|
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 - KB
Pages: 1 ... 8 9 10 11 12 [13] 14 15 16 17 18 ... 57
301
« on: November 05, 2014, 10:35 »
Clipcanvas:
No sales
And if by mistake there is a sale, then NO MONEY.
The first may still be true, but the latter no longer is. At least, I finally got paid, and so did some others.
I hope if something changes again, it will be the first (no sales) that changes.
I'd be interesting in learning what the someone who disagrees with my post, disagrees with? Is it someone who has not been paid? I'd like to know if they still are not paying some people.
302
« on: November 05, 2014, 00:47 »
Clipcanvas:
No sales
And if by mistake there is a sale, then NO MONEY.
The first may still be true, but the latter no longer is. At least, I finally got paid, and so did some others. I hope if something changes again, it will be the first (no sales) that changes.
303
« on: November 04, 2014, 11:30 »
Another vote as noted above for easy drag and drop between Ess, Main and comp, if the three tiers are deemed worth keeping.
Ok, but please do NOT make the interface in such a way that we have to drag and drop each and every keyword we want, one at a time, between sections. That would be going backwards, not forwards. Ideally we need to be able to select and act on multiple keywords at once, either by checkbox or by holding down the <Ctrl> / <Cmd> key and clicking. The top 3 things I'd like to see: 1. IPTC data copied to Alamy fields as appropriate (and clearly document which IPTC fields are copied to which Alamy fields, so we don't have to guess). 2. By default move the first X (6?) keywords to the Essentials field, the rest to Main -- if there are too many to fit, the last go to Comprehensive. (I agree with others who have said it would be best to based on keyword count, not length, but if that's not possible, then please do not truncate or split phrases when doing this.) 3. Let us set defaults for the Attributes fields (but still make the fields very visible and easy to change when we need to override them). 4. (I lied) GET RID OF THE TABBED DIALOG BOX! We need to be able to see and change all fields on one page -- no tabs allowed! 5. Ideally, let us work on one, long page like SS or the way Alamy used to be (I think -- it's been too long). So we don't have to keep clicking to get to the next or previous image to edit. And make things FASTER (hopefully getting rid of Flash will do that). I hate pressing "Save All Changes", then having to wait, and then having another box pop up for 5-10 seconds showing "Successful". Speaking of documenting things, how about making it very clear how best to deal with phrases? Must we (please, no!) put quotations around phrases, or can they be kept as phrases by comma delimiting? (This is for the next input method, not the current.)
304
« on: November 04, 2014, 11:00 »
Hi there. I just signed up for clipcanvas and am uploading a bunch of clips, but can't find a way to change the thumbnails. Can anyone help? Thanks.
ClipCanvas' contributor's interface is very poor. As far as I know there is no way to change the thumbnail (short of writing to support, and even then, I don't know if they can do it). There's also no way to edit a file once accepted -- you can't correct mistakes in title, description, keyword, or anything else. Short of writing support (they will do that for you, but I never bother). So be very sure everything is correct before you press that final 'submit' button (or however it's labeled). I hope that they can find a way to improve the contributor side, but I think they'll need to improve sales before they can get to that.
305
« on: November 02, 2014, 10:55 »
Definitely have a minimum price for HD footage of around $40. And what about 4K footage? SS sells 4K clips at $299. Most 4K clips I've seen on P5 are < $100, with several prolific contributors pricing them at $50, $40, even $30 each! I don't know why the idiots do this, but equally I can't understand why P5 allows it.
306
« on: November 02, 2014, 10:52 »
I am small potatoes compared to the majority here but I started with 214 downloads per month (Jan) on iStock to well over 400 downloads now!
If that's small potatoes, then I'm barely shoots pushing out of the ground.
307
« on: November 01, 2014, 12:16 »
IS exclusive, continuing to feel the pain:
Year over year, DLs down 42%, and earnings down 49%! 
I thought September was bad (DLs / $s down 46% / 44%), but a full month of their brilliant change was even worse.
either you still make much more that the indies explaining why you stay exclusive with IS or waiting for us to tell you to go indie?
I was an indie for several years, until mid 2010, so I don't need anyone to tell me to go indie. My thinking (perhaps mistaken, perhaps not), is that at this point, having to start over from scratch on all the sites with my relatively middling portfolio, would be an increase in workload with probably a decrease in income. I feel I might as well ride it down further. At some point, if it gets to where I'm pretty much earning what I earned when I was an indie, then I'll decide to go indie again, or perhaps just seek other avenues and say goodbye to microstock.
308
« on: November 01, 2014, 12:07 »
Ah, what a wonderful trip down memory lane.  My DLs peaked in Jan 2012, and it has been a steady decline ever since:  My DLs are down about 2/3 from their 2011 average. But DLs tell only part of the story, of course:  My earnings didn't start to noticeably deteriorate until the new subscriptions plan was introduced earlier this year. So if I was going by only my own earnings, I'd have to say they pressed the self-destruct button in April 2014. But I think that would be more clearly labeled the KB-destruct button. The seeds of their demise were planted in September 2010 (or, if one prefers, whatever the date of the first Getty buyout was in 2008 by H&F).
309
« on: November 01, 2014, 11:17 »
IS exclusive, continuing to feel the pain: Year over year, DLs down 42%, and earnings down 49%! I thought September was bad (DLs / $s down 46% / 44%), but a full month of their brilliant change was even worse.
310
« on: October 31, 2014, 13:25 »
And as far as mine, DeepMeta or IS knows it's a resubmission
Has something changed and I don't realize it? (That is possible, as I haven't resubmitted a rejection in a LONG time.) In the past, DM did not know that you are trying to do a resubmit. IS has always stated that you must do resubmits via their website -- you must not use DM. Is this no longer accurate?
311
« on: October 30, 2014, 09:56 »
It all seems like an exercise in desperate futility as with almost all of their changes ever since they pressed the self destruct button the first time in September 2012.
+1 Except I think the first press of that self-destruct button was in September 20 10, when they created the RC system, reneging on the "Grandfathering" contract many signed, and creating ill-will among many exclusives and indies alike. When the History of iStock's Rise and Fall is written, I believe that will mark the beginning of the end.
312
« on: October 29, 2014, 12:59 »
It's interesting that Istock is going after organic customers now. I thought one of the major arguments against self hosting was that serious customers went directly to the agencies and wouldn't bother with the search engines. If google truly is a viable source for customers and you need to redo all of your descriptions anyway, why not do this on your own site, price the images the same price as istock and keep the other 85%? I don't understand why anyone would go to all of this effort for only 15-20%. Especially when super specific search terms like they are describing are as likely to be found on your own site as they are istock, shutterstock or any other agency.
I think the idea is to bring more eyes to the site not necessarily just for people looking for stock photos. Some people may never have thought about buying stock before but if the Google results bring them there they might be turned into buyers. Getting more people looking at the site through SEO is like free advertising.
Is this an effort to try to make up for all those blog buyers who left when they stopped selling XS sizes? Or all those blog buyers who left when they stopped selling any size, other than the maximum? Either way, I wonder how long it would be before the new buyers discovered there are other sites around that sell smaller sizes, at cheaper prices?
313
« on: October 27, 2014, 18:14 »
I also received my CC payment today.  Paypal took their pound of flesh, though, charging about 4.5% plus giving me a less than wonderful EUR to USD conversion rate ($1.2382 USDs = 1 EUR, while the current forex price is about $1.27). I hope the new buyer can bring new customers; it'd be great to start selling at CC again. Good luck to them.
314
« on: October 17, 2014, 23:35 »
As an exclusive, I don't know yet.
PP has only been updated to the 15th, and G.I. has not reported yet. G.I. sales sometimes constitute around 30% of my revenue.
Do you think your PP and/ or G.I. sales will be affected by the changes at IS? It's been one month since the changes hit iStock.com. I don't think it's too early to see how those changes have affected your iStock.com sales, anyway.
315
« on: October 17, 2014, 23:32 »
+1
316
« on: October 16, 2014, 11:03 »
After over a month now, I'm not seeing any real change...disappointing
I am seeing a change -- fewer $s. I thought there was a pickup in DLs, but that appears now to have been an aberration. The last few weeks have been very Summer-like (2014 Summer-like, not previous years) in the number of DLs, with the RPD down about 25%. iStock in its death throes -- slow and painful.
317
« on: October 15, 2014, 19:39 »
So maybe they found some people using a files outside the license terms and billed for an EL. That would make it outside the website and would account for what Sean was told and also to why Jo Ann was paid on an inactive file.
But that wouldn't explain my 65c or $3 sales. So it seems like there were multiple issues here, suddenly discovered. Or the EL issue discovered, PLUS an off-site special deal made. Some of my sales were related and so clearly the same buyer (two subject groups, so probably two buyers, plus unrelated sales). From my POV, it feels like a special, off-site (below market) deal.
318
« on: October 15, 2014, 18:06 »
I just talked to IS, and it is money from previous licenses ( not recent ), where the buyer wanted an extended license or further permissions on an EL, like more items for resale. That's how I understood it.
Unless that answer was specific to your files, they are just making things up. NONE of the files that they listed in my email have ever had ELs (and I find it difficult to believe that even Getty would give away an EL for an amount that would lead to a 65c or even $3 commission).
319
« on: October 15, 2014, 17:42 »
Etaa: I'd be very worried this is another shady deal.
There can be NO doubt about that. I had 3 files that sold for 65c, 6 files that sold for $3. One of the 65c sellers was an S+, several of the $3 ones were S+. So there was no difference in commission based on collection. Does that mean these sales happened after the changes mid-Sep? Or did they simply price ALL files the same even before then? I assume the 65c sales were for either smaller sizes or more restricted uses. But we were given NO clarity whatsoever, so can only make worthless guesses. Typical Getty shenanigans.
320
« on: October 13, 2014, 09:58 »
Just wondered Do you find Editorial pics worthwhile on IS - what do buyers like in general how do they compare with RF sales? 
Editorial files on IS are sold as RF. Unfortunately, iStock itself in some of their writing seems to not understand the difference between RF and editorial, so it isn't surprising that some contributors might get mixed up, too. I prefer to use the terms 'editorial' and 'non-editorial', or 'editorial' and 'creative'. RF is a licensing type, just like RM is, and editorial images can be sold under either license (not on IS, as they have only RF). Except for some success with some of my earliest photos, I have not found editorials worthwhile on IS. But perhaps I just don't submit the right ones. I have had a few sales on some of my later images, but I don't have all that many files, so perhaps that's why. Then again, I haven't had a sale of anything since Thursday morning, so I'm not sure bothering with IS even makes sense anymore.
321
« on: October 08, 2014, 17:14 »
Just found this and wonder if anyone else had heard about it yet?
Introducing Squarespace 7. Squarespace 7 features a completely redesigned interface, an integration with Getty Images making over 40 million images available for just $10 each, an integration with Google Apps allowing for easy email setup under your domain, and more. Learn more about Squarespace 7 at our launch site.
Here's what one user had to say: Oh wow very interesting! I think keeping the watermark would be acceptable for some images used within blog posts. I'm super stoked about the $10 price point as I've been paying way more than that from other stock image sites.(Source: http://answers.squarespace.com/questions/55269/squarespace-7-getty-images-is-there-a-free-option) I hadn't been getting enough $2 GI sales lately, so this will hopefully make up for that. 
322
« on: October 08, 2014, 10:21 »
My sales have upticked slightly since the change, however no more (probably less) than what would normally be expected when transitioning from the slow Summer to the more active Autumn season. My RPD, OTOH, has dropped significantly, since a large portion of my earnings had been attributable to Sig+ sales and L and larger sales. I was down nearly 50% in revenue in Sep compared with last year, and I expect Oct will be similar. The very definition of 'unsustainable'.
323
« on: October 07, 2014, 09:37 »
I didn't have any sales on Revo in Sep (with a port of about 450 files), but I did have sales in each of the preceding 4 months, including two months with 3 sales each, so I wouldn't say they are dead. I think they are doing their best to climb out of the deep hole that that patent troll buried them in. The new site changes are a great start, but only time will tell whether or not they can lure more buyers in. I certainly wish them well, because we need more sites that treat contributors fairly, not fewer. (Ignoring the fact that they still owe me money from last year ....  ) ETA: Paid! I agree with Mantis; your pricing seems fine. That isn't the problem.
324
« on: October 01, 2014, 23:00 »
the price for new credits is between $15 - $16. It might be with old credits. Who knows?
The price for new credits is $8 - $15, and the $15 is only when you buy a single credit. If you buy 3 credits the per credit price already drops to $12. I wouldn't expect to get many (or any!) $15 credit sales.
But most of the sales I've been having have been with credits that were well below $8, so still mostly old credits being used up.
In Aussie land 3 credits is $44.75 each credit being $14.92 AUD. Oi, oi, oi!
Everything is more expensive down under.  Sorry, I assumed we were talking USDs, obviously.
325
« on: October 01, 2014, 19:03 »
Compared to previous September:
2013: DL -35% $ -38%
iStock Exclusive. Standard downloads.
For me, my DLs were down 46% and $s down 47% compared to Sep 2013. Just brutal.
Pages: 1 ... 8 9 10 11 12 [13] 14 15 16 17 18 ... 57
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
