|
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 - gostwyck
5076
« on: February 20, 2009, 12:07 »
There's an elephant in the room.
Tom
You're telling me! I for one am completely confused about these guarantees, TOS, etc, of which you speak. It seems to me that the only people not being offered any sort of guarantee are the contributors themselves __ even on how much they are to be paid. Just like that elephant __ this is not going to fly either.
5077
« on: February 20, 2009, 10:59 »
Just got paid (2 hours ago) one dated from the 12th.
5078
« on: February 20, 2009, 06:27 »
why don't we see this at Dreamstime ?
Maybe it's got something to do with the fact that sales at DT are actually increasing __ but at a snail's pace compared to FT? I'm not doing microstock to be fawned over, 'valued' and 'appreciated'. I'm doing it for the money. Forget all the niceties __ just stick it in my hand guv'nor.
5079
« on: February 20, 2009, 05:29 »
For Saphire contributors on FT I Just went down 5% in commission. From 45 to 40. That will hurt my income for sure. No doubt. I am thinking about this today and I will comment it more in details when I have receive reply from Oleg.
Your ranking is Ruby not Saphire surely? I understand your concern but, even at 40%, FT are still paying double the % you receive from IS. Is it still the case that FT are your highest earning site?
5080
« on: February 19, 2009, 21:30 »
I like SPX................but ............sales are really dropping........and turning off the subs will make them drop more.....but I am just soooooooooooo tired of giving my photos away for .30 I'm just not going to do it anymore....not unless I get huge volumes or a fair amount of regular sales to make up for it.
Tell me about it! I've already stopped uploading there until the situation is clearer. I'm off on holiday/travelling during March and after that I'll make a decision whether to opt out of subs or just exit StockXpert completely. I'm just very uncomfortable regarding the all the signals we've been getting ever since young Paddy's cack-handed intervention on behalf of JIU and Photos.com. I simply get the impression she really couldn't give two sh1ts about all the contributors as long as she gets her next promotion, etc.
5081
« on: February 19, 2009, 17:40 »
IS commissions are indeed lower, but they have been the same since I signed up with them, so I was aware of this. All IS changes in pricing were positive, they never paid us less. They let us opt out any subs in any image, and subs packages are not absurdly low cost as in FT (which is, if I am not wrong, the cheapest).
FT however is constantly making changes that are negative to us - subscriptions, no opt-out option, new rank limits, and now lower commissions. They abuse of the right of changing the contract with us, IMHO.
Indeed, XS in IS may pay us only 19c vs at least 30c in FT, but I don't get in FT the higher commissions I get in IS (US$2.76 in one this month, and even in the new price plan FT won't pay us that for a XL image).
I used to like FT a lot, but their latest moves were very disappointing. It is still an excellent earner for me (and it's ahead of IS so far this month), still I don't like the way it is managed.
Regards,
Adelaide
Good points but of course IS's greatest strength are their exclusive contributors. They more or less have to treat them with kid-gloves in case they induce a mass exodus and a gift to the competition. As long as FT continues to grow my portfolio's income by 90%+ per year, as they have done for the last couple of years, then they have my confidence. I think it's fairly obvious that up to now FT have run a pretty lean and mean ship. For instance there's not much evidence of income being wasted wholesale on millions of trivial 'innovations' that add nothing of value to the site __ like some places I could think of.
5082
« on: February 19, 2009, 10:40 »
iStock seriously needs to chill out. They are becoming the * of microstock, looking to silence any and all opposition. So a few people are disgruntled about their policies. So what? It was bound to happen the bigger and more corporate they become. But it looks really, really bad when their admins come onto other forums and personally attack their contributors and buyers.
Seriously, WTH is going on over there with their culture and their business? It's like they've become wild animals, attacking out of desperation.
Sorry but this is absurd. Calling IS *? You must read a completely different set of forums to me because I see plenty of dissent and disagreement that is almost invariably allowed to run its course. You've obviously never tried the FT forum. I doubt very much that you have any evidence that "... their admins come onto other forums and personally attack their contributors and buyers." This thread has descended into ridiculous hysterical nonsense.
5083
« on: February 19, 2009, 06:42 »
I put my 3 best earners because in overall satisfaction the earnings are what count the most to me. If it was a case of which site do I like the most then DT would be up at the top but although I think they are the fairest site they just don't make me as much money as the other 3.
Exactly my thoughts too.
5084
« on: February 19, 2009, 06:27 »
The law of supply and demand is pretty iron clad in competitive markets and Microstock is a near perfect competitive market (i.e. easy entry, many sellers, many buyers, etc.) That being the case the 20% rise in the price of images will result in a 20% decline in demand for images and total revenue from the sale of images will remain the same. The important change for contributors is that the lowered commission means that a smaller proportion of the total revenue will be going to the contributors.
Total demand - the number of images needed in the market - will continue to increase and revenues will increase with that demand but the price increase will mean that Fotolia sales will not increase as fast as the demand for images increases. Increases in the supply of images constrains the ability of MS sites to increase prices without losing market share.
FT can make up for some of this with marketing but in the end I think contributors will be lucky to break even with the changes.
fred
I don't think that the market is anything like as predictable as you suggest. If it were then IS should have lost much more market-share than it has because it is so much more expensive than the competition. The market is clearly segmented with buyers having different preferences and priorities. From a contributor's point of view the details such as the % commission, etc are largely irrelevant. I have a portfolio of about 3000 images and all that really matters to me is how much it makes each month with each agency. I like agencies that make me a lot of money. IS is the obvious example. They have always paid the lowest commission to independent contributors and yet they have always made me the most money. It does suggest that all this marketing malarkey does make a huge difference and that paying higher royalties at the cost of effective marketing/admin may indeed be false economy. If FT believe they need to invest further in marketing and admin then I for one have considerable faith in their judgement based on their record of success to date. I've been extremely disappointed initially at what seems to be continual eroding of contributors' payouts but the overall effect, at least for me, has invariably been consistent growth in earnings. I'm looking forward to the future at FT.
5085
« on: February 18, 2009, 18:53 »
This is a serious question...Why is it that the most negative, angry...borderline mean people not just here, but on all online forums have usernames that are anonymous and refuse to sign their posts?
I'd imagine it is because most of them are all to aware that places like Fotolia don't support freedom of speech, and many folks that read these forums are either management, reviewers or hold other non-paid posistions on sites which gives them the power to be vindictive to those that criticise their beloved agency. By posting as anonymous it gives people the ability to say how they feel without any recourse.
It didn't do Bobby Deal much good did it Mat? Surprising that you couldn't work that one out all by yourself.
5086
« on: February 18, 2009, 12:41 »
I can scarcely believe what they're doing here. I'm gutted.
Last November I was extremely disappointed to have Emerald status snatched from my grasp for at least another couple of years __ and now this.
There's no way I'm selling EL's for 36% of 20 credits and it looks like all my exclusive images will be going back up to the other sites too. It was only the significant increase in commission that made it economically practical.
5087
« on: February 18, 2009, 11:10 »
Just received the email __ here it is in English;
# FEB 2009
UNSOLD FILES AND EXCLUSIVITY: WHAT WILL CHANGE?
Dear members,
Fotolia has recently reached the amazing number of 5 million images online, and soon, there will be more than 1 million members using the Fotolia website worldwide. This success is due to the wonderful talent of our contributors, who have placed their trust in us for over 4 years now.
In order for us to prepare for the future and continue offering our contributors more revenue, we plan to make two major changes, first plans to help monetize unsold files and second changes in exclusivity conditions.
The following information will outline all of these changes.
UNSOLD FILES MANAGEMENT
Many of you have within your portfolio files that have not sold in the last 24 months. Fotolia now offers you the ability to generate revenue with those unsold files, by adding them to the Free Images API.
If you have files that have not sold during the last 24 months, you can decide to offer them to the Free Images API and receive 0.5 credits for each file submitted. Of course, your files will remain on the Fotolia website and may be sold at any time, but they will also be offered for free via the Free Images API.
Offer Conditions
For each unsold file added to the Free Images API, the contributor receives 0.5 credits to their Fotolia account.
A file added to this Free Images API will still remain on the Fotolia website and may be sold at any time.
When an unsold file is added to this Free Images API, the contributor can not remove the file from this section for at least 18 months.
Files from the Fotolia Free files API will be distributed through partners sites using the Fotolia free site API as well as the Fotolia free files section
After 18 months, the contributor will have the ability to remove this file from the Free Images API if they so choose.
Procedure
Files which may be added to this Free Images API will be displayed in the Member home > My files > Unsold files section.
You just have to decide which files you wish to add to the Free Images API. Upon submission to the Free Images API your credits will be immediately added to your Fotolia account.
PRICES, EXCLUSIVITY AND COMMISSIONS
In March, we plan to increase the prices for the M license to 4 credits. According to our estimations, this price increase should allow our contributors to generate 20% more revenue.
However, in order to grow in terms of marketing, human resources and technology, Fotolia is reducing commissions by 3%.
Nevertheless, Fotolia will remain the best paying microstock site with commissions between 30% and 61% depending on the level of exclusivity. (see charts below).
It is also planned to modify the exclusivity and commission conditions for photos and illustrations. This modification is necessary to allow Fotolia to remain competitive and equitable towards our most faithful members.
Thus there are now three types of exclusivity within Fotolia, Non exclusive, Partially exclusive, and Totally exclusive.
Type of exclusivity Contributor's files Exclusive files benefits
Non exclusivity Only non exclusive files in portfolio -
Partial exclusivity Partly Exclusive and Partly non exclusive files in portfolio Ability to raise prices for exclusive files
Non exclusive commissions
Total exclusivity Photographer is 100% exclusive with Fotolia Ability to raise prices
Exclusive commissions
Maximum Price for files with total exclusivity
Commission (%)
White 47 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 20
Bronze 49 2 4 8 10 12 14 16 50
Silver 51 3 6 12 15 18 21 24 100
Gold 53 4 8 16 20 24 28 32 150
Emerald 55 5 10 20 25 30 35 40 200
Sapphire 57 6 12 24 30 36 42 48 200
Rubis 59 7 14 28 35 42 49 56 200
Diamond 61 10 20 40 50 60 70 80 200
Maximum Price for exclusive files with partial exclusivity
Commission (%)
White 30 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 20
Bronze 32 2 4 8 10 12 14 16 50
Silver 34 3 6 12 15 18 21 24 100
Gold 36 4 8 16 20 24 28 32 150
Emerald 38 5 10 20 25 30 35 40 200
Sapphire 40 6 12 24 30 36 42 48 200
Rubis 42 7 14 28 35 42 49 56 200
Diamond 44 10 20 40 50 60 70 80 200
Maximum Price for non exclusive files
Commission (%)
White 30 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 20
Bronze 32 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 20
Silver 34 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 20
Gold 36 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 20
Emerald 38 2 4 8 10 12 14 16 200
Sapphire 40 3 6 12 15 18 21 24 200
Rubis 42 4 8 16 20 24 28 32 200
Diamond 44 5 10 20 25 30 35 40 200
5088
« on: February 18, 2009, 10:24 »
no one can make a living doing this. Anyone who thinks they can is wasting their time. Especially starting from scratch now.
Nothing to see here, move along.
... is the right answer.
5089
« on: February 18, 2009, 07:09 »
Sales have been surging for me on IS this month. Already a BDE and well on target for a BME.
The main difference appears to be that with the changes to the best match I now have most of my portfolio working for me instead of just the images I uploaded in the last 4-6 months (as happened with previous best match's).
5090
« on: February 17, 2009, 23:28 »
I don't think these stock companies really know, themselves, what they want. It's a new business and an unstable one - ok let's say "evolving"- and what they want probably changes from month to month.
Collectively these companies have a sort of jaded rich kid personality - they already have everything they actually need, but they want more, but not the same stuff, or maybe the same but better, or maybe something completely different. I'm sure the people running these companies aren't really like that, but that's how it seems from the outside.
No sorry, I wouldn't agree __ that just indicates to me that you don't understand enough about the business to appreciate what they are looking for. The fact that you say "nothing I do sells" rather comfirms that and also that the agencies understand their buyers' needs too. Three or four years ago you really could upload pretty much anything, had a fair chance of it being accepted and it would almost certainly be bought by someone at least a few times. With something like 50-100x more images on-line now it just happens to be a lot more competitive than it was __ and it's only going to get tougher, much tougher, in the future. If you can't hack the pace now then don't hold your breath in expectation of it getting easier any time soon. It won't.
5091
« on: February 17, 2009, 14:05 »
I'm sorry but the questions don't quite make sense to me. The last one in particular seem to contradict itself.
Maybe it would be better to phrase it "How do you feel about the future of StockXpert?"
with the options of;
a) Extremely Positive
b) Slightly Positive
c) Neutral/waiting
d) Slightly Negative
e) Extremely Negative
You could ask a second question too querying whether the contributor is continuing to upload, suspended new uploads or intends to remove portfolio.
5092
« on: February 17, 2009, 13:56 »
They look to be good, stock-worthy images to me in what is a notoriously difficult subject to capture. I'd be tempted upload them individually later as you may have had a dodgy review.
I'd also consider a tighter crop as that may make it easier to see the actual subject matter from thumbnail size. I suspect the 2nd image in particular will do quite well if you can get it accepted.
5093
« on: February 16, 2009, 19:06 »
I started out by saying I'm "not expecting to make any money." Much less a "living".
As Henry Ford used to say "If you think you can do a thing or think you can't do a thing, you're right."
5094
« on: February 16, 2009, 17:37 »
I recently decided to give microstock a try, just for the heck of it - not expecting make any money. I got approved by Shutterstock and IStock, and put about 20 photos on those sites, along with Dreamstime and StockXpert.
As surprising as it might seem people sometimes find that they need more than "about 20 photos" to make a living at this.
5095
« on: February 16, 2009, 12:59 »
On most sites newly-approved images enjoy a relatively brief period in the limelight, towards the top of the default search-order, although how this is actually achieved varies somewhat between them.
If the image 'takes off' and gathers at few early sales then it will normally remain favoured within the search order for as long as it does so (relative to the sales of other images in the same subject).
It's not easy though. An image will need to be amongst the very best in it's subject matter to remain in the top couple of pages for a sustained period. It will need to be within the top 50-100 examples in a search that might bring up thousands of results.
Most images by most contributors will fall by the wayside fairly quickly __ you'll likely find that 80% of your earnings will be due to 10% of your portfolio. If only we knew which 10% that was going to be then we could all save a lot of time.
5096
« on: February 16, 2009, 11:14 »
We need, all together some kind of campaign on Fotolia to change this injustice... 
Personally I tend to regard the US $ as the 'default' currency being as all the other agencies that I'm with use it exclusively. To give FT credit when I started submitting to them in March 2006 the exchange rate between the and the $ was 1.75 and the worth of a credit was 57p (exactly in line with the prevailing exchange rate). Even though the exchange rate later rose to over 2 $'s to the , if I remember correctly, FT did not modify their payout levels although it must have been costing them plenty. The has recently plummeted against both the $ and the Euro but FT are still paying out at 60p per credit, an adjustment but much smaller than the actual movement in the exchange rates. FT are also consistently demonstrating by far the most growth of any other agency, at least for me anyway. This month's earnings are projected to be 92% higher than Feb 08 (which itself was 95% higher than Feb 07). I'm at Gold level too so I haven't had the benefit of increasing my prices either. I can put up with minor exchange rate issues for any agency that maintains that sort of growth in earnings. Over the last two years FT have gone from generating 9.5% of my earnings to 18.5% this month.
5097
« on: February 14, 2009, 21:01 »
D
5098
« on: February 14, 2009, 20:46 »
D
5099
« on: February 13, 2009, 22:01 »
A little addition...
If you're shooting JPG's, stop doing that... Change to RAW (NEF). That way you'll get a completely unedited file from the camera. Edit everything in 16bit and convert to 8bit just before saving in JPG. NO Compression in the save as jpg box...
Regardless what anyone might tell you, RAW format is the only right way of producing real high quality files. They simply contains so much more information's, compared to the JPG. The JPG will typically be "processed" quite a bit by the camera... This does not happen when using RAW - In your case - NEF.
/ Flemming
Really? Thanks for that. I sell 4-5K licenses per month, all shot JPEG. Maybe I'm just lucky or something. How many more do you reckon I'd sell if I shot RAW, taking into account all that extra processing time, which therefore would mean fewer images in my portfolio? Oh, and I get virtually no rejections (except from the anti-independent freak inspectors at IS) Get it right in-camera and you don't need to fanny about with all that RAW nonsense. Fact.
5100
« on: February 13, 2009, 17:22 »
I presume so. We don't appear to have much choice about it if we want to get paid.
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
