|
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 - stan
51
« on: August 20, 2012, 10:35 »
It's in their IPO report that they pay out 12% to contributors. That is a publicly known fact now.
Luis' numbers show the % paid to individual contributors for individual sales. The 12% may be a correct representation of what paid to contributors expressed as a % of overall sales revenue - remember quite a lot of the profit results from buyers not downloading all the images available in their subs packages.
Exactly! That's what I meant and also that those calculations are meaningless, since we know now how much they pay us on average and that you can never calculate sub royalty percentage. Nice of Luis to go through all that trouble though
52
« on: August 20, 2012, 09:55 »
so.....
No class A drugs, moderate drinking, not even a mention of tobacco - where are all the artists? 
Yeah, agreeing! f###ing boooooring, isnt it? not to mention walking in and out of health stores buying Roots to "think you feel better, look better" not to mention drinking russian yoghurts to imagine you live to 150, not to mention driving around on electricity just to get a shock up your ass, not to mention saving the rain-forest only to find some forest workers have cut down the few trees you had around your own home, not to mention quit smoking only to chew nikotin gum until your hooked on that, not to mention, going to church every Sunday, praying for your kids and family, only to find God is crapping even more on you.
finally, what happens? then YOU DIE! good hey?
Moral of the story? get yourself up on the highest peak in the world, get your thingy out and SCREW the world
LOL, I love this post! Take a heart
Well stan, its the truth isnt it, if slightly bent. 
I like the moral of the story and the post got me laughing. Hard
53
« on: August 20, 2012, 09:51 »
Nice of you to remind them 
That being said them paying the lowest commissions of all, just 12%, they don't really need those few extra nickel&dimes
just spent a few minutes doing the contributor royalties % at SS (% between () from the lowest to the highest canister)
Subscription
a) 263$ for 750 downloads - 0.35$ each (71.4%, 94.2%, 102.8%, 108.5%)
b) 708$ for 2250 downloads - 0.314$ each (79.6%, 105%, 114.6%, 121%)
c) 1367$ for 4500 downloads - 0.303$ each (82.5%, 108.9%, 118.8%, 125.4%)
d) 2584$ for 9000 downloads - 0.287$ each (87.1%, 114.9%, 125.4%, 132.4%)
On Demand
- All sizes
a) 51$ for 5 downloads - 10.2$ each (18.4%, 24.3%, 26.4%, 27.9%)
b) 235$ for 25 downloads - 9.4$ each (20%, 26.3%, 28.7%, 30.3%)
- S and M sizes
a) 51$ for 12 downloads - 4.25$ each (18.9%, 25.1%, 27.5%, 29.1%)
b) 235$ for 60 downloads - 3.92$ each (20.6%, 27.3%, 29.8%, 31.6%)
EL
a) 201$ for 2 downloads - 100.5$ each (27.8%)
b) 455$ for 5 downloads - 91$ each (30.7%)
c) 1722$ for 25 downloads - 69$ each (40.5%)
the lowest is actually 18.4%
It's in their IPO report that they pay out 12% to contributors. That is a publicly known fact now.
54
« on: August 20, 2012, 07:20 »
Nice of you to remind them That being said them paying the lowest commissions of all, just 12%, they don't really need those few extra nickel&dimes
55
« on: August 20, 2012, 04:53 »
so.....
No class A drugs, moderate drinking, not even a mention of tobacco - where are all the artists?
Yeah, agreeing! f###ing boooooring, isnt it? not to mention walking in and out of health stores buying Roots to "think you feel better, look better" not to mention drinking russian yoghurts to imagine you live to 150, not to mention driving around on electricity just to get a shock up your ass, not to mention saving the rain-forest only to find some forest workers have cut down the few trees you had around your own home, not to mention quit smoking only to chew nikotin gum until your hooked on that, not to mention, going to church every Sunday, praying for your kids and family, only to find God is crapping even more on you.
finally, what happens? then YOU DIE! good hey?
Moral of the story? get yourself up on the highest peak in the world, get your thingy out and SCREW the world
LOL, I love this post! Take a heart
56
« on: August 19, 2012, 17:43 »
Having lost 1/3 of my income this year despite putting in the same amount of work, No I am not feeling the least bit rich. On top of that, my shoots this year have failed to cover expenses.
.I wonder what's the plan of those top lifestyle togs, sjlocke as well etc, many are saying they're down on year to year basis. Are they/you going to switch for something else, for example food photography etc?
Food
iStock: 1,038,091
SS: 2,144,452
Alamy: 1,784,763
Not much scope there unless you can find some niche foods that nevertheless have a market and somehow keep others off your niche. Best to find out what the Next Big Thing in food is and photograph that.
Hey, I've seen a niche. If you buy in a generic food item, and photograph it, is that a copyright breach? (E.g. but this isn't it, a scone)
I wouldn't switch to food photography myself, since I know how hard it is to produce great food shots, it's science really. So much work, since I don't know the basics, well I do know the very basics, but nothing beyond that. Simple isolations etc won't cut, lighting has to be perfect, highlighting just the right things, emphasizing some, you have to arrange everything carefully. If I'd switch, I'd try to find a niche in sports. But how many photos can you do on a single niched sport anyway...If I'd change lifestyle for some other type of photography, people would have to be involved, I just love shooting people, makes it interesting to me, the shoot itself is alive. More difficult, for sure, not to mention the organization, locations, MRs, props, make up, hair, this and that...But that's what I love to shoot. I'd probably rather stop shooting altogether than not shoot people anymore. And I have tried almost every other type of photography. Well travel photography seems interesting, but I don't travel all that much, so that's out of the question.
57
« on: August 19, 2012, 15:57 »
Having lost 1/3 of my income this year despite putting in the same amount of work, No I am not feeling the least bit rich. On top of that, my shoots this year have failed to cover expenses.
That's interesting, especially because I mainly shoot lifestyle too. I don't know if the discussion about lifestyle being over-saturated was held in this thread or not, but I remember reading it in this forums a couple of days ago. I wonder what's the plan of those top lifestyle togs, sjlocke as well etc, many are saying they're down on year to year basis. Are they/you going to switch for something else, for example food photography etc? Or are some of you even thinking about the switch to macro, commissioned work or quitting altogether? My sales this week have been terrible and I'm afraid of hitting a wall or even seeing my, already average earnings, drop.
58
« on: August 19, 2012, 03:54 »
How bored must I be to be bored with complaining how boring it is?!!
Your quote could be something from Oscar-Wilde! brillant! Im gonna use it on my wife, Oh dear! just gulped another single Malt down the hatch,
LOL! It's the dog days of summer. We are all climbing the walls. I gave up drinking years ago, but seriously thinking of starting back... you guys make it seem like such fun!
I gave up drinking years ago too. I know how nice it can be. Sometimes if I go out with friends who drink, as much as I remember the pleasure of being drunk, being sober with those who are drunk is often far from boring. This truth serum can make for a fascinating night out if you're sober. Inevitably though it gets a bit much, but I still have the pleasure of being able to drive myself home. 
Well I dont think we mean sitting there getting zozzled every night, you know. Personally I am just reffering to a social drink now and then. A "drinker" often means getting pissed every week or something, at least myself dont fall into that category, in fact I think the last time I actually had too much, jeez, must be something like 10 years ago.
Indeed, having 2-3 beers from time to time is nice, just enough to cut the edge off and feel nice. In a good company of course. I never drink at home, for instance.
59
« on: August 18, 2012, 08:31 »
On top of getting this 8c sales almost every day (and they're always in XS size) there's the indie price decrease. It really looks like they're taking a lot of, especially when you think about constant price rises, "last resort" actions. If I remember correctly E+ prices went down as well. Combine it with earnings threads and it really looks like their business is nosediving in the last few months.
60
« on: August 15, 2012, 19:32 »
61
« on: August 15, 2012, 18:04 »
LOL!!!
But I really mean to ask the question.
For instance, you have a diamond who has sold a lot in history, but with 1000 images in his port, he is rarely uploading any new images. And you have a silver who is uploading like mad lately whose port is over 5000 in a short period. How do you fit each into the category?
And the silver could be outselling the diamond too
62
« on: August 15, 2012, 04:22 »
OK, tnx guys, makes sense. I mean I can understand their point of view. It's just a shame I had to be the unlucky one, since it seems it happens rarely, no one reported it happening to him.
63
« on: August 15, 2012, 04:10 »
OK, then it's a pointless thread. I do understand you, but it's also pointless being anonymous and linking to your images;)
The point I was getting across was, that I can't understand how they can change their standards all of a sudden and afford to loose thousands of dollars that easily. I was also curious if they're doing random sweeps of the library and deactivate files, if that's something they started doing, because it has never happened to me (at IS or elsewhere)
Link to a copy on your own site or dropbox or Flickr or something. Presumably it wouldn't have to be a full-sized image.
Standards do change constantly on iStock, and presumably elsewhere. A couple of years back it was luxury boats, cars and guitars, among others. Sometimes it's a general principle,sometimes a manufacturer contacts them and tells them to remove their product.
It's also true that when they do a sweep, your image might get expunged months before someone else's, so they pile up sales and you don't. I guess the counter is that they are thereby running more chance of being sued if the property owner finds the image being used in a way that they don't like.
I was going to suggest, as mentioned above, editorial: but having a 'model' isn't allowed under the new editorial rules, except in a very few specified circumstances where they're incidental to the image.
Linking to anyplace, could just lead an admin from IS to throw it into images.google, say of that's the guy badmouthing us and there goes a few more of my good or this time even bestsellers. So no thanks, although I know you're trying to help and I appreciate it. Since you all can't really judge the decision without a photo, we can certainly discuss the policy and how it can be so different to all the other sites. Which you did in the second paragraph and it does make sense what you wrote. But just a part of a building, that is blurred too (OOF) isn't really the same as guitars, yachts etc. But OK, what's done it's done, I'm happy I'm still selling it at all the rest of my outlets, although sales of the file were good at IS (2nd best, I think). Indeed, it wouldn't cut under editorial, you can't shoot models, they can't pose for you etc.
65
« on: August 15, 2012, 03:45 »
OK, then it's a pointless thread. I do understand you, but it's also pointless being anonymous and linking to your images;)
The point I was getting across was, that I can't understand how they can change their standards all of a sudden and afford to loose thousands of dollars that easily. I was also curious if they're doing random sweeps of the library and deactivate files, if that's something they started doing, because it has never happened to me (at IS or elsewhere)
66
« on: August 15, 2012, 03:25 »
Since the photo is selling on a dozen sites and was also selling at IS for a year, it obviously is one of their blunders (besides having to have a release every single time, but in that case they at least stick to the same standards)
67
« on: August 14, 2012, 19:28 »
Whatever the reason, after way over 100 sales?!?
That being said, here's a c/p "We feel that location and subject(s) featured in this image would require special permissions or clearance to be licensed commercially, and would make it unsuitable as Royalty-Free content." . A MR was signed by the model and the location is public. I'm speechless, thousands of dollars to be lost for me and a lot more for them. I think it's just bad business.
68
« on: August 14, 2012, 18:38 »
They've deactivated a yellow flamed photo of mine recently. It's selling almost daily, sometimes a few times a day. Is this happening to you too?
69
« on: August 14, 2012, 18:35 »
I'm getting them almost every day this past few weeks.
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
