Quote from: Grandpa on January 28, 2012, 13:44

Quote from: Fred on January 28, 2012, 13:06
Well maybe I am using the wrong metric but I really only care about average return per download and DT is my best site at $1.48 ahead of IS at $1.26 and SS at $0.48.

Don't much care if I sell a few at very low amounts if they are made up for by a few at much higher amounts.  DT seems to satisfy this requirement better than anywhere else.

fred

Right, if you have the same downloads per day (or per month, or year) on al this sites. But if you have on DT 3 times higher return per download, and 10 times lower downloads per month as on SS, where you earned more?

Well the main complaint of the topic is low commissions at DT and I took that to mean returns per download not monthly income.  However, my income at DT still compares quite well to SS.  I have half as many images on DT as on SS and about 7 times as many downloads on SS as on DT.  Given that an average DT download is worth 3 times an average SS download my monthly income per image is very nearly the same on both sites. 

More images online mean more production time, upload time, etc.  So, in my case at least, it would seem that income per hour is probably better at DT than SS.

fred

Well maybe I am using the wrong metric but I really only care about average return per download and DT is my best site at $1.48 ahead of IS at $1.26 and SS at $0.48.

Don't much care if I sell a few at very low amounts if they are made up for by a few at much higher amounts.  DT seems to satisfy this requirement better than anywhere else.

fred

Fascinating, thanks for the link!

fred

Thanks for the quick responses everyone.  I'll be signing up I think.


c h e e r s
fred

Anyone using Google Analytics for their site?  Do you find it useful?  Google says it is free.  What is the downside?  What are the alternatives?

Obviously I am a real newbie with this stuff.  Any help at all would be appreciated.

c h e e r s
fred

Quote from: microstockphoto.co.uk on December 06, 2011, 09:46

This is at least the second case - following Crestock - of different (lower) commissions for newbies.

As an "old" contributor, I guess I should be happy. But...
Surely, they are trying to avoid bad comments from us.
And a side effect, are they trying to divide us? Old vs new contributors?

I doubt the need for any sinister motives.  Probably just trying to stay in business!

lff

Quote from: Michaelp on May 06, 2011, 20:17

Quote from: Fred on May 02, 2011, 15:45

Quote from: Buzbuzzer on May 01, 2011, 17:30
The dollar will go down, you better change your currencies right now.

Actually, if you are really confident that the dollar is going down you should borrow dollars and convert them now and pay them back with the weaker dollars you get from your sales later.  You have to borrow at low interest rates of course.

True. I thought about this many times. Without doubt it will devalue. Even in a stable environment...

The problem is which currency to buy.  The Euro looks very shaky to me.  They have to do something about Ireland, Greece, Spain and Portugal.  Germany needs to keep the Euro low to maintain their exports.   You  might try the Renminbi but who knows that the Chinese government will do to keep it low.  The Yen has always been strong but with Japan's latest natural - and unnatural disasters - what is going to happen now? You also need to keep in mind the historical perspective.  The Real Effective Exchange Rate - inflation adjusted exchange rate measured against a basket of trade weighted currencies - of the dollar is right now about where it was in 1979 (see: http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/05/04/falling-dollar-phobia/).  It could get stronger.  It did then.

Good recent article on the Euro problems: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/17/business/17view.html?_r=1

You pays your money you takes your chances!

c h e e r s
fred

Quote from: Buzbuzzer on May 01, 2011, 17:30
The dollar will go down, you better change your currencies right now.

Actually, if you are really confident that the dollar is going down you should borrow dollars and convert them now and pay them back with the weaker dollars you get from your sales later.  You have to borrow at low interest rates of course.

c h e e r s
fred

Oh and while the Japanese budget deficit has climbed to 200% of GDP the Yen has only become stronger.

fred

Quote from: etienjones on April 30, 2011, 16:01

Quote from: Fred on April 30, 2011, 15:04

Quote from: etienjones on April 30, 2011, 08:56
Its the National Budget Deficit and not the trade deficit that is weakening the dollar in my view...".

What evidence do you base that on?  Over the last 5 years the dollar has been higher and it has been lower against most international currencies (exception might be the Swiss Franc).  If there was any great fear of the dollar dropping badly interest rates should be going up but 10 year TBill is about as low as it has ever been in the last 40 years and the 30 year Treasury is at 4.40%!  If people are willing to lend the U.S. money at that rate for 30 years they must have some confidence in the dollar.

fred

There are doubts about the health of the country's economy even though Geithner as said "We will never seek to weaken our currency as a tool to gain competitive advantage or to grow the economy." . . . . . .  maybe.

S&P has recently suggested that that the United States' AAA credit rating "could" be downgraded.

The second-largest holder of Treasury debt, China, has stepped up rhetoric hinting that they might diversify their massive $3 trillion of currency reserves away from U.S. dollars.

Alan Greenspan has even attributed the dollar's weakness to large Federal budget deficits.

And who is buying all those government bonds.  The Fed has bought up hundreds of billions of dollars of  long-term U.S. Treasuries (QE2)

I am not asking for more opinion.  I am asking for more evidence.  Your sources of opinion are even very dubious.   Just look at the securities S&P was rating as AAA in the 2008 (AIG, Lehman Bros.,  etc.) and taking Alan Greenspan's investment advice is like taking Liz Taylor's advice for a long marriage.  He denied there was a housing boom until late 2008 and promoted 30 years of deregulation that led the the financial crash.  Not a good source. 

The Chinese are double dubious.  They need a strong dollar to both keep up the value of their TBill holdings and keep their currency undervalued to maintain the unbalanced trade situation.  They have no reason to reverse either of these policies but should they change their mind it would be more beneficial to the U.S. economy.

As far as the FED purchases go, they have made it clear that they will be stopping soon so if there were great expectations of that causing an appreciable upward bounce in TBill rates there would be a lot of selling now.  That just is not happening so the evidence is that QE2 it hasn't been very effective.

I am not saying the dollar is going up or down all I am saying is that the evidence I know of shows a great deal of confidence in the long run stability of the dollar.

fred

Quote from: etienjones on April 30, 2011, 08:56
Its the National Budget Deficit and not the trade deficit that is weakening the dollar in my view...".

What evidence do you base that on?  Over the last 5 years the dollar has been higher and it has been lower against most international currencies (exception might be the Swiss Franc).  If there was any great fear of the dollar dropping badly interest rates should be going up but 10 year TBill is about as low as it has ever been in the last 40 years and the 30 year Treasury is at 4.40%!  If people are willing to lend the U.S. money at that rate for 30 years they must have some confidence in the dollar.

fred

The 24-70mm FF lens is worth the price but on a DX body I don't think it will give you enough on the wide end and probably require you to buy another lens for wide-angle coverage (24mm is 36mm on the DX remember)  If you have the money the AFS 17-55 mm f/2.8 G DX ED-IF Nikkor is the highest rated mid-range DX zoom and apparently the way to go (I have not used it). 

I can recommend the lower cost AFS-Nikkor 16-85 mm f/3.5-5.6 ED VR G.  It is as sharp as the 18-200mm but costs less and gives good telephoto range and a little bit more wide-angle coverage.  I use this lens the most and with my AFS 70-300 mm f/4.5-5.6 ED VR G (really a sharp telephoto and FF so I will be able to keep it when/if I move up to a FF body) I don't need to carry much else.

My favorite lens rating site is ->http://www.naturfotograf.com/index2.html

c h e e r s
fred   

Hmmmmmmm  Unusable or not they have used them all and now they need to pay for them.

fred

Quote from: Microbius on February 17, 2011, 09:41
When I first saw this thread I thought he'd just copied the concept, which is annoying but not a crime.
But you're right, if it all lines up when you place one over the other he's gone one step further so you did the right thing.

I had the same problem.  When I think of a "Copycat" - as in the title of the thread - I think of someone who copies other contributors' concepts but does not use an actual copy of the others' work.  Sometimes this is ok but can easily become unethical.  This guy copied the image itself and then altered it a little.  This is never ok but I wouldn't call it being a "Copycat"  I would call it Fraud.

fred

This is a scan from a kodachrome print.



I did replace the sky but it sells fairly well at SS.

Have tried a couple of slides - scanned commercially - but could not get them accepted.

lff

[Deleted -- This was too easily miscontrued - not meant to be critical - apologies to anyone offended.]

Quote from: helix7 on February 04, 2011, 16:13
What makes you think I'm exclusive?

Sorry, I thought you had said you were exclusive in the post I was answering. 

Quote from: helix7 on February 04, 2011, 14:15

Quote from: Fred on February 03, 2011, 21:10

I think that is what I was saying.  They have the right to protect their investment.  If they act in some way that a contributor thinks it is no longer in her/his best interest to stay with IS then the contributor has the right to leave.  Its a basic business agreement.  If you don't like the deal you are free to not sign up or leave within the constraints of the original agreement...

...I know the inclination to say something like this is greater when we're talking about something like microstock, especially when one microstock company is not the sole source of income for most people around here. But it's still a significant source of income for some of us, one that isn't so easy to walk away from....

Easy to walk away or hard to walk away is not the point.  I am sorry to sound harsh but if you sign up with a site you need to read the TOS and be sure you are ready to assume the risks.  At least with microstock the risks are pretty out in the open and not difficult to enumerate, will the site fold and not be able to pay me what they owe me, will the site cut my commissions and/or change the rules for advancement etc.  You accepted those risks when you went into this business and decided that the rewards were worth the risk.  

Right now the industry is pretty much market driven with no site having much in the way of monopoly power.  By going exclusive you decided that you would help IS increase their power in the market in order to increase your returns.  If you didn't see the risk of putting yourself at the mercy of a single outlet then that is unfortunate.  However, your additional income comes from depriving independents of market share so I hardly see how you could expect us to commiserate.

fred  

Quote from: Zeus on February 03, 2011, 19:03

Quote from: Fred on February 03, 2011, 18:50
do you think that gives you the right to post anything you want on their bulletin board?   

Does someone really need to explain this to you?

fred

From what I can see the OP wasn't being abusive, he inadvertently questioned the authority of the "boss" by stating his belief in free speech. You can construe this as "anything you want", hiding behind this is my sandbox mentality if you like, but the fact is the only reason the sandbox exists is because everyone there contributes their hard work and creativity to the cause. You see it's almost like, gosh, being in a democracy, where you contribute and feel that you should be heard or a least able to vent some some of your concerns. The company isn't just THE COMPANY it's a tiny bit of everyone who contributes.

I think that is what I was saying.  They have the right to protect their investment.  If they act in some way that a contributor thinks it is no longer in her/his best interest to stay with IS then the contributor has the right to leave.  Its a basic business agreement.  If you don't like the deal you are free to not sign up or leave within the constraints of the original agreement.

Where is the confusion?

fred

Quote from: Colette on February 03, 2011, 18:38

QuoteOf course they have the right.  They pay the bills.

So when I pay the bills, I have the right to do whatever I want?

"Having the power" and "having the right" are not the same things!

You just don't get it.  If they don't pay the bills no one has the right to do anything on the site because there is no site.  Like the man said - Your right to swing your fists ends where another persons nose begins.  Your right to post in their forum ends when what you post damages their business.  What does or does not damage their business is up to them to decide.  Their forum their rules. 

If you work for a company, or sell your product through a company do you think that gives you the right to post anything you want on their bulletin board?   

Does someone really need to explain this to you?

fred

Quote from: Colette on February 03, 2011, 14:06

...You say: they can do whatever they want. Yes, they can, but: they don't have the right to do whatever they want....

Of course they have the right.  They pay the bills.  Including whatever contributors charge them to sell their work.  Contributors have the right to leave anytime they don't like the deal.

fred

Quote from: jsnover on February 03, 2011, 04:20
... it's their playground and their rules, but you can't call yourself a crowsourced site with a community and then muzzle or otherwise intimidate contributors into silence...

You can for as long as those that stick with you still amount to a "crowd"!

c h e e r s
fred

Well, my numbers stink so suffice it to say that Fotolia is my worst site for this stat and is nearly three times as bad as SS which is my best site.  DT barely eked out a better number than IS for second place.

Interestingly, the numbers correspond very closely to my acceptance rates.  Low acceptance rate = low sales ratio (Isn't this called "Sell Through"?) for me.  This could be an indicator of the quality of reviewers.  

Anyone else's numbers correlate this way?

c h e e r s
fred

PS: I have never removed any images.  Cannot imagine a good reason for doing so.

I'm thinking exclusivity - at least agency exclusivity - is a fad.  I don't see the upside for the customer.  Customers don't license the image exclusively - any other customer of the site can license the image at the same time and what other benefit could they gain from agency exclusivity.

The restriction that the customer must buy a particular image from a particular site actually seems to me to be disadvantageous to customers.  This kind of exclusivity means that to satisfy all their image needs customers need accounts with many agencies.  Hasn't the MS revolution gotten them used to just maintaining accounts at a few agencies where they can get everything they need?  Where is the benefit of having to look for what they need in many places?

I am probably missing something because I really don't see how this idea ever got started.  But if I am right it should die away as customers realize they are better off with an image market that has lots of independent suppliers selling across multiple outlets.

Agency exclusivity also seems to be anti-competitive and may be open to legal challenges.    In the U.S. anti-trust enforcement is so moribund that it is unlikely to succeed but elsewhere (EU, Canada, etc.) it may be a possibility.

fred

Quote from: yuliang11 on December 25, 2010, 02:37

Quote from: disorderly on December 24, 2010, 19:01

Quote from: Fred on December 24, 2010, 15:55
So Why are you publishing the link here!  So somebody can make a mistake and click on it!.  

If they do, nothing bad will happen.  Nothing.

Yes , right. the url of the href is different. I'm just surprised this is happening to shutterstock and it seems only i am getting the message. it makes me think how unsafe the internet could be.

A couple of more users have reported the problem on the SS forum.

fred