|
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 - Bateleur
Pages: 1 ... 17 18 19 20 21 [22] 23 24 25 26 27 ... 35
526
« on: August 03, 2007, 03:00 »
The thumbnails are there in my 'Online files' page, but when I try to look at any one image it doesn't show. All the data shows fine down the right-hand side, but no image. Then, if I try to look at images when not logged in, they appear, but overlaying a lot of the text on the page ... creating a mess. This is probably gonna hit sales 
527
« on: July 30, 2007, 02:19 »
I've just done a 'quick and dirty' analysis on my iS portfolio comparing ratings with downloads ...
For my 10 highest rated images
Average rating = 5
Average number of people rating each image = 8
Average Downloads per month = 1.2
For my 10 best-selling images (in Dl/Mo)
Average rating = 2.5
Average number of people rating each image = 2.1
Average Downloads per month = 6.2
For 10 randomly-selected images
Average rating = 2.5
Average number of people rating each image = 1.2
Average Downloads per month = 0.7
Seems to show that ratings have a small effect on sales but won't push an image into the best-seller category.
528
« on: July 30, 2007, 02:00 »
His average royalty across the sites for this image is over $.70 (including EL's), which means he needs 10000 downloads to break even. Considering that there are probably 100 images in the set, they each need about 100 downloads. Given that he is putting them on multiple sites, he won't be uploading 27 model releases, and he's got a 3-5 year outlook, those images will net him some $$$.
Do a search on rock concert across all the sites- good images, but not as marketable as the ones he has created. He's a pretty smart fellow.
Okay ... thanks for the explanation Bryan. I assumed that this was something special as your average microstocker doesn't go to quite those lengths to get an image. And I assumed that, with that budget, he didn't take just one picture. But the economics of it still didn't make sense to me.
529
« on: July 29, 2007, 10:44 »
But, cmon, its a name! How would it be different from a union?
I tried to give an indication of that in my post without going into unnecessary detail. Of course, it's not hard and fast but, in general unions are better suited to wage-earning employment where there are workers and management (and, incidentally, not all unions are "socialism, corruption, and bearded old men"). Usually it is only necessary to work in a certain trade to be a member of a union. Sometimes it is obligatory to be a member in order to practice a trade ('closed shop') On the other hand, professional associations tend to be better suited to areas where people work independently - medical, law, creative, etc. They set standards, usually have some sort of joining requirement (skills, experience, qualifications, whatever) and they protect the interests of their members in different ways.
530
« on: July 29, 2007, 10:28 »
Today's 'best image' at Crestock has the following information with it ...
27 Models with model releases, three make-up artists, two backup photographers, two producers, one runner, one very friendly discotheque owner, bartenders, free drinks, 35 burgers with fries, 6 hours of work and a $7000 budget. Say hallo to the biggest model released shoot in microstock!Hallo  at 25c a pop that's going to need 28000 downloads to break even. Nice one.
531
« on: July 28, 2007, 11:06 »
I'm not so sure that we need a 'union' as such. Instead, maybe we should be thinking of a professional association that represents our voice.
Unions have a bad name in some parts of the world, due to corruption and graft, and that might put a lot of people off. Also, unions (when they do work as they should) are more suited to organised industries, mining, manufacturing, commerce, etc. with workers on the company payroll.
The microstock business is a very loose collection of individual and independent artists (in the broadest sense of the term) from hobbyists who do it to earn a little pin money to professionals who make a living out of it.
I think that a professional association would be much more suited to our needs and, if established well, could wield as much clout, if not more, than a union.
532
« on: July 27, 2007, 10:42 »
At last! A good development from iS, and one that doesn't bring the whole system crashing down around our ears, assign weird keywords, or take months of extra work to sort out.  Mind you, not quite so good when I see my figure ... 66% Never mind. I take it as a call to do better.
533
« on: July 26, 2007, 07:15 »
Hmmmmm ... that seems very poor pay for what is, let's face it, quite a skilled job. (Or it should be skilled.)
And it must be mind-numbing too. I mean ... looking at all those pictures ...
534
« on: July 26, 2007, 02:10 »
Taken a brief glance at it ... from what I can see the quality of the photos is very variable, from reasonable to downright awful. It looks as if they apply no inspection procedures to the photos at all ...
Anyone can contribute images to our collection. Click on the "Upload Photos" link in the main navigation for a quick and easy way to upload your images. You can manage your images from the "My Photola" control panel. From there you can edit the image details, including the price. It is recommended that you add detailed descriptions and valid and useful keywords to each image you upload, to help people find the images they are looking for. Once uploaded you can start earning money straight away.... and from reading that it also appears that keywords and descriptions are optional too! Much as I hate the process of keywording, and inexplicable rejections from grumpy inspectors, they both have their place. 
535
« on: July 25, 2007, 01:28 »
No Limits - Unlimited uploads and 100% of sales
Just to do a little reality check ... The unlimited uploads for exclusives is only going to be over one weekend in the middle of the holiday period. And I'll bet the 100% royalty day turns out to be on a weekend too 
536
« on: July 21, 2007, 16:01 »
Wow ... yes. Interesting, and maybe worrying, that this thread has been dormant for a year.
I was just about to ask the same question myself. Do people track their images? And if so, how?
I track every image - not sales, that would be too much, but submission/acceptance/rejection - with a simple system. But it is a bit time consuming.
I give every image that I put up for sale a unique personal code based on a broad classification system (Architecture ... graphics ... animals ... plants ... etc.) and a number based on the date it was taken.
I track these with an Excel spreadsheet, a new one each year. Each year's spreadsheet has one worksheet per subject, and in each worksheet one row per image and one column per agency. I give an 'S' for submitted, 'A' for accepted and 'R' for rejected. This helps prevent double submissions, and allows me to see the good images (accepted by all) and the bum ones (rejected by all, or most).
537
« on: July 21, 2007, 15:41 »
... If you really want to make money in microstock as least in the short run, I suggest every photographer you can touch base with say NO. The biggest problem with photographers is they never work together on anything, therefore the Getty's of the world have 100% of the power. What other retail business do you know where the distributor gets to put his product on the shelf for free. Photographers have more power than they think, if only they work togother and not against each other.
I agree wholeheartedly. iStock's actions seem to me to be born from worry. They see other existing microstock companies growing as fast, if not faster than themselves. They see new players coming on to the market all the time ... some of them (like Snapvillage) a major new threat. iStock was one of the first in this field and, naturally, they want to keep all the action for themselves. I don't blame them. So would I. What they are offering exclusive photographers seems, on the surface, to be wonderful. But in my opinion it is a 'poisoned chalice'. According to their terms, in theory, if you go exclusive with them you cannot submit any photographs anywhere else. Not even photos you don't have with them. How many people have photos that were rejected by iS but sell well with another company? You couldn't have those if you are exclusive. How many people earn as much, if not more from all the other companies combined than they do with iS? Not on if you're exclusive. How many people just love iStock's super-efficient uploading process. You're stuck with it if you're exclusive. And what about all those people who worked away to reach their 500 downloads so they could go exclusive only to find that, suddenly, people with half their number are offered the same terms. Do you think they're happy bunnies? Who knows ... next step may be that you are able to go exclusive with iS as soon as you're accepted. The fact that iStock are trying to increase the attractiveness of their exclusivity deal seems to show that they are worried about their supply. And that's good for us suppliers. My view is, as a photographer, we shouldn't put all our eggs in one basket. Keep our options open. After all, they're our images. And we are the foundation upon which this whole business rests. Don't forget ... no images ... no iStock.
538
« on: July 19, 2007, 01:01 »
Bigstock's been slowly getting better and better for me over the past few months.
Now, on a income per photo basis, it's doing better than Dreamstime.
539
« on: July 19, 2007, 00:59 »
But not 2 million photographers ... thank heavens Does anyone know how many contributing members iStock has?
540
« on: July 18, 2007, 17:11 »
Don't you just hate it when your e-mail gets swamped with sales notifications from Crestock.
541
« on: July 18, 2007, 17:08 »
Yes, which is more than fair (in my opinion) as they help out with the minilypse.
Thank you. In my post I didn't suggest that it wasn't fair. I simply asked the question as I have considered going to one of these, and I didn't realise that there was this restriction. But ... now you mention it ... I'm (personally) beginning to wonder if it is fair. Don't you have to pay a fee to go to these stockalypses/minilypses?
542
« on: July 17, 2007, 15:24 »
The iStock minilypse that I went to recently was an excellent learning experience as well, and I got a bunch of shots to boot (that can only be sold on iStock)
Is that a regulation of their 'stockalypses' ... that you can only sell shots taken on them through iStock?
543
« on: July 11, 2007, 14:48 »
No wide-angle. That's amazing, with that curvature it looks like you got up really close with a WA lens.
Ah well ... you live and learn.
544
« on: July 11, 2007, 12:00 »
Congratulations! A great image, with good use of wide-angle. At a risk of being called nosy ... ... could I ask about how many downloads a day you're getting of this image to make it in to the top 50? I want to try and judge how far off it some of my images are.
545
« on: July 10, 2007, 03:30 »
Hmmmmm .... I was getting ready to submit some images.
But, listening to all this, I think I'll wait for a while. Hardly seems worth the effort at the moment.
546
« on: July 07, 2007, 13:52 »
I think this is a hangover from the iStock's great leap forward of a year and a bit ago. (Boy! And what an improvement! It was so amazingly cool you could see your breath on site. ) At that time, without warning anybody, they suddenly changed their whole keywording system into one using 'tags' instead of the keywords that the owner of any picture had entered. And, to get over the problem of all the existing images that had already been carefully (?) keyworded by the author, they set up an automated system to change those keywords into their new 'tags'. I'm not sure how intelligent the programmers who set up that circus were, but it gave rise to some bizarre results. I suffered along with many others. Several of my images ... a picture of a house ... three or four pictures of an older model I was using ... and some pictures of fruit ... all suddenly acquired the keyword 'anus'. We poor photogs were supposed to sort out the resulting mess by 'disambiguating' our images. Some of us are still doing it. (And isn't it fun.) I would guess the owners of the photographs that come up in this search haven't got around to disambiguating them yet.
547
« on: July 04, 2007, 08:36 »
548
« on: July 04, 2007, 04:17 »
Hmmm ... this sound suspiciously like a puff from the management/owner disguised as an independent recommendation.
Can you tell us your relationship with Zymmetrical, George? How do you know so much about the companies they work with, and their marketing strategy?
549
« on: July 04, 2007, 04:01 »
What with the troubles at IS and now FT, makes you pray that SS and DT don't do anything similar. As it is, I am having to re-think my business strategy as microstock is not the guaranteed income that I thought it was a year ago.
The only thing that doesn't change in this world are that things change What are the troubles at IS?
550
« on: July 04, 2007, 03:57 »
YAY! I changed my password and now I can log in.  Maybe my old one had something in it that the system didn't like. It started with a string of figures and I definitely wasn't typing them in wrong. I typed and re-typed them several times and I know them so well. Anyway, thanks again folks.
Pages: 1 ... 17 18 19 20 21 [22] 23 24 25 26 27 ... 35
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
