|
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 - louoates
Pages: 1 ... 16 17 18 19 20 [21] 22 23 24 25 26 ... 31
501
« on: June 05, 2009, 20:21 »
No rhyme or reason with what they want. They seem to know what they want when they see it. Very haphazard across the board in my experience. Highly subjective, dependent upon that particular reviewer on that particular mood swing. If anyone wants a gold plated reason never to be exclusive this topic serves its purpose well.
502
« on: June 02, 2009, 11:13 »
Lots of comments here are based on a false premise that there is a perfect knowledge of the marketplace by buyers. Who has the time to search across multiple sites to find every possible cost of a given image? I believe most buyers stop when they find a good workable solution even though they might find a slightly cheaper version somewhere else if they spent the time.
That's why we buy milk at a convenience store because we'd rather pay .50 more rather than making a trip to the big supermarket.
I also don't understand the debate over such small differences in image costs. I'd find it hard to work for a client who would quibble over the image cost if I found an image that really worked well. That client is paying for me to dig through hundreds or thousands of images it find one right for the job. Does he really want to double my fee for doubling my work?
503
« on: June 01, 2009, 16:24 »
Why would anyone want to acquire a site with no customers?
504
« on: May 27, 2009, 17:05 »
Anyone know of a good online tutorial regarding clips for microstock?
505
« on: May 11, 2009, 14:22 »
I really don't intend to complain about high rejection rates at FT. I had held off any uploading for over a year because of the rejection rates being so high as complained about by other contributors. I'm really not complaining even though last month I tried again and got a 90% reject rate compared to a 95% acceptance rate at the other big sites. And I'm not complaining that yesterday I got another 90% rejection on new images. Let others complain and moan about such things. But not me. I'll just adios there til next year.
506
« on: April 28, 2009, 11:58 »
If you've been in this micro business long enough this wouldn't surprise you. Keyword searches are just plain goofy, depending on the site. A good way to go nuts is to try to put some logic to it.
My best advice is leave the logic on the shelf, shoot more, and worry less.
And don't get me started on categories!
507
« on: April 12, 2009, 12:46 »
I left there about 2 years ago because of dismal sales on my images that sold well on IS, SS, DT, and StockXpert. I decided to look again at 123 if they were doing any better after a year or two.
Anyone here seen improvement in sales there over the last 24 months?
508
« on: April 12, 2009, 12:42 »
I opted out of the "subs" deal from the start so the reduced StockXpert business lately has me puzzled. I hope that whatever internal problems get straightened out soon. Can StockXpert be the next takeover candidate?
509
« on: April 11, 2009, 19:48 »
I enjoy seeing an image actively selling over time. So I put most importance in the downloads per month stat. My best on IS is running 15.8 dl/mo. since I uploaded it 3 years ago.
I consider 5+ downloads per month very successful. I have 10 images doing 5+/mo. for my portfolio of 636 images on IS.
510
« on: April 02, 2009, 21:30 »
I'm very pleased with whatever DT is doing. My sales have spiked way up in all my main categories -- my images make up to 50% of the first pages on two of my main subject key words. Very impressive work by this site.
511
« on: March 30, 2009, 12:50 »
Uploading to IS is like living with an ingrown toenail. I get the disappearing keywords all the time for various undetermined reasons. That coupled with IS not reading my keyword data from my file is just plain inexcusable contributor relations. There's even a goofy thing going on with the categories disappearing sometimes.
If they didn't make me more money than the others they'd be just an unpleasant memory -- sort of like Lucky Oliver who at least got the uploading right.
512
« on: March 25, 2009, 09:51 »
Is this a new rejection for anyone?:
Reason: - There are misspelled words in the title, description and/or keywords of your image OR the info submitted is in a language other than English...
Example: File named "FerrisWheel" was rejected although all the spelling was correct in the description and keywords.
This could be a major problem for all who upload to DT with abbreviations or numbers in the file titles. I haven't heard back from DT support about this new wrinkle.
513
« on: March 23, 2009, 19:04 »
I quit uploading to FT almost a year ago because of their idiotic rejection ratio. I thought things may have changed since then so last week I uploaded 14 new images, all accepted and selling elsewhere. 11 were rejected for the same mostly vague reasons so many of us have been complaining about. I'm not accepting that kind of rejection so I guess I'll wait another year and try again. It probably won't matter much because their commissions are so low I rarely even check the site except when close to payout amounts. I'll stay with the proven, and profitable, IS, SS, DT, and StkEXp.
514
« on: March 19, 2009, 11:55 »
Have him photograph two birds smiling and shaking claws in a business setting and you'll have a winner every time.
515
« on: March 12, 2009, 19:42 »
You mean you haven't gotten the third email yet with the $5,000 signing bonus?
516
« on: March 12, 2009, 00:35 »
I got the same email pitch. Deleted quickly. Won't waste any more time on wanna-bees.
517
« on: March 03, 2009, 18:34 »
Every penny made is declared. Always. Once you enter the murky tax world of "gray areas" think "red flag". I speak from experience -- having my phone number permanently on the IRS's direct dial system.
518
« on: February 21, 2009, 12:17 »
Sometimes reviewers get completely out of hand. Months ago FT was rejecting almost everything many excellent shooters were uploading. The input here was so overwhelmingly negative on FT I decided not to upload there for awhile. Maybe in a few more months I'll get around to uploading a few hundred new ones there that have been accepted elsewhere and selling well.
It doesn't bother me much to get the occasional rejection (lie #1). But I decided not to butt my head into the wall needlessly.
519
« on: February 21, 2009, 11:44 »
If I really, really wanted to drive myself nuts I'd set out to understand why a given image is rejected. As if there is some underlying logic involved. Nope. None. After 5 years in this business I can honestly say I have no idea why an image would be accepted at one site, rejected at others. Just too many variables. I'd rather set up another shoot than rack my brain figuring out the inconsistencies involved. So instead of wasting my time pondering I decided long ago that any reviewer who rejected an image of mine was drunk and probably having a better time than I was.
520
« on: February 12, 2009, 12:40 »
Even my relatives offer some payment. Rosie is looking for a freebie, that's all. She probably has a dozen similar emails out there. First fish to bite gets to be taken advantage of. The credit line is just the worm on the hook.
521
« on: February 06, 2009, 18:02 »
Aaron,
Good info. My comments underline the necessity of better information to the contributors right off the bat. Nobody is looking for secret info here, just a clear and logical explanation of what's to become of our images. The first emails were woefully short in that department. You made up for much of that in your comments above. Nobody here (I hope) wishes your venture ill. I really, really, hope for the best this time around. We've had so much hype and disappointment the last few years my trigger finger is real twitchy.
522
« on: February 06, 2009, 15:56 »
The more I think about this deal the less impressed I am with it. Here's a company with no micro experience buying a train wreck of a company with weak technology and impotent marketing experience.
My best guess is that they bought it for next to nothing except agreeing to keep Brian for some specified length of time as a somewhat familiar persona to the micro world. Sort of like when a company keeps the acquired company's sales manager until they pick his brains.
The sale to Veer also masks the loss of face Corbis would have in simply folding SV.
So again we are offered a bunch of promises in hopes we will keep our images with SV until whenever.
I place the success of this venture about equal to Yay's.
It's not "wait and see" time. It's "show me the money" time.
523
« on: February 05, 2009, 16:14 »
Brian, your words are scary:
"...Marketplace team..."
[ Different from Veer staff? Inspectors? Advertising/Promotion department? Senior officers? You? ]
"...sourcing content from SnapVillage..."
[ Transferring all images from SV? Inviting select contributors? Requiring contributor work to adapt to Veer? Requiring contributor permission to transfer? ]
"...ingest mechanism..."
[ Wha???]
"...upload tools will be much better..."
[ Solid FTP? Limit of 6 images at a time? 7? Don't know, but hoping? Similar to what other site? ]
Brian, if you are some kind of spokesperson for Veer, please speak plainly.
524
« on: February 05, 2009, 11:55 »
I'm glad that Brian found a new job. Seems most folks like him.
Yes, Bill unloaded that turkey.
Time will tell if all our images will be transferred seamlessly. For me I'll spend zero time to transfer. I'm treating Veer just as I would any other new micro site: 100% wait and see what results their marketing can yield. But doing any more than peeking at sales results of existing images that are now with SV? Nope. Too many promises, hype, undue enthusiasm, and bald lies have come before. Til then, good luck to all. But I'm not holding my breath.
525
« on: February 03, 2009, 16:53 »
The only thing I believe is the histogram.
Pages: 1 ... 16 17 18 19 20 [21] 22 23 24 25 26 ... 31
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
