|
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 - pkphotos
Pages: 1 ... 15 16 17 18 19 [20] 21
476
« on: June 11, 2014, 08:04 »
Well I've managed to help make DPC's 'sea turtle underwater' search return very poor results in comparison to Fotolia (which is already poor in comparison to the likes of SS).
477
« on: June 10, 2014, 09:17 »
Seems like you are representing DPC...
Yep, that's me. A secret DPC agent. I'm just trying to fool everyone by opting out of DPC, deleting half of my Fotolia portfolio, blogging about the harm DPC can cause, tweeting about it, posting on facebook about it, and convincing a few people to opt out over 10,000 images.
But you figured me out.
It's seems contradictory that on one hand you claim to have opted out of DPC and deleted half your Fotolia portfolio, while every single post on this thread seems to be to dismiss the efforts of the collective photographers efforts against DPC. It doesn't make any sense at all.
478
« on: June 10, 2014, 08:57 »
I'll just point out that several concessions have already been given by FL since the campaign started, the rise in sub commissions, introduction of ELs, even the opt out itself wasn't on the table until people started pulling portfolios...
The EL offering wasn't a concession. That was in the works for DPC before this even became a hot topic here.
You're right, some concessions have been made. What kind of additional concessions would you like to see? Are there any that would make you consider opting back in?
And I'm asking about realistic concessions, not things like raising the minimum buy-in. FT has already indicated that raising the $10 minimum won't happen.
Seems like you are representing DPC. Therefore additional concessions to opt back in would be don't bother, just shut the door on such a poorly thought out diabolical idea for a business model. DFC is somewhat hamstrung by its own catchphrase of '$1 an image always', so if they raise prices or introduce new payment structures there goes their fancy name and selling point.
479
« on: June 09, 2014, 17:13 »
Perhaps Fotolia is so desperate they have created the odd profile or two to try and fill this topic with doubt about whether it is succeeding?
480
« on: June 09, 2014, 09:55 »
The collective effort is definitely having an effect on Fotolia. I just got an email from a photographer whom I alerted to DPC. They said Fotolia rang them for the first time ever and wanted to know why they'd opted out of DPC. This is desperation on the part of Fotolia and illustrates how poorly they treat and understand the needs of their main asset, us photographers. If the gap keeps growing between DPC and Fotolia that should mean DPC should struggle long term because clients will certainly note the difference in choice.
481
« on: June 04, 2014, 18:40 »
...Also to do the thing you described we need to contact buyers, which for many of us seems to be way more hopeless than finding other contributors. Basicly that's way we are using agencies. I have really now idea who are the people who actually buy stock images, where to find them, where to contact them. That kind of an invisible world for me. Of course it can e different for some of you.
But i' seeing much better chance to find contributors to inform than to find buyers.
That's understandable. We're contributors so the contributor world is more accessible to us. Buyers, maybe not so much.
If contributors are who someone has access to, then by all means, contact contributors. But maybe instead of just asking them to opt out of DPC, also mention a good company you recommend. I'd have to assume that if so many contributors aren't aware of DPC (probably contributors who don't participate in this forum, read contributor blogs, etc) then they might also not know about some of the good lesser-known companies available to them. I think we could see just as much positive change for a good company as we've seen in negative change for DPC, adding more images to a good agency and giving them more to work with, more to sell, more to offer their customers.
Talking about the issues isn't productive. Enlightening unaware photographers that their photos are on DPC is. The fact that both photogs I emailed were unaware about DFC and then took immediate opt out action means we can achieve a lot if we take ACTION. You take a million photos out of DFC and it hurts them a lot, especially if you are emailing contributors with photos that appear at the top of searches.
482
« on: June 04, 2014, 08:37 »
SUCCESS! Let's keep up this effort. A few hours ago I did a quick search on DFC, found the number one ranked photo for a particular subject, did a google search, found and emailed the photographer via their website. I received a rapid response from them having alerted them to this thread, and they promptly opted out their 1500+ high quality photos. That took me minimal effort. If we all had two or three successes using this method we'd make a big impact on DPC
EMAIL SENT TO ANOTHER PHOTOGRAPHER, WHO PROMPTLY OPTED OUT!!!!!!!!!! This time the photographer had over 8000 photos and they are A+ grade creative photos. This photographer opted out with one simple email. Therefore it has to be assumed that a large number of photographers are not aware of DFC. I simply point them to this forum thread and give them a bit of encouragement. It'd be great if some of you give it a go, simply find a photographer name in DPC, google their website and email them. It's that easy.
483
« on: June 04, 2014, 06:28 »
SUCCESS! Let's keep up this effort. A few hours ago I did a quick search on DFC, found the number one ranked photo for a particular subject, did a google search, found and emailed the photographer via their website. I received a rapid response from them having alerted them to this thread, and they promptly opted out their 1500+ high quality photos. That took me minimal effort. If we all had two or three successes using this method we'd make a big impact on DPC
Keep up the good work 
It requires a united effort from united photographers. 5 minutes less time browsing this forum spent emailing one photographer with photos on DPC is effort well spent
484
« on: June 04, 2014, 05:48 »
Thanks for the great answer. But then who are the people who typically purchase an RM? What are they looking for, it has to be more than just being forced to buy an RM because the image subject was not available on RF
Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk 2
From the perspective of ad agencies, clients will buy an RM image for a variety of reasons, but one important reason is exclusivity. Panasonic doesn't want Samsung using the same photo in an ad for a similar product at the same time.
That's right, good size advertising sales are still out there with RM images. Photogs who have only ever stocked the micros won't be aware that one off licenses can be had well into the thousands of $ even if it may be less frequent these days. However certain subjects are obviously RM and others obviously RF.
485
« on: June 04, 2014, 02:30 »
SUCCESS! Let's keep up this effort. A few hours ago I did a quick search on DFC, found the number one ranked photo for a particular subject, did a google search, found and emailed the photographer via their website. I received a rapid response from them having alerted them to this thread, and they promptly opted out their 1500+ high quality photos. That took me minimal effort. If we all had two or three successes using this method we'd make a big impact on DPC
486
« on: June 03, 2014, 18:40 »
Rimglow, are those your net earnings, or gross sales figures? Either way impressive, but want to know if we are comparing apples to apples.
They are GROSS earnings only. As all Alamy contributors know, all their reporting and figures are presented as gross figures (before they take 50% or 70% for a distributor sale) which makes no sense at all to me. Maybe it's a subconscious way of making the figures look better than they actually are
487
« on: June 03, 2014, 00:38 »
My stats are similar to ShadySue's. 596 photos. I'm happy.
Am I reading that right? You made 10k in 2012 on Alamy alone, with 596 pictures??!!!
Respect!
ETA: Do RM pictures really sell that well on Alamy? If so don't know why I'm wasting my time with RF! 
Very impressive off that small amount of photos. That is many times above what an average Alamy photog will achieve. Those are GROSS figures as well, so 10K means the photog actually made around 5K, very misleading and Alamy's way of reporting
488
« on: June 03, 2014, 00:34 »
A rare bird photo should be sold as RM and not RF. It is unlikely to get many sales but if someone does want it, there will probably be few photos to choose from. Therefore they should be forced to pay a decent amount for such a photo. This kind of photo is wasted on micro. Leave micro for very popular animals that sell over and over.
Can you suggest RM agencies, other than Alamy, mentioned above, which would accept one image?
Yes sorry, that is indeed the problem, finding where to put it. It's wasted in Alamy, so perhaps a science/nature type agency like the suggested link above
489
« on: June 02, 2014, 08:12 »
Alamy is a huge underperformer and almost has too many photos for its small market share. The photographers there are suckers for punishment since if you grow your portfolio there it's more or less to tread water. Having said that if you have several thousand images, which I do, then you can guarantee a few sales each month, which is better than nothing. I don't spend much time on it these days though. A small burst once in a while.
490
« on: June 02, 2014, 08:04 »
A rare bird photo should be sold as RM and not RF. It is unlikely to get many sales but if someone does want it, there will probably be few photos to choose from. Therefore they should be forced to pay a decent amount for such a photo. This kind of photo is wasted on micro. Leave micro for very popular animals that sell over and over.
491
« on: May 30, 2014, 10:01 »
It's time for contributors to revolt and put rogue agencies in their place. We are their assets so we should use our power
492
« on: May 27, 2014, 09:00 »
Is it just me or is Shutterstock down? 
493
« on: May 27, 2014, 00:33 »
TS is where I get almost all my sales from via IStock. I would say most IS contributors are in the same boat, we all wait for TS payments to roll in each month. Therefore it appears that TS is ticking over quite nicely whereas IS hardly generates any sales.
494
« on: May 26, 2014, 01:21 »
Opted out with portfolio size about 25.000 images.
Oh now I'm sooooo looking forward to a new update of Pkphotos' and Svetlana's category checks!
you can quite easily check category numbers by yourself. I did a quick check today, unfortunately numbers were up a bit. How do we contact the thousands of photographers who must still be opted in?
495
« on: May 23, 2014, 23:17 »
DPC 19/5/14 21/5/14 24/5/14
ANIMALS 1058615 1050740 1026113
NATURE 3498867 3491283 3475332
PEOPLE 2643565 2639228 2647552
BUSINESS 2956605 2949852 2932357
TRANSPORT 348705 348092 347936
MEDICAL 388809 387119 383001
SPORT 885643 884704 883388
FASHION 1431000 1429219 1422145
UNDERWATER 73364 72925 72956
A couple of categories up but most down. I see now DPC have caved and are offering $50 extended licenses. That kind of makes a mockery of their catch line '$1 An Image Always'. Just a farce to try and suck in gullible contributors.
496
« on: May 20, 2014, 23:17 »
Some numbers
DPC 19/5/14 21/5/14
ANIMALS 1058615 1050740
NATURE 3498867 3491283
PEOPLE 2643565 2639228
BUSINESS 2956605 2949852
TRANSPORT 348705 348092
MEDICAL 388809 387119
SPORT 885643 884704
FASHION 1431000 1429219
UNDERWATER 73364 72925
Every category saw a small decrease in the numbers. Well done, keep it up and keep spreading the word to contributors not yet in the know.
497
« on: May 20, 2014, 23:11 »
By default, all Fotolia content is opted in for sale at the Dollar Photo Club (DPC), but sales there do not count towards your Fotolia level. The contributor receives a subscription royalty (according to level) on each sale.
The part about "DPC sales not counting towards the Fotolia ranking level is not true.
One DPC sales counts like a regular sub sale at Fotolia (1/4).
"...is not true." .... - harsh word - you could say : "... it is not correct."
Call it as you like.
I just wanted to say that if you reach out to other photographers you should stick to the facts, because otherwise it looks strange.
Whoopee.... what a relief for the clubbers!
Another thing that looks strange to me is professionals staying opted in to the DPC.
Professionals would have more business sense, integrity and respect for their work to remain in DPC. Only complete amateurs with no idea about stock would remain in DPC if they were aware of what DPC offers contributors.
498
« on: May 19, 2014, 05:18 »
The micro agencies always list reasons for rejection, but they seldom make any sense. More likely they just don't feel the image will be a decent seller or they already have thousands of similar images, and therefore they list one of any number of technical reasons to reject it. That way they're covered.
499
« on: May 19, 2014, 05:02 »
I highly doubt PP has even started. If it has I have zero, and without Thinkstock's contribution to my account I would delete my Istock account
500
« on: May 19, 2014, 02:25 »
I searched main categories on DFC and Fotolia (photos, vectors, illustrations) to see what the numbers are. DPC numbers seem to be approx 75% of Fotolia. That is a positive start and theoretically means many contributors have opted out of DPC. However in order to really pressure Fotolia and DPC we have to try and get that % down to 50% and under so that DPC is only half the size of Fotolia. Once clients begin realizing that DPC has limited options compared to Fotolia and other micros, they should be put off buying subscriptions.
Pages: 1 ... 15 16 17 18 19 [20] 21
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
