|
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 - gostwyck
Pages: 1 ... 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 15 16 ... 210
251
« on: February 03, 2014, 13:23 »
Oooops, sorry for being so dim.
We all know who's based in RSA and has American-style images produced by his factories.
Hold on to your SS shares - their price will rise again. 
</speculation>
I think you're somewhat wide of the mark. According to Africa Studio's portfolio on FT they are based in Ukraine.
http://en.fotolia.com/p/293313
Oh, OK, that's a relief, in a way. Strange name! Thanks for the info.
On Istock they are member 'belchonock' but appear to have given up uploading to IS in 2010; http://www.istockphoto.com/user_view.php?id=2535718
252
« on: February 03, 2014, 13:15 »
Oooops, sorry for being so dim.
We all know who's based in RSA and has American-style images produced by his factories.
Hold on to your SS shares - their price will rise again.
</speculation>
I think you're somewhat wide of the mark. According to Africa Studio's portfolio on FT they are based in Ukraine. http://en.fotolia.com/p/293313
253
« on: February 02, 2014, 19:26 »
My best-selling image is of a businessman shaking hands with a goldfish, that has jumped out of its bowl, whilst a child blows dandelion seeds across a woman in a floral-print dress who expresses 'freedom' with her arms aloft in a sunny field.
I didn't even plan the shot __ it just happened!
254
« on: February 02, 2014, 17:03 »
I believe it is mainly down to FT's search algorithm. It appears to give no weighting whatsoever to the most relevant keywords and also heavily promotes new files (and actually appears to penalise popular files).
This means that your older best-sellers, the ones that have historically earned you the most, have disappeared so far down the default sort-order that they are rarely seen by buyers.
It also means that most searches are littered with irrelevant images (due to all the keyword spamming and/or poor translation from other languages) which must be losing FT customers. Personally I wouldn't dream of buying at FT for this reason alone (although there are many other reasons too) because the search results are simply woeful in comparison to FT's main competitors.
255
« on: January 31, 2014, 07:21 »
Welcome to the world of microstock, where More is Less !! 
More content we upload = more power to stock agency = less in commission amount to contributor.
More content we upload = more images go up on sale = less in sale for each of us.
Are contributors feeding way too much content to stock agencies that will eventually lead to our own demise?
Umm.. Guilty, your honor!!
Whaaaat? You mean that microstock photography is subject to the same laws of supply & demand, increasing standards and international competition ... as pretty much everything else in the world? Breaking news shocker.
256
« on: January 30, 2014, 17:09 »
257
« on: January 30, 2014, 15:11 »
Overall the PP totals are about what I would have expected for December. Nothing out of the ordinary.
Same here. I was about 8% up on the year before.
258
« on: January 28, 2014, 05:46 »
I Am really thinking of starting with DT again, and just suck up the similar policy.
The only reason that I started uploading to DT again was that I'd read (on MSG) that they had abandoned the 'similars' policy. I only had one file rejected out of nearly 900 uploaded (it was a fairly boring background image).
259
« on: January 28, 2014, 05:09 »
I know some people find amazing knockoffs on ebay but I have wasted a lot of money on cheap stuff in the early days. I've learned that a cheap tripod costs more than the body of a camera when it knocks over in the wind, if I'd bought a real tripod the first time I would never know this and a good quality Slick should last the rest of your life - and you will never know it but it has saved your a$s. Cheap lighting setups.... don't get me started!
This is very true! In my experience you get what you pay for. My "cheap" lights from eBay were probably one of the most expensive mistakes I made in terms of the lost opportunities whilst I struggled with them for a couple of years. It was only when I attended a 'Lypse back in 2006, sponsored by the loan of Bowens equipment, that I realised the difference that quality lights made.
260
« on: January 28, 2014, 04:54 »
A few months ago, having not uploaded any new work to DT for over two years, I finally got around to doing so and increased my portfolio by about 25% in the process.
Since then my sales have increase quite dramatically, especially of new files, although naturally my RPD has plummeted at the same time.
This month my sales are likely to be almost 3x the volume of Jan 2012 however my RPD has gone from $2.36 to $1.08 ... so actual earnings will only be up about 25% (about the same amount that I had increased my portfolio by).
I do consider it well worth uploading new content to DT as new files will eventually find their way to the higher levels and older content will not maintain their earnings forever. DT is now firmly established as my second highest earner (after SS) and they are a stable and well run agency. I believe they have a solid customer base and their market-share appears to be slowly increasing (as that of IS and FT appears to be falling away, according to my numbers).
261
« on: January 28, 2014, 04:31 »
And the good news is that my grandfather, the royalty rate of 2013, has turned up and is making a welcomed improvement to the stats, although I'm still way down on last year.
Oh, thanks for posting. Just checked and mine's back up too. Wonder if/when we can expect to be reimbursed for the back money we're owed as a result of this bug.
I suspect that it may have already happened. When I got up this morning my balance had increased by an amount that was not apparent from either recorded sales or the PP.
262
« on: January 27, 2014, 17:13 »
December's PP run has just started!
So far I have a solitary sale of 60c from the 19th. Hopefully the PP run is not yet finished.
263
« on: January 26, 2014, 11:00 »
Did anybody experienced the move and what it implies in term of stock photography? If I understand, only FT will pay in , for the rest I will have to swallow the bad exchange rate (and it's pretty bad). So, I'd like to get some feedback of someone who went through that experience if possible and any advice is welcome. Thanks so much in advance!
France has become ludicrously expensive over the last 5 or 6 years.
You mean Paris?
France is not Paris
No I mean France. Paris has always been expensive (as most capital cities tend to be).
264
« on: January 26, 2014, 09:42 »
Did anybody experienced the move and what it implies in term of stock photography? If I understand, only FT will pay in , for the rest I will have to swallow the bad exchange rate (and it's pretty bad). So, I'd like to get some feedback of someone who went through that experience if possible and any advice is welcome. Thanks so much in advance!
France has become ludicrously expensive over the last 5 or 6 years. I don't really understand why other than that they seem to be paying themselves more and more. Germany, on the other hand, despite having the same currency, is fantastically cheap. If you really want to feel some pain as a microstocker then move to Australia where their currency has gone through the roof compared to the USD and prices have skyrocketed too.
265
« on: January 26, 2014, 09:30 »
Everyone loves SS, but they decided to give profits to investors. How? No dividends have been paid and neither is there a date for when that situation might change. On the contrary SS have been using investors' money to expand their own operation as well as ours.
266
« on: January 22, 2014, 22:03 »
For all of Getty's faults (and there are many) they did try to raise the value of our assets while SS went in the opposite direction.
That's utter bollocks. SS never 'went in the opposite direction' on the value of our assets, as you put it. They have never decreased prices and they have never decreased contributors' royalties either ... unlike Istock and Getty. They just weren't so stupidly greedy and short-term as Istock/Getty and therefore have allowed their contributors to build a stable and sustainable income. I've been with SS for over 9 years and I am absolutely delighted with the growth and the relative stability of my income from them. Their website actually works too and I have never had a 'customer refund' or 'clawback' of income from them either. Your exalting of Istock/Getty has to be a joke, isn't it?.
Anyway, more fool you for believing in the Istock/Getty hype and thinking that prices could just double every year to make up for the painfully obvious fall in the volume of sales that resulted. You think that you and your precious images are worth far more than you are getting ... but you are wrong. They are worth what the market decides they are worth and Istock/Getty cannot actually change that, whatever pricing architecture they choose to employ. The market will always 'out', especially one in which supply so obviously exceeds demand.
They used to pay 40% and they now pay "around" 30%. Economical with the truth Gostwyck?
Who did? Can you substantiate your statement with links to prove your point?
SS of course. I have it somewhere, I know that for sure because you sent it to me. I'll have a look.
There's another one too - a post from you where you praised IS for raising prices - "going in the right direction" if I remember rightly. It's in the forum somewhere, maybe Luis can find it for us.
Just call me Jumbo 
I'll call you 'Jumbo' when you produce the evidence. Good luck with that!
267
« on: January 22, 2014, 21:21 »
For all of Getty's faults (and there are many) they did try to raise the value of our assets while SS went in the opposite direction.
That's utter bollocks. SS never 'went in the opposite direction' on the value of our assets, as you put it. They have never decreased prices and they have never decreased contributors' royalties either ... unlike Istock and Getty. They just weren't so stupidly greedy and short-term as Istock/Getty and therefore have allowed their contributors to build a stable and sustainable income. I've been with SS for over 9 years and I am absolutely delighted with the growth and the relative stability of my income from them. Their website actually works too and I have never had a 'customer refund' or 'clawback' of income from them either. Your exalting of Istock/Getty has to be a joke, isn't it?.
Anyway, more fool you for believing in the Istock/Getty hype and thinking that prices could just double every year to make up for the painfully obvious fall in the volume of sales that resulted. You think that you and your precious images are worth far more than you are getting ... but you are wrong. They are worth what the market decides they are worth and Istock/Getty cannot actually change that, whatever pricing architecture they choose to employ. The market will always 'out', especially one in which supply so obviously exceeds demand.
They used to pay 40% and they now pay "around" 30%. Economical with the truth Gostwyck?
Who did? Can you substantiate your statement with links to prove your point?
268
« on: January 22, 2014, 20:53 »
Gostwyck, in this case the market hasn't decided - SS has, and they admit it. Haven't you read the comments which GBAlex has posted so many times? They have chosen to price our images low to win market share.
No one is defending IS, and no one thinks their are images are precious. We all know the market is saturated. Our images are nothing more than the Pawns being swept around and off the board as the Kings slug it out.
No, again you're off the mark. SS haven't decreased prices (unlike Istock). They simply haven't increased prices of subscriptions for a few years (and neither have FT or DT). That's fair enough. A business will always choose to operate either for growth or for profit ... according to market conditions. SS know that they already have their foot on the windpipe of most of their competitors. Why on earth would they choose to release it now? Would you if you were in their position? Gbalex always 'quotes' minuscule segments, usually so out of context that they lose their meaning anyway. If only Istock/Getty were so open in their financial reporting then we could also judge them by the same standards as Gbalex pretends to do with SS. I know you and many others mourn for the heady days of 2010 when, as Istock exclusives, you earned far more than you had previously believed was possible (and then began to believe it was you birth-right to do so for ever more) but unfortunately it was simply unsustainable. Now where have you heard that word before?
269
« on: January 22, 2014, 20:13 »
For all of Getty's faults (and there are many) they did try to raise the value of our assets while SS went in the opposite direction.
That's utter bollocks. SS never 'went in the opposite direction' on the value of our assets, as you put it. They have never decreased prices and they have never decreased contributors' royalties either ... unlike Istock and Getty. They just weren't so stupidly greedy and short-term as Istock/Getty and therefore have allowed their contributors to build a stable and sustainable income. I've been with SS for over 9 years and I am absolutely delighted with the growth and the relative stability of my income from them. Their website actually works too and I have never had a 'customer refund' or 'clawback' of income from them either. Your exalting of Istock/Getty has to be a joke, isn't it?. Anyway, more fool you for believing in the Istock/Getty hype and thinking that prices could just double every year to make up for the painfully obvious fall in the volume of sales that resulted. You think that you and your precious images are worth far more than you are getting ... but you are wrong. They are worth what the market decides they are worth and Istock/Getty cannot actually change that, whatever pricing architecture they choose to employ. The market will always 'out', especially one in which supply so obviously exceeds demand.
270
« on: January 22, 2014, 18:03 »
Once sold 5 ELs in one day at IS, for over $500 total, back in the good old days...BDE.
Used to get regular $300 days at iS in 2010 with no EL's.
Anyway back on topic Woo Yay for 38c sales.
It's hardly an 'apples and apples' comparison when you were exclusive with Istock. I've had $300 days with SS too ... whilst also earning at all the other agencies. Anyway, Istock is pretty much history now. They screwed it up, all by themselves. The only certainty, like death and taxes, is that they will continue to do so.
271
« on: January 22, 2014, 15:48 »
But at iStock in 2005 there was no option for a single sale that would net you $114 in royalties (that's the largest single SOD sale I've had so far at SS). Just sayin'
Wrong. I had an EL more or less at this time for more than that. Not automated, not a direct download option, but negotiated on the phone.
There are always special people with special options
I'm a peasant and even at Shutterstock, even a peasant can earn royalties over $75 or over $100 multiple times and although very happy to see something substantial, not have it be a one-off or just for them.
I don't think lots of people, lots of the time were earning $100+ royalties at iStock in 2005.
But if it makes you feel I've more accurately represented what was going on in 2005 at istock, I'll rephrase:
But at iStock in 2005 most people weren't seeing sales that would net you $114 in royalties (that's the largest single SOD sale I've had so far at SS). Just sayin'
Exactly. I once had a 'special EL' at Istock which netted me $60 back in 2005/6 (it was before they automated the process). My highest SOD royalty at SS was $180 and I often get SOD's of $75 or higher multiple times per month.
272
« on: January 22, 2014, 15:30 »
And so, which is the business of Amazon? They also pay 70% to kindle direct writers (provided they sell their books between 2.99 and 11), and they don't ask for exclusivity, they just ask you to don't sell cheaper elsewhere.
Yep. A different model from the Apple app store. Yes there are some independents and it is possible to collect 70% - but many semi-independent e-book only authors apparently still prefer not to e-publish independently. In many cases that 70% is not going straight to the writer.
Neither of us here has ever bought an independently published Kindle book. And we buy lots of Kindle books. We have 3 Kindles between us. I buy 2 or 3 books every month. In some cases I also buy a paper copy. How much of that 70% is going to the publisher and how much is going to the writer I do not know.
When I joined Istock it was selling L-size images for $1.50 (less with bulk credit discounts) and the artist got 30c, irrespective of the discount. As far as I'm aware they had a profitable business even back then (and a website that actually worked too). Before the sell-out to Getty in Feb 2006, if I remember correctly, they trebled their prices from when I had started. Since then they must have doubled their prices a few times more, making the business ever more profitable, but never once did they think to increase royalty percentages ... in fact they've only ever done the opposite with the RC system, discounts removed from the contributors' payment, etc, etc. Microstock was a new market and the fact that the agencies were highly profitable, even when prices were a fraction of what they are today, proves that there was plenty of room to pay contributors a far higher royalty than Istock ever paid. Even DT paid a straight 50% for the first couple of years when all images cost $1.
273
« on: January 22, 2014, 13:06 »
The real problem isn't low prices, it's the disgustingly low royalty rates. Even Apple manages to pay 70% to app creators.
Exactly. Apple pays 70% to the creators of iTunes music and the publishers of iBooks too. Not only that but the content creator get to set their own prices. Now that would make microstock interesting.
274
« on: January 21, 2014, 15:38 »
I think a ton of people will be dropping the crown in the coming months. They really have no choice. New work doest sell, there is now 5 times more indie content coming in than exclusive content and the prices for exclusive content have gone up again. And then there are the "special exclusives". And the RC levels/targets have not been adjusted for the massive influx of indie files who can upload without limit now.
Exclusives will be a marginalised breed by end of the year, if the trend continues. Even if best match still favours them, the sheer volume of new indie content will swamp them out.
istock used to be an agency for high quality content where nearly 50% of the content was exclusive to the site. Now it is just a portal for everything the market has and files then get moved around the way the agency sees fit. The artist has no control over pricing although he/she knows their own specific niche best.
Very sad to watch, but I am glad I made the difficult decision last year. I keep hoping that istock gets new managers that will make it shine again. Even if I am indie, it is still hard to see what is happening there.
But I guess SS and now Dreamstime are the ones really making a visible effort to attract the artists.
Very well encapsulated Jasmine. The unintended consequences of earlier decisions will be felt particularly hard by exclusives ... even by the 'special exclusives'. At least they have the comfort of knowing that "Professionals deal with professionals".
275
« on: January 20, 2014, 15:42 »
When you find threads like this an absorbing distraction from ... anything else at all really.
Pages: 1 ... 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 15 16 ... 210
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
