|
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 - fotografer
Pages: 1 ... 11 12 13 14 15 [16] 17 18 19 20 21 ... 110
376
« on: April 26, 2013, 13:20 »
the solution isn't to make collections smaller but to make searches smarter
Exactly
377
« on: April 26, 2013, 09:31 »
i can think of a reason why to purge older not-so-high sellers. you don't want to browse through 1000 children blowing their dandelions . 100 is enough. purging what failed in the past increases the quality more than just restricting new stuff to come in.
If all you want is a 100 then you just need to look at the first 100 but for those who don't find what they want then the others are there for them to look at. I've never seen the point of deleting images. The bad images that nobody wants soon sink into the back of the search so they aren't causing any problem.
378
« on: April 26, 2013, 05:08 »
Why would you exclude PP when you have no choice but to participate? That is sort of like saying my SS RPD is 28$ - but I am only counting ELs.
Primarily because this is the information that I find useful.
I know that Getty + PP generally bring in on average 10% plus or minus a couple of %
Perhaps there is scope or interest to create another poll that also includes PP
The PP bring in 40 -50% more earnings for me.
379
« on: April 26, 2013, 05:01 »
BDE for me by a long way. Got a couple of ELs as well and more than usual normal dls.
380
« on: April 26, 2013, 04:11 »
I used to do it and then it was said that it didn't make any difference so I stopped. My newer images that are in alphabetical order sell much better than my older images that are in relevance order.
381
« on: April 26, 2013, 03:35 »
It's certainly possible but a lot more difficult than it was when I started 8 years ago. Those of us that have been uploading for a long while have already earnt our position in the ranks, are bookmarked by a lot of buyers etc but newcomers have to work their way up. Saying that, it is becoming increasingly more difficult for those of us that have been doing this for a long while. It isn't the gold mine that it used to be unless you are willing to put in a LOT of work.
382
« on: April 26, 2013, 01:55 »
This has happened to me at both SS and BS this month. If they turn out to be legit then I will have a good boost to the month if not I will have to hand back over 300$ !!!!
Hope that if it is not all legit, you still come out with $299.70 
Thanks, me too. 
383
« on: April 25, 2013, 15:01 »
This has happened to me at both SS and BS this month. If they turn out to be legit then I will have a good boost to the month if not I will have to hand back over 300$ !!!!
384
« on: April 25, 2013, 13:19 »
I've got 5 for 13,50$ each all the same subject matter.
Just got another one for 16.50 this time
385
« on: April 25, 2013, 12:48 »
I've got 5 for 13,50$ each all the same subject matter.
386
« on: April 24, 2013, 11:22 »
For this year, this month, today???
ETA doesn't matter it will fit into the same catagory whatever
387
« on: April 24, 2013, 09:48 »
388
« on: April 24, 2013, 07:57 »
If the site has an extremely easy uploading process and there are at least some sales, I can't see any reason why not upload.
I have a dozen of sites where the active uploading time (just a few clicks) is about 1 minute per month and each site makes be around $200/year. And that's just for 12 minutes of extra work per year. That's $1000 per hour, a very nice rate.
Exactly and deleting a port actually takes more work with the only result being is loss of potential earnings.
389
« on: April 24, 2013, 05:00 »
By dropping a third of the agencies this really does let me just focus quality time with the ones that have always looked after me well.
I've never seen the point of deleting a port just because it doesn't get a lot of dls. You've already invested the time in getting the port up there. You can just stop uploading any further images and then then you don't need to focus any quality time there at all except to go in every few months and see if you have reached payout. On the other hand if the site suddenly takes off and you decide to use them again you will have to upload your whole port there again.
390
« on: April 24, 2013, 03:31 »
but if no photographers supplied/supported the sites like SS, then nobody would be going there
But the fact is that they do and me stopping selling my images there will make no difference to anybody but myself. I don't kid myself that if I'm not there then buyers will go and search for my images elswhere. I certainly can't afford to not upload there. I manage to get a lot of household bills paid with the money I earn there.
391
« on: April 24, 2013, 03:09 »
When are you lot going to stop harping on about the 25-38c that SS pay? What we get in our pay cheques at the end of the month is what matters to me and I am 100% sure that between all the agencies it is a lot more than I could get if I was an IS exclusive.
392
« on: April 24, 2013, 02:50 »
0.25c - 0.38c??? why oh why would anyone sell their work for such a pitiful royalty amount? crikey, now that 15% at IS is looking great indeed.
Nobody really wants to sell their images at such a low price but being as so many of the buyers are at SS it would be foolish not to sell our images there. Most of us get the biggest payout from SS. Personally SS brings me in 2 - 3 times what IS does, double what FOT does and nearly double what DT does. Yes of course I'd rather sell at Dt where the Rpd is over 4 times that of SS but the reality is that the buyers go to SS.
393
« on: April 23, 2013, 02:35 »
Got 4 days worth now. The 1st was good but I'm hoping that the other 3 days aren't complete yet.
394
« on: April 22, 2013, 19:15 »
I've got some for the 1st
395
« on: April 20, 2013, 22:21 »
Still relies on the honesty of the buyer though -
Surely it's the same at any the sites that we sell at. The point is that the honest buyers would get the opportunity to buy the correct license.
396
« on: April 20, 2013, 12:11 »
Obviously I think that there might be a buyer somewhere for each photo I submit.
For RF stock photography you should be aiming to submit images where there are hundreds of buyers somewhere for each photo you submit.
397
« on: April 20, 2013, 03:10 »
I got an EL through their partner programme for...
a grand total of .......
$2.64!
Just for info!
This is probably where our 28$ SS El's have gone. Another example of deposit underpricing the market.
Have our ELs at SS gone?? I'm getting the same amount as always.
398
« on: April 19, 2013, 14:48 »
I had my keywords in the IPTC data but they did the catagories for me. They are very eager to help at DP
399
« on: April 19, 2013, 14:03 »
Jan - 12 downloads - 9.5$
Feb - 15 downloads - 13.9$
Mar - 36 downloads - 19.75$ (BME)
don't know if I laugh or cry really
Painful, I wonder why your images aren't selling there. Are you in the bridge programme? If not maybe the bridge images get priority in the searches. I see figures like that at places like cutcaster and stockfresh but BS is pretty good for me.
400
« on: April 19, 2013, 10:41 »
If someone is going to purchase stock images with a stolen credit card, why bother with the extended license?
Congrats on the sales!
I'm sure that you are right. It just seemed too good to be true. 7 in on day is good on SS let alone BS. Thanks.
Pages: 1 ... 11 12 13 14 15 [16] 17 18 19 20 21 ... 110
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
