|
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 - travelstock
Pages: 1 ... 8 9 10 11 12 [13] 14 15 16 17 18 ... 40
301
« on: April 02, 2011, 00:33 »
It's my impression, from reading the monthly stats threads, that a lot of the BME's are Bronzes or below (what is that canister called, Ghost?). And more and more, the WME's are Diamonds. If this is true (and I realize that it's all anecdotal), it confirms what I've been thinking about a statement Kelly made about how the payouts to contributors keep increasing. He seemed to use that statement to justify that the RC targets were fair and that everybody was happy. But what he fails to understand, apparently, is that a statistic like that is cold comfort to the individual contributor whose income keeps dropping. It's just like when he said that we'd make 50% of our sales in the last quarter of the year. Again, that may be true for the company overall, but it doesn't take a math whiz to understand that it's not necessarily true for the individual.
You know what I'm saying? So do you think that the growth of the company is due to a lot of newbies, but at the expense of those of us near the top?
I think its easy to mistake canister level for how contributors are going. If you have a look at the data lookstat has been analysing, its pretty clear that there are some massive differences in how long its taken some contributors to get to their respective canisters: http://blog.lookstat.com/2011/02/22/istock-contributor-analysis-rank-versus-years-contributing/ What the scatter-gun first graph shows is that the ranking in terms of total downloads is a very poor representation of how contributors are performing at the moment. Diamonds who got there early but aren't keeping up with the pace of growth of iStock in terms of volume or quality will naturally find it hard to keep posting BMEs. There are however some that are doing extremely well in a short space of time. Chances are these people are also less likely to post in the community that's developed on various forums.
302
« on: April 01, 2011, 23:22 »
Overall it looks like the golds and diamonds did ok with many of them having BMEs.
That's not what I'm reading on that thread.
Just a quick look for me shows that these diamonds had BME: nicolesy, Alina555, Studioxil (not sure BME but seems to imply it), LeggNet, ilbusca, RichVintage,
diamond saying very good: anouchka, sjlocke (I guess up 10% from last march is good), Talaj, adamkaz, Zemdega, nullplus (not very good but up from last march), inhauscreative
golds saying bme or very good month: dan_prat, AYImages, whitemay, ManuelVelasco, wdstock, MichaelUtech, Gannet77, antb, holgs, traveler1116
Looks split between very good months and very bad months with a few in the middle. I'm guessing the ones that had the WMEs lost a lot from a % drop this year.
Congratulations on hitting gold by the way - am I right in thinking that happened this month?
303
« on: April 01, 2011, 17:45 »
Well. I still count Dreamstime as one of the most contributor-friendly sites. I can't recall Serban ever shafting us like a couple of other well-known agencies. When he does change the commissions there is always a good bit somewhere else to balance it out. Unless this leads to a huge shift to subscriptions, it should give quite a nice boost to earnings IMHO. And who else is giving us a rise this year?
They've cut commissions from 50% to 25% in less than 2 years - of course the effect might be that you earn more because the prices are higher, but if the agency is earning more overall, why do they have to cut commissions? Every image ever uploaded is a "level 0" image at some point - just now you get a lower % for its sale. The weekly subscriptions on the other hand is just insanity. Why would anyone buy credits at Dreamstime anymore? You can buy 52 credits for $50 to download about 5 XL images or buy a 1-week package and download 10 per day for $45 and with no real commitment. One of the reasons subscriptions haven't been attractive is because the minimum price on most of the agencies was too high for causal buyers (eg. $249 at shutterstock) and the downloads are spread over such a long period that its not a volume most people will use. Neither of these factors are relevant when you bring the price down to about $45 and spread it over only 1 week. Sorry but these changes are shafting everyone. Of course there's also no way of opting out of subs at Dreamstime, or deleting all your content if you're not happy with the changes because your portfolio is locked in for 6 months.
304
« on: April 01, 2011, 16:32 »
BME for $$ both at iStock and overall (which is the same thing for me now!) The month came home very strongly & April is also off to a good start.
305
« on: April 01, 2011, 16:08 »
Dreamstime raises prices and cuts commissions (again) is really what they're using a whole lot of smoke and mirrors to say. Where else have I heard that recently?? It may only be going from 30 to 25% for one DL per image, but on DT frequently that's all you get. Also the new "weekly subscriptions" - what??? Buyers can now sign up for a $45 1-week and download 70 images at subscription prices and therefore bypass the higher prices entirely?? ( I'm going by Roberto's summary: http://www.mystockphoto.org/new-levels-features-licenses-at-dreamstime/ seeing as dreamstime seems to be currently offline. Maybe the detail got mixed up in an April Fools joke gone wrong.)
306
« on: March 29, 2011, 02:23 »
I just looked at my stats from Aug 2006.
iStock: $6.2 RPD: 0.48
Fotolia: $9 RPD: 0.36
Shutterstock: $25 RPD: 0.24
Happy times indeed! 
What does all that mean? RPD? The numbers?
It means that I wasn't making much money then, either per download, in total, or per image. In perspective though my portfolio was also much smaller and didn't have too many files that sold regularly. It wasn't all great then, and it isn't all bad now, it sort of depends on your perspective on how things have progressed.
307
« on: March 28, 2011, 06:52 »
I just looked at my stats from Aug 2006. iStock: $6.2 RPD: 0.48 Fotolia: $9 RPD: 0.36 Shutterstock: $25 RPD: 0.24 Happy times indeed!
308
« on: March 18, 2011, 06:22 »
Looks like a 2 year old thread got bumped by a spammer to me...
309
« on: March 17, 2011, 08:06 »
Well I think its time to go back to waiting and seeing for me - not much any of us can do about the fallout either way!
310
« on: March 17, 2011, 07:52 »
^My images are ahead in the search I do too, I'm in Thailand and Holgs is in Malaysia I think so that might be why it looks different. I have very different results on internet explorer though mostly the same files in the top 20 or so but in a different order.
Are you logged in on both browsers?
311
« on: March 17, 2011, 07:46 »
When I search for Cartagena your images pretty much own the top of that search. Looking at the last page there are a couple of contributors that round out the bottom. All contributors images seemed to be grouped fairly tightly as if ranked by contributor.
I see that if I search for Cartagena, but if I unclick the "Cartagena (Murcia)" option its a completely different result. In that search I have 2 lots of images - a handful from when I was there and non-exclusive, and more recent ones including some editorial as I've been going through many images that never made it to IS. I think the grouping can be explained by upload times, but like everyone I'm speculating.
312
« on: March 17, 2011, 07:39 »
It's very positive to see how many have used their skills from microstock to branch into other areas of photography - serving clients and/or selling prints, etc. Nice to know there is life after microstock for any of us who want to get off this particular roller coaster ride.
Lisa it sounds like you need a bit of a break. Stop shooting for microstock, don't upload anything, ban yourself from the forums (sorry Tyler!) and just plan out what you want to do for a while. Re-evaluate your position in 3-6 mths time. The nice thing about it is that unlike a regular job you can just stop working and the income won't stop when you do. You might see a drop in income of about 10-20% when you're not "feeding the beast", but that initial drop will level out pretty quickly, and the change to your levels of well being will more than compensate. I had a very slack time in terms of uploads between July 2009 to Aug 2010 - less than 100 uploads in 12 months - but the income didn't really drop correspondingly. This wasn't a conscious decision but I think becomes inevitable if you're feeling the way many are feeling at the moment. I know others who have taken similar breaks to start businesses where the set-up costs are subsidised by their ongoing microstock income.
313
« on: March 17, 2011, 06:58 »
After looking at this a bit more I'd say it seems to be more heavily weighing overall contributor performance. Not sure what it's measuring though.
I've noticed in the search that contributor images seem to be bunched together. Some contributors are favored toward the front. And some contributors seem to have been banished to the back of the search. One search I did had the entire last page mostly from two contributors, one exclusive and one independent.
I don't think that's universally true - I checked a search where both Graham (Traveler1116) and I have images: Cartagena. If you search for Cartagena (Colombia), Grahams images are heavily favoured towards the top. The images from my portfolio that come up first are the older ones. On a more general search: "Cartagena" (which gives you both Spanish and Colombian towns) my images that are at the bottom of the more specific search make up the top row - these images are uploaded mainly this year, whereas my older images are further back. Neither set of images has the Spanish town selected in the terms. I think at the moment the results are all over the place and we're seeing some odd search results, but maybe timing of uploads has more to do with this than contributor ranking. On my own portfolio if I push the slider to the right, I get a heavy weighting to old files, but on any position, there are some older files that get a big boost. The files worse off seem to be 2009-2010 files.
314
« on: March 17, 2011, 05:59 »
Ok I figured out where the slider is, obviously the last place you would look if you knew you needed to change that to change your search results. I'm sure most buyers have no clue about it or where they can find it. A search on firefox gives my image 1st place while the same search on internet explorer puts in 1945th place all settings are the same. When I re-search all the settings for the slider with boxes clicked change so I have to reclick and unclick everything every time I do a search.
Your best match lottery winning wall is safe at #2 here in KL, and not doing too bad irrespective of the slider  It drops to #7 though if you add "banging your head against a brick wall" into the CV options. Try not to look at IS for a few days and hope for the best, its probably safer then reading up on what's happening.
315
« on: March 08, 2011, 06:57 »
Does anybody have any experience with Leica V-LUX 20?
For $500 extra you get a beautiful Leica red dot on the outside but lose AVCHD video from the equivalent Panasonic model.
316
« on: March 06, 2011, 23:18 »
317
« on: March 02, 2011, 19:21 »
About a year after I upgraded to a 12MP camera, which qualified for XL at IS, I checked the number of sales at the XL size. It turned out that only about 2% of my downloads on those images were at the XL size although those sales contributed 4% of the total income from those images.
IMHO there's no way that additional sales of larger image sizes would justify the cost of upgrading the camera. However the ability to crop and/or downsize to minimise minor technical issues makes it definitely worthwhile. One or two 'saved' images that turn out to be best-sellers, but otherwise might not have been accepted, can pay for a new camera body on their own.
My experience is different - I'm finding that those images that are available at XL size get at least 10% of their sales at that size. For files that are available at XXXL sizes, the percentage of XL or above is even higher. In hindsight one thing I regret is not getting a larger MP camera much sooner. File sizes aren't that big a deal if your independent, but if you ever switch to being exclusive it becomes extremely important. If you're treating microstock as a business, then equipment isn't the place to start saving money. Put it this way - an 18MP camera costs about $600. If this investment doesn't pay off over the course of 12-18 months, then there's zero chance of actually making a living out of stock as is the OP's intention.
318
« on: March 02, 2011, 02:26 »
Hate to disagree, but I think 10MP just isn't enough at the moment.
There are a few sites where you earn more for bigger file sizes, so on those sites you're missing out on higher prices with an older camera. If you're in any way serious about this, and have any success then the cost of the new camera is far less than the sales you'll lose. You have to decide - is this really a business that I'm going to be successful in, or am I kidding myself. If its a business, then you need the right tools - an old rebel can be made to fit, but its a false economy.
319
« on: March 01, 2011, 16:16 »
I certainly can't see it being a requirement. Most images have no use for gps data.
Also some massive privacy risks if all your shoot locations become available to buyers...
320
« on: March 01, 2011, 12:31 »
So with 2000 images you earned $796 as an Exclusive at istock? That comes to a $0.40 Return Per Image (RPI). Is this what other istock exclusives are earning, any exclusives care to share real RPI numbers. I am earning $0.50 per image/per month at istock as a non-exclusive...I have a much smaller portfolio however, I was thinking of exclusivity just to simplify my life but if these are real numbers from exclusives it doesn't sound so promising.
You can't compare RPI number between portfolios. If I have a portfolio that has a higher number of downloads per image on average than another portfolio, then the RPI will also be higher. Going exclusive, your total download numbers should stay about the same, but your RPD will increase significantly. Again exactly how much depends on your canister level, how many images you put in Exclusive+ and how many Vetta files you have. You can get a more accurate idea of your own numbers by analyzing your recent downloads and recalculating the income by applying the exclusive pricing structure and royalty percentage. Its tedious, but fairly effective. Back on topic - this month was my 6th as an exclusive. Compared to Jan: Income + 15%, DLS + 12% Compared to Feb 2010 (non exclusive): Income +15% Images: + ax.200 with 75 still awaiting inspection - however many of these didn't come online until late in the month.
321
« on: February 28, 2011, 23:41 »
I couldn't agree more. Also an irony about this law...it's sponsored by a Republican senator. Aren't they the limited government folk? This sure seems like over-reaching to me.
They only want to limit the government from doing things that could help people. Locking people up is encouraged.
323
« on: February 25, 2011, 13:28 »
Are you exclusive to istock? Exclusives get a faster inspection time. Recently, some of my files have been getting approved in hours after submission. But some files take longer... a lot longer. I would say the average time these days for me would be a day and 2 max.
I nearly choked on my tea there, then realised you're probably talking abut illustrations, since that's what the OP asked about. I've got a load of photos uploaded on the 17th which aren't locked for inspection yet. I guess they've had a huge influx of editorial images which people had lurking on their HDs.
Yep you're not alone - I still have 63 files in the que - many from the 17th.
324
« on: February 24, 2011, 04:47 »
I was amazed to see something approaching a direct statement - that they want more content in the partner program than they currently have and a tacit admission that their lowball payout scheme has cost them that content.
The pathetic offer of a small amount of additional cash changes nothing. Admitting that that they're willing to change things in contributors' favor should only encourage people to hold out for something decent.
In spite of the fact that they're mandating 'lypse content (Japan and the April in London one) goes to the partner program, they haven't got to the flow of good new images they need to keep buyers happy. The risk would be that at some point they'd drop the opt out (like they did for Vetta/Agency on Getty).
I'm fairly certain JJRD believes what he's saying, but even sincere nice people can be very wrong sometimes. They can believe that what they're being told by their management is true and pass it on. The fact remains that what's in Getty's best short term interests may not be in IS contributors' long term interests. H&F is a Carl Icahn-like entity that will happily cripple a business if they can get the cash they want in the process - they're not in it for the long haul.
I urge anyone who is thinking about their stock portfolio's long term success to leave the partner program alone. That little bit of extra cash now is destructive to your ability to earn the same or higher royalty rate next year (no RCs for PP sales) and for independents is chipping away at the leader in microstock subs - Shutterstock. Shutterstock pays better (and lets you earn higher payouts the more you earn, something the PP does not) and while it may have skipped raises, hasn't shafted its contributors the way other sites have done.
Starving the partner program sites of good content is the only way to get any changes in the terms offered.
I'm not sure that making a direct statement is an admission of anything beyond what he actually says - they want more content in the program and are going to pay for it. The way they've structured the royalty increases seems to suggest that what they want in their is the older IS exclusive stuff. Non-exclusives get a 12% increase, whereas Exclusives get a 25% increase. Its probably not going to be enough to convince many non-exclusives that are now opted out now - where the problem seems more ideological opposition to anything Getty, but if you have a big, older portfolio of images that are suffering from low sales now, its a way of accessing the instant gratification that subscription sites like SS offer without losing the higher royalties at iStock. In context, the "pathetic offer" for exclusives is higher subscription royalties than the highest tier on Shutterstock or Fotolia. Compared to the 25c subs at Crestock, even the independents rates look good. While I don't disagree with the sentiment, the reality of the PP is that its Getty's way of attacking Shutterstock & Dreamstime's offerings. The pricing of Thinkstock lines up neatly against SS and Photos.com undercuts Dreamstimes $129/mth subs packages. Those who disagree with the partner program do have valid reasons, but the reality in the market place is that there are subscription sites doing very well, and that from what I can tell IS is actually the only major site that lets you opt out of them.
325
« on: February 23, 2011, 03:37 »
A major grocery story chain in Georgia had a billboard for a couple hours; located at the intersection of I-75 and I-85 (major traffic area) that showed a big juicy steak and the message is big letters "You can't beat our meat". it did not last long either but it was funny.
I don't think most people in many countries would understand the double meaning!
Pages: 1 ... 8 9 10 11 12 [13] 14 15 16 17 18 ... 40
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
