|
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 - click_click
2601
« on: February 20, 2010, 17:11 »
Very strange.
There is NO refund for credit card's fraud at IS. They pay us even if they are not payed.
Well I did get credits deducted due to a customer refund. I don't know how the customer paid but refunds happen even at IS
2602
« on: February 20, 2010, 15:57 »
Yes, the individual results do seem to vary quite a bit - out of 3000 sales only a single one of mine has ever been refunded, and that was an XS. Other people seem to have lost much much more.
Wow you got lucky. Last week alone I lost over $20 and this is happening several times a month for me.
2603
« on: February 20, 2010, 15:00 »
...I don't like getting the deductions either, but frankly I get more at IS than FT.
I'm sorry. I didn't read that far... I think individual results may vary but I've had sooo many refunds at FT that all other agencies combined couldn't account for half of what FT does to me.
2604
« on: February 20, 2010, 14:27 »
I don't like getting the deductions either, but frankly I get more at IS than FT.
Is this really about which agency creates more income for you? Sure, we don't see how many sales get refunded at BigStock due to the 7 day waiting period but other agencies that play in the big field like IS, SS and DT do not show such regular fraudulent actions. Especially IS must be doing a lot more to prevent that as I had barely any refunds (and I understand that it does happen...) but not like FT.
2605
« on: February 20, 2010, 13:35 »
...BigStock puts their payments on hold until they clear...how hard is that??
I'm not sure of Bigstockphoto buyers actually have to wait until payment is cleared. We, the contributors only get our credits if they clear within 7 days but I assume the buyers get their images instantly when they "pay". I don't believe that any customer is going to stay with a company that makes them wait for 7 days until they can download the images when their payment info is verified... Credit card payments are quite easy to verify but I had $15 refund for a failed wire transfer. That's a bit tough. Wire transfers are not really fast and allow a lot of room for scams in my opinion. Maybe someone can shed a bit of light on these kinds of transfers.
2606
« on: February 20, 2010, 12:56 »
... It's a standard procedure and there are a number of online verification services that do this, in real time.
Fotolia is apparently not doing this, probably to save money... Yep, my thoughts. Of course this is not going to chance since it's not us actively putting money into their pockets - it's the image buyers doing that. As long as the buyers don't complain, FT won't change their system, as losing customers is worse than losing contributors. FT has way too many contributors that it can afford to lose rather than taking the risk of losing one single paying customer. Obviously they rather take any opportunity to accept whatever payment from the funniest countries and weirdest forms of payment instead of preventing fraud which would only lead to higher overhead costs, that we and the buyers have to compensate.
2607
« on: February 19, 2010, 21:43 »
I had a bunch of nasty image refunds lately. Despite a very good day in sales, I ended up in the minus one day.
I'd love to see FT pumping some $$$ into preventing fraud!!!
No other agency is making their contributors eat the fraud like FT does...
2608
« on: February 17, 2010, 13:57 »
I think this is the process of Macro RF meeting Micro RF where both worlds will eventually merge. Of course Micro prices will raise while the old Macro RF pricing will drastically fall.
I think with DT's pricing structure where the performance of a single image determines its value is just fair (instead the Fotolia or IS approach).
Also it reflects more the actual value of how much work goes into a shot.
It's just weird that the sales volume has shrunk so suddenly at DT (for me).
2609
« on: February 17, 2010, 09:24 »
Anyone else see sales plummet after the technical issues that started last Friday? Each day since the trouble began, my numbers show me down between 50 and 90 percent from previous weeks. And I'm not saying down from $1 to $.50, which is statistically insignificant... I'm talking down from $30 to $10 a day, or in the worst case the previous two Sundays were in the $8 range and this past Sunday -- in the middle of the reporting problems -- I had one commission for a total of $.35. My sales there were on a good roll for the past few months, and now they're suddenly in the toilet. Could buyers have been experiencing technical issues when attempting to buy?
I don't know what's happening there at DT but my sales are almost non-existant anymore. I've never seen anything like this before. One would expect that after StockXpert went down and with BigStock performing really poorly that the buyers are going elsewhere but it's certainly not DT.
2610
« on: February 16, 2010, 09:31 »
I'm not just talking about sales figures (which is quite important of course).
Their comment system keeps giving me errors. It shows new notifications when there are none. Very annoying.
My two images are still "lost" and it's now more than 24 hours.
It's just a creepy feeling. No news update on the homepage from their end either...
2611
« on: February 15, 2010, 17:37 »
From Sunday to Monday night I "lost" two images.
My DT's portfolio size just went down by 2 images. I have no idea which images were affected and wrote support but DT says that there is a server update issue going on.
Usually I'd understand that if I just had a couple of images approved and I'm waiting for my portfolio size to increase by 2 but I had the opposite happening (obviously without disabling any images).
Then I constantly see that I have new comments (bold pink number in the upper right corner) but there are no new comments once I click on it. I had this issue reported before and the tech department had to fix that problem but it appears to be happening again.
Furthermore downloads have just disappeared. In over 4 years I had my first day without downloads. Additionally the entire performance of DT just went down. I don't know what's happening these days.
2612
« on: February 13, 2010, 19:59 »
...There is no such thing as "good news" in microstock.
Right. I should have said: I hope we don't get ANY news. No news is good news 
2613
« on: February 13, 2010, 19:14 »
All the latest developments especially StockXpert's shutdown and Shutterstock's takeover of BigStock resulted in a big dive in my monthly royalties income.
I'm not happy.
I thought I read somewhere that Shutterstock's takeover was a well planned move in order to become more flexible in the Microstock market.
Well now they own BigStock and would be able to increase credit based sales but nothing is happening.
BigStock used to be quite promising although NEVER playing a major role in terms of royalties for me but this is just a very bad development.
As "usual" we're not getting any news or announcement of what will be happening next, so I guess we have to sit tight and wait for the big "bang".
I hope this time it's good news...
2614
« on: February 12, 2010, 14:50 »
Who said to shoot video because stills are dying?
If some newbie with 20 clips in their port and no photos in their gallery because they can't meet the acceptance criteria, I'd be hesitant to take that "advice".
However, if long standing big shots of film making would make such a statement, it would make me reconsider whether to move more towards motion rather than stills.
2615
« on: February 12, 2010, 14:10 »
...Maybe Sean was playing the opposite game with you, like he often likes to do. 
Maybe, maybe not. I believe footage is not over-hyped. It works, it pays considerably well and it does have a good future, the same way it worked with photos and illustrations in the past when Microstock first popped up.
2616
« on: February 12, 2010, 13:31 »
It certainly would help if StockXpert's loss in royalties would be compensated by having the buyers go to other agencies and actually keep buying our stuff from there.
That didn't happen - for me and I'm wondering where those buyers are going...
2617
« on: February 12, 2010, 10:43 »
...
That doesn't preclude me from shooting some video and putting it in my portfolio.
Absolutely not! With your download numbers you'd be insane to stop shooting. Therefore it sounded to me contradictory when you said that you believe it's overhyped yet it's obvious that the "real hype" is already putting a significant amount of money in your pocket. You wouldn't be doing this if it didn't generate any money either... Video is an integral part of our media world today. It's not going to disappear nor decrease in its daily usage. It will grow and the need for video will be bigger. With the invention of new technologies that allow video to be placed virtually anywhere, the advertising world will feel the shift towards moving images. Still images are not going to take a big dive but with the ADD these days that more and more people develop, it's inevitable to ignore the "benefits"/effects of video.
2618
« on: February 12, 2010, 09:40 »
I think it's overhyped. I don't ever see the market being as big as stills. There is need, but not as much as everyone keeps yelling about, imo.
I must be understanding you wrong as you already have 434 video clips on iStock. That's quite a bunch and since stills are your main bread and butter I dare to assume that your clips still generate a significant amount of income. If you believe it's over-hyped, how come you you're doing rather well in terms of download numbers (not to mention exclusive videographers with THOUSANDS of downloads per clip!!!)? That just on the side. Stock footage IMO became "big" a couple of years ago. Despite the fact that the market is still growing I had my best returns two years ago, when there was less competition around the block. The royalties margin is bigger/better and therefore quite attractive for me and it does contribute to a big chunk of my overall royalty income.
2619
« on: February 11, 2010, 22:23 »
I'm sad.
I've joined them when my first upload ID was in the one hundreds - so pretty much a day or two after it was opened to the public.
It was a great performer and it's a big loss for me in monthly royalties.
I do hope iStock can compensate for this loss...
RIP StockXpert.
2620
« on: February 08, 2010, 18:55 »
I recommend to accept the $25 offer. Take what you can and run!
Be prepared for next time this is happening and know your prices!
Regardless of image quality - if someone wants it, you have to charge.
2622
« on: February 04, 2010, 19:42 »
I just did...
Now you're good for future sales. It's not smart to allow EL pricing below $40 or $50. It shouldn't even be possible to offer it that low... No idea what the plan was behind that.
2623
« on: February 04, 2010, 19:23 »
Instead of going one by one
you can e-mail support and ask them to change EL prices an all your images.
They will do it for you
Yep, crap happens. ONE time. Write support, they'll fix it!
2624
« on: February 04, 2010, 19:19 »
...you will find out that the D90 isn't fit for stock quality.
I beg to differ. Two things: 1. I get D90 footage accepted all the time at SS, Pond5, IS, AlwaysHD, Canstock, Fotolia, Clipdealer and Revostock. Never had a rejection because of the actual quality from the D90. 2. Don't get the D90 if you want to seriously do footage. Sounds confusing but I learned that any still camera (DSLR) is not fit for pure video shooting. You must have experienced that already on the D50 that panning or shifting focus/focal length is a real pain with a DSLR. Camera movements (mounted on car, in train etc.) will give you crazy effects with the rolling shutter as it is software driven. Use a DSLR for stills and get a real video camera for footage. You'll have way more fun and you will get a lot better quality out of it.
2625
« on: January 27, 2010, 20:16 »
... it's only after selection, does your photo have to be 3mp+, with mr and free of any other blemishes. i normally downsize to 800x600, saved at ps image level 4.
Thanks for the quick reply. It's still a bit weird to hear that Getty editors are satisfied with a 800x600 preview at level 4. I mean it's great for us to make sure the images don't land on somebody's billboard but I wonder how proper quality assessment can be made this way... I assume they re-review the full size image once they show interest...?
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
