|
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 ... 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 15 16 ... 88
251
« on: January 04, 2022, 15:55 »
15% is, was, and will be a greedy insult.
252
« on: December 31, 2021, 00:17 »
Sadly, photo sales have always been pretty slow on P5, they used to talk about starting their photo promotion push, but I haven't heard anything about that in ages, and sales seem if anything even slower this year although nowhere near the drop it sounds like video sales have made.
I also got 9 of those $0.04 sales at Alamy today. They should put a floor on the amount the so called distributors can sell for. ($0.15 sale price, I get a whopping 27% rounded up). That brings my RPD for the month down to $2.96. Definitely in the microstock range level.
I have tied the total number of sales for the year with my previous best year, 2012, but the total $ images sold for was beat 6 other years, and I am sure that the amount I actually get out of these sales is even less compared to previous years.
253
« on: December 24, 2021, 13:31 »
not surprising that "1234" is the most popular 4 digit number, but who knew 4970 and 8529 could be so popular, or maybe they are the only ones that have sold.
I think long ago I tried to upload a few blurry backgrounds like that - all rejected. I clearly missed out on a goldmine. Looks like they are all titled the same, I didn't bother to check the keywords though. I guess SS is getting what they are paying for.
254
« on: December 22, 2021, 22:42 »
I would start with "microstock is a long term losing proposition". Then I would talk about how much work you would have to put in to make X money, and how X will decrease for as long as the supply vastly outstrips demand.
Sure, with skill and hard work you can make $, but with skill and hard work you could probably make more doing something else.
255
« on: December 21, 2021, 18:14 »
We didn't come so very far together, after selling my stuff for years you decided it wasn't good enough anymore and dropped me like a first wife. I guess you are enjoying your new "community" now.
256
« on: November 29, 2021, 19:45 »
I think there are many factors out of the artists control that goes into images taking off or languishing. Mostly issues of timing and early sales, but also if the site feeds different content to buyers based on location (of the buyer or the photographer). A lot of it is just the sites secret sauce that might include such things that really don't usually matter like camera, image size (as long as it is big enough), location, how a port does overall, age of the image, how many uploads you have made recently, your acceptance ratio, etc. The big sites probably do a lot of A/B testing and tweak the search continuously. I'm pretty sure that if you could upload the same image through different accounts or at different times (or even at the same time) they would do very differently.
Still - good in demand images will generally do better than crappy images and a port full of the former will definitely outperform a port of the latter, That doesn't mean that one mediocre image might not vastly outperform another one for no apparent reason.
I doubt they have much overall pushing of specific ports up or down, although they certainly could if they wanted to. Personally I think they should push spammers down, but that doesn't seem to be something they really care about.
257
« on: November 18, 2021, 17:35 »
Hi All,
Hopefully I can add some clarity here.
Firstly, this survey is 100% optional and anonymous. We will end up with % numbers against the survey questions with no identifiable information next to the answers. The data itself is not accessible other than to view results as a summary and there is absolutely zero chance of us "selling this data on" (as has been suggested in this thread).
Picture buyers in the publishing world are increasingly interested in this type of information, and when I say interested, I'm not talking about us "tapping into" some kind of trend.
We have face to face meetings with world leading publishers who ask us specific questions about where the images on Alamy come from and who takes them. They are keen to source images from a diverse mix of providers that demonstrate equal opportunities and ethical dealings. This subject has become increasingly common in our client meetings over recent times and we felt that we did not have the right level of information to inform them, but also closer to home, we want to make sure we are operating in an ethical and inclusive way.
That is the reason as to why this has been sent. The format, wording and distribution method we've chosen has been reviewed at all levels within the business and signed off by the in-house legal team within PA Media.
I hope this clears up any confusion around the survey, if you have any specific questions then please feel free to email [email protected] and the Contributor Releations team will be happy to help.
Many thanks,
James Allsworth
Head of Content
ooh ooh ooh, I bet the buyers would be really happy to know that you restored the 50/50 split to contributors to help out your diverse contributors. or even better roll it back to the 60 percent for the contributor. I'll tell you I am whatever ethnicity or whatever you want if you do that.
258
« on: November 04, 2021, 19:40 »
I got 3 listed, Does anyone know if Alamy is taking 60% of DACS that they collect now? If so I should figure out how to apply for it myself, for 3 figures I can spend a few hours applying.
"Q. I dont understand clause 28 of the contract
A. This clause confirms we can claim a share of royalties for secondary uses of your images from collecting societies such as DACS. We will pay you a 50% share of these royalties after recouping our administration charges of around 1 per claim."
From https://www.alamy.com/contributor/faqs/most-frequently-asked-questions/?section=9
I had taken this to mean 1 pound per person per year. Not 1 pound for every usage. That would seem crazy expensive to me.
I got $16 for DACS TV usage which I don't claim directly because Alamy has this info. I can't get it here in Canada. I too got about $550 for the rest, so it is definitely worth your while to claim yourself. But I think it may be too late for you. Once Alamy claims for you your stuck and can't back out anymore.
I presume that is it for this year, but maybe next year I can claim it myself. I should set myself a reminder.
259
« on: November 04, 2021, 14:18 »
I got 3 listed, Does anyone know if Alamy is taking 60% of DACS that they collect now? If so I should figure out how to apply for it myself, for 3 figures I can spend a few hours applying.
"Q. I dont understand clause 28 of the contract
A. This clause confirms we can claim a share of royalties for secondary uses of your images from collecting societies such as DACS. We will pay you a 50% share of these royalties after recouping our administration charges of around 1 per claim."
From https://www.alamy.com/contributor/faqs/most-frequently-asked-questions/?section=9
My total this year was $33.11 (in two separate line items; not sure why). The money would have to be much more for me to want to set the calendar reminders and spend time filling out the paperwork. I think a 50% share plus 1 per claim is pretty outrageous (I could see a minimum for administration fees, but to take a flat fee plus 50% takes chutzpah, IMO), but I'm not motivated to take on the task of applying
thanks, Maybe each time they list it is a separate "claim" so they can hit you for another pound... re: Firn above, I am pretty sure it is for uses in the UK, not just UK citizens. in the past I have always been paid the money eventually. Their accounting reporting certainly isn't clear or obvious but other than balances that have never cleared has always added up eventually.
260
« on: November 04, 2021, 10:39 »
I got 3 listed, Does anyone know if Alamy is taking 60% of DACS that they collect now? If so I should figure out how to apply for it myself, for 3 figures I can spend a few hours applying.
261
« on: October 27, 2021, 20:08 »
Thanks for the report and analysis. It looks like they took a much bigger slice starting last year. I guess that is no surprise to contributors. I wonder if the % they take will go up in Q1 and then slowly drop through Q4 before jumping back up again or if it isn't that obvious.
I wonder if they are counting me in their 1.9 million contributors even though my port is turned off. I guess I am still contributing to their AI image learning stuff. Too bad we get nothing for that.
262
« on: October 26, 2021, 14:02 »
As others have said above - Alamy is a shadow of its former self (as are SS and IS and pretty much every other place).
When I started their claim to have the highest commissions in the industry might have been true at 60% of often pretty good prices. Then 50% (40% with distributor sales) now 40% and as low as <24% for distributor sales - and soon the silver contributors will really get screwed. Fortunately I have enough sales that I won't fall to that point.
I already have more sales this year than all last year, but significantly less income both gross and especially my take. Those sub $2 (gross) sales really don't add up much.
If you wanted to be write a more useful article you could explain how Alamy search works, and how their odd reporting of sales and accounting works. I am not sure anyone knows how the search really works though, and this includes the people that run it.
263
« on: October 25, 2021, 16:01 »
I wonder if they did some creative accounting timing to bring a heap of big SODs to January so that they could take a much higher percentage. I certainly wouldn't put it past them anymore. That would be nice if they had opened up the larger value sales to the little people, as at .10 a download one big SOD can make a month for all but the highest level sellers.
264
« on: October 25, 2021, 15:54 »
Ok. So, about those vector nominations...
I got hundreds of vectors nominated and now I don't know what to do. What's the acceptance rate?
As usual - it depends. For photos I only selected those that don't sell well anywhere and are not particularly unique or difficult to take for me. I don't remember how many I ended up nominating but I think well under 50% of those got accepted.
265
« on: October 24, 2021, 20:45 »
With the change of seasons and a bit of fresh snow on the mountains I have been getting up early for some sunrise pics - combined with the moonset recently. I have a huge backlog of hiking photos to get through, but it isn't really worth it for micro prices. but if I am working on something I might keyword and upload it.
266
« on: October 20, 2021, 19:54 »
Nice you won the search lottery - enjoy it while it lasts
Don't understand what it is you meant but I like your member pic:
'Download please!' 
Thanks, I presume there are many thousands of moon images that are good enough that if they were on the first page of the search they would get downloaded. Somehow yours got there - so you will get sales and this should continue until the site changes the search. I managed to get a fireworks pic on the first page for about 3 years. Then one day it wasn't on the first 10 pages and sales went from average of about 1 per day to under one per month.
267
« on: October 20, 2021, 11:38 »
So, yes I know 10 vs 20 is a 100% increase, but that was not the point I was making. I have a merely max of 200 photo's in each portfolio I have with the three big ones. To busy with other work to let it grow for now. About 15% of each individual photo has been sold and some are bestsellers in the way they have sold a lot more times than others.
So one of my bestsellers is a decent photo taken of the moon (pretty pin sharp, good post-processing, not many pixels though due to the necesarry cropping when taken at 960 mm). It's one a first page with one of the big agencies and for all the time.
This agency has about a couple of million of users. Now with Halloween upcoming I see a small rise in sales. From 2-3 a week to 4-5 a week. So hey, sort of a 100% increase, yeah!
But every week it's 2 or 3 and now 4-5. Never, with the millions of users they have, it's 20,60,200 or 0. And that's what I would have expected it to do with the one photo versus millions of customers. That's what I mean with stable and that is what surprises me.
It's not a photo of a rare item that is a niche and only some clients could be interested in I would say.
Nice you won the search lottery - enjoy it while it lasts
268
« on: October 15, 2021, 23:48 »
"the wall" is when the number of new images you can produce does not keep up with the falloff of sales of old images as well as the total number of new images overall.
If you have a few hundred pics you can double your port in a relatively short time and keep the sales volume rising. As your port gets bigger at some point you can't keep up. If you can produce a higher percentage of good selling pics you can stave this off for longer, but it is a numbers game and they will catch up to you eventually. Hopefully at that point your return is enough to offset the amount of work you are putting in.
269
« on: October 14, 2021, 12:41 »
In general, your income will fall over time. This is if you are uploading or not unless you are good or lucky or are still on the right side of "the cliff".
I think the drop has more to do with what your portfolio contains - does it have dated things or images that are very well covered or more down the long tail or timeless images.
I think the big changes the sites have made make a much bigger difference than uploads over a 3-4 month time period. So dropping percentage paid and changing the search makes a much bigger difference. What you do or don't do makes a difference, but it can all be wiped out (or boosted if you are lucky) by a search change or implementation of a location based search or cutting your take 30% or whatever they do.
Also after a few years it seems my sales have dropped to some pretty low steady state on the sites I stopped uploading to.
270
« on: October 01, 2021, 12:48 »
The bump in price was to help contributors through Covid, I guess Covid is officially over?
no, but it was nice while it lasted (the .38, not Covid). I don't see SS going back to .38 any time soon though.
271
« on: September 30, 2021, 21:38 »
No, I don't think so - although I think I have had a few decent sales at Alamy refunded because they were bought at a much cheaper micro site.
That said, if everyone left the dime agencies, then they would either stop being dime agencies or else they would just cease to exist. Sadly everyone didn't / doesn't.
At some point I couldn't stomach getting paid so little and such a small percentage, so I left. This cost me $. Fortunately I already have a table and have other ways to put food on it.
At least I am not overly pained now each time SS and Getty do something to screw the artists more.
272
« on: September 27, 2021, 11:11 »
Every time there's an announcement like this, there's always skepticism from contributors. But the most important part that everyone seems to miss, is that they said they're confident it will result in more revenue... they didn't say who is going to be the recipient of this additional revenue. I have no doubt that this will result in more revenue. For iStock. They wouldn't have implemented it otherwise... they just never mentioned that it would result in more revenue for us lot. Keep that in mind when you're all posting "they promised us more revenue" a month, six months, a year down the line. They didn't.
The skepticism is well warranted. sites like 123RF said "your income will double". Nope, not even close. Contributors are right to be very leery of these "exciting announcements". At 1.5 to 2x still prices, I would be getting somewhere in the 20 cent to 4$ range for video - most at the lower end. I am presuming the <.01 "sales" are for some other scheme, otherwise I'd be getting 1.5 to 2X that for video (if I ever sent video to Getty, which isn't going to happen unless they really change - and not in this direction). It is nice they are guaranteeing at least equal income from before for some contributors- it is probably more of a grab for market share than anything else. Which just means Getty gets to take their 85% out of a small sale instead of some other site taking probably a smaller cut of a larger sale.
273
« on: September 25, 2021, 14:32 »
Every time I have looked at a cell phone photo in detail - it sucks. Maybe if you downsize to the minimum it would be good enough (and lets face it, most web uses are tiny, and for that they are fine).
For web use and microstock prices - sure, cell phone photos should be good enough. As far as better than an APS-c of full frame sensor at full resolution, not even close.
video might be another story, I don't know about that.
274
« on: September 23, 2021, 20:39 »
the sad part is that we are severely censored on the forum. Say anything they don't like any your banished!
SS is a private company and they have the right to control what's being shouted in their home. I am sure that you too would not tolerate being insulted in your own home.
They invited us in and we helped build that house.
Nah.
That's no different than any other contract in the business world between independent entities.
When you freely sign that contract, you didn't sign it to build their house, but to build yours. You never thought about helping SS build some house, you only thought of your own interest.
Or, if you want, you helped build their house as much as they helped build yours. 
Because when it's not convenient to you anymore, you can simply walk away. As long as you stay, it means SS is helping you build your own house. 
but only one side keeps changing the contract
And each time you had the option to walk away.
If you didn't, it means that you are still OK with the contract.
In @Noedelhap words, SS is still helping you build your house. 😉
they made one too many changes and I walked.
275
« on: September 23, 2021, 17:08 »
the sad part is that we are severely censored on the forum. Say anything they don't like any your banished!
SS is a private company and they have the right to control what's being shouted in their home. I am sure that you too would not tolerate being insulted in your own home.
They invited us in and we helped build that house.
Nah.
That's no different than any other contract in the business world between independent entities.
When you freely sign that contract, you didn't sign it to build their house, but to build yours. You never thought about helping SS build some house, you only thought of your own interest.
Or, if you want, you helped build their house as much as they helped build yours.
Because when it's not convenient to you anymore, you can simply walk away. As long as you stay, it means SS is helping you build your own house.
but only one side keeps changing the contract
Pages: 1 ... 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 15 16 ... 88
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
