|
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 - Mantis
4701
« on: July 08, 2012, 17:50 »
okay...ENOUGH!! Lets see I am hungry.
4702
« on: July 08, 2012, 15:05 »
Warren I agree with you. I also had an eight center this week. Not very encouraging when my production costs for that particular image was substantially more.
4703
« on: July 08, 2012, 14:53 »
It looks eerily close to my numbers....without me actually doing the formal calculations. The relativeness of your graph is what I feel my RPD is.
4704
« on: July 08, 2012, 14:25 »
I pulled the plug on my Stockfresh account last month. I just didn't see the point. Not just because of low sales, but I just didn't see much of a future with it. Best case scenario was that it would have become the next 123RF (a good selling site that undercuts on price and doesn't pay much per sale). I don't really need another 123RF. In fact, I could probably use one less 123RF. 
A lot of people are complaining that it didn't have sales and wasn't Stockxpert. I would argue that it was probably too much like Stockxpert, and I think that is what the problem is. StockXpert was a great agency in 2008 and 2009, but the micros have evolved a lot since then (for better and worse). Contributors and buyers have certain expectations. I think Stockfresh had the opportunity to really make something better than the other agencies, but instead they just made a copy of an old mediocre agency with very little new appeal. Hopefully, that isn't too mean, but I just see lost opportunity when I see some new agencies.
Not to pick on just Stockfresh because I could level the same complaints at Veer, Photodune and many other newer sites.
I agree with you totally in that it isn't just a Stockfresh thing, it is the same across most new sites. There isn't anything different about them...just more 30 cent subs competing for the same size pie.
4705
« on: July 08, 2012, 07:50 »
Stock who? Nothing fresh about them, more like stale. I have my port there but waiting for that inevitable email that says thank you for supporting us but........we tried.
I make some money with them and I'm not a big earner, compared to lots of contributors. They told us that they intended to do this differently, not spending lots of money. Considering that, I think they might be doing much better than we think. Having said that, I thought Lucky Oliver were doing well and was shocked when they sent the "thank you for supporting us but.." email 
Perhaps the biggest problems for SF are overcoming contributor negativity and convincing buyers to switch from sites that are no longer really microstock. Contributors are extremely impatient, buyers seem to stubbornly stick to sites they're used to and are unwilling to give new sites a chance. Those that are moving mostly seem to be going to SS. I hope SF can keep going and somehow overcome these huge obstacles.
I don't think that many contributors ever go in and then say, "now all I have to do it wait five to ten years and then all should be well." The issue isn't negativity, really. It's responding to a failed attempt in the face of all the uploading one does for $7 a month. At this point I'm not uploading there anymore. But I really wish Peter all the best and hope he can turn things around. The key is customers. The key to customers is differentiation. SF is more of the same (as are others to be fair) and it's exceedingly difficult to compete as a new entrant in a mature market.
4706
« on: July 07, 2012, 17:08 »
come on guys! DT is fine 
Not in my book. They have more rules - many of which are illogical and arbitrary, and not consistently enforced - than just about any other site. If these rules made for a wonderful buyer experience or better returns for contributors, I might feel better about it, but none of these rules have elevated them from the bottom of the pile in the top tier sites.
^^ correct. It only bullwhips them into fewer customers and more disgruntled suppliers (US).^^ Every time they make a change it seems to put them deeper into a back hole...at least from my income perspective.
4707
« on: July 07, 2012, 16:18 »
They told me theyd stopped perhaps they didn't like my stuff
They told you they stopped what?
4709
« on: July 07, 2012, 15:53 »
Stock who? Nothing fresh about them, more like stale. I have my port there but waiting for that inevitable email that says thank you for supporting us but........we tried.
4710
« on: July 07, 2012, 15:51 »
You can't ask jack sh..t on DT forums about it unless you accompany it with roses and champagne.
4711
« on: July 07, 2012, 15:49 »
I am about even with June of last year when comparing last year ..June.. to now if i take i to account stick stock. Otherwise I would be off by $100 to $200 per month.....25%
4712
« on: July 07, 2012, 15:43 »
SS is getting better for me but I still hate their subjective LCV rejections. DT...ohy vey. Up one minute and down the next then dealing with too similars...different images using similar keywords..gets u slammed. If I were a betting man I would say that.....................DT is the next to be bought......or merged...just thinking out loud.
4713
« on: July 07, 2012, 15:38 »
Wow do you fart dust?
4714
« on: July 07, 2012, 15:36 »
They are in a crocodile death spin.
4715
« on: July 07, 2012, 11:50 »
4716
« on: July 07, 2012, 10:10 »
4717
« on: July 07, 2012, 07:19 »
Congrats. Keep shooting and uploading. Diversify. Specialize. Do it all. You'll need it in this day and age to survive in MS.
4718
« on: July 06, 2012, 18:44 »
They prefer "sets" to overcome similars rejections. What is a set? Pretty simple. Collages. You put 10 "similars" in a set by combining them in Photoshop or some other software. That way when your single image that includes 10 images as a set sells for 35 cents you net 3.5 cents per image.
A post from Serban in the DT forums says:
"Similarity is not something easy to explain or to set rules for. Criteria can depend based on subject, concept, previous uploads, portfolio type, user's experience etc. We can't give a clear answer whether your files will be approved or not, without even seeing them. It's true that we can involve algorithms and other things to deal with this. However, they take time to build, will consume useful resources and will solve the effect, not the cause. We believe contributors need to realize what similarity means based on their portfolio's specificity. If you want examples, I would look into any portfolio with a significant value for the downloads/image parameter (data can be found on the user's profile page). Note how same quality can translate into much better sales.
We can even quadruple your limits. The more we increase them, the less royalties you will get. Do you really want that?"
These were in answer to forum posts over at DT."
Thus, he can't even give a reasonable definition.
4719
« on: July 04, 2012, 15:27 »
Really, jeeze...it's another DP, PD, SF...another pimple in the microstock ass.
4720
« on: July 04, 2012, 15:16 »
Bottom line, I don't want Getty/Istock to fail. I make too much money there...still. But I fear Joan and a few others are right when they say that another venture capitalist group = vulture capitalist and we will once again see a pruning of our commissions....something along the same line of what has already happened. If Getty believes in themselves so much, then buy themselves and go private again.
I don't want to see Getty and iStock fail either, even though I'm almost done pulling my portfolio from IS. Why? Because...where are all those photographers going to go to sell their stock images? To smaller traditional agencies? To the micros? Both? Either way, we would all of a sudden be faced with a flash flood of competitors looking for new outlets to sell their stock imagery...and then BOOM...our earnings suddenly drop. Losing Getty and iStock is bad news for all photographers!
Completely agree with you. Great post.
4721
« on: July 04, 2012, 15:08 »
Simply don't need to sign up for a site and pay to know we are getting less and less of the juice. That's pretty well known.
4722
« on: July 04, 2012, 08:12 »
Big congrats Steve and Luis, thats a great achievement. Very happy for you guys. Now we just need to push SS to make a royalty category above 10k...! (20k perhaps?)
That would be a sweet move. If no raise, then at least another ceiling to hit!! You got my vote.
4723
« on: July 04, 2012, 08:10 »
Bottom line, I don't want Getty/Istock to fail. I make too much money there...still. But I fear Joan and a few others are right when they say that another venture capitalist group = vulture capitalist and we will once again see a pruning of our commissions....something along the same line of what has already happened. If Getty believes in themselves so much, then buy themselves and go private again.
4724
« on: July 03, 2012, 18:34 »
Could always do better, and could always do worse. 
4725
« on: July 03, 2012, 18:28 »
What a pathetic attempt to drive traffic to his site...
looks like it's working. what would be nice is if the OP, instead of posting the link, actually copied the text and posted it here. that way, the blogger gets one hit instead many, just from this forum alone.
will do it next time
No, no, no. Please keep posting the links __ it might help Mr Spout climb the Google rankings too. I'm grateful to him for promulgating that microstock as a whole, and SS in particular, is not worth the time, effort or expense of any half-decent photographer. Good.
^^^Exactamundo^^^
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
