|
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 - robhainer
Pages: 1 ... 12 13 14 15 16 [17] 18
401
« on: July 30, 2013, 13:10 »
You'd rather have fewer credit sales over many sub sales? I don't see the difference. All that matters is how much you have in earnings at the end of the month. Shutterstock -- the subs site -- gets me 10 times what every other site gets me. And it's all 100 percent profit because I have zero overhead. I don't pay models, and all of my equipment has long been paid off and continues to serve its purpose in a tax writeoff.
402
« on: July 28, 2013, 13:32 »
My theory is that there is a global (world wide) economic crisis
So how come my sales on SS were growing, altho I didn't upload for months. When I started uploading gaain recently, they grew even more.
Because there is always one exception to confirm the rule
How do you know it's an exception
It's not. July will make three straight BME for me in total downloads and earnings.
403
« on: July 27, 2013, 21:55 »
the disruption to microstock is lack of editing, and a free flow of acceptance of everything that comes in the door at all skill levels of which a vast amount is not stock worthy at all, albeit some of it is very good work.
That's for the buyers to judge. If you're really a pro with the best stuff, then you don't have to worry about inferior content outselling yours. Buyers are smart enough to know which image they want. It's survival of the fittest. And Yuri thinking his decision had anything to do with the price of Shutterstock's stock is beyond arrogance. There's tens of millions of images on that site, and many equal or surpass his in content and quality; 50,000 images or even 300,000 moved off the site wouldn't even be a speed bump.
404
« on: July 27, 2013, 12:03 »
It's a dumb release policy, and the major reason I don't contribute to iStock. I'm not filling out 500 different releases for images of my own kid. No other stock sites require such a ridiculous release policy and all of them have managed just fine that way for years.
And then there's the uploading and keywording system they have that is a decade out of date.
Not worth worrying about since iStock is a sinking ship.
405
« on: July 23, 2013, 13:11 »
Of all the sites I have uploaded to over the years, Fotolia is one place where I have never paid attention to rejections. Don't even look at them. I turned off those notifications early on, and never click on the show deletions link on the My Files page. Their rate was higher even back in the 'good old days' and their reasons were useless and meaningless. They get the same uploads as my other top sites and they can sell them or not.
They were also the only place I tried the make rejections free option in the early days. I quickly found out that images that weren't good enough to sell for a quarter got thousands of downloads if it was free. Quit that immediately.
They always have been and remain my #5 site in terms of sales.
Exactly the same experience and same approach for me. I still send them everything the other sites get. At least I'll make them spend some time looking at the images.
406
« on: July 20, 2013, 11:08 »
Thanks for everyone's comments! Really brings to light many things I was in the dark about.
Dolgachov--totally agree with you on many things. This is a business. The whole point of my post was not to complain about the high costs in the U.S. and other European countries. Rather, I wished to understand the business model of contributors with large volume and high quality. I find Yuri's business model to be very intriguing, and if anything, his scale of production should be emulated---not his work.
It's not just about taxes though. It's about standard of living. In the U.S., a good cup of coffee from Starbucks can cost $2 vs. in India a good cup of coffee is $.20. Or take for example, my friend who lives in Moldova. His apartment monthly rent costs $300--the same apartment in the U.S. costs $3000. You can't deny the point that if you have some money saved up in the U.S., you could stay afloat longer in another country with a lower standard of living, allowing you to put in more work hours for your photography rather than trying to do this in the background of a part-time job. It is true you need your own creative ideas...but it sure as hell helps A LOT to have lower costs, lower taxes, and lower standard of living. That's why U.S. corporations move overseas--to increase profits.
Err...$3000 a month would rent you a mansion where I live. Cost of living varies greatly from place to place in the U.S. I'm sure I could hire people to do photo processing for $7.25 an hour if that's what I wanted to do. Or I could use the internet to have people in India or China do it. I could probably hire a stock shooter for $15 an hour, no problem.
407
« on: July 17, 2013, 02:07 »
I think the Santa hat-nipples photo caused me to go blind for a few minutes.
408
« on: July 16, 2013, 11:16 »
My earnings are up 36 percent over the same period last month.
Last month was a BME in terms of total downloads for me.
I always do better in the summers. My December sales are horrible, though. Will drop 50 percent in December.
409
« on: June 28, 2013, 19:55 »
I don't understand the complaining either. Shutterstock pays me ten times what any other site does. If it weren't for Shutterstock, I wouldn't even bother with stock photography. I only upload to other sites because all the work has already been done. If you don't like the fact that the guy who created it and turned it into the No. 1 microstock site has made good, then stop contributing there in protest.
Although Yuri leaving didn't even cause a blip, so it's not like anyone would notice.
410
« on: June 26, 2013, 16:26 »
Also, "SOD" means "Single and Other Downloads", not "Single on Demand."
411
« on: June 26, 2013, 16:21 »
The one for $4.35 is part of the new 2 for $29 package that anyone off the street (in the U.S) can buy. (29/2=14.50. 30 percent of 14.50 is $4.35.)
The rest are special licenses negotiated between Shutterstock and whomever bought them. Like a bulk corporate package or special use or something. You will never know. They are "Other Downloads."
It's confusing because all these different types of licenses are being reported together under one column. They should report those $4.35 ones under "On Demand." And they should bring back the 1 for $19 and report it under On Demand, too.
Look back previous months to see if you got several $5.70 ones, as long as you were at .38 cent then. Those were for the Single On Demand, 1 image for $19.
412
« on: June 26, 2013, 16:03 »
http://www.flickr.com/photos/48187619@N03/9146305208/#
Best, I could do, Luis. I haven't figured out how to embed a print screen on here.
I don't see anything on sods there Rob
SOD's are negotiated between SS and the customer. There is no set price. That's why we see such a wide variation in royalties.
exactly, said that before in this topic
That's wrong, at least partly wrong. Where it says 2 images for $29 is where it used to say 1 image for $19, but not in every country. It was called "Single On Demand." Your earnings for that license did not get reported under "On Demand Downloads" but under "Single & Other downloads." Until they got rid of it this month, I got $5.70 (30 percent) for that license, being under the .38 cent tier. Now, if your image gets downloaded under the "2 images for $29," the earnings will also not show up under the "On Demand" column. If it did, and you got paid the same as the 5 for $49 license (which is $2.85 for .38 tier), you'd be getting ripped off. Instead, if you sell a image license under the 2 for $29, your earnings will appear under Single & Other Downloads column. If I get a sale under that license, I get $4.35, which is 30 percent of half of $29. In addition to that, Shutterstock negotiates various different licenses that pay all over the place. That's the "Other Downloads" part of that column. I got one for $22.50 today.
414
« on: June 26, 2013, 14:18 »
Only thing down for me this month are SODs. Had a decent amount last month. I think they dropped the Single part of it. I don't see it as an option anymore. The smallest package I see now is 2 images for $29. They used to have one for $19.
please tell us where you are seeing those packages, I can only see online subs, els and ods plans, nothing on sods, from a discussion the other day we got to the conclusion it is impossible to know if there is even a standard in terms of prices, just too many different amounts that contributors are having
the 19 dollar package was ODDs if I am correct. I agree, SODs are negotiable.
No. If you sold one, it was recorded in the column marked Single & Other Downloads. "And" is a key part there. That column included the singles which were based on a fixed percentage of $19 according to your tier, and other images that were sold under various licenses that could range from a little bit to a lot. The "Other Downloads" is the part that varies. They changed it this month to two images for $29, and I'm not sure it's a worldwide thing. They're probably testing it like they did Single license sales. I find it by clicking on an image like I'm a buyer and those are the options it gives me. I'm sure it varies by country.
415
« on: June 26, 2013, 10:15 »
Only thing down for me this month are SODs. Had a decent amount last month. I think they dropped the Single part of it. I don't see it as an option anymore. The smallest package I see now is 2 images for $29. They used to have one for $19.
416
« on: June 26, 2013, 08:02 »
Well, OK, not the same exact port, image for image. That's practically impossible to do. But everything that does sale on Shutterstock is also on Dreamstime. I don't really have a problem with similars on Dreamstime. When I put my port there, I was just more selective and I didn't put up some of the crappy ones from when I first started in stock that are floating around at the bottom of my Shutterstock port. Putting those on Dreamstime would not all of a sudden jump the earnings equal to Shutterstock nor get me a monthly payout.
So for all intents and purposes, it is the same port. I'll have a week of good sales there, then like two weeks of nothing. For me, Dreamstime fits in behind 123RF, Bigstock and Fotolia, but ahead of Deposit Photos, Canstock and Veer.
In the end, I get between $800-$1000 from Shutterstock and like $200-300 from all the other sites combined. I'm happy with that, but I'd like to see it keep growing like it has.
And I wouldn't call it "average" earnings. It's what I'm making now. If I averaged out my Shutterstock earnings over a year, it would be lower because I generally make more and more every month, except for December when drops 50 to 60 percent.
417
« on: June 25, 2013, 08:22 »
I uploaded via FTP but it won't process the files.
418
« on: June 25, 2013, 08:14 »
Make between $800 and a $1,000 a month on Shutterstock; same port can't even get a monthly payout on DT.
419
« on: June 22, 2013, 07:30 »
Neat little free app. Only issue I'm seeing is that it is reporting my "total revenue" for Dreamstime rather than my "earnings balance."
420
« on: June 20, 2013, 20:19 »
Photography assignment/contract/retail work: 80 percent
Microstock, all sites: 20 percent
Yes. It helps, but it's not the end-all, be-all.
421
« on: June 15, 2013, 12:36 »
Thank you. I havent been posting on the SS forum lately because it was getting a bit ugly. For a long time I have heard that I was going to end up in a long sleeve jacket every time I posted my findings, asking questions using my portfolio as measure, and every time I got hammered over trying to find out what is going on with our portfolios. I had no clue, I was a newbie, everything had been said a thousand times, I should have been around in 2005, blah blah blah. Until they finally convinced me that its sales go down, sales go up. And now look at the SS forum, one thread after the other is opened, and all I see is stuff being mentioned I was talking about six, nine months ago. Its fine though, I have given up trying to figure it out, and quite frankly I am happy with that. I cant change it. Now its up to them to follow their own advice they have given me all this time.
Consider the source Ron, just a few limited egos and a couple of Chihuahua's showing fangs to scare away perceived threats to attention/ competition. Most serious submitters also quit posting there for some of the same reasons, nativity and weakness is easier to manipulate.
In general, you will find the people on these boards more knowledgeable and reasonable.
I don't see how that's true. Most of the people who post here do it anonymously. You don't even get to see their work to see if they know what they're talking about.
422
« on: June 14, 2013, 11:59 »
I'll say the same thing there, and here, and with my name attached to it. No anonymity needed.
My sales haven't dropped. They've increased from month to month and year to year. I have no idea why some have sales going down while others have sales going up. It's definitely not about Shutterstock trying to steer downloads to lowest tier contributors; I've read that accusation quite a bit. I'm on the highest tier, and so are a lot of others who have increasing sales.
I do get a lot more fluctuations, and it's become hard to have any kind of expectation for sales on a given day. Last year, I could have told you Monday would be good, Tuesday would be best and then it would start to slow on Friday, slowest on Saturday, then start to pick up again on Sunday. This year, I have no idea what's coming. I think that's because so many new images are being approved from the former iStockers. So while my sales are increasing, maybe they would have been even better without all those new files. Who knows? All I can do is keep plugging.
423
« on: June 11, 2013, 14:58 »
Have to agree on the rejection for the newspaper reader -- lighting, comp, commercial value. Shade lighting, with the guy wearing clothing, having some coffee, maybe reacting to something he read. Would have been better. Not enough story in that shot aside from the technical problems. Need to set up your scene and cheat it a little more.
I have no problem with the use of shadow or direct sun lighting, if it fits the subject. Easter egg hunt, sports photo, beach, anything similar, direct lighting works.
Me, I would avoid bright sunlight to read a paper; assuming I would even bother with a paper rather than a pad.
424
« on: May 10, 2013, 07:12 »
I simply can't justify the time it would take uploading to iStock, mainly because of their goofy model release policy that requires a new release for every shoot rather than just one release that covers a particular model forever. This means I need to create like 750 new release files for photos with my own kid modeling. Not sure why they think they're more special than anyone else.
Add in the archaic keywording system and low sales; they're a waste of time.
425
« on: May 08, 2013, 18:12 »
So I get .38 at shutterstock and .27 at Bigstock. I'd remove my port from Bigstock if someone could prove to me that I'm losing Shutterstock downloads over this. There's just no way to know.
I could spike my Bigstock port, but I believe all that would mean is that someone who would have bought my image on Bigstock will just buy someone else's image on Bigstock. They won't magically see my images aren't on Bigstock anymore and go buy it off Shutterstock instead.
Pages: 1 ... 12 13 14 15 16 [17] 18
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
