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 - KB
Pages: 1 ... 11 12 13 14 15 [16] 17 18 19 20 21 ... 57
376
« on: July 02, 2014, 19:45 »
(Off-topic; sorry) In the micro world, thus far, I have only found one company (ClipDealer) who distributed my clips to another site (Deposit Photos) without my knowledge. Because of this I stopped contributing new material to ClipDealer.
Thanks for this. I've been on ClipDealer for over 2.5 years, and had no idea they did this. I checked DP, and see that they have about 60% of my CD port there. In over 30 months I've had only 5 sales at CD, and I now suspect 3 of those (far lower commissions) were from DP. I haven't UL'd in a year; given the poor sales and technical problems with UL'ing, it just hasn't been worth it. Now I have another reason to not UL.
377
« on: July 02, 2014, 11:59 »
Alamy has refunded a sale a few times in the past for me. It's almost always the big purchase that gets refunded. I had one refund last month for about $250 from a sale from more than a year ago. They just took money from my account without any explanation! This is ridiculous! I always thought that Alamy was more professional than other agencies, but it looks like all agencies are exactly the same.
Kone
How is this unprofessional?
See my highlighting above.
378
« on: May 28, 2014, 16:06 »
I think those are realistic concerns if a major part of your income comes from exclusive photo sales.
It would certainly be a concern if all of the customers including those who currently use Getty Images suddenly switched to subscriptions and no new business was simultaneously generated. However it seems most likely to me that the hope would be to attract customers who currently use subscription services elsewhere.
And my hope is that my credit sales will suddenly (or even gradually) reverse course and start increasing again. But my guess is, the chances of that hope coming true are about equal with hoping that IS will attract customers who currently use subs elsewhere. What might the attraction be? They could save $50/month, but it means they could get 2/3 fewer files than on SS. Perhaps there are some buyers who will fit that profile (fewer files, but save $50). Unfortunately, that won't help exclusives, since most exclusive files are, well, excluded, from those buyers. I guess that's the new meaning of "exclusive".  I really don't see many buyers leaving SS in order to pay double the price, still be able to DL only 1/3 as many files, but have the grand privilege of buying exclusive files as well. Will not happen much at all. So even assuming that IS can convert some SS buyers, exclusives are not likely to see a benefit. That's just my opinion; we'll see how it shakes out.
379
« on: May 26, 2014, 14:12 »
With introduction of subs on iStock the majority of buyers soon will switch to subs making the whole idea of RC system irrelevant. Getty will bring the old canister levels back as the next try to keep exclusives on board.
But I think it's just as likely they decide to scrap the entire tiering, and switch to a flat royalty (e.g., 15% for independents, 30% to exclusives).
Getty need more content to compete with SS. They need a system to motivate contributors to upload more stuff. Both old canister and RC are motivating contributors to upload more, to sell more, to get more %.
With new subs RC became irrelevant and flat royalty rate will not motivate contributors to upload new stuff. Getty will bring the old canister levels back.
Let me say, I really hope you're right, as that would give me an almost 20% increase in my royalty rate (from 30% to 35%), which I'd love. But I'd bet against that happening. However, personally, that wouldn't motivate me to upload new stuff. I need to see an increase in sales -- both old and new files -- for that to happen, rather than the continued decrease I've been experiencing. And I don't have a clue how they could accomplish that.
380
« on: May 26, 2014, 10:28 »
With introduction of subs on iStock the majority of buyers soon will switch to subs making the whole idea of RC system irrelevant. Getty will bring the old canister levels back as the next try to keep exclusives on board.
I question the future of the RC system, but I find it hard to believe that the canister system will be revived since it would most likely cause an overall increase in royalty payout.
Not necessarily. They could set the limits so that the majority of contributors are in the lowest bracket or two, and make the bands large enough so that almost no one will ever move out of their bracket (assuming that sub sales would not count towards canister levels). But I think it's just as likely they decide to scrap the entire tiering, and switch to a flat royalty (e.g., 15% for independents, 30% to exclusives).
381
« on: May 26, 2014, 10:16 »
But how do you handle something like Shrimp Cocktail which works if the buyer searches for the phrase, or if they search for shrimp if you've used that as a keyword too, but if the buyer searches on shrimp, then narrows the search by adding cocktail your shrimp cocktail won't show up unless you've also included cocktail as a keyword. But that could be considered keyword spam if you're image now shows up under a search for cocktails meaning beverages. If the search only takes phrases in the CV or individual words instead of pulling words from phrases you have to add the singe words or risk being missed in searches.
How many buyers would search for shrimp, without cocktail, if they are looking for images of a shrimp cocktail? IMO, I'd prefer clean keywording that would have files containing the phrase "shrimp cocktail" (and "shrimp", of course), but not "cocktail". (This is for the IS / CV case, not for the OP's question of general keywording.) The idea of a controlled vocabulary was a good one, IMO, but extremely difficult to implement and maintain. It requires diligence from contributors to know and follow it, an obvious, easy interface so buyers can use it without being confused, and a team constantly adding to and refining it. Even with all of that, I don't think perfection would be possible (that's unattainable), but it could be a lot better than the current, buggy mess.
382
« on: May 20, 2014, 16:46 »
MichaelJay took the step of using logic and examples to point out that there isn't an issue, if anyone wants to see a better interpretation in that thread.
Indeed, that was perfectly clear and logical. And the mod dismissed it with a "that's the way it is" type of response, and then locked the thread saying the critique forum is not the place for such discussions (he himself being the one who moved the thread to the critique forum in the first place  ). Brilliant.
383
« on: May 16, 2014, 18:54 »
Almost 4 months for me; still nothing.
But Revostock has a month on them (5 months and still waiting).
Sad that they are both in such dire trouble.
384
« on: May 14, 2014, 16:39 »
it s true - they do not lie - They said exclusive files would always be shown in search results, no exceptions. Now it is a simple one-click option to exclude most exclusive content (all except the few Main files that exclusives have). The base level of the new subs program also excludes almost all exclusive content (I'm ok with that, as I'm not ok with sub sales ...). I signed a contract grandfathering me to the next canister level, which at the time meant the next commission level. They didn't exactly lie, but they made the contract meaningless by getting rid of canister-based commissions (and grandfathering the now meaningless canister levels for everyone). If they don't lie, they definitely play fast and loose with the truth.
385
« on: May 12, 2014, 23:03 »
I am still missing PP income from Feb which showed on my stats but NOT in my balance. My support ticket is almost 2 months not answered. When I posted on the forum it was locked and I was told to be patient. 
It might be answered soon. My latest answered support ticket was answered a few weeks ago, after almost exactly a 2 month wait.
386
« on: May 08, 2014, 17:52 »
It is not a drastic increase, but now that they have a subs package will it have an influence? Or are subs and credit sales totally unrelated? I don't buy into Getty's argument (initially made for TS, and then re-iterated for the new IS subs package) that credit and sub buyers are 2 entirely different markets. So any credit price rise makes subscription plans that much more attractive (or, put another way, attractive to even more buyers).
You mean, more attractive to existing iStock buyers.
An increase in prices of credits wouldn't have any positive effect in attracting new buyers to IS, of course. But new buyers considering iStock anyway would similarly be more interested in the sub plan the more expensive credit sales become. However, the increase as cobalt mentioned is, in absolute terms, still modest, so the affect will probably be modest as well.
387
« on: May 08, 2014, 17:25 »
It is not a drastic increase, but now that they have a subs package will it have an influence? Or are subs and credit sales totally unrelated? I don't buy into Getty's argument (initially made for TS, and then re-iterated for the new IS subs package) that credit and sub buyers are 2 entirely different markets. So any credit price rise makes subscription plans that much more attractive (or, put another way, attractive to even more buyers).
388
« on: May 08, 2014, 17:08 »
Sometime in the last few days, the price of Main files increased 1 credit for all sizes M and above.
S: 2-->2 M: 3-->4 L: 4-->5 XL: 5-->6 XXL: 6-->7 XXXL: 7-->8
That's a 33% price increase on Medium, but only 14% by the time you get up to XXXL.
389
« on: May 04, 2014, 10:50 »
It is the exclusive promotion in reverse.
As others have pointed out, with Getty now pushing their subscription plan, they have a strong financial incentive to promote non-exclusive content, since they pay out significantly less per DL. Don't expect things to get any better.
390
« on: May 01, 2014, 11:16 »
One of the few remaining IS exclusives ....  Revenues down 42% compared to March, and 33% compared to April 2013. Worst month for $s in almost 3 years, and for DLs (not that they matter) the worst since March 2008 when I had < 100 files online.  I don't expect sales will improve.
391
« on: April 23, 2014, 15:43 »
I ask because my sales over the last two weeks have slowed significantly. My own sales mirror your experience. I can't say it surprises me at all. This is exactly what I predicted when the new sub plan was announced. I expect it to get even worse (though that might not seem possible), once all the larger buyers have used up their remaining credits. I fully expect almost all weekdays to look like weekend days used to. As the saying goes, IS is done -- stick a fork in it.
392
« on: April 22, 2014, 22:51 »
Monday was my third consecutive day without a sale on IS.
Except for my first few months back in '08, that had never happened to me before.
393
« on: April 21, 2014, 17:02 »
If iStock is changing to Subs and Exclusives are getting a bum deal then is Earnings Rating for Exclusive of 307.7 still accurate? That number represents March income, before subscriptions began. It says nothing about what may or may not be happening now, or (even more importantly, since IS has barely begun pushing sub sales) in the future.
395
« on: April 05, 2014, 10:14 »
Jan 16th 2013 (though usage began 16 Nov 2012), but I'm sure someone will beat that. But I've already been told by Alamy that I won't be paid, as per ShadySue's post.
396
« on: April 04, 2014, 19:05 »
Getty claims that it's a different class of buyers who buy subscriptions, so we won't be losing sales, we'll be getting extra sales that would've gone to SS or other sub sites.
Not to take a shot at you, KB, but at Getty. It is just so quaint to hear yet another agency claim that subscription sales won't erode higher paying credit sales because it's a different market. I just have to laugh. We indies have heard that at every credit site that added subs for years, and in every single case without exception downloads have shifted from mostly credit sales to mostly subs.
This was the exact same argument they made when they introduced TS. And not long after, we heard reports of Getty calling current IS customers and encouraging them to move to TS. So it was a lie then, and it's a lie now. I think if there's one thing we've learned about Getty that we can trust is true, it's that there's nothing that we can trust Getty says is true.
397
« on: April 02, 2014, 09:17 »
"We're sorry, this clip is no longer available." Big Brother is reading this forum (thankfully  ).
399
« on: March 31, 2014, 19:37 »
I claim that there'll be little or no incentive for SS buyers to switch to IS
Straight question: If they come in with a competitive package and word gets around then why wouldn't buyers switch ?
What is your definition of 'competitive'? It would have to be nicely discounted from SS's prices, not simply matching. Otherwise what does IS have to attract buyers? It isn't the lack of technical standards or poor keyword relevance of new files (which are overwhelming the number of older, better keyworded files). Not to mention the added complexity of a two-tiered subscription plan. My guess is that their lower tiered offering will indeed be 'competitive' with SS's, but the higher tiered offering will not. So a further hit to exclusives, as even if sub sales take off, most exclusive files won't be the ones being downloaded. (Probably true within the lower tier, too, as someone else pointed out: Won't Getty be likely to skew the results to independent files, since their costs will be significantly lower?)
400
« on: March 31, 2014, 17:19 »
Let me ask a question here, based in Fotolia's change to subscription experience, how, (exclusive member percentage of $$$), will these new IS move affect exclusives? Lets say you make $1000.00 a month from IS and $200 a month from GI? (based in your own experiences with Fotolia) give me a approximate calculation. Thanks. in other words, how much blood will be lost with this new IS move.
We can speculate, but no one can yet know the correct answer to that. Getty claims that it's a different class of buyers who buy subscriptions, so we won't be losing sales, we'll be getting extra sales that would've gone to SS or other sub sites. I claim that there'll be little or no incentive for SS buyers to switch to IS, nor for new buyers to come to IS in place of SS. So most sub buyers will be converted IS credit buyers -- and most likely those will be the buyers who were the biggest buyers of credits. I don't see an impact on GI sales (not from subs -- the free editorial and personal use images are an entirely different matter). But my own guess is that the theoretical $1000 per month person is likely to see a 50% haircut in sales by the time subs are fully rolled out, if not more. It will be brutal.
Pages: 1 ... 11 12 13 14 15 [16] 17 18 19 20 21 ... 57
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|