|
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 - Travelling-light
Pages: 1 ... 14 15 16 17 18 [19] 20 21
451
« on: August 13, 2012, 15:28 »
For the information of anyone who is still having issues my images have now appeared 3 days after uploading them.
Yep, likewise.
452
« on: August 12, 2012, 14:54 »
I sideloaded 58 images from Photoshelter about 24 hours ago, PS says the transfer was good but BigStock doesn't have them in the FTP log and they haven't shown up for submission.
453
« on: May 22, 2012, 03:16 »
Click on the triangles in the top corners of the histogram display
454
« on: April 18, 2012, 03:56 »
To delete spare folders, highlight the folder in the left panel. Near the top of the right panel is a row of buttons - the rightmost is 'Delete or remove' and that will do the business for you. Do you use the PS desktop uploader? Very much the easy option.
For FTP, select the required images in the middle panel, then Actions > FTP and proceed from there. The Actions dropdown is where most things are, and it's very much context sensitive.
To move files around, it's Actions > Move to another gallery.
455
« on: April 17, 2012, 22:32 »
It's certainly changed, but once you get your head around the new organisation it's mostly an improvement. More detail needed on the help though, there's a lot that's not very intuitive.
We probably won't get the full benefit until the rest of the updates come along.
456
« on: November 09, 2009, 12:53 »
As the name says, Wordpress is about the written word, not photographs, so the photos don't always appear in the monthly and category summaries. They do appear in the default theme, so you might need to try a few more or do some customising. http://photoblog.travelling-light.net/ is based on the default. Otherwise, you might be better adding one of the photoblog plugins, such as YAPB. If you want the 'Read more' to appear, you need to insert the tag. There's a button for it on the visual editor toolbar, and you can edit the exact wording it shows. HTH, Colin
457
« on: November 10, 2008, 11:58 »
Another possible factor behind this observation could be a self limiting brake on runaway files.
I'm sure we've all scratched our heads wondering why one generic brickwall/flower/handshake has sold a thousand in six months. Now if that file suddenly dies the owner will notice a great deal more than the possible hundreds of beneficiaries of one extra sale here and there. But in the long run a smoothing out of these hyper files would benefit many.
Obviously this would also possibly disrupt successful unique files, but they ten to have lots of 'just looking' views too.
Exactly. Those of us who aren't exclusive know that in general, best sellers on IS are nothing special, or they'd be best sellers on every site. I for one would much rather see lower sales on a larger number of files. That would give contributors a better idea of what is useful to buyers. Also, runaway best sellers encourage copying. I quite like the new best match, even though it has affected me badly. I can see that I've got more sellable files than I thought, and that's helpful:-)
458
« on: June 15, 2008, 06:25 »
Maybe only those who fought for the changes should receive the benefits. Those who sat silently on the fence, or who advocated acceptance, should get the original rates offered....
459
« on: June 14, 2008, 05:30 »
Well said Hatman. I couldn't agree more. We removed our portfolio from Fotolia about three months ago, after the photo ID debacle, and have no regrets.
We have seen little difference in our overall income.
Linda
460
« on: April 30, 2008, 16:34 »
Call me cynical, but I can imagine these collections will be very tempting for the copyists....how will the sites prevent copies being made and submitted to the other (normal price) micros?
461
« on: April 04, 2008, 06:29 »
I'm cautiously optimistic about this, thinking about buyer behaviour on other sub sites. One thought though:- If IS are trying to attract SS customers, will they abandon the over filtered rejection? 
462
« on: April 02, 2008, 15:52 »
In the early days of Shutterstock Jon said that he aimed to pay 35 - 40% of the net. I assumed that he meant 35 - 40% of the total amount of subscription money received. Just recently, I've been wondering what exactly is meant by "net". I would think of the total money received as the gross. Maybe net means what's left over after everything else has been paid. Can anyone enlighten me? What does "net" mean in an American company? Of course I don't know if he changed his mind, or found it impossible, along the way 
463
« on: March 31, 2008, 21:21 »
They are a long way ahead just now, but SS haven't yet announced their increase. Let's see how things look in a couple of months.
464
« on: March 31, 2008, 19:02 »
IS 45% - a little down on last month, but that was so far up I can't grumble.
SS 27% - BME
DT 14%
BigStock 7%
StockXpert 7%
Overall BME, just.
465
« on: March 28, 2008, 14:36 »
Some shop around, some don't.
You can test this easily enough by uploading to different sites at different times.
I have had shots sit with few sales on several sites for months, then put them on IS and had instant regular downloads. They could have bought them cheaper, but they didn't. It's obvious that some buyers never look anywhere but IS.
On the other hand, designers have posted in various forums often enough, stating that their company has two accounts and take the cheaper option whenever they can.
I must admit, in the past I was always happy for them to go elsewhere, because that generally meant I got more, with the other sites paying a higher percentage, but now that IS have increased prices that's no longer true.
The puzzling one is the shots that sell on every site except IS. I'm trying some new "similars" on IS only, to see if those buyers will buy from IS if the photos are nowhere else.
466
« on: March 28, 2008, 04:21 »
Restricting the flow of new images just isn't smart business. If you want to reduce the number of images on your site, while at the same time improving overall quality, you do so by deleting old, poor images.
And rather than creating more work for your reviewers by forcing them to re-review old images, you let the market decide. If an image doesn't sell for a predefined period (12 months? 18 months?), the company may delete it from the database. Given the incredible volume at Shutterstock, I don't see why an image without a single sale for 12-18 months should be kept.
I dunno Dan, IS seem to be doing OK I do agree though that non selling images should be deleted. It takes ages to do it yourself, they could save us the bother.
467
« on: March 28, 2008, 01:04 »
They're just a small agency, they've never done anything to annoy me, and sales are reliable and improving. They seem to be picking up sales which used to happen elsewhere.
I have always found them to be helpful and friendly.
I don't even notice how long it takes for images to be reviewed. What's a week when you plan to keep them up for years?
468
« on: March 28, 2008, 00:50 »
Maybe more sites should restrict uploads the way IS do.
Those who produce more than their allowance for one site could send them elsewhere. We'd sell just as many images, as the demand would still be there, and the sites wouldn't all look identical.
What do you think?
469
« on: March 26, 2008, 21:10 »
I always assumed it worked the same way as Shutterstock's - any size can be downloaded up to 750 per month, unless you take their uprezzed version, for which they charge two "credits". We still get one credit, but they after all have done the work, if you can call it that, of uprezzing on their server.
Is that still the way SS works?
470
« on: March 26, 2008, 18:51 »
Another post in the StockXpert forum from the user 776500. http://www.stockxpert.com/forum.phtml?f=showtopic&n=11342&p=3He states that he has bought a subscription which gives him what he calls 25 "subscription credits" per day. If he downloads XS, he uses 1 "credit". If he downloads XL he uses 5 "credits". If he doesn't use them he assumes they vanish. So, although he pays the same for the whole subscription package no matter what size he downloads, he does pay more (as a portion of his total subscription payment) for individual images if he downloads XL. So, if he takes all his downloads as XL, which he probably does, he can have 150 a month, or maybe he'll take 100 if he doesn't work at the weekend. If he takes 150, StockXpert pay 150 X 30 cents = $45 = 22.5% commission for us. If he takes 100, StockXpert pay 100 X 30 cents = $30 = 15% commission for us. If he only needs say 30 for a project, it's still cheaper to buy a subscription, and StockXpert pay out even less... Is that correct Steve-oh?
471
« on: March 25, 2008, 17:13 »
We're all waiting for SS to make their announcement in May. Then, it's decision time.
472
« on: March 25, 2008, 12:59 »
You can opt out of partner, deals, and we have done that.
Linda
473
« on: March 25, 2008, 12:54 »
Just noticed this post from a buyer in the StockXpert forum:- http://www.stockxpert.com/forum.phtml?f=showtopic&n=11342&p=2It's the second post from buyer 776500. He seems to be saying that as a subs buyer, he uses 5 times as many credits to download an XL, as he does when downloading a small, but we still get 30 cents. I had a look at subs but couldn't see anything. Is this correct? Maybe Steve-oh could confirm or deny.
474
« on: March 24, 2008, 15:30 »
Question:
What happens to all the photographers that have opted out of subs, if all the buyers go to subs?
Do they starve for DL's?
The MIZ
Well, I've never been the submissive type, and I'm too old to change now 
475
« on: March 23, 2008, 17:27 »
I never opted out, as I think that is cutting off your nose to spite your face.
The customers who buy subscriptions are not the same customers who buy single pictures. I believe SX is trying to tempt the existing customers away from SS, so the subscription sales are as well as single sales, not instead of.
I view the subscription sales as sales I would have had on another site, and would have missed if I opted out.
This argument sounds very reasonable, and I certainly agree that StockXpert is trying to tempt existing customers from SS, rather than going after new markets. If it's true though, why are so many reporting that their XL and L sales have almost dried up on StockXpert? I think the one thing I have come to realise from all this, is that subscription must be far, far more profitable for the agency than I ever realised. Otherwise, why would DT and StockXpert be so keen to get into it? And to think we all thought that IS was paying the least. As we all patiently wait for SS to make their announcement.......
Pages: 1 ... 14 15 16 17 18 [19] 20 21
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
