|
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
3427
« on: May 04, 2014, 11:43 »
...It is a good time to be a reseller though, so perhaps the next move would be for those tech-savvy individuals and companies to start more partner sites. Again, not really doing much for contributors, but great for free money business.
This area - long chains or large groups of do-nothing or do-very-little distributors siphoning money out of the system - is one that only goes on if contributors accept it. At the moment, only a few agencies - DT, 123rf and Alamy come to mind - let you opt out of partner distribution. I have opted out at all three. For those agencies who have demonstrated their lack of concern for contributor fairness and have refused an opt out - Getty/iStock being the primary offender with the Google giveaway and other bad moves since, but Veer as well (and I did sell reasonably well there) I have left the agency over the lack of an opt out. CanStock refuses an opt out and won't list the partners, but so far haven't done anything terrible (other than not selling much). To think that an agency believes it's OK to refuse to make a list for contributors of who their partners are? It's our content, our copyright and they somehow think they don't have to tell us where it's being sold and for how much? And in Veer's case they didn't share the income with us, just paid us the flat amount as if the content had sold on their own site. What we need - other than sales and decent pricing models - is transparency and choice. We don't have all those things anywhere, although some agencies come closer than others. Part of what was good earlier in microstock's evolution was that there were more viable and growing agencies and thus none of them could afford to treat contributors poorly because they needed our images and knew we had lots of other choices. Jupiter Images (RIP) bent a little in response to contributors when moving StockXpert content to photos.com and Jupiter Images Unlimited. Dreamstime changed a one year lock on images to 6 months. Fotolia modified the terms of their newly introduced subscriptions. We have many opportunities now that would have been hard to imagine in 2004, but we (contributors) have a lot less influence and control, in part because our numbers are so much greater and the big stock factories have brought the macro look to the micros in huge numbers. I think what has been going on with Fotolia and DPC is in a way encouraging as it's the first time in a while that a large-ish group of contributors has put their portfolios on the line to stop agency abuse (and wouldn't it be nice to be able to get a restraining order against that!). Fotolia is a weak agency (except perhaps in Germany) so that may be a factor, but I'm sure all the other agencies are watching and it wouldn't be a bad thing to have the agencies just a little anxious about keeping contributors content. I want the agencies to do well - that's how we can earn very good money - but I want them to want us to do well too. The second part has been in short supply of late.
3428
« on: May 03, 2014, 22:11 »
Your URL doesn't work (a default page) , but I did a search for them and this was what Google tossed up - which did https://vivostock.com/It's unusual to see a secure HTTP url on a front page, but the site is still there at least. Very few images, but the site is up I can't find a license anywhere (there are some site terms and conditions but not the license a buyer would be purchasing). You make 30% royalty on a sale of images from 2 to 10 credits where if they buy one month's "subscription" for $160 they get 210 credits - 76 cents a credit. So you'd be making between 45 cents and $2.28 per sale? And they have a $100 payout which seems totally unreasonable for a brand new site. I can't honestly see much to recommend this site.
3429
« on: May 03, 2014, 21:56 »
3430
« on: May 03, 2014, 12:16 »
...We have to do a better job of educating you on the gaps, but we've started through things like the ShutterstockReq Twitter feed.
Great post Scott, and I'm glad you decided to weigh in on the topic. I hate to sound critical, but I'm going to have to  I would say "Yes, but..." to your suggestion that what needs to happen is just that Shutterstock has to educate contributors on the gaps in the collection. I've been producing images for stock for a little longer - although much less successfully - than Lisa. I'm not a volume shooter, but I do mix what I like to photograph with what I think will sell. The change I've noticed most is how agencies have changed as they've become very successful - less communication with and reduced focus on contributors and their issues (and I'm thinking of the large mass of smaller contributors, not the big factories with whom I'm sure agencies stay in touch). I haven't done something semi-custom in a while, but I used to when I was fairly sure the results would be more broadly useful. For these sorts of requests I would only shoot things that cost me nothing but time and weren't hard to set up. Do a search on Shutterstock for septic tank and although there are only 125 results, 7 of my images are in the first few rows. The way that a bunch of these items (including the series above) came about was the iStock Request Forum. The iStock forums are currently largely useless, but they were once pretty active with both designers and contributors. Twitter isn't a bad vehicle for many things, but when you're limited to 140 characters, (a) there's not a lot of detail and (b) there's no way to ask the designer a question. Asking questions is less about doing a custom shoot than getting a better understanding of what they need to produce more usable stock. That was the case with the septic tank images and several others in the same vein. Take a recent tweet from Shutterstock about women in their 50s reading tablets. Inside or outside? Isolated on white or in a setting? In business attire or home/weekend? With makeup or in their jammies? Caucasian, Asian, African, Indian - what would be the point in me sending in something of a blond 59-year-old if they wanted another ethnicity? If there's to be something usable here, (a) I think you need a place on the web site where people can review past requests (don't get rid of Twitter); (b) you need a way to give more detail and allow potential shooters to ask questions. In the iStock past, that was directly with designers. Possibly in the current environment the agency doesn't want contributors in touch with buyers directly but somehow there needs to be a way to get questions answered. The other aspect of this is inspections. I have more recently had some images of subjects like the septic tanks (this was a valve setup in the dirt for inground sprinklers) rejected (not for noise or focus). Some of these subjects that sell don't look pretty - you'd never hang them on a wall - but they sell. After I have a few from a series of this sort rejected, I just stop submitting more like that to SS and return to things I'm fairly sure I can get approved. I'd like to see the inspection issues get resolved in general, but especially if you want people to respond to requests, you probably need a way to tag something that was submitted for a request to stop the rejections for non-technical reasons so the buyer can get what they need. How about putting a feed of the last few requests up on the contributor home page? How about doing a survey of contributors to find out how getting them information might work best? If contributors are really to be the agency's partners (versus just a cost to be minimized) improvements on that side of the operations as well as on the customer facing side could be more of a priority?
3431
« on: May 02, 2014, 12:20 »
Up and running - looks good, clean and modern
http://crated.com/edwardfielding
I don't see any images - it's described as a "future gallery". Can you only see images if you are signed up/in?
3432
« on: May 02, 2014, 11:30 »
They offer next to no options on the print mat or framing though. Compare to Fine Art America's choices
3433
« on: May 02, 2014, 11:28 »
Does anyone know the Spanish photographer Nito? http://us.fotolia.com/p/200982272He/she has 18K+ images that are currently still opted in to DPC I found a Shutterstock portfolio, one on Masterfile and various other sites, but no real name anywhere
3434
« on: May 02, 2014, 10:59 »
Monkey Business Images is run by Cathy Yeulet ( http://www.microstockdiaries.com/monkey-business-images.html) but their web site is pretty minimal (no Contact me link). Their Facebook page hasn't been updated since 2012 and although Cathy is on Facebook and LinkedIn, I don't know her - perhaps someone else here does? On another topic, I was delighted to see that only three of the images DPC has pinned here - I guess to promote themselves - are still around! The rest get 404 errors http://www.pinterest.com/dollarphotoclub/sweet-dreams/The candy in a dish, lollipops and gumdrop pyramid are still there; the rest - 404 I didn't check their other sets of images, but let's hope that's true for the rest too.
3435
« on: May 02, 2014, 10:38 »
at this point i wouldnt trust anymore in the counter..
Yes, I still remember (years ago) when they said in one of their press releases that they were the microstock site with more images online. Jon Oringer himself had to come to these forums to discuss it. (They had far less than SS, an even less than IS).
If I recall, they were using all submitted images (i.e. including rejections) and wording things to mask that fact.
3436
« on: May 02, 2014, 02:34 »
My translation of your analysis? They're not very thoughtful liars
3437
« on: May 02, 2014, 02:11 »
It's fine to share. Perhaps just link back to this post in the thread as the source?
3438
« on: May 01, 2014, 19:44 »
If you mean native English speaker, how about this (edited Fri May 2 to add suggestion to suspend uploading). Earlier in 2014, Fotolia introduced the Dollar Photo Club, a stock site with all Fotolia's photos and illustrations but with very different pricing. Although Fotolia is presenting this site as exclusive and targeted at high volume buyers, the reality is that for just $10 a month you can sign up for a 10-image "subscription" - $1 per image, all sizes. Anyone can sign up - and some contributors who had never purchased a single image were sent the offer e-mail! And the contributor makes a subscription royalty for each sale. Subscription prices without a requirement for the buyer to commit to a high volume of purchases is very very bad news for contributor income. Contributors were not notified about the drastically different pricing and were initially told there was no way to opt out of this sales channel - except by leaving Fotolia. With the encouragement of a group of contributors pledging to remove their files if things didn't change, Fotolia has relented and provided an option to opt-out of sales at Dollar Photo Club (referred to as DPC in the Contributor Profile) You can read Fotolia's intentions in their own words in this TechCrunch article: http://techcrunch.com/2014/04/29/dollarphotoclub-expands-into-more-markets-hits-11000-users/"In an effort to take on the entrenched players in the States, namely Shutterstock and iStock, he created DollarPhotoClub as a pricing play to break into the US." and "Its disrupting the business model of the two big U.S. players..." If Dollar Photo Club succeeds, what will get disrupted is contributor income - this is replacing higher royalties with lower, not opening new markets or finding new buyers (and early responses on Twitter and Facebook indicate that's exactly what's happening). So for your own sake, at a minimum opt out of Dollar Photo Club - on Fotolia, when logged in, it's in Profile, then Contributor Parameters. Another step to take is suspend uploading to Fotolia - subscription sites need a steady stream of new uploads to keep buyers coming back (and advertise the weekly/monthly number of new items). You could also consider whether or not it makes sense to continue with an agency that treats its contributors so shabbily. Remember, the opt out only became available as people started deleting work from Fotolia. It was 28 million plus images; today, it's 27 million and falling.
3439
« on: May 01, 2014, 15:30 »
SS had another good month for me - up 7% from a strong March and up 23% over April 2013. My RPD there has been steadily climbing and for the first time was over $1 (by one cent!). It has been in the high 80s and low 90s for the last year (versus 44 cents in June 2011 when I returned from independence). My subscription portion of the total was 33.7% (it's been that low once before but is generally a bit higher) - two of the SODs were large and made the difference). My BMEs are always in November, so it's no surprise that April didn't come close to that, but my rolling annual total keeps going up, which is a better direction than the alternative. DT was lackluster. 11% down on March and 38% down on April 2013. Downloads were about flat with last April - the difference was in how much each download made. It's nice to have level 5 images, but when the volume of subs goes up, it's irrelevant. 123rf wasn't bad - up 33% from March, although down 10% on April 2013 (download numbers were up 15% over April 2013; I think there were some ELs in there). Given that I haven't uploaded there since Jan 2012 (protesting their RC scheme), it's pretty amazing income has held up. I earned 18% more Jan-Apr 2014 than Jan-Apr 2012 (when I had 50% versus 45%). Perhaps I should just start uploading again? Alamy was a waste of space - no sales. Although sales from the months before finally cleared so I get paid! PhotoDune did OK - down a bit - 22% - from both March and April 2013. They don't seem to have as clear a pattern as other sites, but perhaps that's because stock images are not really their big thing and their collection is small. CanStock had a good month because of one Fotosearch download - but when a $15.80 royalty doubles your monthly income from a site, it's pretty sad. I left Veer at the end of March (over their lack of opt out from a rip off partner program) GL stock had 4 sales - not dead but barely there. I have just 109 files at iStock so saying April was down 27% from March means a difference of $1.64 so who cares? Overall I was 2% down on April 2013, but if I hadn't just dropped Veer (used last April's number) it would have been up 4%. Don't like dropping income, but I disliked Veer's partner arrangements even more and they wouldn't permit an opt out
3440
« on: May 01, 2014, 11:53 »
Well, why don't make a pod cast or even retransmit in direct the event on the web (Shutterstock site)?
We're looking into this and we're working on more video- and text-based educational materials, in-person events, etc..., translated into multiple languages. For any single event there will be some logistical considerations, but if we can live-stream a specific event or make a video available through the blog, we will!
Best,
Scott
Good to hear there might be some live streaming in the future. My ideal for how this would operate would probably be like Creative Live. They have online chat monitored by someone at the event so questions can be asked and answered during the time it's happening, plus you can watch the video after the fact if the live time doesn't work. Not sure how many places there are where that sort of setup is available (i.e I know nothing about the logistics, just that I like how their stuff works as a consumer of their web events.
3441
« on: May 01, 2014, 11:49 »
Why do none of these freaken art sites read IPTC ?!?!!?!?!?
FAA does
3442
« on: April 30, 2014, 22:14 »
Curation can be fine - if you can figure out what they want clearly. I have neither the time nor the stamina to play the upload guessing game. Once there's something to look at I'll see if it fits what I do. If it's Photocase or Stocksy, then I have nothing to offer anyway
At a minimum it might encourage FAA to tart up their site a bit. It could use some visual oomph
3444
« on: April 30, 2014, 18:06 »
anyway how do i OPT OUT my fololia pics, while i decide if i want to shoot my other foot.
One of my photographer friends who is at Fotolia posted this after I alerted people on Facebook (I hope this helps; I'm not with Fotolia any more so I can't use my experience) " I found it too - it is in Profile, then Contributor Parameters and as Jo Ann says, it is called the DPC"
3445
« on: April 30, 2014, 18:01 »
I skimmed through the two new documents (and the links to the old are at the bottom of the new) but what they didn't do, and should have, is provide a redlined version or an excerpt of the added/deleted/changed terms.
Shutterstock always does that and it really helps to focus on what's changed - re-reading that legalese is a deeply unpleasant necessity and the less the better.
In my skimming I didn't see anything glaring, but I understand the feeling that any change is likely to be bad news for us (just based on the last 4 years or so of agency behavior). The structure has changed so much that using a text editor to do a DIFF wouldn't help much.
As far as fees, there was already language in the old terms on that:
"You must bear all expenses incurred by Envato in paying monies to you. Payments made via a SWIFT transfer incur a processing fee of $35 for each payment.
SWIFT, Payoneer and Payment Agent standard terms and conditions regarding refunds, chargeback, fees and unauthorised transactions will apply and you authorise Envato to automatically deduct such refunds, chargeback, fees and unauthorised transactions from the Member Ledger."
So I think that they've just updated the language. To date I haven't been charged any fees when paid via PayPal.
It's amazing that when thinking of making the terms in plain English, it didn't also occur to someone to extract the changes for easy review...
3446
« on: April 30, 2014, 14:14 »
They offer paid images as well - that's what the SS images are.
Click on a link and you're on the SS site.
3447
« on: April 30, 2014, 14:11 »
Fotolia sells to the buyer for $1 each. SS doesn't do that. $249 for a month's subscription or $29 for TWO images on demand - that's $14.50 apiece, not $1
SS doesn't pay me 25 cents royalty each subscription sale - I earn 38 cents. The more you sell the more you earn, even on subscriptions.
Only about 36% of my earnings last month at SS came from subscription sales. If anyone were daft enough to sell via DPC, 100% of their sales would be subscriiptions (I know there's Fotolia, assuming anything except video sells there in the future if DPC were to get going).
Try to get your information straight before you start an anti-subscription thread. This has been gone over many times. Lots of people don't like subscriptions.
For me, now the opt out has been offered (although it should really be an opt in), the big issue is the very very low entry point for the DPC - $10 versus $249. It's being offered to people who buy infrequently (and never), NOT to volume buyers where you have a prayer of making the subscription model work
3448
« on: April 30, 2014, 13:26 »
Sorry for the confusion - it looks like the email went to a broader group than intended...looking into this.
Thanks - if something like this happened nearer to me (Seattle) I'd jump at the opportunity to have a portfolio critique and suggestions. Lack of interest in a Toronto event doesn't mean lack of interest in the idea
3449
« on: April 30, 2014, 13:21 »
Every day many requests are sent from Dollar Photo Club members wanting to purchase an Extended License. In response they are directed to Fotolia to make the purchase. Ive just been notified that Dollar Photo Club will soon be adding an Extended License. The commission paid to photographers will be an even $30 (US). The cost for the member for this license will be $50 resulting in a 60% commission rate for contributors.
For any of us who have been selling for a while and through multiple sites, the ratio of an extended license sales to others is reasonably well established. You cannot solve a basic pricing problem with the volume sales by having a few extended licenses (even though there's nothing wrong with the price and royalty for those, depending on what rights you're including). This seems as if management thinks that dangling a nice, though very occasional trinket of an EL sale will cause contributors to forget about the fundamental problem. The tech crunch article quotes Fotolia's owner saying that he's trying to use the pricing to take market share away from Shutterstock and iStock. Almost all of us would lose badly if that were to succeed, $30 EL royalties or no.
3450
« on: April 30, 2014, 11:56 »
I just received e-mail from Shutterstock - I assume targeting contributors given the e-mail address used - advertising ShutterTalk "Turn Your Passion into Cash" Not clear if it's designed for those considering becoming contributors or existing contributors who could improve with help:  I'm in the Seattle area and Toronto is a little far to go for a 2 hour workshop They know my address, so I'm not sure why they'd send this out to someone so far from the site. I've never received anything like this from them before - has anyone else?
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
