|
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 - Jo Ann Snover
2976
« on: December 05, 2014, 17:19 »
If you're looking for help or sympathy, you may be in the wrong place. Spamming and keywording badly on purpose is a massively destructive thing to do and why anyone would get beyond one warning is a mystery to me.
Perhaps you can tell us what happens if you keep on *
2977
« on: December 04, 2014, 20:35 »
I've been keeping track of the agency numbers about once a month since March. I looked at the numbers today and here are those, plus the ones from Nov 14th. First number is global/second US (or other highest country and I've noted which)
Nov 14 2014
IS 524 / 528
SS 224 / 272
Thinkstock 5,395 / 1,731
Getty 2,533 / 1,039
Fotolia 671 / (DE) 144 (FR) 327 (US) 2,760
dreamstime 768 / 1,052
123rf 729 / 1,216
DepositPhotos 1,211 / 1,999
PhotoDune 3,208 / 4,506
Canstock 4,306 / 4,299
Alamy 12,643 / (GB) 2,910 (US) 16,936
DollarPhotoClub 2,429 / 1,966
Canva 2,151 / 933
Dec 4 2014
IS 600 /602
SS 238 /320
Thinkstock 5,736 / 2,155
Getty 2,712 / 1,128
Fotolia 794 / (DE) 160 (FR) 344 (US) 2,7923
dreamstime 811 / 1,119
123rf 810 / 1,368
DepositPhotos 1,346 / 2,044
PhotoDune 3,814 / 4,506
Canstock 4,306 / 4,758
Alamy 14,047 / (GB) 3,165 (US) 19,953
DollarPhotoClub 2,697 / 2,071
Canva 2,082 / 909
As a percentage, iStock's drop is about twice that of SS. The only site whose ranking has improved is Canva - everyone else has lost ground with some (like Alamy) seeing big drops. Even the toxic Dollar Photo Club, which had seen improving stats for a few months has been dropping off too.
I don't know what any of this really means, but I think whatever errors there are probably affect all the sites roughly similarly.
2978
« on: December 04, 2014, 12:21 »
I took a look and was a bit put off by the bulk packs that are the majority of what's for sale (with some of them saddled with the same intellectual property issues as at Creative Market). I don't want to compete with packs of 40 images (with little/no information about the sizes) for $10 with no license (that I can see).
You could forgive a purchaser there if they thought they were buying outright ownership of the images - there needs to be something pointing to license terms, if in fact you are purchasing a royalty free license, with some terms and restrictions.
2979
« on: December 04, 2014, 12:10 »
I decided to try FAA in January 2013 and figured that it'd be worth $30 to see if it was a useful site for me. If there was nothing sold, then I wouldn't renew. I renewed in Jan 2014 because the first sale had covered the $30 cost and it made sense to continue.
I don't sell a ton there, but, with a few exceptions each sale beats a month's income at a low earner like CanStock so I figure it's worth it.
I'll never get rich there, but I've made enough this year to renew in Jan 2015 (assuming things don't implode between now and then in some way). I sold one license via pixels.com not long after it went live, but nothing since, so I'm not looking to that for anything, but again, thought it was worth a try (and I priced it so it was approximately equal to the license prices on my own site).
I don't promote my portfolio there in any way, and other than one purchase as a gift, I don't do print fulfillment though them. If they stop earning their fee, I'll stop paying, but so far so good.
2980
« on: December 03, 2014, 12:10 »
A mixed bag. Shutterstock had a BME, up 39% over Oct 14 and 7.5% over Nov 13. As they're the big dog in my earnings at the moment, that's great. However, Dreamstime has been pitiful lately, and so although it was up 84% over a disastrous Oct 14, it was still down 33% over Nov 14. 123rf has been in very sad shape after a fairly long run of steady sales - down 23.5% on Oct 14 and 23% on Nov 14 (it would have been worse but for a bunch of LELs on Nov 30th, so I'm not at all optimistic about things there. PhotoDune did really well - up 21% over oct 14 and 72% over Nov 13 - but it's relatively a smaller player. A bad month on 123rf is better than a good month at PhotoDune  GL Stock had a little spurt of sales, which was nice, but they're very erratic. However both they and Canva beat a truly pathetic CanStock. November has always been a very strong month for me (both Christmas and Caribbean images sell well) and possibly the good performance at SS is a switch to older images that some others thought had happened. I haven't uploaded any new Christmas images this year. FAA had a sale (not huge, but again, they beat CanStock, GL Stock, and Canva with that one sale, so can't complain too much). IS sales are too small (with only 100 images left there) to really judge anything, and there are no Christmas images in the 100.
2981
« on: December 03, 2014, 11:09 »
Thanks for all the replies! And yes, I posted in the illustrator forum to get tips from other illustrators, hehe. But I guess it's not that different from being a photographer when it comes to payments, contracts etc.
Still feels a bit risky, especially to sell to private individuals. If they don't pay, what can you do? Hire a lawyer to find some mysterious person in another country would probably fail, or at least not be worth the money it would cost.
A number of years ago I worked for myself - did graphic design and consulting. Some clients paid on time just fine and there was one who was always going to do the check run that evening (no PayPal then) whenever I called to ask why I hadn't been paid. I'm sure they were just managing cash flow and did this as a matter of course, not just with me. I would think that if you ask for some up front payment (small percentage, but it's not really the amount that matters) you'll weed out the time wasters. If you don't hand over the AI/EPS until you get final payment, at least on the first job for a given client, that adds some safety. For a larger company, they'll want to bill and pay in 30 days and you'll just have to trust them or not do business with them. There is some amount of risk for any business regarding payments - and the prices you are charged for just about everything are a bit higher than they would be if everyone paid on time all the time 
2982
« on: December 03, 2014, 10:57 »
You can get 100% of each sale before December 31, 2015;
Your ad says 2016
The ad says it expires Jan 1 2016 - meaning you get 100% up to and including Dec 31 2015 and until whatever time on Jan 1st it expires.
2983
« on: December 02, 2014, 13:23 »
Welcome from Western Washington, USA. Remember the importance of good and complete keywords as well as the quality of your illustrations & photos (I saw you had a few on Fotolia). Spamming helps no one, but leaving out keywords might lose you sales - for example your picture of a church in Lake Bled does not have Slovenia as a keyword. For this vector (again as an example) you don't have palm tree or plane or airplane in the keywords (and you could drop panorama, panoramic, magic and wallpaper as they really don't apply) http://www.123rf.com/photo_10712559_sunset-city-vector.htmlGood luck!
2984
« on: December 02, 2014, 13:04 »
They charge storage fees! Not for all users - there's a rating system based on points where $1 sold = 1 point. They also say they're waiving the storage fee if you register prior to Dec 2015. http://www.superimagemarket.com/About.aspx?content=5There's also some notion about the buyer having three months to complain about the image and "We will deduct your points if the customer complain your image(s)..." The prices appear to vary by image and as a newbie you only get to cash out every 6 months (until you've made $1,000 in sales). I think the prices are too high for what looks like pretty standard stock - although there appear to be Chinese contributors at the moment, so possibly it's something that they consider a niche, and thus the higher prices might fly. You get to choose the prices when you upload but they say they can change that. I was also surprised to see the following "5.7.1 SIM agrees to use its reasonable endeavours to grant licences as you have requested. However if SIM sells an Image outside the terms specified by you it shall not be liable for any loss." So that means they can negotiate any license they like at any price they like and contributors have to just suck it up? Really? There's a 30 day delay in deleting images and a 60 day notice for terminating the contract. I don't know that my images would be of any interest to them, but I wouldn't consider signing up given their terms and conditions. I wouldn't even get to the notion of whether they could actually sell anythinng...
2985
« on: November 28, 2014, 17:50 »
I applied and never heard back. I think some sort of e-mail to anyone who applied acknowledging receipt and promising an answer one way or the other would be the right thing to do.
2986
« on: November 26, 2014, 18:04 »
The longer periods of time often involved partner sites rather than a company's own (the company where you submit the images and delete them). I think when Jupiter Images owned StockXpert and were moving StockXpert content to some of Jupiter's sites they said it could take up to 60 days for something to be removed from a Jupiter site after it was removed by an StockXpert contributor. There was no direct, real-time connection between the systems at StockXpert that held the original submissions and Jupiter's systems that served up thumbnails in searches on the various sites. Every so often some batch job was run that indicated what was added and what removed and that then slowly made its way around the various servers. As long as the image isn't purchasable immediately, leaving the thumbnail around a while shouldn't be a liability. When I dropped out of Dreamstime's partner sales, the thumbs were gone virtually immediately as it was apparently a real-time connection. With 123rf, the thumbs hung around on the partner sites for about 48 hours but you couldn't buy the image as far as I can recall. The specifics depend on which site(s) are involved. If Deposit Photos is involved, it's highly likely you're getting very fuzzy (fictional) answers
2987
« on: November 26, 2014, 12:20 »
Nov 14 sales are up 67% over Oct 14 - but that's not as good as it sounds!
Oct 14 was about half of October 13, so November is just recovering a little. Right now it looks as if Nov 14 will be about 60% of Nov 13
What's especially bad about that was that Nov 13 was flat with November 2006 - higher RPD but lower sales volume. All that dicking around with the pricing really didn't accomplish anything.
And this month I've seen lots of those weird days-of-subs and days-of-credits lurches. I don't know what strings they're tugging at to make that happen, but it doesn't happen that way elsewhere, so I have to believe it's something DT is doing...
2988
« on: November 25, 2014, 13:13 »
I've been selling via Shutterstock for a year+ but have not received anything from Facebook directly (but then I don't have a business page there, just a personal one). Do you remember what they offered you for money if you sold through them?
2989
« on: November 25, 2014, 11:51 »
I now can check my sales using the menu again (under admin) - yea. However I'm getting a 404 if I try to look at my online portfolio using a link that's been working for months - tacking /joannsnover onto canva.com
From the admin menu I can use the portfolio link, but that's the list of everything I've submitted, including the things in review. I just wanted to see the online items the way a designer would.
I also am having a hard time switching between the two identities - my brand and the underlying account - and in seeing the draft designs I'd put together. Your designs is a blank page (which is right for the seller but not for the jo.snover underlying account).
Perhaps this is an area still being worked on - and it's not urgent as the designs were just as tests - but if you thought it was all done...
2990
« on: November 23, 2014, 13:22 »
I left NAPP after being a member for many years over a combination of their silence over forcing Creative Cloud on users and shilling for DPC
Kelby is trying to flog himself to make a living, which is his choice. However I had (mistakenly) thought the company was something else - an ASSOCIATION of pro Photoshop users - which it clearly isn't. They don't speak for users or advocate their interests, just cosy up to Adobe & others and try to sell stuff. I couldn't see giving them one cent more of my money
2991
« on: November 21, 2014, 14:52 »
Two things i noticed when I looked at the site today: 1) you don't show the pixel dimensions of the image. I know you have a minimum, but a print buyer will need to know how large it is to have an idea if it'll work for them. For very large applications, an 8MP image might not do but a 21MP image will 2) I can't go from a search or browsing on the home page to the detail page just by clicking on the thumbnail. I have to click inside the detail box in the center. That's massively irritating and I can't see how it adds anything useful. I sent in an application
2992
« on: November 20, 2014, 23:24 »
...We knew the long wait would be painful, but we were hopeful that people would understand and appreciate that we're working on the fundamentals first and building something with a long-term outlook. There are very few businesses out there (licensing stock images/illustrations/footage, etc.) that are trying something new. For the most part everyone wants to be the next Shutterstock and so many with no real big idea to separate them from all the other agencies have just failed. So, much as I'd like to have Canva fully operational, it's so refreshing to have someone trying to innovate for the long haul that many of us are willing to wait out the beta. And I'm not that far from my first payout with only 220 of my images online which is generally encouraging. Are we looking at another three months for photo reviews as well or was that just illustrations?
2993
« on: November 19, 2014, 20:10 »
My sales there are so sluggish, I'm not sure I care much, but suppose they had made a less expensive subscription for the current limited sizes and a more expensive one with any size or file type? I think there might have been some customers who walked away from iStock because of the massive increase in prices for web size images who might have been receptive to a cheap deal on smaller sizes. I can't see that this move will make much of a difference in sales volume, but I'll check in after one month and see (I just had a look today so I'd know what to compare it to 
2994
« on: November 19, 2014, 14:17 »
I received it and deleted it a couple of days ago. I also unsubscribed from their mailing list as they're apparently reduced to spamming former members of NAPP for a living
2995
« on: November 14, 2014, 22:38 »
Big Stock rep said the contributors had opted in
2996
« on: November 14, 2014, 15:48 »
I got three more "subscription" downloads today at 40.1 cents (my normal sub at 45% is 32.4 cents) - that's one of the package numbers I'd seen a lot of back when these rotten packages first appeared. As far as I know, there hasn't been one of these (for me) since August. I don't see the packages back on the pricing page, but there is a new item asking businesses to contact them for a special deal:  It's possible these subscriptions are leftovers from an annual package purchased months ago, but I'm wondering if the comment about odd prices for subscriptions in this thread might relate to a revival of these download packages in some form: http://www.microstockgroup.com/123royaltyfree-com/strange-subscription-royalty-on-123rf/
2997
« on: November 14, 2014, 11:55 »
I don't have much to add to the above advice, but I wanted to say how lovely your images are. I'm not at all surprised that SS turned you down (I think they're daft, but I don't set their photo editing guidelines), but I'm fairly sure that you could process a subset of your images slightly differently to get the cleaner look SS reviewers will want to see and get yourself accepted. I also agree that applying at Stocksy - which, if you're accepted, means image exclusivity - is a good idea. You could then take an approach similar to Sean Locke's, where some of your work goes to Stocksy (I think all his new shoots, but perhaps he can comment) and the rest goes to a number of other micros - and Shutterstock is the big earner. In Sean's case he has several years of earlier stock work that is at SS and other agencies, as well as selling direct. With a dual approach you won't tear your hair out trying to deal with getting SS to accept your lovelier work but you can process things you think will be a fit for them in a way that you know will have a high chance of passing inspection. Some photographers have said good things about Westend61 as a macro agency that might also be a fit for your work.
2998
« on: November 14, 2014, 11:39 »
I'm ok if they sell my videos for 15 cents as long as I will be getting around 20 dollars per download 
Funny, but if you were serious, I'd disagree. Except for a brief promotional intro, conditioning buyers to accept those prices would be very bad news. And then there's the Mr. Mickawber issue of income being less than expenses...
2999
« on: November 14, 2014, 11:36 »
I haven't come across a request like this before, but I do think caution is the wise choice in this situation.
Saying that the transaction (even if it were just this one) is "at no risk to you" is not the same as committing to pay for 100% of all legal expenses, hire a lawyer on your behalf, etc. should there be a lawsuit if the client didn't get the required permissions. And committing in a binding legal contract, not just an e-mail from some staffer that wouldn't commit the corporation if they later backed away.
It's not identical, but the case of the stock photograph taken over the Dancing Feet sidewalk art showed that the artist can and did go after the photographer as well as the agency and removing the item from sale didn't resolve anything (the photographer ended up settling, I think, because it got too expensive to defend).
Then when you add that they want a blanket "trust us" permission for future sales, I think you'd have to be very, very trusting to say yes. I wouldn't.
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
