|
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 - PixelBytes
Pages: 1 ... 11 12 13 14 15 [16] 17 18 19 20 21 ... 74
376
« on: April 27, 2016, 22:24 »
I think Alamy as number 2 is real. The rise is probably because people from their forum have put their earnings in the poll.
I think your right about that, but it still doesn't exactly make the numbers real. If people don't contribute to the (other) micros, and post only one site in a microstock poll, its gonna skew the results. Wasn't that the reason istock exclusives were given a special category?
377
« on: April 25, 2016, 18:09 »
April will be the 40% lower than march 2016.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sound about on par with my stats.
378
« on: April 25, 2016, 18:02 »
the solutions is to stop checking your stats every five minutes.
Yeah. Stick your head in the sand so if your getting boned you don't see it happen.  I get all nostalgic remembering when SS was among the highest functioning sites......
379
« on: April 25, 2016, 00:03 »
As a high lifetime earner, I can promise you jack-all has been directed to high lifetime earners.
Same here !
So can we take it that you and PixelBytes are not one of chosen ones in the Premier Select bracket, because logic would suggest that those that did not make the cut would be see highest loses.
I don't know. How do you find out if your in premier select? Somebody shows up at your door with a camera crew, balloons and a giant cheque? If me and some others I know are high lifetime earners aren't in it, then I wonder what other criteria are in play. Maybe unusual or rare subject matter? Maybe factories, portfolio size, or........? Does anyone here know for a fact that your in PS? If so, how'd you find out? Were you invited, notified, or just found your work there?
380
« on: April 24, 2016, 08:02 »
Congrats on the 2k sale! Was that RM?
I only have RF on Alamy, and usually sell pretty well there this month so far zero sales. It has never happened since I started there in more then 5 years that I had a no sale month.
If you mean Dumc it was 200$ not 20000$
Oh, oops! Thanks for clearing that up. Still beats me. I finally had 3 $10 sales netting me a grand total of $15 for April on Alamy. Meh.
381
« on: April 23, 2016, 18:24 »
I would say don't waste time with the lowest earners until you have several thousands of high value images. Even with over 5 thousand images I hardly ever get a payout on low earners. I consider Canstock to be low to mid level so worthwhile.
Thanks PixelBytes. With your 5000+ images you still upload to CS, DT, DP and BS? How about Alamy and 123? Others are suggesting they're not worth the effort. I'm thinking I won't upload anymore unless they are just a couple of clicks as @cascoly suggests.
I appreciate everyone taking time to answer. For the aussies out there have a great Anzac Day long weekend 
Due to falling sales across the board, I haven't uploaded to any micro sites in the past year. But if I were uploading, I would still upload to the sites you mention. I dont consider them low earners as they each get me a payout or better per month. To me the real wastes of time are Stockfresh, GL Images, Crestock, Pond 5 (for photos ), and any others that rank near or below them on the poll.
382
« on: April 23, 2016, 18:16 »
I think that when you begin with the microstock business the $100 that you can make every month with 20 low earners can be interesting.
But when your portfolio will have grown and your sales on the top earners will have grown accordingly you can let the low earners go because it becomes a waste of time.
If you make a total of $100/mo with 20 low earners how is that worthwhile or interesting? Payout limits mean you won't actually be able to collect those piddly pennies or few $ per site for months, if ever. So you get the hassle of uploading and submitting to 20 sites for a pittance you can't even collect? That's not my definition of interesting.
383
« on: April 23, 2016, 18:09 »
Or maybe the lack of SOD sales is due to a successful Premier Select Trial and many of the SODs are going to the selected high lifetime earners?
That was my thought, they have directed sales to select contributors.
Drop in dls and SODs does correlate with their announcement time frame....few SODs worth a sod after that. I guess I'm not in their select club. 
As a high lifetime earner, I can promise you jack-all has been directed to high lifetime earners. This month looks to be my lowest on SS since my first year, when I had less than 1k images.
384
« on: April 21, 2016, 19:09 »
I would say don't waste time with the lowest earners until you have several thousands of high value images. Even with over 5 thousand images I hardly ever get a payout on low earners. I consider Canstock to be low to mid level so worthwhile.
385
« on: April 21, 2016, 16:02 »
Congrats on the 2k sale! Was that RM?
I only have RF on Alamy, and usually sell pretty well there this month so far zero sales. It has never happened since I started there in more then 5 years that I had a no sale month.
386
« on: April 19, 2016, 13:55 »
If you are having trouble getting an answer from us, please feel free to contact me directly at [email protected] and I'll look into what has happend. We are not ignoring any requests, but we do have quite a lot to do with too few resources, so sometimes we might need some time to get back to you.
Could you tell me what is the approximate length of time is of "we might need some time to get back to you"? I wrote to you and Linda two weeks ago and didn't even receive an auto responder to acknowledge my email. If you don't know which user I am just pm me on msg and I will tell you. Thanks.
From January to late April and no response? I wouldn't hold my breath. Jan, Linda and the rest may already be collecting their unemployment cheques.
387
« on: April 19, 2016, 13:51 »
Once upon a time Fotolia claimed they gave highest priority to the first keywords. Can't remember if it was 7 or 10. I don't know if they still do this, but could explain your trouble finding your images using title and description.
388
« on: April 18, 2016, 18:00 »
On topic, I am glad to read of people doing well even when I'm not. I am not so cynical to resent someone for having success.
It is good to gauge the state of the stock industry by hearing people report how they are doing. This is also why I don't appreciate when people try to silence people who are seeing downturns by calling them whiners or whinos.
In my case, I notice some improvement in Fotolia since Adobe bought them, but I was already doing pretty good there.
389
« on: April 18, 2016, 17:54 »
The second change was because I didn't know that the name Minscer was linked to some sex offender.
This is the BEST reason I've read for a name change. Can't blame you one bit.
390
« on: April 13, 2016, 12:36 »
hi. i have slow sales in april, is it just me?
Not just you. Too early for summer slump, but it feels like that. Almost halfway through the month and on track for WME.
391
« on: April 12, 2016, 01:35 »
Yeah. Why picking on Aussies all of a sudden?
392
« on: April 10, 2016, 15:25 »
i have only 223 and 211 sale...i never upload a lot practically nothing and it can be like 2 years i stopped uploading...then 31 of march i received 107ndollar for one sale....probablu the biggest single sale i had in all agency of RF. so strange...actually i must re begin uploading.
Congrats on the big sale! I would not rush to upload there tho. With almost 6k HCV images I maybe make $200/year at Crestock.
393
« on: April 07, 2016, 22:20 »
Here's how to make great money in stock photography. First, build a time machine. If you want to make the real big bucks in RM, set it for the 1980s or 90s. If you want to make big money in microstock, set it for 2006 and upload to Istock and Shutterstock.
If you skip the first step, forget about it, and don't waste your money on books selling you false hopes.
394
« on: April 01, 2016, 14:45 »
The world has too many holidays...
People on holidays spend money also
Yes, on hotels, air travel, cruises, Margaritas, etc., but NOT on stock photography.
395
« on: March 31, 2016, 12:59 »
20% off any subscription plan... Nice! We all know that our earnings are based on the price the customer paid for his credits so looking forward to decreasing sales! 
Great. So once again the contributors are the fools.
396
« on: March 31, 2016, 12:57 »
Just imagine you were earning $250,000 a year, living a great life, nice house, nice lifestyle then Micro comes along and you find yourself earning $10,000
I don't have to imagine. People that used to earn solid 6 figures in micro are in a similar boat. And the newbs wonder why some of us complain so much...
397
« on: March 31, 2016, 12:48 »
Sorry to get back to Trump, I'm sure you saw this yesterday, but....
"Donald Trump said Wednesday that abortions should be banned and that there "has to be some form of punishment" for women who undergo the procedure".
Public flogging perhaps? 20 lashes in Town Square?
Yeah, horrifying! Did you notice when he was asked if there should be punishment for the men who impregnated the women he said NO?! He also had to backtrack by the end of the day and say there should be no punishment for the women because they are "victims".
398
« on: March 31, 2016, 12:35 »
on Getty, didn't check iStock for a long time.
Some months ago i sent email to support, and it was not answered, as well as one email for previous issue, year ago
OK, here is the explanation.
All iStock images are available to a subset of Getty buyers through a scheme called Getty Plus.
A side effect of that is that by Googling, the photos 'seem' to be available on Getty, but are unavailable, and there isn't a link to where the file CAN be bought on iStock.
So, you might ask, why are they Googlable if they're not buyable via Google?
Shouldn't they only be findable inside Getty, and then only to the Chosen Sample of buyers?
Ha: as Cobalt said on another issue, don't expect logic from iS/Getty.
Thanks for the explanation. An even better question would be, if the images are viewable on Getty, why don't they just SELL them on Getty? The days when iStock exclusivity meant anything are long gone. Why not just fully integrate the Getty and Istock content?
399
« on: March 30, 2016, 00:42 »
Trump wants to make America great again. What made America great? Protestant Christianity, Calvinism in particular, gave rise to these ideas which were put into practice:
Private ownership of land and property rather than serfdom or slavery was preferable.
Doing right by your neighbour as you would have them do to you allows businesses to flourish.
Unjust scales and weights were an abomination. No fractional reserve money printing.
Charity was voluntary and nobody gives more than protestant Christians.
Husbands loving wives and wives respecting husbands, working together, statistically eliminates poverty.
Protestant work ethic produces prosperity.
Families and Churches take care of elders, widows and orphans - everyone else works.
Limited government and taxation needed due to people taking care of themselves and those around them.
Less sins like murder and theft means less destruction and cost to the community.
Not bearing false witness allows innocent people to live peacefully without fear of retribution.
You and I read different history books. The founders fled Europe because of religious persecution. That's why they included the clause in the Constitution prohibiting the establishment of a State religion, commonly referred to as separation of church and state. The pledge of allegiance did not include the words Under God until the 1950s. A protestant theocracy was the LAST thing US founders wanted. Not to mention that most of the values you list and attribute to protestantism date back as far as Hammurabi's Code, The Ten Commandments, and Catholicism, all of which predated Martin Luther's Theses and the start of Protestantism by thousands of years. If you want to live under a theocracy, may I suggest Iran?
400
« on: March 30, 2016, 00:33 »
When I think of the iStock site programming team though I imagine a bunch of wolves with mental disabilities who can't control their anger sitting in a bathtub together, whilst floating amongst their own turds, squeezing them like Play-doh, and giggling away as if they haven't a worry in the world.
ROFLMAO!!! OMG, I am laughing so hard I am literally crying!! I'm sure this will be deleted, but thanks for the most graphic and hilarious metaphor EVER!!
Not polite correct but if you change it to a pack of wolves, in a pond, like Lobo, and other IS floaters, then it's fine.
Totally agree, not politically correct, but still funny. Political correctness is the reason most comics won't play colleges anymore. Hard to be PC and funny.
Pages: 1 ... 11 12 13 14 15 [16] 17 18 19 20 21 ... 74
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
