|
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 - sharply_done
Pages: 1 ... 9 10 11 12 13 [14] 15 16 17 18 19 ... 73
326
« on: May 13, 2009, 10:48 »
You might consider adding a 'Cancel' button next to the 'Submit' one so there's an obvious way of closing the window without leaving a comment or rating. Also, the little green bar might be more visually effective if it ran horizontally with its length correlating to reputation. It might also be interesting to have another bar (maybe a blue one) underneath it showing how many posts the member has made.
327
« on: May 12, 2009, 14:49 »
I was looking for a SATA CF card reader a few months ago, but only found internal ones. As far as USB 2.0 and Firewire goes, I have both - USB is a little faster, but not by much.
328
« on: May 11, 2009, 17:29 »
So the 'Photographer's Collective' is your thing now?
That's news - I thought it was a group effort.
329
« on: May 11, 2009, 17:20 »
Sorry, but the reality of affiliate sales is far more complicated than your speculations. Based on my experiences with affiliate sales at other agencies, I can say that with absolute certainty. If you delete an image on StockXpert, for example, it may take up to 90 days for it to disappear from photos.com. And what about the JIU/photos.com royalty reporting problems that StockXpert has had?
330
« on: May 11, 2009, 15:21 »
...
That makes no sense to me. Each image has an associated cost regardless of how you are selling it. You've got to inspect it, host it, pay for download bandwidth, pay for overhead, etc. That is separate from how you actually collect money from putting it in people's hands. In fact, SS probably has most costs associated with this, because people are constantly pumping everything they can in there to keep their cash up, so they probably have more inspection and hosting costs.
This is why the JIU/Photos thing is so egregious. There are no overhead costs. The stuff is already inspected. It just needs to be shunted over. And for that, they keep 80%?
JIU/photos.com still have the costs you first outlined - the only cost they don't have is inspection. As far as shunting over goes, isn't that an additional cost they'll have that iStock doesn't? And what about maintaining their library? If an image is deactivated on iStock or it's keywords are revised, the JIU/photos.com sites will have to be likewise updated.
331
« on: May 11, 2009, 15:05 »
From a business point of view I don't think this venture is taking a sound approach. You should consider contracting someone with relevant/pertinent credentials (e.g. an MBA in online startups) to assess the market and make recommendations. As it is I think you're making a fundamental error by entering a free marketplace using a controlled/regulated model, and you definitely shouldn't start to design a website before you know the exact details of how you intend to operate. Based on the people contributing to this thread, there seems to be little or no interest from significant/successful photographers, and you will not succeed unless you can attract at least some of these people.
I think the best thing for you to do right now is to set up your own forum and start publicizing it. Create a few areas where people can discuss things in detail (e.g. content, pricing, quality control, accounting, wishlist, ...), choose admins to monitor discussions so that the idea has a better chance of moving forward, then invite significant people to join.
Also, and maybe it's just me, but calling yourselves a 'collective' somehow brings communism to mind, which brings up nothing but negative connotations.
... good luck!
332
« on: May 11, 2009, 03:19 »
Try using a mouse and keyboard macro. It might take 15 minutes to set up and get it working well, but it's all downhill from there. You can use it on all sites that have a delete/disable button.
333
« on: May 11, 2009, 02:27 »
sharply_done,
How does one prepare for a new best match even before it is alive? What data would this preparation be based on?
Think about it. The answers are very obvious.
334
« on: May 09, 2009, 19:45 »
I don't think it's a very good idea to upload when the best match isn't working for you - you'll just end up with pages and pages of unsold images. Keep making images, but bank them until they have better earning ability.
Also, you knew best match 2.0 was coming - did you do anything to prepare for it? If not, then now's the time.
335
« on: May 09, 2009, 14:06 »
Agreed, However I can't believe my sales downturn....
I have to ask: Apart from complaining, what are you doing about it?
336
« on: May 09, 2009, 14:02 »
...
Third step is the only step that will take more time for 10 sites than 4 sites.
That's not entirely true - in order to maximize sales you shouldn't treat each agency the same way. IS has a unique keywording system that you need to address, IS and StockXpert allow you to list similar/related images, 123 allows you to select 'favorites' that will be given priority in searches, and it's important to pay attention to your uploading rate and day at SS.
337
« on: May 07, 2009, 15:17 »
My benchmark for an agency being worthwhile is its ability to consistently earn a minimum of $100 per month. The only agencies to pass this mark for me are SS, IS, FT, DT, StockXpert, and 123. So there's your 'Big Six'. Promising sites are Veer and Canstock, but the jury's still out on those two.
338
« on: May 05, 2009, 08:42 »
I think this is a good move by shutterstock, hopefully they are able to cooperate with the likes of Lookstat.
If l was Shutterstock, I'd charge an appropriate fee to bypass this 'security' feature. It would have been prudent for these statistics/uploading companies to approach the agencies before they started developing, but I doubt that happened. Somebody from these places should have appeared here by now, if only to say 'It's not a problem for us' or 'We're working on it' ... another bad move on their part.
339
« on: May 01, 2009, 01:50 »
... The good thing is, there seems to be no charges to me anywhere along the system. Which is way more than I can say for bank transfers, which have virtual pick pockets every where the money passes through.
Yes, that part is true: By using PayPal you won't incur service charges. That's not to say using PayPal isn't costing you money, though. PayPal makes money by using an exchange rate that is very much in their favor. I live in Canada, and PayPal typically undercuts the going USD exchange rate by 2.5 cents, which may not sound like much, but using PayPal costs me more than $1000 per year. Using MoneyBookers would save me a lot of money, but they probably won't ever be in Canada. I wish I didn't have to, but I'm strongly considering switching to being paid by cheque in the near future.
340
« on: April 30, 2009, 13:49 »
With only 5 of 14 questions not involving your use of iSyndica, this strikes me as more of an ad for an uploading service than it does an interview about you as a photographer. Given the recent attitude towards 'spammish' content here, be prepared for this post to get jumped on. Edit: It might have been more appropriate to use this link instead.
341
« on: April 30, 2009, 12:29 »
Pardon my French, but shouldn't it be "Premier"?
Or are these images shown in advance? 
Yes, it should be 'Premier'. Premiere means first public performance. Premier means first in importance. Dunno why they're insisting on this misnomer.
342
« on: April 28, 2009, 17:18 »
... And Sharply, in your case it sounds like you have still been working at it, but just switching your energies to improving your exposure rather than adding new pictures. Sounds like a very good use of time IMHO.
Yep, the writing's on the wall. If you choose to keep with the old ways of simply shooting and uploading without investing any time into optimization and management, I think you'll inevitably see your market share erode as more and more of your competitors modernize their approach. When that happens, what are you going to do - shoot even more or take a step back and rethink things?
343
« on: April 28, 2009, 16:51 »
... If you quit uploading you'd have to pick a pretty cheap place to live because it wouldn't be long until the money started to dwindle. ...
... But seriously, I would say that the lucky few (very few!) who are making that much better keep shooting and uploading or they would probably see their sales decline over time. ...
Not necessarily. Here's an example of someone who stopped uploading without experiencing a drastic decline in income. Speaking for myself, I've barely uploaded anything in the last six months (excluding SS, of course) and have seen my income increase. Instead of creating new images and uploading them, I've instead focused on managing my various portfolios with the aim of increasing my overall exposure. So far, so good, I'd say. Sure, a more favorable placement in the IS best match played a prominent role in this, but even excluding that I can easily say that there's more to making money in this industry than simply shooting, processing, keywording, and uploading. In my mind, the traditional approach to stock photography is not going to get you as far as you should be going. The era of 'shoot it and see what sticks' is ending, and success nowadays is equally dependent upon a good understanding of Web 2.0 tools and techniques.
344
« on: April 28, 2009, 00:41 »
SS automatically upsizes images 4X. This means a 4MP images is upsized to 16MP, and you aren't losing any sales because your image is too small. There are two benefits to downsizing: technical flaws are minimized (which may help borderline images get approved), and upload time is reduced.
345
« on: April 26, 2009, 01:00 »
I agee, if you want to use Leaf's forum for pimping then at least have the decency to pay him for an advertising slot then people would be a lot more willing to take seriously what you have to say.
Yes, it's true that could be done, and that brings up something that's a little bothersome to me. Do advertisers know that some people pay not to see their ads? Isn't it double-dipping to have companies pay to advertise while also giving members the option of paying not to see them?
346
« on: April 26, 2009, 00:28 »
Looks like I'm a little late to say it, but Happy Birthday!
347
« on: April 23, 2009, 10:53 »
Slightly OT, but here's my place when I lived in the USA (suburbs of Baltimore, MD). They've only recently started shooting 'worthwhile' parts of Vancouver, where I live now.
348
« on: April 23, 2009, 00:29 »
Hi Cora, and welcome aboard!
349
« on: April 22, 2009, 11:35 »
... If you act now, I'll throw in my patented "Zen Reflector", a foil covered triangle hat you can use as a light bouncer as well.
Yeah, those are nice alright, but my 'SupraChi Enabler ' is even better!
350
« on: April 22, 2009, 03:03 »
I uploaded a few images in fall 2006 to test the viability of doing this full time, and began in earnest in Jan 07.
Pages: 1 ... 9 10 11 12 13 [14] 15 16 17 18 19 ... 73
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
