|
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 - trek
Pages: 1 ... 11 12 13 14 15 [16] 17 18 19 20 21 ... 30
376
« on: August 13, 2016, 12:47 »
I'm okay with the pricing plan. At least it's different than most other sites. Wondering... Will there be extended license options?
377
« on: August 05, 2016, 12:34 »
Another addition to the suggestion box: Add editorial.
378
« on: August 04, 2016, 16:26 »
Thank you for the post. I'd like to address some key points, while also addressing some concerns people may have.
First and foremost, after almost two years of negotiation, we acquired GraphicLeftovers from a group of 4 partners, all of which had full time jobs and GL was not a primary source of income for them. Because of this, the business was more or less set to autopilot, neglected the desires of many of it's members. The new ownership team will be investing a lot of time and money into not only better staffing the company for better customer support, faster approvals, streamlined payments, but also investing in marketing the business and repositioning it for future success.
Key Point # 1:
We have invested quite a bit of money and time in development in order to "Grandfather" in our old sellers to their 52% commission rate, and $50 payment threshold. While it is important for us to grow margins to be able to stay competitive and turn a profit (after all, this is a "for profit" business, and we did shell out significant amounts of money and time to acquire it), we find it most important to honor the commitments made by the previous owners to their customer base before we began operating the business.
Key Point #2:
Yes, we did cut the commission from 52% to 40% for all new sellers after 8/3/16. I understand that this may seem negative, but in reality, there are many benefits of working with GL that should still make GL a viable option for many stock photo & vector sellers.
- We do not require any seller to exclusively sell with us, and guarantee them that 40% commission regardless if they post with only us, or 100 other stock image sites!
- We give 40% for ALL licenses sold. This mean when people purchase the merchandising or ultimate licenses, or the standard licenses, the sellers will still make 40%.
- 40% is still one of the highest commission structures out there, and there are no minimum sales requirements to receive 40% on your product sales.
There are many changes that we have in the pipeline and are working on to make significant improvements to GL, as well as increasing sales for our contributors. With the site having been neglected, revenues dropped for many contributors. New ownership is committed to turning this around.
I understand many people will not have the most pleasant things to say. It's unfortunate. However, as a seller of your stock photography, you have many options as to where you sell your images. If you choose to partner with GraphicLeftovers, you have our word that we will do our best to not only earn your business, but to make you more with us at 40% than you ever made with us at 52%. For those of you who are already sellers with GL, again, you have been grandfathered in and will continue enjoying the same commissions that you always have.
I am happy to address any questions or concerns, and I welcome anybody to get in touch with us. Whether you care or not, we are still excited for the opportunity to be able to work with so many talented artists.
Regarding the comments about our use of the word "exciting" -- We are excited to be able to work on this company, so please bear with our enthusiasm!
Thank you!
I appreciate being "grandfathered" and hope GL succeeds in finding customers.
379
« on: July 28, 2016, 17:22 »
I guess it would depend on exactly what she donated. It's not as clear with intangible rights as it is with $1 million-which I would love to see and would not "donate" entirely away.
definitely.
she would have received some sort of written statement to "value-fy" her donation.
normally, we donate something and in return, we claim that donation in our tax returns.
when you donate money or gifts in kind,etc.. there is a value ,
and we used that value in our PnL under donations for tax savings purpose, ie to reduce our
taxes.
in donation, there is a transfer of property, or else, how is it going from one hand to another?
you cannot donate a chair , or blood, or photographs,
and still not transfer the ownership to the donee.
if the transfer of ownership is not done, i cannot see how that qualifies as a donation.
it would a 'on loan", but definitely not a "donation"...
you cannot be a "lender" and a "donor" at the same time.
i think she will lose if she has a written agreement of donation
to the donee.
it does not matter whether she think she has not transfer the ownership,
if so, how does that qualify as a donation?
the other question is, as i said, she would have certain obtained some benefit to "donate"
this. so most likely it was for some tax-reduction accounting stretegy.
in which case, i don't think any case in the world would not consider this a transfer of ownership.
even a two-bit "lawyer" ..like me... can use this as an argument
i can see why Getty is going to win.
It is easily possible to donate prints, or a book or a jpegs to a library but not the intellectual property rights. The case will be about that. People who try to profit from public domain and creative commons art need to be very careful. Much in this world is labeled incorrectly.
380
« on: July 26, 2016, 18:05 »
istock's "big things" in the past have been poignant for our collective posteriors. I'm abstaining from uploading until we learn the full details of the istock-getty absorption. I don't want to invest anymore workflow in a situation that may trigger an exodus.
381
« on: July 26, 2016, 17:22 »
Perhaps his name should be added to this thread title for google search optimization.
382
« on: July 26, 2016, 16:57 »
My editorial aren't showing either.
If you click on the zeros in "my upload history" your editorial files will show. Hopefully they'll fix that bug soon.
383
« on: July 22, 2016, 14:07 »
LDV81, please explain why people suddenly see a massive drop one day to the next, as happened in this july for a lot of people ?
The agency may change the search algorithm whenever they want. I noticed that after a very good day at SS I am now usually punished with pathetic sales on the next day. It feels like they switch off parts of my port in certain markets. Some of the other sites also seem to have a kind of "rotation".
And that's the whole point I am trying to make. They have no obligations towards contributors only towards shareholders. For crying out loud, you can't change that. That's the way it is. What do you want do? A hunger strike? No point complaining, got to adapt and find alternatives.
That is why successful and smart co-ops with limited memberships and exclusive images are the only way for full-time contributors to survive in the stock business in the long run.
red - statements your points
i) glad you agree there is some kind of manipulation unlike some handful who insist
it's not happening
ii) why would ss encourage the established contributors to exodus to stocksy,etc???
would they not be chopping off their own feet?
otoh, shareholders plan is short-term and really do not care if tomorrow , after they short their holdings , ss no longer exists, ... sort of a repeat of istock.
i try to see your point though. since we are not able to storm ss HO for not being
a native in that city, luckily for them most of us are not,
there is really nothing else we can do...
but vent !!!
ranting does send out a message to other potential shareholders
that all is not good at ss.
this will drop the share prices ,
so it is not useless rant as you say it is.
you can still hit them in the pocketbook by ranting here and ss forum
to show other shareholders it is not long-term that ss current look for.
iow, you go in now, and you will be left holding the bag
when the majority shareholders sell and take profit at your expense.
Stocksy is limited to a few hundred photographers. There will be no exodus to them... unless they change the rules.
384
« on: July 17, 2016, 17:03 »
This whole thing is just one more step with the integration into Getty. This step seems to be putting iS images onto the Getty servers (for "unification" as they call it). Efficiency is the corporate buzzword when combining companies. Unification is efficiency in this case. Another step is to make it a Getty collection and remove the iS web site. With the removal of descriptions, recent locking of edits and deletions, I think they want to make this just a "clip art" collection. It will be further linked to many external web sites and photo outlets. Anything with specific details are no longer of their interest in this collection.
Are all Getty contributors unable to edit their portfolios or is this a special restriction for istock contributors?
385
« on: July 17, 2016, 08:39 »
The ability to edit my portfolio is important to me and should be to all artists. Moving forward I will invest my time and uploads elsewhere. I plan to remove about 20% of my portfolio before the deadline. Hopefully they will reconsider this misguided policy.
386
« on: July 14, 2016, 13:54 »
As we've said so often, it's death by a thousand cuts.
Or, there might be another September announcement which will provoke mass deactivations.
Based on past experience, I would bet on this scenario.
Sounds like they're getting ready for the next D-Day.
387
« on: July 06, 2016, 09:11 »
When I read about the missing keywords, I had to look...
I found a relatively easy way to check it out...
(I remember someone asking about it)
Here's the link strait to it:
http://submit.shutterstock.com/review_batch.mhtml?approved=1&type=photos
In case the link doesn't work:
Home-> Portfolio-> Approval Status: Images-> Approved Photos (or whatever is you are going to look)-> Go to bottom of page-> Click "View All ..... Approved Photos"
My approval status - approved photos page scrambles the order results after page 51. Sort by date and sort by sales both are scrambled beginning on page 52. Anyone else have this issue?
388
« on: June 30, 2016, 07:05 »
I have no reception and I cut the cable. Life is good.
389
« on: June 27, 2016, 16:28 »
Keep calm and wait two years. It will be at least that long before the paper work is done and anything happens. After that everyone will adapt.
390
« on: June 20, 2016, 15:57 »
I noticed my ftp speed is cut by half while uploading videos to SS (and certain other sites) if the photoshop application is running. Activity monitor shows the ftp output as being full throughout. I'm using a mac. Seems odd. Anyone else have this happen?
391
« on: June 15, 2016, 09:57 »
Depending on the details - adding extended license options should be a good thing.
392
« on: June 12, 2016, 17:00 »
I think Dreamstime's strict policy of creating higher pricing by limiting variations needs revision. Customers want variety and bargains. The best art will rise to the top anyway.
393
« on: June 11, 2016, 10:59 »
They buy them because they want a actual use license... from a company and/or artist. They don't want to find out later that some free creative common jpeg was wrongfully uploaded by someone other than it's copyright owner.
394
« on: June 04, 2016, 12:31 »
I also lack understanding of CSV files. Been doing cut and paste from an excel doc (when the FCP meta fails to transfer). Are there any CSV for video submission tutorials out there?
395
« on: May 19, 2016, 14:46 »
Deleting Dollar Photo Club was a smart move by Adobe.
396
« on: May 15, 2016, 10:26 »
397
« on: May 15, 2016, 06:11 »
A year ago I made an inquiry about a poster seller. Amazon moved it along quickly and the seller replied that he had bought a license at SS. The only odd thing was Amazon labeled it as a complaint. I was not complaining... just inquiring.
398
« on: May 11, 2016, 15:23 »
Is the OP attempting to reel in referral commissions on those 1 commissions?
399
« on: May 04, 2016, 05:56 »
I removed my portfolio from Panther last summer to get out of their (no opt out-able) partner program. Unfortunately their partners are still selling my images.
400
« on: May 03, 2016, 17:49 »
Whether they say they're the seller, they're not the seller, or they're intergalactic being from another universe... they are charging VAT because they have to. I'm not sure why everyone is so fixated on Envato (or anyone else) saying that they're not the seller, as it has nothing to do with their VAT responsibilities.
I'm fixated on their plan to 1099 us for 80% of the sale price while paying us 36%.
Pages: 1 ... 11 12 13 14 15 [16] 17 18 19 20 21 ... 30
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
