|
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 - sharply_done
Pages: 1 ... 15 16 17 18 19 [20] 21 22 23 24 25 ... 73
476
« on: January 30, 2009, 10:23 »
Why not buy my 'racing cyclists' shot?
477
« on: January 30, 2009, 02:17 »
I've done it a few of times.
478
« on: January 29, 2009, 17:29 »
Hmmm... Note to self - Must try harder 
Sure looks like you're doin' okay to me, RT.
479
« on: January 29, 2009, 12:17 »
Anyone know anything else? Anyone had an invite?
Threat to life as we know it or yet another great opportunity?
You can read more about it and get the point of view of typical Flickr members by going here. Personally, I think it's a tad underhanded of Getty to be using Flickr this way. They aren't offering Flickr members the opportunity to become regular Getty contributors, instead they're picking and choosing the images they want for use in a special collection. Some people at Flickr are going to find the exclusivity clause of the contract problematic, but the majority will likely have a 'Wow, I'm stoked!" attitude.
480
« on: January 29, 2009, 11:56 »
You gotta start somewhere... I have less sales on DT.
I guess every high seller had 25 sales, at one point 
True enough. But if you find that it's taking you a long time, say two months, to reach that level, you should be re-evaluating what it is you are doing and how you are doing it.
481
« on: January 29, 2009, 11:51 »
I'd call it above average. I'd also like to point out that I think iStock should block this. No one should have to put up with their financial information being spread all over the internet in such detail.
I wish that all sites ceased publishing individual sales data - it only serves to make copying, already an easy task, even easier. I see it's other purpose - comparing your sales with those of others - as a luxury and not a necessity.
482
« on: January 29, 2009, 09:56 »
...
By the way, are you the sharply_done who submits a lot of airplane shots?
...
Yep, that's me, hence my initial post in this thread.
483
« on: January 29, 2009, 09:09 »
Uh oh, this thread looks like it's beginning to turn into a shooting match. (this is not aimed at you, perrush, or anyone else in particular)
It might be best if everyone backed off and away.
You've got a good amount of experience in this industry, xposurepro, and I think you'd be an asset on this forum.
I hope this experience from one of your first postings doesn't sour you too much on this place.
484
« on: January 29, 2009, 08:31 »
Selling mundane images is a lottery. Although you might sometimes get lucky, sales depend solely upon search engine placement, and the only way to ensure you'll make any money at it is to specialize in it by creating an overabundance so that you dominate the marketplace for such images. You didn't mention these three critical points in your article, xposurepro. Without this last caveat, your advice borders on the trivial: Yes, I can go out and shoot some pictures of bark, or dirt, or clouds, but it isn't realistic to expect it to amount to much unless a significant amount of time and effort is invested.
As far as the sharing thing goes, I don't see sharing this kind of entry-level information as a threat to anyone. If, on the otherhand, xposurepro specialized in making background and texture images, he'd be foolish for publicizing what he did and how he went about doing it. That would be shooting himself in the foot.
485
« on: January 29, 2009, 08:15 »
The IS Contributor Charts website has been revised to include two new columns: DLs Last 90 Days and %Gain/Loss. This makes it very easy to see the effects of the latest best match change. Some familiar names here are among the biggest gainers. Click here to check it out.
486
« on: January 28, 2009, 19:08 »
Congrats!
487
« on: January 28, 2009, 13:34 »
Compared to what you were expecting, how much did you earn on SS this month?
Edit: Changed title and locked voting on 3-Feb-09.
488
« on: January 27, 2009, 22:44 »
well went over and had a look (I stopped uploading in about july) and I've mad $7.80 this month, over double what I got last month and whole 0.3% of sales in a very quiet month LOL!
I'm experiencing the reverse: Jan 09 is going to be my WME at SV.
489
« on: January 27, 2009, 14:43 »
this is a really cool idea. we just added individual image sales history and once we add Fotolia, I think we might be able to take a stab at this. I think we could just look at avg sales for exclusives vs. not and come up with a simple equation.
...
If you implement it well enough I can see this being your primary sales point. Let's face it, it only takes 15 minutes per day at most to track sales across multiple sites. Obtaining the data isn't the hard or beneficial part, analyzing it is. If you can use this data to perform a highly-desirable task that would otherwise require several hours of work (i.e. maximizing sales), you'll have a product that everyone will want. You won't be able to take orders fast enough. As it stands now, I see little or no benefit to using lookstat - I do more than it does with little effort. That being said, you clearly need to do more market research. You're making a product that tracks sales and you don't even know which agencies offer exclusivity? If you're serious about making lookstat a success you'd better get on the ball, Rahul.
490
« on: January 27, 2009, 12:13 »
Use keywords only for things you can see in the picture. Doctor is irrelevant, even if it is a doctor's house, since there aren't any doctors in it. And so on.
Did you look at the stamp? Who is the person leaning over looking at the patient? A doctor! 
...
Although I understand where you're coming from, RacePhoto, I agree with the irrelevant keyword rejection. You'd be better off describing and keywording the image as 'four colourful vintage postage stamps on isolated black background' rather than describing the contents of each stamp. You should be explicitly listing the colours, too. Going a bit further, and given the fact that you now have isolated images of stamps, you'd probably do well to also have isolated images of envelopes with stamps. If you go this route you could use the vintage nature of the material to make up fake letters to notable/famous people (FDR, Albert Einstein, Charles Lindbergh, ...). Who knows - there just be a market for such things!
491
« on: January 27, 2009, 00:42 »
well, that is some consolation, my sales have dropped the same, from 1000 approx to 300. so maybe things will pick up at some point. congrats that you are doing better, that's good news since we are very similar in numbers. thank you.
On the down side, and I hate to tell you the bad news, the best match change resulted in about $4500 of lost income for me. You might be wise to plan for something similar.
492
« on: January 27, 2009, 00:01 »
my sales have nose dived...
Not that it's much consolation, but I know where you're coming from: my IS sales dropped from >1000 per month to <300. They've recovered to about 70% of their previous norm with this last best match change. It's a zero sum game: some win, some lose, and I'm happy to be back on the winning side again.
493
« on: January 26, 2009, 19:51 »
Definitely one of the more interesting posts on that site ... kudos, Lee!
494
« on: January 26, 2009, 13:27 »
I find it unappealing to click your link and go straight to your 'about' page. I was further put off when I clicked on the 'home' link, and nothing changed. You need to rename your 'home' page to 'about' or 'bio', and make a new 'home' page that displays your name and/or logo along with at least one of your best or newest images. Not that I'm looking for criticism/tips/visitors, but here's a link to my very much out-of-date and no-longer-used website.
495
« on: January 26, 2009, 11:34 »
Thinking out loud about this further, this would be an excellent application for lookstat, which could have a built-in "Sales Maximizer" that would run analyses to determine if you'd be better off listing an image at multiple sites or have it listed exclusively on either DT or FT. I'll give the lookstat guys a 'heads up' on the idea.
496
« on: January 26, 2009, 10:07 »
... On one hand, I'm happy to see my prices double there, but on the other hand seeing all of you choosing not to upload exclusive content to fotolia makes me think I'm on the wrong track.
...
There are a few people who list images exclusively on FT while at the same time using other agencies, but they use a different method than you. The technique is to upload images to all sites, then regularly visit FT to see what your best sellers are. You then compare the potential exclusive income of each best-selling FT image to the income it is currently generating from all sites. If FT comes out ahead you remove the image from all agencies and change it to be exclusive at FT. Although I've never done this, my gut feeling is that I might make at most an extra couple of hundred dollars per month - for me this is not worth the hassle. A problem with this method is BigStock: you can only remove an image there after it has been online for 90 days. The policy at DT is 6 months, but they allow you to remove 30% of your less-than-6-months images, so it shouldn't a problem there unless you have a very small portfolio.
497
« on: January 25, 2009, 13:42 »
...
Remember - free doesn't work. We've already been there.
Yep. In the world of client-driven photography, this is akin to being approached with an offer to use your imagery without paying, instead being offered to give you credit/mention and/or magazine samples. Unless circumstances are extremely unusual, you should avoid such things. Aside: Seen the movie "Get Shorty"? This would be the equivalent of being offered an 'Associate Producer' credit.
498
« on: January 25, 2009, 10:02 »
Rather than making the generic imagery you've done so far, you might consider exploring and exploiting the unique environment you have access to. If I was a graduate student I'd be shooting stuff that had a university/college/education/research/science angle to it. Although I haven't explored this arena, I'm under the impression that it's relatively weak.
499
« on: January 25, 2009, 09:41 »
I'll ignore the technical problems and critique the image as a commercial stock photograph. It's message/meaning/purpose immediately escapes me, which is not good. I find it lacking in interest, and I would likely pass it by as I browsed thumbnails. I also find it to be in 'no man's land' with respect to copy space. Yes, there's some room available, but not enough: either make less of it or add more. The colour of the grass is the biggest barrier this shot has to success: alive and green attracts people, dead and brown repels them. On the positive side, there are some very nice lines to work with, and with a bit of work this might prove to be a moderately good seller. Consider adding a woman with an umbrella or two people with backpacks (and maybe even a dog) walking on the road to market it as a 'rainy springtime', 'exploring nature', or 'spring adventure' shot. Those with a more business slant might stick in a businessman with briefcase and umbrella to make a creative 'trouble on the horizon' shot, but it might be tough getting that to work well. ... good luck!
500
« on: January 24, 2009, 16:26 »
Why would I pay any tax?! It is ridiculous to pay a tax in my country, when I earn money outside my country. My country did nothing to provide me this job. I did all by myself. Why should I pay them anything?
A lot of people from bosnia work in Iraq with US companies, they earn about 5.000$ per month, and they dont pay any tax to the country! So why should I?! pft.... they can kiss my as*.....
It's definitely not a good idea to publically flaunt the fact you aren't paying taxes.
Pages: 1 ... 15 16 17 18 19 [20] 21 22 23 24 25 ... 73
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
