|
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 ... 20 21 22 23 24 [25] 26 27 28 29 30 ... 47
601
« on: January 16, 2008, 06:04 »
Still people get confused thinking the got an inferior file:
http://www.stockxpert.com/forum.phtml?f=showtopic&n=9682
This is not an isolated case.
Regards,
Adelaide
When the first version of Illustrator was launched, around a million years ago, there was a statement in the foreword of the manual, stating something like: "Now, anybody can become a designer.". Later experiences have shown that it isn't always as easy as that. Oh well... 
602
« on: January 15, 2008, 19:03 »
Here are my figures at LO for the past 14 months.
Portfolio - 572
Views - 1500
Sales - 16
Received comments - 5
Given comments - 0
At a small, local agency like Scanstock (I believe they mostly sell in Norway), I have 5 times the downloads and almost 10 times the earnings during roughly the same time period.
603
« on: January 15, 2008, 18:57 »
Hmmm... with the system on my desk, it may easily get lost in some stack of paper 
604
« on: January 15, 2008, 18:56 »
As I thought, it makes no difference what dpi you get the image, but how you print it. So saying that "X-small and small images are 72 dpi. All other sizes are 300 dpi." is totally meaningless in the end.
Regards,
Adelaide
For photographers yes, but apparently, they are automatically altered to the most convenient dpi at iStock and possibly at other agencies, so we don't need to worry.
605
« on: January 15, 2008, 12:00 »
I've done lots of searches at LO, and I always find my own images at page one zillion, which is probably the reason why I have no sales there.
606
« on: January 15, 2008, 11:55 »
X-small and small images are 72 dpi. All other sizes are 300 dpi.''
I never understood this type of information. Does dpi make any difference? Is a 800x600 72dpi different from a 800x600 300dpi?
Regards,
Adelaide
For a lazy designer, yes. A 72dpi image will display at the correct, low-res size on a web page. A 300dpi image will display correctly in a page editing program, like Illustrator or InDesign. It's no problem changing the resolution in Photoshop or other photo-editing programs, but designers are sooooo lazy 
607
« on: January 15, 2008, 06:56 »
Crestock is slow, and most of my sales there are subscription sales generating 25 cent each. Not a place to get rich fast.
608
« on: January 15, 2008, 06:54 »
I had an end of the year payment there as well. SV has a lot of things going for it, but they seem to have misunderstood some basic ideas, lack of payment alternatives being one. Having been in beta for more than six months, one would think they have had time to get some experience and listen to some advise, but alas....
609
« on: January 14, 2008, 21:31 »
I've given up uploading, but will let my portfolio stay, at least for now. One sale in three months with a portfolio of 572 photos just doesn't cut it. Nice design and easy uploads won't pay my dinner.
610
« on: January 14, 2008, 20:53 »
Thanks a lot. I need to upgrade my brain
611
« on: January 14, 2008, 20:11 »
Navigating around iStock isn't my favourite hobby, so I wonder if somebody knows:
What are the pixel sizes of the different image sizes (XS, S, M, L, XL, XXL) at iStock?
612
« on: January 14, 2008, 17:16 »
I think people here have taken the stance that subscriptions are not in the best interests of the business, and we should be cautious about which subscription companies we get into bed with.
Unfortunately most of us are crippled by our involvement in SS, where despite the destructive nature of their subscriptions it would still be foolish to leave such a big player in the microstock world, and few people are presently in a position to take any significant action. There is an opt-out at StockXpert, which obviously many people have elected to act on, and some might be inclined to leave lower-end companies that do subscriptions and don't pay well anyway.
I am taking the stance that some microstock companies offer unfairly low royalty rates, and SS and istock are the worst offenders. Despite being the top performing companies out there, they pay some of the worst percentages to contributors. Sure they both dish out good money to us, but compared to what they take in, it is not right. The subscription model is flawed to the point where contributors get 10% or less, and istock isn't much better at a base rate of 20%. The average exclusive only gets 30 or 35% at best. Hell, Lise and the handful of top-tier exclusive still get less than 50%.
I am hoping that I might be able to reach Jon and Bruce directly to express this to them. I don't think anyone here is looking to leave these companies. Just see them share the wealth a bit more fairly. That, to me, is the stand we are taking here.
Your are right on the money here: people stay with SS and IS because they sell a lot and in spite of the low commissions. But this is internet, the ultimate democratic chaos. Things change overnight here, and if enough players vote with their feet, you're dead. While I don't like iStock's miniature paybacks, they do actually increase prices, and with that our profits, and they do sell well, at least for the time being. My feelings towards SS are much cooler. A quick look at my sales statistics there recently, particularly compared to other agencies, are not fun reading. Lower sales and low commissions combined are not good for business, particularly when the agency in question is among the pickiest when it comes to technical requirements.
613
« on: January 14, 2008, 17:01 »
Your efforts to advance a slow-mover are going to pale in comparison to the marketing efforts the other company is doing, and you would probably be wasting your time. Sure my efforts to push StockXpert would also pale compared to their print ads, for example, but at least my time and effort would be going into a company that has real potential.
Because FP takes more or less all my photos, they sell RM and editorial as well, I decide the price level of each photo and the commission is higher. While the pay at StockXpert is better than some, I have little or no control, and they are famous for their "interesting" reject reasons.
614
« on: January 14, 2008, 16:56 »
From what I've read on this forum, it seems that FP is charging a 30% commission for doing nothing other than maintaining a commercial website. This doesn't sound like such a good deal to me ... I do all the work, they get 30% for hosting my files and managing the payments. Geez, you'd be further ahead by selling on eBay.
FP do actually sell photos, so the 30% do go somewhere, and there is also the whole database system, search engine and all. You could do all that yourself, on your own little island. I wouldn't. But look at it another way: if you were going to deliver, invoice and collect money for each of the photos you sold, like you would do on ebay, you would easily see how cheap 30% is to get all that done. For old style macro-price image sales, where you earn a few hundred dollars for each image, that would work fine, but not with today's price level. Even if a customer comes to me asking to buy an image, I would prefer to upload to FP. No hassle for me, easy for the customer. I take photos, somebody else move papers.
615
« on: January 14, 2008, 03:20 »
Sounds like a good idea, but if it was me, I would promote only my FP portfolio. They pay better and accept more or less anything i upload, so why promote the second best?
Do they pay a better percentage? Or just pay better in general?
I see the logic behind supporting the site that pays the highest percentage, but it isn't very helpful if they don't generate many sales. I see StockXpert as the best all-around site. High royalty percentage, high site activity and sales activity, thus high earnings. I would support them over any other site based on those factors, not just royalty percentage alone.
Some site could come along and offer 90%, but that's worthless if you get one sale a month there.
Then you have to ask the question: why don't they sell well. If the reason is lack of marketing, and I believe in my portfolio, I should invest all I have in marketing my portfolio at the agency that pays the highest percentage. That will give maximum return on my investment. Doing individual marketing of an agency that pay less and that is doing a proper marketing effort already, will have a much smaller impact on profits. Remember: we are not discussing what sales we already have, but what additional sales that we can generate through individual marketing. Those who already buy images at StockXpert or somewhere else, couldn't care less if any of us have a million videos at u-tube.
616
« on: January 13, 2008, 20:25 »
I just made a video on youtube, promoting StockXpert whit a link to my portfolio. It's under review right now. I don't really know if this is a good thing to do. I know some people here have made one lately, promoting their portfolio...
But whit all of us opting out, I try to promote this site first, maybe it would be good whit Featurepics also. Do anybody know places who are more relevent to upload videos or do I make a mistake?
Sounds like a good idea, but if it was me, I would promote only my FP portfolio. They pay better and accept more or less anything i upload, so why promote the second best?
617
« on: January 13, 2008, 20:22 »
Up until and including 13 January, I'm 57% above the same period last year for all agencies combined. SS is up 8% compared to last year after a slow start.
While SS represented 49% of my sales at this time last year, they only have a 33% share in 2008. Food for thought, not least with regards to our subscription debate.
618
« on: January 13, 2008, 20:14 »
Firefox! Best browser in the universe
619
« on: January 12, 2008, 20:42 »
The predictability of new images selling is quite nice. But the predictability of them dying out by 2 months or so is not so nice.
This is very important to remember. While I wouldn't trust any microstock agency to pay for my retirement, SS, if I don't upload regularly, I can't even trust to pay my rent next month. With a site like FP on the other hand, if I stop taking photos but do a real effort marketing my own portfolio, I can probably increase the sales of existing images month by month, just like I would with any macro-agency.
620
« on: January 11, 2008, 04:29 »
I think about a robot whit a camera. Like a dog you let him go outside, and at the end of the day he return you whit 50 or 60 pictures whit signed model and property releases... Then you recharge the batteries and let the photoshop robot finish the job. Anybody know engineering?
You have to recharge the batteries yourself? I think I'll go for the deluxe version with solar panels 
621
« on: January 10, 2008, 19:31 »
Hopefully, future versions will do the key-wording and uploading for me as well, preferably while I'm on the beach, taking care of more important business
622
« on: January 10, 2008, 19:29 »
StockXpert is doing the right thing. Subs will not disappear, but I want to choose if my images are going to be a part of it or not. FP is the ideal solution: no subs, individual pricing, 70% cut and the accept editorial images. SV is somewhere in between.
The ideal target would be if we could persuade agencies like DT and 123 to offer an opt out possibility as well.
623
« on: January 10, 2008, 00:56 »
Most of them will obviously have further needs in the future, but that need will be reduced, which affects our, and your, income potential. What subscription is, is giving away future sales at a heavily discounted price.
Then please explain to us why you still have your work on ShutterStock. Sounds to me like your saying one thing, but doing another..hmmmm
You are right, and that is one of my considerations right now. Somewhere further up this thread, I state the need to take a short term loss to improve long term earnings. I've always been skeptical to subs, but with the falling sales at SS, it has become increasingly clear. The dilemma for me, is that nothing changes if only one photographer withdraws his portfolio. But if several act together, we may see some changes from the agencies. SS has been a special case, being so dominant in the subs market. With increasing competition from other agencies, we will see sales at SS decreasing further, and the real nature of subs will become apparent: it's microstock with the lowest pay possible. Although some of the sales at IS generate a lower profit, those are low-res sales. With subscriptions, we always get the lowest rate. Hasselblad or camera phone: same pay.
624
« on: January 10, 2008, 00:49 »
And the average customer is downloading like only 8 or 9 images a day with their subscription.
-Steve
That's around 3,000 images per year, or 9,000 in 3 years. As a graphic designer, I have no problems composing a portfolio that will cover 70-80% of my needs for the next 5-10 years, possibly longer, with a 9,000 image portfolio. I would obviously invoice my clients $10-50 per image, explaining to them the effort the photographer had to invest to take the photo in question, so that I can make a healthy profit on them, while the photographer is left with his $0.30 for the effort.
625
« on: January 09, 2008, 21:54 »
Hi guys,
Just read every one of the posts in this thread. I remember discussing with the StockXpert team whether or not we should include opt-out as a feature. I argued that if we truly believe subscriptions is another opportunity to make the contributors and us money, then we should offer the opt-out because we should have nothing to fear. It's a way of simply being honest with them about our intentions. Everyone agreed.
I think a month later I reported that only a small handful of existing ppd customers actually became subscribers. And of those only a couple were on pace to spend more on credits than subscription. And the average customer is downloading like only 8 or 9 images a day with their subscription.
So basically, most of the subscribers were new customers. And we are still adding many new customers who ppd. I don't have the latest subscriber stats. I will try to look into it, but I cannot imagine subscription is the cause for a noticeable decrease in contributor revenue, especially around the holidays.
We still believe in the subscription model, but we are following this thread with interest.
-Steve
Steve, The fact is: for anyone buying a subscription, the alternative is to buy at full microstock price. Where the customers are coming from is irrelevant. If they come from a non-subscription scheme somewhere else, must of us lose, since we are represented at all the major sites anyway, if they come from another subscription scheme, I suppose the reason is something like: a year or two subscription at SS give them the opportunity to DL most of what is of interest there. By moving on to the next major subscription agency (StockXpert or DT), they can download whatever is of interest there as well, until they have built a decent image bank themselves. Most of them will obviously have further needs in the future, but that need will be reduced, which affects our, and your, income potential. What subscription is, is giving away future sales at a heavily discounted price.
Pages: 1 ... 20 21 22 23 24 [25] 26 27 28 29 30 ... 47
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
