images are cheaper.
29
« on: July 25, 2013, 08:17 »
OK, let's suppose that they have figured out overnight that they went too far with prices reduction.
30
« on: July 25, 2013, 07:06 »
In the Fotolia forums I read that prices have changed to 1 - 6 credits instead of 1-3. Can anyone confirm that?
Yes. No. Not necessarily. I checked few files. Photos are priced 1 - 6. But it seems that vectors (incl. S - XXL raster versions) are still sold for original price.
31
« on: July 25, 2013, 03:37 »
The more I think of it the less I understand the reductions of prices. I don't know what research "agencies" made to come to this decision. They lose money as well.
Maybe I'm surrounded by weirdos but no client (and I don't work for rich corporations) has ever wanted to know price of image in advance. Sure, we have initial discussion: "I have to buy this image - this is only comp preview" "But I cannot afford to spend hundreds for image". "Don't be afraid, it's only few dollars." Period. Nobody wants to know how many dollars - one, three, seven - no one cares.
Those who need lot of images are subscribers, those who need few images a month really don't care if it's one or five dollars and the rest just steal images. At least in my personal experience.
32
« on: July 25, 2013, 02:56 »
I could probably live with it if a) period would be two years b) it is not fotolia.
My earnings on FT differ from other sites - thanks to their best match or whaterver we call it - 5% of my images make 90% of earnings.
I suppose that 75% of my portfolio belongs / sooner or later will belong to "six months unsold" category.
I will consider deleting images that sell well on other sites but are not sold on FT so far.
33
« on: July 24, 2013, 11:56 »
It's even worse. I suppose that Walmart's suppliers agree the price in advance and it's not changed unless both parties agree.
If it would be same - the only way how Wallmart's supplier could protect himself would be going fast to store, taking his products out of shelfs and running away.
But yes - they are definitely not agents.
34
« on: July 24, 2013, 07:44 »
Sales from beginning of June appeared. Hurray.
35
« on: July 23, 2013, 03:03 »
Deja vu? No June PP sales for me until June 11.
36
« on: July 21, 2013, 07:07 »
37
« on: July 19, 2013, 15:35 »
I'd better add one more sentence to model release:
Hereby model confirms that he / she does not bear a striking resemblance to anybody.
38
« on: July 18, 2013, 12:37 »
Here's another theory or possibly reality to some extent.
5000 contributors who earn $100 USD in PP earnings on a monthly basis. Money invested at 1% on a daily basis with 30 days per month using a few keystrokes
5000 x 100 = 500,000
500000 x 1% = 5000
5000 x 30 = 150,000
$150,000 USD per month for doing nothing but not pay out to contributors.
In my country it's difficult to get 6% p.a. these days. If you know bank that will pay me 150,000 USD interest from 500,000 please let me know its name.
39
« on: July 18, 2013, 10:58 »
Complete lack of faith - that's it. Explanations are substitute for trust - as someone said. With all this mess they should come with some independent audit. Now it looks that PP sales are decided by drawing lots, not mentioning these G+ mysteries.
40
« on: July 18, 2013, 03:08 »
I find very odd that more images are transferred to TS these days. Life is question of priorities.
41
« on: July 17, 2013, 16:34 »
This month is relatively good for me on DT but usually my DT earnings are about 25% of Fotolia and 50% of 123rf. Different kind of buyers? DT search engine doesn't like my name? I don't know and I stopped investigating it as I doubt I can change it
42
« on: July 17, 2013, 15:58 »
"For the first time, they can request exactly what they want..." They can request what they want but this task shows that they don't have to necessarily get it. It looks like 75% of Scoopshot contributors a) don't read briefs b) cannot read at all Send us a picture where and how ( paper or digital ) you read our Tagesspiegel https://www.scoopshot.com/v2/task/ktfthscdbfnfl
44
« on: July 17, 2013, 03:47 »
I unchecked "automatic release" for Alamy and you can "Remove Approval" for Alamy on already accepted images. I think that your images will be twice on Alamy so you have more chances to sell image. On the other hand you receive only "50% of the fee Zoonar receive from Alamy" when image is sold through them - so why to sell through partner and cut your earnings?
Anyway - 99% of my downloads on Zoonar come form DDP images (if I leave out Getty).
45
« on: July 16, 2013, 11:49 »
is the PP payout over for the month of May? If so, I am screwed! It is about 5% of my other months!
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=354958&messageid=6915924"Things will continue to be paid out, albeit slowly. We have broken the payments out into smaller batches to ensure we can catch any issues and resolve them in a quicker time frame." Obviously script has not run for all days. And as I'm still on zero I hope that also not for all contributors
46
« on: July 16, 2013, 10:59 »
Long time ago when iStock came up with some fresh idea - like Microsoft deal - I tried to convince myself that I'm too stupid to understand their brilliant strategy. You know - they are the masters of universe or at least their deputies and I'm just average designer and poor microstock photographer. The vision of brilliant strategy disappeared quickly. And vision of ANY strategy disappeared later. They just desperately try anything that could bring some buyers back. It's hard to tell what is happening to iStock - their steps have no logic (I still don't understand their new policy of accepting every snapshot and its benefit for buyers) and I doubt that anybody on this planet including insiders knows what's going on.
47
« on: July 14, 2013, 14:37 »
I'm looking forward to reading this post : "... but the fine folks in development thought maybe it would be better if we processed MAY, JUNE and JULY together instead"
48
« on: July 14, 2013, 12:15 »
I know but to me public images is very nature of Instagram. I can upload images to FB (friends only) if I want to keep them more or less private. I'm not frequent Instagram user but I'm annoyed by online world that changes to "free for use" fast.
Anyway watermark will help.
50
« on: July 14, 2013, 01:37 »
Legendary words "money isnt going to be what makes you all happy" have stepped into new dimension.
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 ... 29
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
