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 - sgoodwin4813
Pages: 1 ... 20 21 22 23 24 [25] 26 27 28 29 30 ... 55
601
« on: June 20, 2016, 16:53 »
I always keep the sales page open but it looks like it isn't showing up on the profile page any more - weird. I can still get there through https://www.canva.com/sales as it has kept me logged in. Maybe they are having site issues - could be why it seems to be slow there today. I hope the buyer side is up and sales will just get reported late.
602
« on: June 17, 2016, 14:08 »
Buyer side seems to be working fine in the USA
603
« on: June 15, 2016, 10:42 »
Same here in the USA
604
« on: June 15, 2016, 09:43 »
Contributor side down for me - haven't checked the buyer side.
605
« on: June 14, 2016, 14:33 »
Numbers are way down but I just had a $112 SOD so that was a nice surprise. At least those are still selling.
606
« on: June 13, 2016, 07:41 »
The e-mail when you submit now says it could take up to five business days. if you submitted Thursday then they have up to Wednesday to still be in the time they promise. I wouldn't worry about it unless it takes longer than that. They might have had an unusually large number of submissions, some reviewers may have quit and haven't yet been replaced, or maybe some reviewers decided to take a few days off. Taking more than a day or two is not a crisis, and is still a lot faster than most other agencies.
607
« on: June 10, 2016, 09:27 »
I used to get 2-3 a year but the last one was June of 2015. They are very rare on FT and used to get one every 300 DLs or so on SS but the last one was a very long time ago - none since they changed the rates. Too bad.
608
« on: June 07, 2016, 13:38 »
That makes sense. I always look at mine on the web site where it is clear. Glad to know that is sorted out.
609
« on: June 07, 2016, 06:44 »
I had 2 "on demand" sales last week, each for $5.40.
Are you sure it wasn't a total of $5.40? Two at $2.70 each = $5.40, which is what you would get at the 36-cents level. To the OP, could yours be two sales totaling $3.55? One each at $1.07 and $2.48 would give you an average of $1.77. If you all are misreading the results it would make more sense than different prices at SS - look at the image for each sale and see the price by it.
610
« on: June 06, 2016, 20:20 »
I haven't seen that one - no idea. However, $1.77 is halfway between the other two amounts so is unlikely to be random - maybe there is a new medium/large option?
611
« on: June 06, 2016, 06:34 »
I did it based on average monthly earnings - makes it easier to compare a full year with a part year. It was still over 50%. Ouch.
612
« on: May 25, 2016, 13:33 »
Out of my last 20 sales, 14 were regular subs, 2 were $2 subs and four were credits, so 80% subs. Out of the 20 before that all but one was a sub so 95%. The only good thing is that the subs advance the levels so you get more for the regular credit sales when they occur. It's a far cry from what it used to be, but 35 cents for a sub is still much better than what you get for them at BS, CS, DP, 123RF, FT (most of the time) and even SS until you advance a couple of levels. The idea at DT that buyers pay more credits for popular images that get downloaded a lot is good, rather than the same price regardless of popularity - too bad it doesn't seem to go well with buyers.
613
« on: May 25, 2016, 13:15 »
Much more likely people's slide is down to the increased competition, especially when you rank outside the top 1000, where a few sales here and there make all the difference.
That's probably it for many of us. If you are not seeing much difference then that is probably good overall. For me there has been a big drop the past 3-4 weeks, and I am mostly getting base-level subs rather than the higher-value ones that were coming before. My weekly rank has almost always been much lower than my overall rank since I started with them in 2009 but that changed about three weeks ago. Guess I'll have to start submitting again if I want to fight against the tide.
614
« on: May 22, 2016, 21:45 »
I think that's what I did too
615
« on: May 20, 2016, 13:22 »
We might be talking about different things. I am thinking about images used in a composition, where the composition sells many times and they pay for each use. For those the buyer paying ten bucks at first might be cheaper for them but less for us.
I didn't think about when you have 2-3 sales of the same image in a row - you're probably right that those might be used for the same design. If buyers pay ten bucks up front for multiple uses that might encourage them to do it - that is probably the target market and in that case it should be a big plus. Hopefully we will all see an effect soon.
616
« on: May 20, 2016, 08:23 »
I've had some sell far more than ten times so it could be negative if they only have to pay once. However, so far Canva has been very good about increasing sales and if this gets buyers to pay a little more up front in case they need it later it could be positive long term. Since the commission rate is the same it is in Canva's best interest to sell more as well so I am very hopeful that this will be positive for contributors. I also like that they are calling it "multiple use" rather than "royalty free" - that sounds much better.
They are planning to introduce ELs at some time in the future as well which would be another good step. Go Canva!
617
« on: May 20, 2016, 08:09 »
I guess I just dont know what to look for when checking my images.
That is definitely it - you will sort that out in time. As others said, it's impossible to know for certain without looking at 100%, but I could clearly see noise and posterization in the sky on a couple of those images even without it. Noise could maybe be fixed with a noise-reduction program, but it's better to avoid that if possible, especially on first submissions, and it might make posterization (the banding in the sky) worse. Once you get used to seeing noise and artifacts you will find them everywhere, but it may take a little while to train your eyes. Alamy is very tough about noise, fringing and other artifacts - I got nailed once because I forgot to correct purple fringing in one image of a batch and that is the one they looked at. Posterization is especially obvious and will never fly. Don't bother with low-light images for your initial four and be careful about posterization with blue skies. Good luck!
618
« on: May 20, 2016, 07:40 »
So far in 2016: 1. Shutterstock 2. Canva 3. Fotolia 4. 123rf 5. iStock
All time since 2009: 1. Shutterstock 2. iStock 3. Dreamstime 4. 123rf 5. Fotolia
619
« on: May 19, 2016, 08:34 »
I like them. It is only $1 per sale (with 35 cents to you) but that is per use - as opposed to regular RF where a small amount gets unlimited use. If someone uses your image in a design (e.g., business card, wedding invitation, retirement party) then you get paid every time they use it instead of only once. Those can add up. I think it is a much better approach than RF.
620
« on: May 19, 2016, 08:21 »
As far as I know, DPC only got us $1 credit sales. I never had many of those and was never thrilled to get them anyway so DPC closing is no great loss.
FT has dropped a lot the past 3 weeks or so but it is not the $1 credit sales disappearing so has nothing to do with DPC. It feels like image buyers are finding ways of getting things for free so sales are dropping almost everywhere.
621
« on: May 18, 2016, 23:10 »
My batches from April 15th were reviewed today, so 33 days
622
« on: May 18, 2016, 09:22 »
FT has dropped for me as well
623
« on: May 17, 2016, 18:36 »
I submitted a couple batches of editorial images on April 14th and they were reviewed on May 6th - 22 days later. I submitted a few batches of normal RF on April 15th and they still have not been reviewed. I have been deliberately not sending them a message to see how long it will take - will do that after 6 weeks. Won't bother to submit anything else though until they get the current queue cleared up.
624
« on: May 14, 2016, 07:21 »
It could be that they were always high but just didn't have the 50 votes needed to register as mentioned previously. Today they have 146 votes so way over the minimum. If somebody at the Alamy forums urged them to come here to vote, then probably only those making something decent would bother - who would go to the trouble to report zero or a very low number? So we may be seeing voting from a select group with large portfolios that make good sales numbers. It might be interesting to break out the Alamy votes into those who are only on Alamy or macros versus those who do MS plus Alamy - the latter would show Alamy sales relative to a similar-sized portfolio of comparable quality. I suspect the poll results are skewed by people who get good sales there but don't submit to the micros - those with no sales there probably don't bother to come here.
625
« on: May 05, 2016, 08:42 »
If and when interest rates rise expect a crash across the board.
You are probably right about that and it will probably happen later this year (although in the US I suspect they may wait until after the Presidential election in November). The relationship between stock prices and interest rates in interesting. I remember during 2007 or so when things were getting bad and they kept cutting interest rates, stocks would shoot up because interest was lower and that's good for business. But I always thought, "Wait a minute, the reason they lowered the rate is because the economy is bad - the stock market should be going down, not up!". Of course eventually it did crash. Now the reverse is likely to happen - they will raise rates because the economy is improving, which should be good for business and positive for stocks, but the market will go down because higher interest rates are bad for business. It's a very strange system.
Pages: 1 ... 20 21 22 23 24 [25] 26 27 28 29 30 ... 55
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|