|
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
4751
« on: June 09, 2012, 17:36 »
I sent the person a personal thank you letter and treated him with the highest degree of respect. It's still a funny story and I am 100% sure that he does not mind me sharing it here. After all, sending socks are done in a humorous attempt, in the very same was as it was used in my post here. So harm done for sure.
Ignore the rest of these jealous souls, please.
4752
« on: June 09, 2012, 09:41 »
4753
« on: June 09, 2012, 09:14 »
4754
« on: June 09, 2012, 08:34 »
you guys need to start answering emails too 
or are we going for only top contributors?
That's exactly what I was wondering. I hate to go through all the uploading work to have SF level sales. And the sub thing, unfortunately, is a proven model that even the likes of Pocketstock can't, in some form, pass on.
4755
« on: June 09, 2012, 07:41 »
I had a good run over the last two months, more than double in revenue ($100/mo to $250/mo) and now back down on par with $100/mo. They are definitely doing something with their search because the images being sold are not anything new, so it's not like I am shooting new, super-sellable stuff (even though I try  )
4756
« on: June 09, 2012, 07:07 »
Nice tool. Thank you for doing this!! 
4757
« on: June 08, 2012, 16:02 »
Actually Barry says everything is OOF. Almost as much as Jens used to say everything had noise. 
Everything does have noise!
Now to the OP. Stop whining or let us see a couple of 100% pictures.
Hi Jens. Many of us still miss you on SS.
Not all.
4758
« on: June 06, 2012, 17:51 »
As I said in another thread, it's a moveable feast on DT lately - you roll the dice and depending on what reviewer you get you will have a different outcome...
That has been my experience as well.
I clicked the wrong forum by accident and usually won't post on DT or FT (self imposed ban). But this is a perfect example of typical microstock kindergarten rules and reviews. They make them and change them and some play by the rules, sometimes, they forget and make their own versions. Commissions change, levels change, pictures are changed to free or removed on a whim, reviewers don't even know their own regulations. But one thing is for sure. There's no consistency. LOL 
Exactly. I just saw a guy with brand new uploads of 9 accepted images of a body builder, same images just slightly different angles. Where is the too similars rejection? They have selective acceptance and very inconsistent acceptance criteria.
4759
« on: June 06, 2012, 17:48 »
I dumped them a few years ago. Not a single sale. They wouldn't close my account after several requests so I changed all my prices to a $1,000,000 each and within a few days they deleted my account.
4760
« on: June 05, 2012, 07:58 »
Glad you had fun! Post some shots if you can.
4761
« on: June 03, 2012, 19:22 »
Hi folks,
I'm looking into this one - I'll post what I find out.
Best,
Scott
VP of Content
Shutterstock
Thank you because there have been a bunch of Bogus rejections as of lately.
From years of experience.....Scott will not EVER have influence on reviews.
Isolated on white rejected for poor lighting, shadows and or WB and then there is the old LCV of images that by far have very good CV, there are even case where releases were with images and the reviewer still rejected for no release? Hows that?
Any help is appreciated.
Is there any way we can do away with LCV because what is seen by a reviewer as LCV (because he/she doesn't like it) turns out after numerous resubmissions to become a number one seller in ones port!
4762
« on: June 03, 2012, 19:09 »
it's not about SS. They simply are the agency that hasn't taken drastic measures. Doesn't mean they wont.
4763
« on: June 03, 2012, 18:18 »
Paul
4764
« on: June 03, 2012, 08:10 »
This might seem like a weird question but it is legitimate...
Once your ms portfolio is up it has earning power as long as your images are available to clients.. so what happens in the case of someone who dies, and their portfolio remains generating income - does their beneficiaries continue to receive the royalties? for how long? is their a legal proceedure to go through to ensure this?
Has anyone looked into this or have some insight?
It is an unusual question, but really I think something we should all consider at some point from a practical viewpoint, esp for you big time earners ...
thanks
As much as you think it's unusual, I have been mulling this over with my wife. We are getting ready to have our trust written (I am 51) and we want to hire an attorney to help us understand our copyright transfer options from two perspectives: 1. I am making a relative assumption that I will die before my wife. I want her to legally own my images and continue to collect the income. Technically I could just have her keep collecting the money from existing accounts and just not say anything, but that could backfire if the word gets out that I am gone but the account remains open. 2. When she goes I want to have ownership of my port to change to someone else so they can enjoy the benefits of my hard work. I am not a big time earner per se because I have a regular day job, but I do make a few thousand extra a month. And hope to grow that, but who knows where MS will be in 10 years. I am also unsure of what the policies are/will be on the microstock sites themselves. They may be jumpy enough to just say no, and close the account. I recall way back when Rinderart supposedly transferred ownership of some of his images to another Istocker and he had his account terminated. While I don't know the true details, it is clear that the miscrstock sites are jumpy when it comes to this kind of stuff.
4765
« on: June 03, 2012, 07:56 »
Besides DT and Zoonar? I've already set my acc for deletion at Zoonar a month or so ago and stopped uploading at DT. Any other? I heard there are problems at DP, but the problem is they don't really delete it, but just deactivate it.
I wanna keep my options open and the real money has been only coming from SS and IS from day one for me. DT and FT are bringing BMEs in, but their growth is a lot slower than at IS and SS, while they should be a lot faster, so they'd eventually at least represent a significant portion of income, not just bread crumbs that fall off the table. Besides that the outlook for both looks bad, FT is selling only XS and S sizes lately, sales at DT are dropping rapidly, increased RPD doesn't help as much as I hoped it would.
Do you mean that "number of downloads" is decreasing but revenue per image sold is high therefore that higher revenue per image is creating BME's? Otherwise this is contradictory (the bold comments)
Exactly! Sales almost 20% down, RPD 40% up in May. And sales were really poor past this last week (it looks like DLs could drop even further). So it's not contradictory, at FT the problem is small sized DLs. DT and FT should be growing with at least 2-3x the pace that IS and SS do. But it's just the other way around, small timers gaining less, the gap is ever increasing.
Cool. That is EXACTLY what is happening to me. I've been getting $3-$8 DL's but the volume of downloads has fallen dramatically, even in the face of BME's on DT.
4766
« on: June 03, 2012, 07:50 »
My 7 day rank has declined to 64, and my overall rank to 590. Sales in May, 2012 were down 58% on May, 2011!! Earnings on FT now comprise only 7% of my total, down from a high of 28% two years ago. According to FT, the decline is due to "competition within FT", and that "...it really comes down to awesome images." That's b*&()t. I'd say that at best it's due to a screwed up search engine, and a site that doesn't care two hoots about (previously) top-selling contributors.
First....you have a FABULOUS PORT!! Secondarily, between you, Fotographer, Lisa (Mrs. FX:)) and a few other big guns stating what amounts to the same thing (going from good rank to crummy rank and therefore making less money) is pretty good anecdotal evidence that FT is indeed favoring new or non-selling images so they pay out less, keep more in their coffers. It's a shame that potentially more appealing images are being shoved up the FT BUM where no buyers dare to go.
4767
« on: June 03, 2012, 07:43 »
My percentages for microstock are
IS = 31%
SS = 27%
DT = 20%
FT = 4%
123rf = 5%
The rest = 11%
I can't see how any angency can come up with an arrangement that would end up with more money for me.
For some people exclusivity is / would be better but numbers don't add up for me.
Personally I hope shutterstock doesn't offer exclusivity as I'd prefer not to be bumped in the seach by exclusive images
Amen to that!!
4768
« on: June 03, 2012, 07:37 »
Besides DT and Zoonar? I've already set my acc for deletion at Zoonar a month or so ago and stopped uploading at DT. Any other? I heard there are problems at DP, but the problem is they don't really delete it, but just deactivate it.
I wanna keep my options open and the real money has been only coming from SS and IS from day one for me. DT and FT are bringing BMEs in, but their growth is a lot slower than at IS and SS, while they should be a lot faster, so they'd eventually at least represent a significant portion of income, not just bread crumbs that fall off the table. Besides that the outlook for both looks bad, FT is selling only XS and S sizes lately, sales at DT are dropping rapidly, increased RPD doesn't help as much as I hoped it would.
Do you mean that "number of downloads" is decreasing but revenue per image sold is high therefore that higher revenue per image is creating BME's? Otherwise this is contradictory (the bold comments)
4769
« on: June 02, 2012, 07:56 »
My weekly rank used to often be in the top 500 and this week it's 5,700. Whatever they've done with the search, it must of buried my portfolio.
I feel ya!!!
Mine has been under 30 in the good old days but now stands at around 800 !!!!!!!!!!!
WOW! That is bad. I mean from 1000 to 2000 is probably meaningless, but 60 to 800 could be meaningful....and not in a good way. 
4770
« on: June 02, 2012, 07:51 »
I beat my forecast by $200 but down $150 over last month. SS has really pumped up my overall monthly income. IS was down $150 over last month and DT was down $75 over last month.
4771
« on: June 02, 2012, 07:38 »
My weekly rank used to often be in the top 500 and this week it's 5,700. Whatever they've done with the search, it must of buried my portfolio.
I feel ya!!!
4772
« on: June 02, 2012, 07:36 »
by the way. "thief courts! thieves! thief judge.. was there a jury? thieves! they probably pin microstock images! thief law!"
go on cult of whatever...
....sigh....
4773
« on: June 02, 2012, 07:24 »
Not to change the subject...maybe I should start a new thread....but I think 123 is the most likely one to get "absorbed" in the industry consolidation. They are not too big, and big enough to be taken off the market. As I think through consolidation, who cares about DP, CanStockPhoto, SF, AYCS, etc...they are small gnats comparatively. But 123 is just big enough to be a target for SS or FT. I can see SS wanting to move their customers (in as much as possible) to BigStock, or kill BigStock and use 123, calling it a merger of 'super powers' lol....something silly like that. FT, maybe snags 123, shuts them down, gets some of their buyers and is able to suck more blood out of the contributors.
4774
« on: June 02, 2012, 07:15 »
Opening a PayPal account would probably be less hassle than starting a crazy ranting thread here. Calling them crooks is ridiculous. I'd rather they didn't have the MB fee but that's not breaking the law.
I don't use MB but I have used PP for years as an EBAY seller/buyer, book author (selling online option), MS, and MANY other online transactions. The only problem I have ever had with them was self induced when I added another email address. I had a chunk of money Paypal'd to that new address but it never showed up in my account. I called the help line and within a few minutes they simply added that email to my account and BAM....there was my money. Never any fees. I am very happy with their functionality and customer service. I wouldn't change because of their reliability and service levels. Maybe it's different in other countries, but for me one less thing to worry about is a big benefit.
4775
« on: June 01, 2012, 17:02 »
"Has there been a big increase in sales volumes at FT?" Not for me. Income four months ago was double what it is now, around $175-$200 a month. Then, voila!! 50% less and been that way ever since. I think they have a lot of back door, shady things going on for which we can only speculate.
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
