Do you mean two different payments or a single payment with doubled amount?

I noticed that in January I sold only one clip twice, at the same day and same time.
Maybe the glitch is there and not the payout?

Not sales, I was referring to payouts to Paypal.

I don't think you can absorb calories just from shooting photography. You will probably need normal nutritional sustenance as well.

You know it's a good sign when you get the signup email and its format layout is all messed up. 

How is it a lie when they told us months in advance "Now Scheduled for February 20, 2017
Royalty statement for January transactions available via Account Management in ESP."

Thanks for posting the date. I wasn't sure when it was supposed to be setup. Were the December 2016 downloadable numbers final? Just curious if you knew. I downloaded mine and recorded them from their links. They seemed pretty low, but that could have been a December thing. I like to keep extra records, so it would be nice if they were accurate but they are mostly for my own use.

I just kind of skim read it, but it doesn't look like they are changing the volume stuff...

Hi,

 

There is no change to contributor payouts for our 350 / 750 per month plans. When a customer downloads one of your images through the 350 / 750 plans, you will continue to receive $0.25 - $0.38 (depending on your lifetime earnings).

 

As mentioned before, these new test pricing plans are designed to attract a new set of customers who are looking for an offering somewhere between the Packs and the 350 / 750 subscriptions. These new customers will drive a new stream of downloads and earnings.

 

You�ll be earning more per download through these 10 / 50 per month plans than you do for our large volume plans. For these test products, your earnings will be calculated as a percentage of the purchase price, according to your earning tier in the Custom Image / Enhanced License Image category.  You will see these earnings in the Single and Other column in your earnings summary.

 

Best,

 

Alex

Clunky upload system, hardly any sales. Who cares about Alamy, really?

I thought they were modifying the upload system. Has that not happened yet?

I say go for it. Others have had success with similar strategies and you never really know until you try. The market fluctuates a lot though, so what works today may not work in the future. All you can really do is evaluate your numbers and move in the directions that look the most promising.

I can get into the Getty Forum using my usual Istock login details. Perhaps you have something wrong?

The forums there appear to indicate that this is a temporary problem, and support provided this link to view stats for the time being: http://www.istockphoto.com/user_stats.php?id=000000&Offset=-1&DownloadsGraphFileType

Hope it helps you until the site mess is sorted out.

I hope that is correct and it is just temporary. I guess that is business as usual. They roll out all updates broken.

Meh. I'm always amazed at the images people license. Some of the stuff I was embarrassed to upload went on to become my best selling images.

And it doesn't matter how amazing your work is if you're being paid two cents for it.

Up with complaints and petitions!

Definitely, then there are the horrifying Frankenstein monsters masterpieces people create after they get bought.

If you want to spend a bunch of money, you can buy me out. I'd could take a little retirement.

Quote from: Madrolly on October 03, 2016, 07:02

...But it's gotta be something... some algorithms i don't know...

This is your basic problem - why does it have to be something? Why do you assume this market will conform to some sort of numerical pattern or model and the trick is to figure it out?

This isn't alchemy; there isn't some secret that you just have to dig deep enough to discover.

LOL. Yeah, just when I think I've got it all figured out, it all changes.

Quote from: cthoman on September 25, 2016, 21:58

The first couple reasons mentioned in the thread were about wanting to hide from employers or not wanting people to know they were in microstock. There are a million great reasons to want to be anonymous, but those made me chuckle a bit. That said, I can see the other side too of buyers having good reasons to want to know about contributors. I guess it's probably just easier to make it optional.

Could you please name just one of them?

I have (just deleted) my website link on my personal info page in case anyone needs more insight about me, so it's not a secret but I don't like to be bullied by anyone.
It is not as much about revealing this info but about elementary human rights like privacy.

I would think some buyers just like to know who they are buying from or want to follow them on social media. Others might prefer to work with local artists from their city, state or country. Some may want to contact the artist first because they want the option of additional freelance work in the same style or to hire them to make slight changes. I try to make myself easily available, so I get contacted for a variety of freelance work and different people sometimes just popping in to say hi.

If the buyers have problems with trustworthiness, then it is a problem of the agency, not the contributors. After this stunt I lost my trust in DT.

That's what it usually boils down to in the end though. Contributors aren't particularly important. They can always find more.