|
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 - Phil
Pages: 1 ... 10 11 12 13 14 [15] 16 17 18 19 20 ... 67
351
« on: October 11, 2010, 19:13 »
strange survey
Think of the opportunities for promotion that you have now. How well does each of the following words or phrases describe these? Rank your answer choice using the range of boxes next to the description.
Good opportunities for promotion
Opportunities somewhat limited
Dead-end job
Good chance for promotion
Regular promotions
Fairly good chance for promotion
arent these pretty much the same thing?
352
« on: October 10, 2010, 21:56 »
353
« on: October 05, 2010, 01:23 »
averaging 1-2 sales a day, about 80-85% are subs. credit sales have all been between $0.44 and $2.64 for my cut
354
« on: October 04, 2010, 10:13 »
Very simply. The right to sell "exclusive usage" in a license is only ONE right. That one can no longer be managed but there are plenty of other rights that can be assigned.
What do you call Alamy's L license? It does not offer exclusive usage. It just prices (manages) the license according to type and duration of use. It is partially rights managed (just the same as the micros partially manage their libraries)
The buyer of an L license knows nothing about where or how that photo is being used, so why does the agency need to manage the history? It doesn't even try. When it makes a sale it doesn't contact you to ensure that the image is not for sale on another RM site, as it would have to do with a managed history image. I'm not sure but I think Getty's "rights ready" concept is similar: buy for a specified use but no guarantee of exclusive usage.
Fully RM images should be exclusive to one agent.
if an image of history can not be managed, how can it be 'rights-managed'?
I am sure there are buyers who will pay whatever, and don't care about RM or RF or don't even know what is that.. but as an agency, they should keep a previously sold RF selling as RM as long as the seller is honest.
For the 55,000 time, there is nothing that stops you from licensing previously sold RF images as RM. It only restricts you from offering image history or exclusivity as value added offerings. Sheesh.
I dont know if they still do but Alamy used to ask you notify them of rm sales elsewhere for non excl. files
355
« on: October 03, 2010, 09:07 »
I used to get a lot of additional format for requests for vectors (not any more as I uploaded vectors for most popular files). very often it went as a sub or just never sold (I'd guess the customer bought another file after sending the request), now I cant be bothered  dont see a need to sell raw files at micro pricing, macro yes, not micro, they already get a 24mp of very high quality jpg and I dont need someone not bothering to clone out legal issues and me getting sued.
356
« on: October 03, 2010, 04:31 »
I'm a little up at the moment, but then I've been through so many best match changes that I dont bother with stats for IS, what I got this month is what I got, 20th of next month best match may change and my sales may double or they may half, who knows?
357
« on: October 02, 2010, 03:35 »
How many diamond exclusives do you reckon are on $80k+? There can't be very many.
Offhand, I'd say 300+. Probably closer to 400 than 300.
From where I'm sitting I'd say that is an overestimate 
Definitely! Somewhere between 70 - 100 would be my guess, probably on the lower end of that scale. Working from my own data (as an independent) you'd probably need to be averaging something like 2200 sales per month.
A little under 500.
obvisously I cant know if it is the way the new system is configured but someone did some reasonable impressive calculations halfway through the istock forum thread and it looked extremely likely that exactly 100 people will get 40%.
358
« on: September 29, 2010, 08:31 »
Yuri says he uses a monopod when shooting models because he can't guarantee to get the focus spot on if he hand holds the camera.
he shoots medium format so I believe more prone to shake and lower sync speeds (but I could be wrong  personally for people lighting so I can be 1/160 or 1/200 and handheld
359
« on: September 20, 2010, 04:45 »
congrats! its a beautiful shot that I'd be proud of it was mine. A really nice collection and imo it certainly deserves to be in there (better than the lousy rockclimber - nah only joking leaf the fact it was taken with p&s is only testamount to your skill.
360
« on: September 20, 2010, 04:39 »
I think plenty of people will continue to stay at one site they are happy with. Istock is perfect example, while buyers leave with every price increase, plenty stay. My wife's buying (which is pretty small) is now at canstock as I can convert credits as needed, rather than have credits at DT, FT and IS like we had before. I dont know how canstock compares, dont really care as it works for her.
361
« on: September 18, 2010, 08:44 »
Didnt mean to offend or put down anyone. I am one of those that cannot afford to dump in one hit and will have to increase sales elsewhere. Hopefully with the work people have done telling buyers this will come quick My concern is that istock (and other sites) will think people are just taking the changes and think they have won. I suppose they will see the number of weekly uploads is down. Looking through how much they are pushing vetta, page after page of 30-35 vetta images on pages of 50 images. My money is on a price increase, and it wouldn't surprise if it is a big one. still cheap compared to vetta and if you cant afford it there is thinkstock.
362
« on: September 18, 2010, 06:47 »
FT images can be turned on and off exclusive as you like - the button can be changed in 'edit data' for each images at any time, but you have to go through and do each image individually.
A number of people have reported very good results with being able to double and triple the price for good sellers, personally I played around quite a while with best sellers, but my sales plummeted, but mine are pretty generic so I think people just went ot the next image, but as said it works for some.
363
« on: September 17, 2010, 23:21 »
I signed up for Alamy a little over a week ago but didn't get to upload anything until last Sunday. I read through the Alamy forum threads there and it seems wait times for the "Awaiting QC" step is usually 1 to 2 days. But it's been a little over 5 days now. Is this what everyone else is experiencing?
This is my first very small batch to Alamy to test the waters. These images were my better sellers in the past.
it takes longer when you are new or if you have a high failure rate, when you have a reputation for minimal failures it is usually under 24 hours (but I dont know how submissions this takes sorry).
364
« on: September 17, 2010, 23:04 »
they actually tweeted the discount offer- use code REDEEM10 for 10% off credit packs of 50 or more (for one week only). so that July one is different. wonder what contributors get as a "gift" for the outage... oh wait.. nevermind.
Well that explains it. I don't follow iStock twitter...or any twitter for that matter.  Doesn't really matter for me though, as I will not be buying a 50 credit pack there.
so... where are you buying credits from these days? (am I allowed to ask that? okay if you prefer to keep that to yourself, of course). I'm working on building ports elsewhere soon as my exclusivity contract is canceled.
At the moment, Dreamstime and StockFresh are the ones I am going to focus on. I like their lower priced credit packages, because I just don't have the purchasing power to plunk down a lot of money at this time. I also liked the quality of images I was seeing on ShutterStock, but I do not want to sign up for a subscription plan, I just don't buy enough images to justify that cost and their "OnDemand" pricing is still a little rich for my blood.
I am still a pretty small buyer, but I am hoping that business will continue to pick up for me.
my wife buys the odd image (about 1-2 month), we have credits at dt, ft and is which is a pain. now she buys at canstock, becuase they are cheap and you can transfer credits at any amount, so she just transfers 2 credits from earnings when she needs it and grabs her small image. I'm not being real clear sorry, but for contributor and buyer it's nice and might be worth a look.
365
« on: September 17, 2010, 17:55 »
I'm at 24mp too. Beyond the larger sizes. the crop space is incredible and images that are questionable for quality can get downsized to 4000-4500 pixels on the long side and go throough happily. hides a lot of sins the only site I'd consider exclusivity with would be alamy
366
« on: September 17, 2010, 17:07 »
the simple fact is they dont have to do anything and they know it.
maybe 50? people will give up the crown, thats about 1% and maybe 50? indys will leave. From istock's perspective BFD.
the majority of people are stuck and istock know it. Most people are saying they will wait and see, like whitechilds comment about abusive relationship, stay in the relationship hope it will get better and go back to the way it was, most of them will slowly start uploading again and in a few months or so, may not be real happy but they will keep doing it. Some will work on slowly decreasing what they do istock and perhaps leave, but how many? and istock cant see it at the moment. A decent number of people are saying, my income is being cut, I have to invest more and work harder to make it up, so Istock gets even better content for less money.
Really unless about 1000 people left or gave up the crown nothing will happen.
367
« on: September 17, 2010, 05:06 »
personally there is a degree of luck at FT. many images never see any light, but you keep adding images and every now and again you get one that pays for the others. My bestsellers on FT just keep selling but are pretty dead elsewhere and stuff that does well elsewhere does nothing there (just how it works for me). I'd say just keep on uploading.
368
« on: September 16, 2010, 18:30 »
I'm mildly surprised more sites havent done stuff. DT has their paid upload, and FT is doing cannister matching? But I see it would be a good opportunity for someone like crestock. Revamp royalty structure to something like SS for subs and a scaled 20-35% for ppd and you'd be the site (and new owner) that was increasing commissions some pretty serious goodwill.
Whats the FT canister matching? Havn't heard about that.
they match cannister levels with istock. Basically if you're gold excl on istock and give up the crown they will make you an instant gold non exclusive on FT. Like DT you have to ask specifically and show them your level on istock (I pretty sure they are still doing it, perhaps someone can confirm).
369
« on: September 16, 2010, 18:23 »
Next you guys are going to tell me you guys didn't know that inspectors can self-inspect their images (or at least they used to be able to).
Dull colors, overexposed, omg what's with the keywords. And this guy wants to put it in Vetta.....
On second though this image looks familiar, where have I seen it before? Oh right, I just uploaded it this morning. Vetta it is!
LOL
370
« on: September 16, 2010, 17:49 »
I'm mildly surprised more sites havent done stuff. DT has their paid upload, and FT is doing cannister matching? But I see it would be a good opportunity for someone like crestock. Revamp royalty structure to something like SS for subs and a scaled 20-35% for ppd and you'd be the site (and new owner) that was increasing commissions some pretty serious goodwill.
371
« on: September 16, 2010, 06:44 »
I'm going to concentrate on macro for a while, but still be interested in either coop or very large partnership type arrangement (the less I spend the better but I think it will take at least $400-500 each).
372
« on: September 16, 2010, 06:41 »
From all your comments I see only fear of leaving Istock. This kind of fear I often see in people who live in a horrible marriage, but are still afraid to break it. The "marriage" between Istock and it's exclusives right now I see only as a weird, little bit sick relationship, where Istock is a sadistic partner, and exclusives are the partner who suffers.
Go out people, branch to other agencies, you can't lose. If you could just look at the situation from outside..... I really don't understand what more do you expect from a business partner like this? Do you expect that you will somehow prosper if you stay exclusive there??
I see only the next "good" change coming next year, and then you will realize that you lost one more year in trusting to someone who doesn't appreciate your talent, your work, and you as a person.
I'm seeing this every day. Istock did something that I see in my country all the time, and that's what scared . out of me.
This is wise advice and an excellent metaphor, we would do well to heed it.
yes it is very good (I think you should post it the istock forum)
373
« on: September 15, 2010, 20:38 »
look at the keywording of the airline ticket one
374
« on: September 15, 2010, 16:01 »
85% profit is not an accurate number. sigh. too bad, leaving takes away your support from many artists in fact.
leaving gives more to the artists. There are some great exclusives but go back through the istock forums, take the view you are an independant and see the snide, derogatory remarks about the independants. 6 indys for each excl, but on the forum it's about 1 to 20 the other way. personally yaymicro are now offering 20% for referrals thats more than istock are offering me for my own sales. I'm still yet to see a good reason to support istock in all this. istock will increase marketing to compensate for royalty loss (yeah right), but that is stealing my customers from other sites where I earn more. Thinkstock was created to go after SS, where I earn more. They get applauded for it, but we get critisiced?
375
« on: September 15, 2010, 07:18 »
20% for referrals... that's crazy! ("some" sites doesn't give that even to contributors!
that was my thought too
Pages: 1 ... 10 11 12 13 14 [15] 16 17 18 19 20 ... 67
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
