|
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
3276
« on: June 03, 2014, 10:11 »
So for a person who is contributing both to microstock (getty) and to most of the top tier microstock sites. How do i decide which image goes where?
Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk 2
It really is an "it depends" and "use your judgement" situation. However, as a practical rule of thumb (not great but reasonable and pretty quick to do), search a big RF site - I'd suggest Shutterstock because they have a really good search and a huge collection - using the keywords of images you're trying to decide on a home for. If you see lots of good examples of your image on a RF site, you're unlikely to to make much from it via RM (where you're looking for a few high value sales; you'll not get the volume because RM is a hassle for buyers). If you don't see any more many examples (assuming you've made good keyword choices) then you might try RM to see if you can make more that way. But even then, it might be you've found an unserved niche that you could "own" for RF buyers. Last June, luckily/unluckily I got Bell's Palsy and took some pictures of myself before it got better. I didn't find any Bell's Palsy images on the micros and so right now, I own that niche (which is small but bigger that you might guess as most people don't want to have pictures of themselves looking scarily awful)  Given the hassle to buyers of dealing with RM - they have to track usage and make sure they don't use it after their time is up or in the wrong market - most will go for RF if they can find what they need (or a photo shoot if they need something unique to them).
3277
« on: June 03, 2014, 09:47 »
They have sort-of fixed my status for distribution sales - it says I opted out with a date of when I first joined (2007). I opted out last April, but I don't think the date of the opt out matters as long as they don't go back and undo all my prior distributor sales And the Novel Use sale was for something a long time ago - they had a customer who didn't use up their limit of images and so they distributed the extra across all the contributors whose images the customer had licensed. Very fair and ethical choice - and unfortunately a rare thing to see from an agency these days. I'd love to have Alamy's ethics and Shutterstock's volume
3278
« on: June 01, 2014, 20:12 »
I never said that an agency paying higher commissions couldn't make it, they just usually don't these days....what I said was if they did make it big how long would it take for them to lower commission's. Shutterstock started out as a sub site and still is. They are my main earner because of volume...not because of higher commission rates.
I still don't understand why you're assuming that companies who make it big will lower commissions. The biggest company in the business hasn't cut rates, nor have most of the top tier and middle tier companies.
iStock, Fotolia, Dreasmtime, 123rf, Alamy, Bigstock, Canstock have all cut royalties. Shutterstock has effectively reduced a few things (EL royalties when they introduced higher price packages but our cut was the same as before) but in general has not. Envato hasn't made the big time, so jury's out on them
3279
« on: June 01, 2014, 19:52 »
I'm speaking as an ex iStock exclusive (I was indie 2004-8, exlcusive 2008-11 and back to indie in June 2011), but I don't think, even if iStock is currently your best earner, that it's likely to be a good move for you to go exclusive.
The one reason I'd think it would make sense is if you have some decent quantity of images that will be in the Signature and Vetta collections - and without knowing your portfolio, it's just hard to say. With such a small portfolio, it's possible that one or two files that took off are responsible for the bulk of your downloads. That makes you very vulnerable to one shift in the sort order (at one agency).
I can understand not having warm feelings towards Shutterstock given your track record with them, but that's (right now) where the growth is. iStock has lost the plot, IMO, and have a very vulnerable portfolio (small size and very small sales) at a wobbly agency just doesn't seem like a good idea. I'd work on getting more accepted at Shutterstock, upload to 123rf and possibly PhotoDune (I'd stay away from Fotolia and Deposit Photos based on some of their recent shenanigans but they can both earn money, although not at the level Shutterstock can.
Good luck
3280
« on: June 01, 2014, 16:29 »
May 2014 was up 9% over May 2013 in $$ and 12% in downloads - so not bad. And that follows last year's pattern - May 2013 was down over April 2013 (19% $$ and 1% downloads)
What I think is interesting is that May 2014 was down 29% in $$ over April 2014 while downloads were up 8%. That says that the impact of fewer SODs and ELs is significant. Look at the percentage of subscription earnings for the last three months compared to the same three in 2013
Mar-May 2013 48 / 41 / 51
Mar-May 2014 36 / 33 / 52
May 2014 was about the same subs/other ratio as the year before, but the two prior months were very much better this year than last.
Shutterstock continuing to grow their SOD/OD/EL business is clearly what matters (to me) for earnings growth.
3281
« on: May 31, 2014, 19:12 »
If I got an old NU sale it's over a year old. That's bad even for Alamy. The distribution setting still needs to be fixed
I believe all opt outs are only in April
3282
« on: May 31, 2014, 18:15 »
I'm in the middle of a discussion with FAA support about this. I asked them to remove my stored credit card. They replied that they didn't store the credit card; their payment processor (Netbilling) did. I asked them to get Netbilling to remove it from their servers or tell me how to contact Netbilling to get that done. I asked as a security issue - I no longer let 99% of the places I do business with store a card number - and pointed out that this isn't at all an unusual request.
JoAnn, when this is resolved, please come back and let us know how it turned out. No company should be able to store somebody's credit card without the card holder's approval.
Just to let you know I haven't forgotten about posting, but the issue isn't resolved. I contacted them again on May 23rd as they hadn't answered my earlier reply. I got a message on May 24th saying "You are waiting or accounts to contact you back now as I passed it direct to them for you" which I think means that they are waiting for Netbilling. I haven't heard anything more from either of them and I still see the credit card - with XXX for the numbers but the right expiration date and card type - in my FAA account, so I assume nothing has happened. I will post when I get something to happen.
3283
« on: May 31, 2014, 18:10 »
Alamy's new dashboard has a section under the graph titled "Additional Revenue Options". Click on the arrow on the right and you'll see your opt in/out status for Distribution, Novel Use and the UK Newspaper scheme.
Mine says I'm opted in for Distribution (I opted out in 2013) and out for the other two. I have e-mail from support confirming my opt out.
In addition to the wrong status for Distribution deals, I checked to see what this said because I had a Novel Use sale last week. In the sales report it says the License is "Novel Use" and the Details "Novel Use Scheme2"
I've written to support, but perhaps it's worth other people checking to be sure they have the correct status on their accounts - possibly with the recent UI changes they've messed something up.
Part of me is mentally wandering around the issue and contemplating how mad I'd be if I found out that opting out of Novel Use didn't cover Novel Use Scheme2 - a bit like Deposit Photos claiming that Reseller API wasn't the same thing as partnership and that opting out of the latter had nothing to do with the former. I'll post when I get an answer from support.
3285
« on: May 31, 2014, 12:14 »
I didn't either until I began investigating Fiverr Gigs. Quality isn't great, but in a way that's good for us
3287
« on: May 30, 2014, 21:47 »
If it was just for testing they could use the freebie collection.
They went to the trouble to pick out images from some group of contributors - I assume to dangle enticing content in front of the other party to this "big deal" that they hope to land. The effort to curate the images shown suggests that DT believes the images have value in closing the deal.
I think that being treated like pawns in someone else's game doesn't ever feel good, but certainly feels worse after several rounds of it - you wonder just how weak or stupid people think you are that they'd keep treating you this way. Google-Getty, Veer-Alamy, Deposit Photos - ShotShop - the list is fairly long...
3288
« on: May 30, 2014, 20:27 »
I've used WHCC for a number of years and they are very good. Definitely worth setting up for the future. They're quick (for the things that I've ordered, including large photo prints and press printed books). Color is spot on (I'm assuming you're in a color managed workflow and everything is profiled).
3289
« on: May 30, 2014, 16:19 »
...Stock Agencies are like girl-friends, one can never have too many.
I don't have any girlfriends - and one husband is plenty I had a surprisingly good May at GL Stock - still low earner but it was nice to see a bit more activity than over the last 6 months. I'm not uploading new stuff, but I might review that if the additional sales activity is sustained.
3290
« on: May 30, 2014, 14:44 »
They say that the best predictor of future performance is past performance.
No. The disclaimer on almost every investment instrument will say exactly the opposite. For good reason: Because it is not.
I'lll rephrase. When looking at hiring people, they say the best predictor... This discussion is about the abilities, choices and performance of the people running the agency, not a financial investment analysis
3291
« on: May 30, 2014, 14:11 »
Fact is, DT is one of the more fair-paying agencies out there. We should give them some credit on this, and once the deal is finalized let them present the commission scenario to us. If we don't like it, we can bail. But for god's sake, let's give them the chance.
My experience is that DT has experimented with pricing so much they have a tangle more complicated than any agency out there. They came up with a levels system; sold us subscriptions on the basis that higher level images earned higher royalties and then took that back. They have cut royalty rates and while raising RPD have managed to cut monthly income. Shutterstock has increased both RPD and monthly income to the point that comparing November 2006 to November 2013, DT went from neck and neck with Shutterstock to about 1/4 of Shutterstock earnings for me. My experience with DT experiments is that they haven't done anything to date to boost my earnings from them (and they have roughly the same files to sell as the other agencies). They say that the best predictor of future performance is past performance.
3293
« on: May 30, 2014, 13:33 »
3294
« on: May 30, 2014, 10:47 »
That being said, am I correct that you both feel that I'm not worthy to cooperate with as I'm still opted into the DPC?
I wouldn't presume to judge anyone's worthiness in general - as I said, we all have our reasons for joining or leaving various agencies or protesting/staying silent when various things happen. My kids won't go hungry if my stock income plummets; if it was my only source of income, I don't know if I'd make the same choices as I do/have done. What I was trying to say was that I don't feel I can participate in the effort you'd like to get going. Other people - and there are many who've made the choice you have with the DPC - may feel differently.
3295
« on: May 30, 2014, 09:59 »
Two things.
1. I don't believe the problem is that the agencies don't know what we want. I believe they don't care. And that the only way to get them to pay any attention is to take away (or be prepared to do so) what they need - continued uploads of our content or our whole portfolios (in extreme cases like the Getty-Google deal was for me). This is a power struggle not an education exercise
Which leads me to...
2. We are all entitled to make the best decisions for our own businesses, but given how I feel about the nature of our situation, I couldn't spend any time working with people on trying to improve our situation with the agencies if those people were still opted in to the Dollar Photo Club, which you are. I am sure you have your reasons for making that decision, but the only reason there is even an opt out is because of action taken by a group of contributors to organize a boycott. If you recall, at the beginning, Fotolia support was telling contributors they had to leave if they didn't like DPC.
3296
« on: May 30, 2014, 02:35 »
3297
« on: May 29, 2014, 18:21 »
People who post anonymously have less credibility. That's all there is to it. I don't have a problem with people doing that, but I have no frame of reference to judge their opinions.
For example, if the next big boycott is against Shutterstock and people with 50 images on there are telling me to delete my port because they did too, I'm going to call BS.
Sometimes you're going to get backlash when people know who you are, but that makes you watch what you say as well. It's a matter of accountability and being an adult. If I say something, I stand by it. Now if Fotolia banned my friend, Ron, for his forum postings, that's a * cheap shot and quite petty. I don't think they'd do that, but I could be wrong.
Fotolia "banned" me for public forum postings and nothing more. Likewise Bobby Deal. Why do you think that what they just did to Ron is any different? It's clearly a very hard thing to see an agency that makes you money behave very, very badly, but you have to be clear headed about how it could just as easily be you next as any of the rest of us. I don't blame anyone for being anonymous here because of Fotolia. You can spot the trolls a mile off and ignore them.
3298
« on: May 29, 2014, 16:35 »
This notion that the forums (and I assume by extension the people posting in the forums) are inherently negative is steaming horse pucky.
If people are suspicious or flinch after a long series of outright lies, underhanded takebacks from previous contract terms and changes that overall decrease the income the creator of the artwork receives, is it really those people who are negative?
Really?
It is the actions by agencies that are the problem(s), not the attitudes of participants in this forum.
And asking for freebies with the promise of future exposure, future expansion of the market etc. is like all the lies told in a bar around closing time - you stop believing them after you've been fooled a time or two.
3299
« on: May 29, 2014, 10:43 »
Fits one of my favorite phrases about incompetence - Couldn't organize a piss up in a brewery
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
