|
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 - dingles
Pages: 1 ... 10 11 12 13 14 [15] 16 17 18
351
« on: April 15, 2013, 21:16 »
Yes, my portfolio is mostly 3D renders and they ate selling. I have animations and stills. The key is subject and quality...the downside to this is it is hard to pump out a lot of these as rendering times can be quite long.
352
« on: April 15, 2013, 21:04 »
OB graphics can be fine for photo editing...it's when you get into video and 3D that really need a better graphics card(real time 3d gaming also). Using OB graphic will limit Photoshop GPU accelerated tools, which do come in handy...still you can be perfectly fine using OB graphics for editing photos.
353
« on: April 15, 2013, 10:41 »
.....
Well when you look at Getty's prices, 20% can earn more than 50% on other sites...and people buy videos off Getty for the higher price points...I don't fully understand the reasoning for the higher prices, but I believe it has to do with the licensing you get through Getty versus iStock.
The notion that (my bold) "20% can earn more than 50%" is based on the assumption that Getty actually sells at the publicly stated prices, at least most of the time. I would bet that Getty is discounting significantly (like many other sellers) under pressure from buyers, so the actual outcome could well be that 20% earns less than 50%.
Regards
All assumptions either way of course.
The problem with POND5 for me is that sales are low there (for me at least)...so 50% of 0...well you do the math. I also don't like the idea that someone can create a similar video and undersell me...so I don't particularly support POND5. And Getty does in fact sell iStock videos on the Getty site at inflated prices...contributors have even stated that they often make more with Getty sales than iStock. And I agree it seems absurd to have the higher prices of the same content. And also seems to undermine iStock as a whole...but they are able to get those sales and make us the $... So, yes 20% can earn more than 50%. Getty still has a customer base that pays money. This is reality. Would I rather get 50% on my stuff that sells...of course ;P
354
« on: April 15, 2013, 10:32 »
.....
Well when you look at Getty's prices, 20% can earn more than 50% on other sites...and people buy videos off Getty for the higher price points...I don't fully understand the reasoning for the higher prices, but I believe it has to do with the licensing you get through Getty versus iStock.
The notion that (my bold) "20% can earn more than 50%" is based on the assumption that Getty actually sells at the publicly stated prices, at least most of the time. I would bet that Getty is discounting significantly (like many other sellers) under pressure from buyers, so the actual outcome could well be that 20% earns less than 50%.
Regards
All assumptions either way of course.
355
« on: April 15, 2013, 09:16 »
For me as an indie this would even be good, they said the Getty360 program will include all content and that indies will be paid 20% for what gets sold there, i.e. I will get a higher video royalty than on istock.
So there is something for me to look forward to.
You're looking forward to 20% commission.
Looks like Getty's strategy is working...
Well when you look at Getty's prices, 20% can earn more than 50% on other sites...and people buy videos off Getty for the higher price points...I don't fully understand the reasoning for the higher prices, but I believe it has to do with the licensing you get through Getty versus iStock.
356
« on: April 15, 2013, 07:40 »
They stated that only logged in views are counted. Which has been argued by contributors that should not be the intended way to track views. My newer uploads are light on views when compared to the past. They first claimed there was no change to views and later stated there was a change because contributors were raising their own view counts to raise their best match placement...if best match accounted for view/sales ratio then that wouldn't be an issue. They only acknowledge such issues after contributors have to bring it up over and over and then they quickly dismiss it. So now you can have a higher download number than views because files can be purchased without logging in. Makes little sense. I'd buy their excuse if my sales backed it up...they don't.
357
« on: April 14, 2013, 20:00 »
I guess they speak for everyone. Some of us are newer to iStock. I'm there still because it makes me the most $$$. The lower sales haven't been drastic for me and are the least of my issues with iStock. I'm more frustrated with the lack of action on site issues and the overall lack of transparency. The heavily moderated forums is just annoying and has only brought their contributors here to discuss the issues. The overall perception from a contributor stand point is that they just don't care...maybe that is from the top down. I'm sure this is perceived by buyers as well..and some contributors are also buyers and influence buyers...I don't think iStock is naive enough to not know this...so that just adds to the perception that they don't care anymore. It seems to me the folks still employed there are there for the paycheck...the fun and spirit of iStock is long gone, and I am sure iStock is just a small sliver on the pie chart for Getty. As of now the minute I feel I can start making more money without iStock I will surely jump ship. They always tease change for the better, but it never comes.
358
« on: April 13, 2013, 21:41 »
I don't think the guy is an idiot, but he tends to think that most of the contributors just want to discredit IS and troll the boards. Realistically the contributors just want a working site...this is iStocks responsibility as we provide content of value and we expect the same quality from IS as our content...the contributors are delivering their fair share while iStock has not been. And when we post about this on their forums we get shuffled, deleted, and told we are not being constructive.
359
« on: April 13, 2013, 21:07 »
Did someone post that IS reduced their IT drpartment? I guess that could explain the issues forever being unresolved. With so many issues its hard to trust that their system can accurately track sales.
360
« on: April 12, 2013, 21:43 »
If they fixed anything I'd be happy at this point. There is just a huge list piling up...the forum mods are collecting and collecting issues and suggestions...but I have yet to see action...I would expect action on at least the major issues that affect sales, but nothing. It's beyond frustrating and reaching comical at this point.
361
« on: April 12, 2013, 20:47 »
Maybe if iStock just killed the forums they'd eliminate half their current PR issues ;P
362
« on: April 11, 2013, 12:14 »
The amount of inaction is quite unbelievable
363
« on: April 11, 2013, 10:43 »
I took my stuff on Fotolia down recently (poor sales), but they accepted images other agency would not and rejected a lot of images other agencies embraced. Out of all of the ones I tried, Fotolia was sure the toughest to gauge what they are after.
364
« on: April 10, 2013, 19:36 »
I have to say there are some high issues that just aren't getting any resolve...I understand there are priorities and things can take time, but there has been zero progress over a half of a year from my point of view. I wish they'd have a little more transparency. All this generating feedback is gonna hurt them more in the long run if they don't produce some results. I think they fail to understand that contributors are also buyers and have influence over buyers. It bothers me that it seems more time is spent moderatating the forums then actually making their product better.
365
« on: April 10, 2013, 16:37 »
Yeah, I tried the forums, but I was passive aggressively asked by an admin to pretty much not post anymore. My posts were as mild as they come as far as I am concerned. I did ask a few questions...apparently I must have hit a nerve, but they weren't anything crazy. Most of my posts were feedback on questions they were asking. They don't seem to want new blood over there and are weeding out the old whether it be on purpose or not. I'd like to think all the recent threads asking for contributor input are more than fluff, but I rarely see any action.
366
« on: April 10, 2013, 14:58 »
I keep my head down in the forums, because I know it's possible that IS can punish people in the best match.
Is this speculation? I know they technically could, but do you know this is the case?
367
« on: April 07, 2013, 20:19 »
Do you have work spread ou already? I think you can make a decision by looking at you current potential and weighing against what iStock exclusive could provide. Either way there is some uncertainty, but go with what will potentially provide you the most income.
368
« on: April 07, 2013, 19:25 »
369
« on: April 04, 2013, 11:03 »
Cool thanks..very help info he has shared
370
« on: April 03, 2013, 14:58 »
I know iStock puts out what they call "creative briefings" which highlight specific subjects they find are wanted by customers and lacking in their collection. Is there anywhere that puts out a more general version of this idea? Something that spans across all stock sites?
371
« on: March 28, 2013, 14:36 »
When you put it that way than no. I'm saying that if you focus on an agency you get a feel for the type of content they accept as well as what sells. I am looking to make money and the place that I adapted to is iStock as they showed the best return early on. If it was Shutterstock then I'd probably be praising then and adapted to them. Yes, I adapted my work to fit the agency and buyers...your approach is different by finding an Agency that fits your work already. Not a thing wrong with that, but I feel adapting can produce more income. In the end, it is your job to make the most out of any agency.
I adapted to istock years ago. I even considered exclusivity at one time. But despite my efforts to create work that I felt would fit the istock collection and buyer demand, my earnings there have steadily slipped. Today, istock represents just 5% of my total microstock income. They ranked 8th overall in earnings for me last month.
That's after doing exactly as you suggested for a few years, focusing on work that I felt would do well at istock. Because in 2007 and 2008, istock was, in fact, my best-selling agency.
That changed through no doing of mine, and there was nothing I could do to stop that downhill slide over the last few years.
I guess your work doesn't fit in well with iStock. Too many variables to consider how well you adapted the content. Glad you found other places it does.
372
« on: March 28, 2013, 11:43 »
Yeah, I guess it is a bit of a catch22 as they will want to grow to support more contributors, but will need promotion to do so...For all we know maybe they have start up funds to market...or maybe they are relying on the current contributors or both. They sound great from a contributor perspective, but they need something to appeal to buyers...their pricing is a good start 
373
« on: March 28, 2013, 11:30 »
I know it is new, but maybe Stocksy should be up there. Since it is new, they could use our help...and if it takes off, it only means good things for us if we choose to participate. They have good pricing and offer the best returns for contributors. Hell it's what they say they stand for.
374
« on: March 28, 2013, 09:18 »
I don't know, I feel if you aren't make more on iStock than the other sites you are doing something wrong.
So you feel I am (was - I left Istock after the RC introduction) doing something wrong, when Istock did not sell more of my images than Shutterstock?
I uploaded the same portfolio to different agents, who's job it is to make me money out of it. So if one of these agents does worse than the other, that's my fault?
Strange logic your are applying here... 
When you put it that way than no. I'm saying that if you focus on an agency you get a feel for the type of content they accept as well as what sells. I am looking to make money and the place that I adapted to is iStock as they showed the best return early on. If it was Shutterstock then I'd probably be praising then and adapted to them. Yes, I adapted my work to fit the agency and buyers...your approach is different by finding an Agency that fits your work already. Not a thing wrong with that, but I feel adapting can produce more income. In the end, it is your job to make the most out of any agency.
375
« on: March 28, 2013, 09:07 »
Nice spin
Pages: 1 ... 10 11 12 13 14 [15] 16 17 18
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
