|
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 - anonymous
Pages: 1 ... 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 15 16 ... 20
251
« on: June 22, 2008, 08:11 »
I had that a few times and they were all related to MR so I re- uploaded the MRs and got the files approved so I guess it 's nothing to worry about.
same here. it's usually when there are no faces associated with the people...sometimes they just want the release, otherwise they've all been accepted.
253
« on: June 18, 2008, 06:32 »
40% sub, 60% credit - although it has fluctuated a little over the last couple of mos. (closer to 50-50)
254
« on: June 18, 2008, 06:25 »
...could this possibly be a proactive approach by DT to "nudge" contributors into jumping ship at FT? In effect saying that if you stay at FT, your sub sales there will be subverting your DT profits even more...who's that on the grassy knoll? 
the cynic in me thought the timing convenient too 
(but that AIN'T a complaint!!!)
I assure you, I'm not complaining! DT is quickly becoming my reliable and steady workhorse. And with "voluntary" increases, they're quickly becoming a fave in general. As a designer, I'm using them about 50% of the time for purchasing images (no subscription tho )
255
« on: June 17, 2008, 10:01 »
...could this possibly be a proactive approach by DT to "nudge" contributors into jumping ship at FT? In effect saying that if you stay at FT, your sub sales there will be subverting your DT profits even more...who's that on the grassy knoll?
256
« on: June 16, 2008, 17:17 »
Ahhh....but Molly, you're using "logic" and "good business sense"....something that FT has chosen NOT to use. In order to understand, you must wrap your head around the concepts of "illogic", ostrisizing", and good old fashioned "schizophrenia".
Well that puts me right out .... best pack my bags and go... Cheers Mollypix [/quote] The truly sad part is, there was a time when FT was one of the coolest micros out there. All of the images they now shoot down for "type of photograph...or whatever they call it" (for me anyway), are images from the same shoots that sell very well. This is why i don't jump ship as they generate about 10% of my monthly revenue. That said, they lambast everything I send them now. I hope they don't go under but they're setting the stage for a very methodical disappearing act from the bizzness (aka LO).
257
« on: June 16, 2008, 17:09 »
Graci Alex
258
« on: June 16, 2008, 17:06 »
opting out at this point...there's a global setting for that and pricing so you don't have to do it for each individual image...I'm experiencing "modest" sales there as well (base pricing at $10.00).
259
« on: June 16, 2008, 12:07 »
Fotolia should not forget the old problem of getting microstock sites up and running. Uploads to site v Downloads and income from the site...to generate income you need uploads.
They have certainly slowed down...I don't believe there is any ceiling for the number of images. If you discourage uploading you are effectively cutting off your supply. Cut off the supply, no matter how many images you have, means to cut off your future income.
I do agree with culling non selling images...18mths and no sales...in the bin...but to have a carte blanche attitude to many types of images is suicide...
May to debate continue...
Cheers
Mollypix
Ahhh....but Molly, you're using "logic" and "good business sense"....something that FT has chosen NOT to use. In order to understand, you must wrap your head around the concepts of "illogic", ostrisizing", and good old fashioned "schizophrenia".
260
« on: June 14, 2008, 23:49 »
I suppose they don't have to pay reviewers but it is going to cost a lot to host all those sub standard photos and I would like to see more sales before I have any faith in their future.
ditto...I like Arian's up-front accessibility and the site's layout. Still HATE the goofy rating system allowing snipers to shoot you down in the search results....but I'll give them a few more months to to if they can sort out whether to be a stock site or a vanity site.
262
« on: June 14, 2008, 17:20 »
I don't have to stop uploading to Fotolia - they have effectively done it for me. Over the last two weeks I had 0% approval there, while DT and ISP had approximately 60% with the same images.
Welcome to the club...I HAVE stopped uploading, but since I have a large port there that earns a good amount of $$$ each month, I'll leave my stuff up there until the subs take over. It would be in Chad's best interest (as well as FT's) to take a class in biz/communication 101 to not THREATEN contributors and instead, ASK for feedback that might benefit all...I'm really concerned for both (mine and FT) our futures on the site. ...and to address your original point: there is no one at the reviewer helm, it is an semi-automated rejection system with a monkey pushing the buttons.
263
« on: June 14, 2008, 17:07 »
since some sites require while others don't, I always attach a snapshot of the model to the release to avoid these issues. The sites are simply trying to cover their butts. Makes alot of sense when you boil it all down...I'd require it too if i was running a micro. I admit that it is a bit cumbersome but i understand.
264
« on: June 14, 2008, 01:19 »
first sub sale for me today, from a customer that has previously bought from me paying "regular" prices. So much about Fotolia's fairytale of "only new customers buying subs"... 
ditto...1 one today for less $$..ugh
265
« on: June 14, 2008, 00:37 »
garbage in...garbage out...
BINGO...there's no need to reinvent the square wheel!
266
« on: June 14, 2008, 00:28 »
It's not near as complex as it sounds: 1. Duplicate FT's site along with non-functioning search and whacked out keywording: 2 weeks $10,000.00 2. Build automated "reviewer" that declines all images for "type of photograph": 1 day $500.00 3. System that auto posts "threats" that warn against saying anything bad, on (or off) of the web site's forums: This you outsource for pennies a day. ...all for under 12 G's
267
« on: June 02, 2008, 10:17 »
Before upload a part of my portfolio here I'd like to know how easy is to delete images at Yaymicro. I don't want to make same mistake that I made with Dreamstime and Albumo.
Thanks
Each photo has a delete button...not sure if you can delete the whole port with one click.
268
« on: June 01, 2008, 08:06 »
They simply have to build some volume initially. To open shop with 1000 good images is not going to draw as much fanfare as 50,000 moderate - good photos. And as I've always contended, tis not OUR place to judge whether a shot is "good" or "useful", that judgement lies soley in the hands of the buyers and their $$$.
269
« on: June 01, 2008, 08:00 »
jsnover has a mind like a steel trap...I'm reading and going, "oh yeah...I remeber...oh yeah...that too".
270
« on: May 31, 2008, 14:48 »
Maybe they're finally moving out of beta. What the heck would cause them to be down for two full days? 
Hardware upgrades
271
« on: May 31, 2008, 12:06 »
Face it. We're just the suppliers of ammo. The sites themselves will be the casualties. We can always make more ammo and sell to the survivors. We may be a bit poorer for it but we're not out of business.
perfectly spoken
272
« on: May 30, 2008, 17:28 »
Fotolia seems to have taken a decision it wants to implement in a couple of months. Result: mayhem.
I hope you're wrong but I've already got my seatbelt on.
273
« on: May 30, 2008, 17:11 »
bad waters to tread in...you violate 99% of web site's policies. Move forward at your own risk.
274
« on: May 30, 2008, 17:08 »
that exclusive agreement though... ALL RF images everywhere... that is just one bullet i am not willing to bite, not to mention the risk of putting all eggs in one basket.
ditto
275
« on: May 30, 2008, 17:03 »
Personally I think that photos right now are cheaper than necessary. If a designer can not afford to spend a few dollars on a photograph, then they are in the wrong business.
Besides who would like sub par images even if they cost 25 cents? Just go to fli*r and look for images with cc licence for free.
I see that crapstock.com already exist, would that be the future home of this idea??
devil's advocate: The prices they're discussing are in line with all of the existing micros. A great conceptual photo that suffers from technical problems (i.e. shot down by most agencies) may be exactly what a designer is looking for, so, the concept is feasable. I'm a believer in "more options" are better than "less options" as far as the consumer is concerned. Again, I'm a designer by trade. To have more choices is a value-add for me. I'm solid in Photoshop...I can take "unusable" photos and make them into exactly what the client wants. Flickr is as boring to me as any other vanity site..never go there (no dis intended J2K).
Pages: 1 ... 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 15 16 ... 20
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
