|
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 - dirkr
Pages: 1 ... 21 22 23 24 25 [26] 27 28 29 30 31 ... 56
626
« on: May 15, 2013, 06:48 »
pond5
featurepics
stockfresh
mostphotos
yaymicro
zoonar
stockami
3dstudio
And unfortunately, none of these can really sell. Unless if you are sending videos to pond5. Or if you simply have 10k high-end images...
And our collective reaction to that is that we continue to put most our efforts on those sites that sell better. But those are taking their 70% - 85% cut of the sales price, giving them more money to be used for marketing and thus a competitive advantage against the "fair" sites. And in turn they will have more customers, more sales, more contributors supporting them. A vicious circle that is not going to end on itself. It needs some kind of step change to break that circle, only that I have no idea what that will be.
627
« on: May 15, 2013, 04:09 »
Again.... some people that were NEVER on SV are reporting missing images, its not related solely to Snapvillage.
Exactly. And I never heard about the "Veer UGC collection" that Ryan mentioned, so I have no idea if any of my images were in there and that's the reason they have disappeared.
628
« on: May 15, 2013, 03:38 »
Agencies taking too much is a problem that surpasses iStock. I feel most agencies take too large a cut and don't deliver on their end.
Very true. But since Istock is the one taking the biggest cut (looking from a non-exclusive perspective) they deserve to be called out first about this issue.
629
« on: May 14, 2013, 10:05 »
Obviously, not all the buyers do that, but many do. I know many others. And the priice difference is definitely a factor: every time Istock has raised prices, a noticeable percentage of customers have gone elsewhere. I was selling about 10x number of files when prices were 1, 2, 3 etc.
And that is why I think royalty percentage is so much more important (from a contributors point of view) then RPD - if you pay for a high RPD with lower percentages AND lower sales volume, you lose in the end. And why the argument that cuts in royalty percentage aren't too bad if accompanied by higher prices (I remember at least FT doing that) is purely smoke and mirrors... The interesting thing in pricing (and probably the hardest) is to find the sweet spot where total revenue is maximized. I think IS is trying to do so with this move, this is why I think it goes in the right direction.
630
« on: May 14, 2013, 08:38 »
"IS has finally abandoned the absurd fiction that exclusive's work is, de facto, better than independents'".
As selling items, they are. It is not a matter of quality: it's the fact that independent work can be found elsewhere for a fraction of the price. Whan I've had to buy a file from an independent contributor, alhougth found in IS, I always have ended buying it at the cheapest site.
If most buyers would act this way, independent files would rarely be sold on Istock. As can be seen by the poll on the right, this seems to be not true (even if sales numbers seem to be declining, Istock is still the second best seller in the game for independents overall). Therefore the price difference between Istock and the other sites does not seem to be the major decision point for buyers. It will be interesting to see if / how that changes if independent images are offered for higher prices and that price difference increases. Overall (looking from the outside) the move to simplify their collections and pricing structure and to remove the artificial link between exclusivity status and price range (mostly) looks like a move in the right direction. To make me want to re-upload my portfolio there they have to do something about their royalty percentage though.
631
« on: May 14, 2013, 07:29 »
. As they expressed frustration at the speed of the site I suggested they tried SS instead telling them not only how much faster and accurate the SS search was likely to be but also how IS paid me only 18% of sales.
I honestly don't get the sense of sending clients to one of the sites with the lowest rpd. I would always send them to DT where my rpd is consistently 3 or 4 times more.
Agree (partly). If they say they need to buy X pictures, send them to the site with the highest RPD. If they say they have a budget of Y$ to spend on images, send them to the site with the highest royalty percentage. Ideally one site fits both accounts (Pond5 with the possibility to set prices comes to my mind...). I would never send someone to Shutterstock just because they are bringing in the most money. Shutterstock is far from being at the top of either of these metrics (RPD or %).
632
« on: May 13, 2013, 09:37 »
Dirkr wasnt on SV so that confuses things
Exactly. Maybe they are deleting old non-sellers like Dreamstime? Just guessing...
633
« on: May 12, 2013, 12:11 »
I opened a thread here about the same thing about a month ago. Less images missing in my case (about 200) and certainly nothing to do with Snapvillage (never been there). Still have no idea what has happened, but I have to admit that I didn't bother asking Veer directly yet...
634
« on: May 08, 2013, 16:41 »
"Revenue per image download increases 8% to $2.29"
Jon, it's time for a raise.
635
« on: May 08, 2013, 16:39 »
Could it be that the cake is being sliced more thinly because of all the ex-exclusives signing up there? (Mind you, it feels as though many buyers went with them.)
They have more than 26 million images, about 75.000 added last week. Which is not more than it used to be. Obviously dilution plays a big role in that game, but that can't be responsible for the large drops some people are reporting. I personally don't see much change in either direction. Anyway, my numbers are too small to be statistically relevant.
636
« on: May 08, 2013, 07:20 »
Is such a thing visible for fotolia?
No.
637
« on: May 08, 2013, 03:27 »
In the iPhone app for shutterstock there is a place holder to click top keyword but that doesn't work for me
You can't click ont that. It will show the keywords most commonly used to download a picture - if any are registered. Not for every sale the keywords are registered. The info is not updated real-time, it takes about a day to show the updates.
638
« on: April 29, 2013, 03:29 »
I would vote for "I am on YAY and I am going to wait and see what happens before deciding if it is a good or bad idea". If they get a big sales volume and my earnings increase a lot, it wont be so bad. If they have low volume low commission sales that don't improve my earnings, I'll have to decide if it's still worth using them.
+1 I'm not a big fan of their new idea, but they seem to be a lot more willing to create a fair deal for contributors than many other agencies. Before I drop them due to that new scheme I should definitely drop 123RF and Bigstock due to their recent changes (and FT due to their general attitude towards contributors). And for all of those I haven't decided yet...
639
« on: April 25, 2013, 13:52 »
As I started on Dreamstime around October 2012, I am since a few months in the timeframe where the first of my non-sellers start to hit the four year timeline.
Dreamstime must use a different arithmetical system than the rest of the world. 
Oh thanks. Nice typo. Obviously I meant 2008. No idea why I didn't write it...
640
« on: April 25, 2013, 07:42 »
I always delete. I see nothing to be gained by giving them away for free.
As I started on Dreamstime around October 2008, I am since a few months in the timeframe where the first of my non-sellers start to hit the four year timeline. Some interesting things I have noticed: The notification / deletion process seems to be not working all of the time, so now I have some non-sellers that are older than four years still active in my account (I don't care, let's keep them online...).
And: on a few occasions a file of mine had it's first sale just when it was in the "notifying period" (so it was listed under "oldfiles" with less then 30 days remaining time on DT). Just shows that even old files will sell once in a while...
641
« on: April 23, 2013, 06:11 »
I don't care for upload limits. Once they raise their royalty limits I may become interested again.
642
« on: April 19, 2013, 08:10 »
I applied at the same time as everyone else, ie, when they first announced it and we all registered interest. I got an email shortly after and I submitted my links to my website, SS and ?maybe? iS. (can't remember as I'd deactivated a few at that stage, I think).
Then I didn't hear anything until 12 April where I got another email inviting me to submit 10 images.
So there's still hope for those like me who haven't heard back that it's rather a backlog of application e-mails than an implicit rejection by not answering... I'll wait a little more....
643
« on: April 19, 2013, 08:08 »
Linda and Jan,
first of all thanks for coming here and explaining your plans and answering detailed questions.
Thanks also for listening to our concerns and adjusting the plans. One of my major concerns was about commission percentage, and your stated goal of keeping that close to 50% is very much appreciated.
It cannot be stated clearly enough that this behaviour of open discussion, taking contributor concerns seriously and trying to keep up fair commissions sets you apart from most of your competitors.
That alone will bring you a lot goodwill and support from many contributors (me included).
Nevertheless a few questions / remarks remain:
When you talk about an opt-out from Yay, does this mean from all direct sales or only from the newly introduced packge deals? Would there be a possibility to opt out from the package deals but still have images on offer for single image direct sales via the Yay website?
And: Jan mentioned "social media accounts" as one possible target usage for these new packages. To my knowledge there might be some licensing conflicts, as (afaik) e.g. facebook still requires user who upload images to provide rights they do not get with a regular RF licence (e.g. the right to sub-licence). How do you want to address this? Widen your licence terms or rather explicitely mention that uploading to such social media sites is NOT covered by the licence?
644
« on: April 18, 2013, 14:51 »
CD123 has left the building...again?
No. That last post of him in this thread is almost a year old.
645
« on: April 17, 2013, 13:47 »
I've had a total of 1070 files accepted at Veer.
Last time I uploaded was in Oct 12.
Today when I looked in the dashboard it only shows 881 accepted. The number of rejected files did not change (78), so no real explanation.
Another strange thing: When I list the accepted files according to date it shows a number of old files (on the site since 2009 or 2010) with a date of 2012-03-24 - as said above, I did not upload anything this year to Veer...
Anybody seeing something similar? Is this just a bug or have they removed around 200 files without notifying me?
646
« on: April 17, 2013, 09:23 »
Only a small crop of my current portfolio is of textures, but they make up the majority of my income.
And now you're looking for ways to shrink that part by lowering prices... Interesting concept... 
No, I'm not. Most textures are sold at lower res at commission at other sites typically range from 0.25 to 1.00. The Texture Store is offering 0.50.
So 0,50 for full size is not lower than "from 0,25 to 1,00 for lower res"? Is this how you do your math in everyday life? 
647
« on: April 17, 2013, 01:49 »
Only a small crop of my current portfolio is of textures, but they make up the majority of my income.
And now you're looking for ways to shrink that part by lowering prices... Interesting concept...
648
« on: April 16, 2013, 17:01 »
I agree except for the "flat 20%". In addition to Sean's observations about Connect, indies don't get 20% in any Getty program.
Of course you (and Sean) are right. So maybe their goal is better described with "not more than 20%"...
649
« on: April 15, 2013, 15:59 »
I am really curious about getty360. What do you think about it?
I have to admit I did not spend much thought about it as it does not affect me, not having an active portfolio on Istock any more. But from what I read it sounds like another step in absorbing Istock completely into Getty ("resistance is futile..." ). The goal seems to be complete freedom of Getty to licence our content in each and every way they want, for any price they seem fit, with any licence terms they want to, and all of that at a flat 20% for everyone. That's how it looks for me. Doesn't make me want to re-upload my portfolio there...
650
« on: April 15, 2013, 10:36 »
I sell my videos everywhere - including istock. 20% is more than 15%.
Most sales come from Pond5 and Shutterstock, but istock is number 3 for me, way ahead of fotolia or any other video site. So it makes a difference for my income.
I would only receive 25% if I was video exclusive and I would never be able to rise up in their video RC system. So for me this is a positive change.
Maybe at a later stage I can afford to not send videos to istock, but right now it is still useful, so I upload. But the customers seem to have migrated to other sites anyway, so it probably doesnt matter.
My comment wasn't meant to critisize you for selling on Istock. And I understand your argument, 20% is a lot better than 15%. It just doesn't sound right to me to accept 20% as reasonable to start with (don't get me wrong, I did accept that also and only quit Istock after they decided that 20% for me is too much to pay). And now they have got us so far (by making 20% for independents the unachievable maximum) that those measly 20% are beginning to look like something good...
Pages: 1 ... 21 22 23 24 25 [26] 27 28 29 30 31 ... 56
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
