|
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 - cthoman
3226
« on: June 10, 2010, 17:35 »
I've never checked it out, but I'm sure there are a ton of people and things to shoot.
3227
« on: June 10, 2010, 12:07 »
That's a shame. I liked the end of the year automatic payment idea.
3228
« on: June 10, 2010, 11:48 »
Easy money. I was going to go with talentless hacks, but your explanation is probably better.
3229
« on: June 09, 2010, 20:42 »
Yeah, I thought we were talking from a contributor perspective to the regular microstock sites, so disregard everything I've said. Although, I'm sure most people do that anyway.  The subs thing might cause a riot with your contributors. Although, a subs model for higher priced stock art might be interesting. Not sure how to price it though. I guess a lot of it depends on what kind of licenses you are offering.
3230
« on: June 09, 2010, 14:27 »
OK, now that bring another question to you cthoman.
Can it be possible to make bigger income and RPI when you eliminate all low paying agencies and maybe only keep one. You give 100% time to agency #1 , your portfolio is bigger faster , you feed monster.
So your RPI increase with single agency that is historical best performer and money maker for you.
Definitely, I think iStock made exclusivity very tempting this year. I kind of hoped the other agencies would have had more of a response to it. Right now, I think there are three things holding me back from being a one agency man: One, the transition would be financially painful. It would take me a while to get all my images up there to equal what I get from the rest. Two, I worry about rejections. I used to be golden there, but the policies have changed a little. Third, is opportunities. Maybe, I'm a dreamer, but I just think I'd be sacrificing some great opportunity. It's funny. I almost wish they hadn't done the exclusive change because it made my decision harder. 
3231
« on: June 09, 2010, 13:22 »
If they were going to do a fake photo, they could have at least put him in his cell, in a hot tub, and with a few big hairy bikini clad inmates.
3232
« on: June 09, 2010, 13:18 »
StockXpert gone...they're back! check here http://www.stockfresh.com
You say potato. I say avocado.
3233
« on: June 09, 2010, 11:49 »
I checked my account on StockXpert and I can't even log in (likely I'm blacklisted). But then again I removed my photos and asked the account be closed, so it is expected. And no opt-in to partner programs on IS.
Yeah, they don't mess around. Once, you ask to close your account they lock the door and boot you out. On the plus side, they seem very on top of sending any leftover earnings along to your Paypal account from final sales. I think that is a lot more stand up than trying to weasel out the last few nickels and dimes from you on the way out. It's a shame StockXpert is gone. They seemed to have done a lot of things right.
3234
« on: June 09, 2010, 11:40 »
I think cthoman and PhotoSales are correct. Strangely, you make more money when you are new and when you increase your collection suddenly you cannot find your picture in the keyword anymore.
Is this evident that the agency put new contributor on front page?
But this is only my personal observation.
Actually, I was talking about my RPI going down at smaller agencies as my portfolio gets bigger. Some of them only have so many customers, so increasing your portfolio doesn't always increase your exposure. My overall earnings have been going up as my portfolio has gotten bigger.
3235
« on: June 09, 2010, 11:02 »
What kind of money do people expect in reality to make from micro stock photography sites? I think it varies from site to site. The $1 per image across all the sites is a good figure, but some of the smaller sites stop growing with more images. So, it makes it harder to calculate them all together.
3236
« on: June 09, 2010, 09:17 »
That's weird. Why not just hire an illustrator? I thought that was what illustration was for.
3237
« on: June 08, 2010, 14:59 »
I'm going with a mini BP protest by rejecting any petroleum based keywords. 
3238
« on: June 08, 2010, 10:23 »
For clarity's sake, lets say $100 (minimum payout level) per month would be "significant". I have followed the threads closely and don't see many claiming to make anywhere near that on TS.
If anyone is making that much or more at Thinkstock on a regular basis then I hope they will post here and clear up my misconception that TS is only paying pocket change.
I would say that amount is achievable. I had 3 payouts there averaging about $40. I can't say if that was per month because the payout schedule was kind of convoluted and one of them was a final payout. It was a new site too, so I would think it would build buyers as it goes along (especially with all the advertising). I ended up closing my account because the site seemed to have a lot of early hiccups and it was attached to a dead StockXpert account. That said, I'm definitely not ruling out signing back up.
3239
« on: June 08, 2010, 00:35 »
Yeah, I don't think there are any big conspiracies there, so you may want to put down the tin foil hats. I probably have a better approval rating than a lot of exclusives, but I still get rejections. I think they have a good reviewal process, but (like most agencies) it depends on the reviewer's interpretation of the rules. Personally, I've come to realize that I'm not always going to see eye to eye with every agency's acceptance policies, but I still think most of them are reasonable. I hope it stays that way, but I'm sure I just jinxed myself.
3240
« on: June 07, 2010, 12:25 »
Yeah would be good to know, I guess all you'd need is to be able to have an eps or zipped file download as well as a jpeg when something is purchased. The thumbnails could still work in the same way as with the photos.
I'd exchanged an email with them a few weeks ago and they weren't currently doing any eps or vector files.
3241
« on: June 06, 2010, 23:49 »
I thought Red Lobster was the McDonald's of crab legs?
3242
« on: June 06, 2010, 20:19 »
I work just as hard now as I did before but I am twice as happy now so who wants to put a price on that. Life is a risk and rewards come to those who take the challenge. I am loving it and have been full-time stock now for 2 months.
Great story. I discovered stock while I was struggling as a freelancer after quitting my full time job. For me, it was like being hit by a lightning bolt. I immediately saw the potential. P.S. That Cobra has to be costing you a fortune.
3243
« on: June 05, 2010, 14:40 »
I bought my current refurbished Mac about 5 years ago and the only problem I've had was my hard drive blew up this year. That seems like normal computer problems though (new or used). Overall, I've been pleased, so I would probably do it again.
3244
« on: June 02, 2010, 18:07 »
...it would be beneficial if the poster would address specific and meaningful question, and if those who replied by staying on topic. Derailing a thread sometimes results in much useless drivel.
Yeah, I didn't mean to hijack the thread with my silliness. I just wasn't sure if you had a particular complaint... [youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=npjOSLCR2hE[/youtube] OK, I'll stop because next thing you know I'll be talking about cannibalism in the Navy.
3245
« on: June 02, 2010, 17:50 »
I don't know this market, but is US$200 for a logo a bad deal? (I didn't see the agency's share, though)
I don't think that is a bad price for a logo. Some people charge more and some people charge less. My big problem with spec work sites is that 50+ people do the job, but only 1 person gets paid. I think it sets a bad precedent for clients that want free work and that a designer's time isn't valuable. Personally, I try not to even think about a project before I know I've been hired to do it. Ideas, sketches, and any other preliminary designs are all things that an artist should get paid for. Sorry didn't mean to sound too irate, but it is something I feel strongly about. That and free stock files from agencies.
3246
« on: June 02, 2010, 14:43 »
Seriously though, I'm not sure. I think I have different wants and needs out of each site. Mostly, I'm happy when my income is steadily going up.
3247
« on: June 02, 2010, 14:41 »
I demand a shrubbery!
3248
« on: June 02, 2010, 00:01 »
Looks like another spec work site. 
3249
« on: June 01, 2010, 15:12 »
I like that subs are capped at max 2 MP.
Interesting point. It looks like you can't even purchase the vectors with subs too. They are definitely making it tempting. I guess I'll have to read through the site.
3250
« on: June 01, 2010, 14:37 »
Well that's a very valid point! By looking at the frontpage's "on demand" prices there's a "vectors" link and by the look of it I just thought it was $20 a vector but come to think of it, those sizes really don't make much sense. Low, medium, high, "super" vectors ? I guess either a glitch or I'm getting something wrong. Perhaps "super" = EPS and low/medium/high = JPG
Yeah I wasn't sure because I think all my vectors are "super". Maybe, they should have an even higher category "super awesome". Seriously though, I was thinking it was a tiered system like IS. I just wasn't sure what the tiers were.
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
