|
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 - epixx
Pages: 1 ... 17 18 19 20 21 [22] 23 24 25 26 27 ... 47
526
« on: February 09, 2008, 07:45 »
I sent a mail to support, inquiring about their payment routines. Their answer was "We try to pay out every 1 week". Obviously, they don't succeed at that, and I wonder why on earth they can't. I mean: it's as simple as running a relatively automated routine every Monday or Tuesday or whateverday.
Since I try to coordinate all money requests towards the end of the month, and I assume that many others do that as well, having to wait for one agency to pay, more often than not, is extremely annoying.
Oh well, I'll just have to continue nagging them. If more people would do that, maybe they find the strength to improve their routines.
527
« on: February 09, 2008, 07:36 »
While I agree that heavy marketing is needed for fast growth, not all agencies have the money needed for that. Some never take off, some take off, only to crash later, but with FP, I've seen a slow but steady positive development over time. There's no guarantee that they will survive, but since they represent a positive element within the stock photo market, I'll continue uploading there until I see that it's clearly going the wrong way.
Their biggest strength is probably the fact that they accept a much wider variety of photos than most agencies. For IS and SS, it's not a big problem that they reject half of what they are offered, since they have such a large number of photos on file anyway. FP's strength in the competition against giants like that, is to offer photos that are not available elsewhere.
I too sell photos at FP that have sold well at other agencies, but I also sell photos there that have not been accepted anywhere but FP, not for technical reasons, but for the "we don't think this is a good stock photo" reason.
Buyers have very varied needs, and surprisingly often, I (when I'm a buyer) can't find what I'm looking for anywhere. That obviously makes FP an interesting option. If I know about it. So, I send my customers to FP if they ask where to find photos. They don't always find it there, but it's better than finding the same photos that they don't need, at 5 different agencies.
The customers need alternatives. Although McDonald's dominate the hamburger market, there are others making a healthy living from selling hamburgers as well, only on a smaller scale.
528
« on: February 09, 2008, 01:38 »
In my brain, there's a thing that say: Flickr is going to make available some pictures for selling?. Probably a kind of bizarre rumor, but I must heard or see something... Anybody see that also?
That has been the rumour for a long time, but it would require some serious restructuring. Another side of that is, that I believe there is a clause in their contract that make all photos uploaded available for use by the owners of Flickr without charge. Please correct me if I'm wrong. There was a case in Germany, must have been around a year ago, about a magazine that used photos from Flickr, many of them, without paying a dime. If I remember correctly, the article was about Flickr, but that doesn't change anything.
529
« on: February 09, 2008, 01:34 »
I joined 2 weeks ago.
40 sales with 273 images on line
Are those subscriptions or regular sales?
530
« on: February 09, 2008, 01:33 »
Sorry folks, but I'll say it again - there ain't gonna be no progress at Featurepics while they pay 70% commission and retain only 30% for themselves. By the time they've paid running costs there ain't no dosh left for advertising, marketing or promotional activities.
A dead parrot is always a dead parrot, and unless contributors start to realise that LOWER commission plus increased marketing equals better sales and more money, this parrot will remain dead.
Give me 20% at iStock and 2.7 million customers, or 30c at Shutterstock and 70 or 80 downloads a day. But FP? Sorry - doesn't make the slightest bit of business sense.
I've been saying the same thing for over a year. 70% on photos with low prices just doesn't make sense, unless FP is actually expecting us to self-promote. I've thought for a long time that their biggest mistake was not setting a minimum price that could justify and withstand 70%. How do they expect to make enough profit to afford marketing when the majority of the images are priced at micro prices?
That's a valid question. I believe many photographers set their prices low at FP because the 70% will give a "decent" pay anyway. In reality, it doesn't make sense, neither for the photographer nor for FP. If a customer has found a photo at FP, the fact that it costs the same there as it would have cost at IS or DT won't make him not buy it. A minimum price of at least $5, but preferably $10, would work much better.
531
« on: February 08, 2008, 21:40 »
I think that it's important to remember that, even if a place like SS brings in much more money, a $10 sale at FP, generating a $7 profit, would still only generate $0.30 at SS. As long as I can have it both ways, volume at SS and higher profit per image at FP, I'll say: Yes please, I'll take both.
532
« on: February 08, 2008, 19:47 »
Sorry folks, but I'll say it again - there ain't gonna be no progress at Featurepics while they pay 70% commission and retain only 30% for themselves. By the time they've paid running costs there ain't no dosh left for advertising, marketing or promotional activities.
A dead parrot is always a dead parrot, and unless contributors start to realise that LOWER commission plus increased marketing equals better sales and more money, this parrot will remain dead.
Give me 20% at iStock and 2.7 million customers, or 30c at Shutterstock and 70 or 80 downloads a day. But FP? Sorry - doesn't make the slightest bit of business sense.
As long as they're alive, and sales are increasing, I disagree strongly. Traditionally, stock agencies have always paid around 70%, and anything less than 50% is really a rip-off. All the advertising done by IS and SS is very good for them and for their profit, but as long as that advertising gives them more momentum towards microstock agencies that pay more per image, we are the ones losing money on the advertising. Advertising won't make designers buy more photos, since they only buy what they need, but it will make them try those agencies who advertises the most, diverting money into the pockets of IS and whoever makes their advertising.
533
« on: February 08, 2008, 19:41 »
Crazy, huh?  I've actually done better at Image Vortex $$$ wise with a mere 38 photos online in 6 months than I have at FP with 1500 photos in 2 years. Oh well...my decision to leave FP will benefit everyone else who is sticking it out.
Amazing. I've had 60+ photos at Imagevortex for over two years, and haven't sold a single one, while sales are ticking happily along at FP. 2006 was extremely slow, 2007 was slow and now I'm seeing a very positive development. I think it's important to point out, that in this business, if we don't include SS, time is on our side. Designers visit a portfolio, looking for an image, doesn't necessarily find it, but like s other things, and 6 months later, he may come back to buy an image that he saw the first time. Writing off an agency after a year may be to early. I stop uploading after a year if I see no results, but I keep my portfolio there for at least another year, unless there are important reasons to remove it, just to see if there's any development. It doesn't cost me a dime, so why not.
534
« on: February 08, 2008, 19:34 »
epixx, have you sold any there at macro prices? I have some RM images on alamy but haven't uploaded them to FP.
No, not yet, but the average price of the photos sold is going up, as well as the sales volume.
535
« on: February 08, 2008, 19:32 »
Also looks like IS handled the situation well while Flickr handled it very poorly.
You've seen nothing yet. Just wait until Microsoft takes over. I think I'll stay out of there, just in case that happens.
536
« on: February 08, 2008, 19:24 »
So far this year, my total sales are around 80% over the same period last year. One of very few exceptions is StockXpert, which is sinking at an alarming rate. If they have convinced a lot of customers to go for subscriptions, that may be one of the reasons. I've opted out of that one, and if that is really the case, they may as well die a sudden death if you ask me. Their reviewers seem to have done just that btw. I haven't had an image reviewed there in many weeks. Did they forget to feed them?Correction: suddenly, they have reviewed all my images. They even approved a couple of them 
537
« on: February 08, 2008, 08:00 »
FP is increasing for me, but slowly. I upload micro images at micro prices there and macro images at macro prices. That's convenient, since it's the only place where I can have all my images.
538
« on: February 07, 2008, 20:27 »
... is that, although downloads don't appear as often as at other places, they pay well when they come. Like today, I sold a $7 photo, generating $4.90 for me. And to make it even better, it was a photo that was found "not stockworthy" at all other agencies.
539
« on: February 07, 2008, 20:15 »
This is the one you want:  It's Fuji's new, collapsible 6x7 prototype. Very nice if you have big pockets Seriously though: the G9 is obviously good, the Nikon P5100 likewise although slower (I believe they have the same Sony sensor) but more pocketable and with possibly even better manual control. My favourite has always been the Canon 650IS and it's predecessors. It's a bit bulky, but has an articulated LCD which makes it easier to take photos from awkward positions as well as protecting the screen by turning it inwards. It uses AAs, which can sometimes be a big help. Sensor and lens of the 650 is the same as on the G9, but there's no RAW and manual control is mostly menu driven. If you have a lot of money and even more patience, take a look at the Sigma DP1. I'm sure it will be a great camera.... some time 
540
« on: February 07, 2008, 19:46 »
But, I don't understand exactly. Editorial is for using in some magasine or newspaper a thing like this? How can they pay just 1 or 2 credit like in royalty free and what use can they make whit 1 or 2 credits?
I'm lost...
I'm lost as well. Is it 1 or to credits or is it $5? Does anybody have a link to a place that says something about payment for this?
541
« on: February 07, 2008, 19:28 »
I just think its funny how a new site pops up selling images for $1 and we jump to "thats too low" and "micro stock needs to move higher". 5 years ago, weren't we hearing the same thing?
Thats it. Just humoring how our tables have turned.
No, the table hasn't turned. We've just turned wiser. Most of us has discovered that it doesn't matter much for most customers if an image costs $1 or $10, since it's small change anyway. It does however matter if it costs $10 or $100, since $100 is not small change. There's nothing wrong in wanting to make ten times as much on each download, as long as it doesn't influence the volume.
542
« on: February 07, 2008, 19:09 »
I'm annoyed, so I resurrect this old thread.
The payment routines at FT are annoying to such a degree that I suggest everybody who have to wait more than 5 days for payment, write a mail to support.
I suppose I'm not the only one who try to synchronise payments from all agencies around the same time of the month to reduce banking fees etc.. I've made a rule of always requesting payment from Fotolia first, since their reputation isn't very good in this area. Still, I usually end up waiting for the money from them before I can get access to my money.
It wouldn't have been such a big problem if this was predictable, but it isn't, and the actual routine is, as far as I have seen, not published on their website.
Currently, I'm on my 9th day of waiting. There's no reason why we should have to wait that long for an electronic money transfer.
543
« on: February 07, 2008, 03:56 »
So I guess I'll try again in about 10-15 minutes. Do you know which other companies also accept editorial?
Thanks,
Connie
Shutterstock, Featurepics and Scanstock. Alamy also obviously, but that's macrostock.
544
« on: February 07, 2008, 03:46 »
I believe midstock will become the new macrostock, while macrostock will develop into premium stock, RM only. Inthat way, mostphotos makes sense.
545
« on: February 07, 2008, 03:44 »
They are a couple of years too late. $5 I would have considered, but $10 is better. The photos sell anyway.
546
« on: February 07, 2008, 03:42 »
504
-----
18343
547
« on: February 07, 2008, 03:40 »
My mistake it must be the size of my pics I was uploading 5 MP and it is 6MP minimum that's why it probably did not work
L
I've run into the 6MP barrier as well a couple of times. No cropping allowed. I need a new camera
Ok, but you can do such things with a batch automatically....
Why not cropping? Nobody will see it if you do it right. I do interpolation with Photoshop +30-40% and there are never artefacts or other visible photo-errors...
I agree, but I have too many versions of each photo already. It's easier to upload what is already large enough.
Why not using a batch? Thats very easy
Updated my routines and uploading batch. Works great. A bit slow though.
548
« on: February 06, 2008, 06:56 »
Ah... I didn't notice that this was about SS. Increase from last year at SS only 15% so far in February. But totally, I'm doing well. First six days of February are 65% above last year. IS, DT and FT are increasing the most. StockXpert looks completely dead.
549
« on: February 06, 2008, 06:55 »
Whatever they do, it will need to have 20MP or more. Sony will most probably put their 24MP sensor in the 5D competitor, and although there won't be hordes of photographers changing to Sony, not much is needed for studio work. Just a body and a couple of good lenses, like a 100 macro and a 24-70 zoom.
Another interesting alternative is the Pentax K20D. 14MP and very good image quality, also at high ISO. Their lenses aren't bad either. And the price? $1,300 for the body. The Samsung version will be even cheaper.
550
« on: February 04, 2008, 00:19 »
Oh ... by the way ... how many images are on other sites that have never been approved by the likes of IS or Shutterstock ?
This is a very important point: if a buyer finds a photo at FP that hasn't been approved anywhere else, and if that is the exact photo that he needs, he'll pay more. The fact that a photo has been rejected be SS and IS doesn't mean that it's any point selling it cheaper at FP.
Pages: 1 ... 17 18 19 20 21 [22] 23 24 25 26 27 ... 47
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
