|
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 ... 13 14 15 16 17 [18] 19 20 21 22 23 ... 57
426
« on: February 05, 2014, 00:43 »
Back in Dec I emailed support to ask about a year-old sale that had yet to clear. After saying they were sorry but it was unlikely I would ever be paid for that (distributor) sale, they wrote:
On another note, it would be great to get some more of your images online.
Unbelievable! I haven't had that situation (although I did opt out of distributor sales last April as I was unhappy with the deal) but did you push back on that? Unless the distributor had gone bankrupt, I think if Alamy continued to do business with a distributor that didn't pay their bills, they are complicit in a very shady business deal. The end user has your image and never paid for it - and instead of going after them, the agency is throwing up their hands and saying - in best Rick Perry style - "Oops".
No, I didn't reply, as I didn't see there was much I could say. They did say that the account had been placed on hold and "For the time being Alamys images are no longer available through this distributor." That was really all I could expect to hear, as they presumably lost a lot more money than I did (assuming mine wasn't the only one that never got paid).
427
« on: February 04, 2014, 18:25 »
I received e-mail from Alamy this morning titled "Remember us?" and noting that I haven't uploaded for a while. It goes on to say "Come and see what we've been up to and make 2014 the year you start submitting to Alamy again. We've got some exciting things up our sleeves for this year so don't miss out."
But what puzzles me is that Alamy is awash in content - why would they care about getting new uploads? Especially from a relatively small contributor like me?
I can't answer your question, and I have yet to receive such an email from Alamy. But I do have a somewhat related anecdote to report: Back in Dec I emailed support to ask about a year-old sale that had yet to clear. After saying they were sorry but it was unlikely I would ever be paid for that (distributor) sale, they wrote: On another note, it would be great to get some more of your images online.
428
« on: February 02, 2014, 14:30 »
I find it usually takes up to a week to get the e-mail, and a few days later (always before the 15th) you get the money. Shutterstock is absolutely consistent in paying on time.
I agree I receive mine the same day of every month like clockwork.
My payment almost always comes on the 7th of the month, otherwise on the 6th. Only a few times over the last 3-4 years has it ever arrived on different days (as early as the 3rd and as late as the 8th). Oddly, the email used to always come on the 1st of the month. But the last 6-12 months, it's arrival hasn't been consistent at all. It's just as likely to come on the 2nd or 3rd as it is on the 1st. It has yet to come this month.
429
« on: February 01, 2014, 14:26 »
That is odd...gonna have to check my files now. Did you report this to IS?
I don't know about the OP, but I didn't.
430
« on: February 01, 2014, 12:28 »
What I find really strange is that the disappeared keywords are alway the most important ones Indeed, that's exactly what I found, too. Quite the "coincidence", eh?
431
« on: February 01, 2014, 11:29 »
I noticed the same thing a few months ago on some of my files. It isn't easy to find; too many files, too many keywords. But I do recall the main keywords of several of my files had simply vanished, for no reason at all. I added them back in, but of course their best match placement was horrendous after that (when searching by the previously missing keywords).
432
« on: February 01, 2014, 11:24 »
IS exclusive. DLs were down 51% compared to 2013, but income increased 2%. (My numbers exclude GI and EL sales, due to the potentially large fluctuations.)
Highest $/DL ever -- but how long can that continue to increase to offset the plummeting number of sales? My guess: not long.
433
« on: January 29, 2014, 11:57 »
CC is a bit funny with reviews. I don't think I've ever had a batch reviewed without contacting them to ask for a review after several weeks of waiting (they seem to be extremely tolerant of such requests). That usually results in a review within 24 hours. Weird.
434
« on: January 27, 2014, 12:22 »
Even better -- no cookie needed, only need set it once per session. Thank you (and your friend). If I find myself using this often, I will donate a bit to help.  I agree; thank you!
I do wish you could have it save a cookie with preferences, so I don't have to set the delimiter fields every time. But otherwise it's perfect.
Done now you don't have to set the delimiter fields every time
435
« on: January 26, 2014, 14:20 »
Good point. I will ask my friend about this.
However when you paste keywords ending , or ; you dont have to select any delimiter, just leave it empty.
Only when you have combination of keywords like woman, New York, man, United Kingdom when you select Delimiters , then you get words like woman in one frame and both words New York in other frame.
My keyword terms almost always have a few with multiple words in them. But it isn't that big a deal to have to select the delimiters. 
436
« on: January 26, 2014, 10:58 »
I agree; thank you!
I do wish you could have it save a cookie with preferences, so I don't have to set the delimiter fields every time. But otherwise it's perfect.
437
« on: January 24, 2014, 10:27 »
I know we shouldn't post links to images, but I'd say it's 99.99% certain that this image is not the image the contributor intended
http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-450685-impala.php?st=ad94bf2
How on earth can this sort of mistake happen? (stupid question with iS, I know). The IS bugs are becoming more and more unusual. If you click the magnifier, you can see the impala hidden behind the (suddenly in focus) food. How weird is that? (You may have to move the box around.)
438
« on: January 21, 2014, 23:30 »
Sales are strong for me on the video so far this year, Thankfully!!!!
I'm glad to hear that, as I know sales had not been going great for you recently. My experience is entirely different, but I have a very small (and not very stocky) port compared with yours (~400 files). With only 10 days remaining to the month, I am in grave danger of my first month ever without a video sale at IS, since I started contributing clips back in late 2009. In fact, since Nov 2009 I hadn't had a month with fewer than 3 sales. On the photo side, things are not quite as dire. But it looks like the number of sales will be down by 60% from Jan '13 (i.e., 40% of last year's number), with the fewest number of sales in a month since my first 6 months ('07 - '08).
439
« on: January 21, 2014, 19:48 »
I seem to be broadly on a par with Jan 2013 myself - DLs a little down, but RPD is up (highest ever in fact) so it's balancing out so far, and that's at a lower royalty rate than I should be getting.
maybe it's due the fact there is no XS size on istock ? gone today to use my last credit on istock and the cheapest images is only for 2 credits
When in the world did that happen? Actually, I can answer that. At least in part: It happened sometime in the last 24 hours, as I did have an XS sale just yesterday morning. But it's true, XS is completely gone from all collections.
440
« on: January 20, 2014, 10:57 »
Those are all problems that can be solved. It is just a matter of expenses. Fx it is possible to follow the curlews to their summer nesting grounds and photograph them at midday north of the polar circle, and such reduce iso and shutterspeed.
<snip>
Seems it would be a lot simpler and less expensive to simply use a NR program.
441
« on: January 19, 2014, 14:59 »
Like disorderly, I started with Neat Image back when there were not many other choices (and it was the clear choice at that time).
But I didn't like their upgrade policy at all. There were new versions (with a "discount" for current owners) for new versions of Windows, 64-bit versions, major upgrades, etc. Just got tired of having to pay so many times just to keep using their software.
A few years back I switched to Topaz' DeNoise, with free upgrades. It seems to work at least as well as Neat Image, and I appreciate and applaud that kind of upgrade policy.
442
« on: January 18, 2014, 10:58 »
KB, I am talking about present time, not what was in the past.
I agree with You about support, but it was so months ago.
And now, zero, null, nada...
That's very disappointing to hear. I hope it turns out to be something innocent like the main support personnel were out with the flu (I think there was only 1 or possibly 2 people I ever corresponded with). But it doesn't sound good at the moment. 
443
« on: January 17, 2014, 19:57 »
Clipcanvas is dead!
Not just for me! As I see here, also other contributors have problems with them too.
No sales and what is more said, no payout.
No support as well.
I can't disagree about the lack of sales, as I still haven't reached payout so can't even comment on payout problems. But my personal experience with support has been great. They have always gotten back to me very fast -- usually the same day, but by the next day at the latest. They've always been very helpful with their responses, too. I was really hoping that sales would begin to pick up, and would be sad to see them shut down (not to mention, not happy about losing almost 50 Euros!). I hope they can survive.
444
« on: January 15, 2014, 11:18 »
I voted Dec. The last 2 years, it's been Dec. The 2 years before that, it's been Jan. We're halfway through Jan this year, and it's well behind (1/2 of) last month's total.
445
« on: January 10, 2014, 23:57 »
My lowest sale since I became exclusive at IS was 20c -- from Getty Images' Partner Portal. But happily the sale was refunded 3 months later, (without notice).  So it's like it never happened, and now my lowest sale was whatever it was on IS (recently probably about $0.40 or $0.50).
446
« on: January 08, 2014, 18:31 »
I've modified my original post as it was completely in error.  Sorry! But it did elicit a good post from gostwyck, so it wasn't completely a wasted effort. 
447
« on: January 08, 2014, 11:33 »
Note: I just realized that I had failed to update my spreadsheet for the increase in cash pricing, so I was using the new (higher) number of credits required for each size, but the lower cash price. Exactly who is the fool here after all? My apologies for misleading people. (And for any conspiracy theorists out there, no one from IS contacted me to point out my error; I discovered it myself. Unless they beamed it to my brain, which is a possibility. ) I've revised the numbers below to what I hope are the correct values. Cash still isn't that bad a deal for E and E+ files of most sizes (especially compared to Main file cash pricing), but nowhere near the crazy deal I thought it was. Here are the iStock per-credit prices for "smaller" credit bundles: 10 credits - $2 each 30 credits - $1.83 each 60 credits - $1.67 each 150 credits - $1.60 each 360 credits - $1.55 each
But guess what? If you are buying Signature or Signature+ files (I didn't check Vetta), you are better off paying the cash prices for many of the file sizes, unless you buy much larger credit bundles (even after the recent raise in cash prices, which I hadn't seen mentioned here).Not so. Here are the per-credit prices for Sig+ files: S+: $2.00 M+: $1.83 L+: $1.83 XL+: $1.82 XXL+: $1.84 XXXL+: $1.83 Here are the per-credit prices for Sig files: XS: $2.00 S: $2.14 M: $2.00 L: $2.00 XL: $1.96 XXL: $1.96 XXXL: $1.97 Here are the per-credit prices for Main files: XS: $4.00 S: $3.00 M: $4.67 L: $4.75 XL: $4.20 XXL: $4.50 XXXL: $4.43
448
« on: January 06, 2014, 22:53 »
Being a small (exclusive) contributor, my data point is meaningless. But my experience is all that I have to go by. My DLs were down 38% in 2013 over 2012. Earnings (exclusive of Getty) were down far less (just a couple of percent). My port size increased about 17%.
However, based on the last few months, I expect 2014 to be far, far more grim.
449
« on: January 05, 2014, 10:01 »
All public corporations are audited Getty is privately held, so their accounting is NOT subject to mandatory auditing.
450
« on: January 01, 2014, 19:10 »
anyone have noticed the increase of the price of Signature and Vetta collections ?
No, I hadn't. HOW can they do that?  M: 13-->15 L: 17-->20 XL: 20-->25 XXL: 25-->28 XXXL: 28-->30 M+: 33-->35 L+: 40-->40 (unchanged) XL+: 45-->50 XXL+: 50-->55 XXXL+: 55-->60 There's a HUGE amount of room now to increase Main prices and still make their 1/2 price claim. I don't keep track of Vetta pricing, but the new prices do appear very high.
Pages: 1 ... 13 14 15 16 17 [18] 19 20 21 22 23 ... 57
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
