|
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 - luissantos84
6351
« on: January 21, 2011, 13:43 »
I really have pictures removed not from Dec 10.. My last time of uploading was in Dec 2009, please John tell me what have happened
6352
« on: January 21, 2011, 11:54 »
I got an email today from Darek and he told me, maybe sometime next week.
Lets keep fingers cross.
guess not, getty, is, whatever ROCKS!
6353
« on: January 21, 2011, 11:49 »
Hi John, I have noticed (long time since my last visit at CC) that my portfolio was reduced and without at least telling me or so.. I had 1173 pictures (my last upload on Dec 09) and now have 999.. I guess not that correct atitude from CC, ok I dont have sales there, got 2 but this shouldnt happen.. cool design
thanks
6354
« on: January 21, 2011, 02:02 »
curious I havent got any calibration system or whatever.. I really trust my laptop 
Try this on your laptop, under the same conditions that you edit your images for submission. My monitor shows #1 and I can see the difference. Most people won't see any change until 3 or 4. I suspect people here will do better than that, most people means, people on their home computer who do not critically view images.
http://www.drycreekphoto.com/Learn/Calibration/monitor_black.htm
Monitor Black Point Check
nice stuff I see it on the 2
6355
« on: January 21, 2011, 01:14 »
stockfresh sounds really great...I wish they would open up to some new contributers though it seems they are not accepting new contributers? anyone get in recently? I applied many many months ago and no word.
On topic... this thread is a great idea! I think there are so many variables to consider but commission is hugely important to me and the easiest to analyze. If the agency is getting exactly the same cut for representing my work then that is fair. Anything under 40% to contributer is not fair. I worked in the offline art gallery sales world for many years. Every single art gallery I dealt with took between a 40-60% cut of any sale...that has always been industry standard for access to more buyers. Lets remember a real brick and mortar business with huge overheads and a limited client base of only people who are in a radius that can physically drive to the store somehow manages to maintain an industry standard of around 50/50 for many many decades, possibly hundreds of years (speculating) but an online agency with access to the entire world and very little overhead can't do the same. It is hugely unethical and not fair trade to offer such low commissions. Sorry but advertising on the net is so much cheaper than the overhead for a real storefront. They are just so greedy that they are going to run this new microstock experimental business model into the ground very quickly to turn a quick profit.
almost 7 months waiting for fresh eheh it will be a record! Race, hope you are right
6356
« on: January 20, 2011, 23:37 »
first time I see it, honestly no value
6357
« on: January 20, 2011, 21:58 »
They nearly always have the best review times, earnings are growing nicely and Duncan often replies to posts here. Doesn't it make a nice change from some of the other sites?
+1
+2
6358
« on: January 20, 2011, 21:57 »
I think the only thing we can do short of forming an artists guild/union with price standards, would be to publicly thank and support those companies that have not made cuts. Could you imagine if in the wake of all these cuts if some company (DT or SS) had the nerve to actually raise commissions, you would see every single microstocker flock to their site immediately, its such a no brainer business decision you would have every single microstock photographer flocking to that site. You would instantly become the number one microstock site overnight.
The number one microstock site of what? The most contributors?
Here's the problem with this approach. Every site already has too many microstockers and images and adding more isn't the top priority for any of the top sites. It's only a priority for new sites that don't have any images and need contributors and images in order to attract buyers.
It's clear the agencies' top priorities are to A) increase revenue by attracting buyers, which is a struggle in today's economy, and B) increase profitability as quickly as possible which is easily done by reducing commissions. Money/sales/revenue/profitability drives their every decision. Make more sales, pay contributors less.
The more quickly contributors start thinking like an agency owner and less like a contributor the better off you'll be.
didnt get what you are saying.. everybody should stop and leave so "gold/whatever" stay good? I am not saying I dont agree but I dont see how that will be good current "low" contributors (I guess not that low once Gold are going down 6%) honestly I just think that will be nice to top earners but actually if only top contributors stay.. royalties would go up? most certaintly no yep a lot of images etc this is not a problem for contributors, if they are approving nothing there.. contributors arent guilty of what is happening.. it is pure greed
6359
« on: January 20, 2011, 21:23 »
buy IS and turn it into cooperative of artists. If you dont contribute you cannot be shareholder.
You can contribute and as soon as you passed certain level of sales you can become a member. Pay $50,000 entrance fee and have share in profits
I know some Doctors cooperatives built in this way.
At $2.4 billion ( the buyout price paid for Getty to go private), you would only need 48,000 contributors to pony up $50,000 each to buy it back. Better get started right away.
wait just had 2 L sales for 1.7$ each, I will get to 50k soon
6360
« on: January 20, 2011, 21:05 »
buy IS and turn it into cooperative of artists. If you dont contribute you cannot be shareholder.
You can contribute and as soon as you passed certain level of sales you can become a member. Pay $50,000 entrance fee and have share in profits
I know some Doctors cooperatives built in this way.
AHAHA good one, would you bring some woman??
6361
« on: January 20, 2011, 20:29 »
I agree there a few important things in the fair question.. Regarding SS yes we dont have a fixed % but honestly that isnt bad I guess, regarding size we can upload 4MP or so.. I just hope they wont change it.. I am close to a milestone the 3k and I would be quite mad if something bad happen  FT was really crazy, night to day this announcement.. I am wondering when will it start, will it really go? why havent FT agreement etc changed?
6362
« on: January 20, 2011, 20:21 »
6363
« on: January 20, 2011, 20:13 »
3DStudio has 60%.. 3 sales lol.. 5 year lock in 70% cutcaster 40%.. 2 sales  visco 40% (level 2) 50% (level 3).. guess they havent started the marketing etc..
6364
« on: January 20, 2011, 20:06 »
but they are quiet weird once we can have blog sales for 0.25 or 0.45.. credits whatever..
featurepics has also 50%.. 2 sales but yeh they pay 50
6365
« on: January 20, 2011, 19:58 »
123RF has 50% no?
6366
« on: January 20, 2011, 19:55 »
curious I havent got any calibration system or whatever.. I really trust my laptop
6367
« on: January 20, 2011, 16:54 »
For me the fact is:
IS reduced my earnings by -20% and FT by -18% in this month...
I have to react somehow...
same situation here.. I would love to have a photographers agency, time ago it was talked here but soon everybody left, dont know if it was because of money issue (around 1 million dont know..) and also problems in how will be reviewing the pictures.. most be a ton of reasons but once again nothing was made.. not easy to predict agencies.. we need to come up with something.. going into other agencies?? really not easy to decide what can/should do..
6368
« on: January 20, 2011, 16:07 »
this is never going to stop.. thats the hard truth..
dont know if I am thinking well but listen.. (read lol)
IS, FT, whatever will lower and lower comissions.. it will go to 10% or above, one day we will all step out.. what is the strategy behind agencies? they wont do a single buck with 0 pictures..
ok this can take a few years but this is what will happen if this keep going.. ok they will have their pockets full but for how long, another business? not in photography for sure..
6369
« on: January 20, 2011, 13:07 »
Remember Fotolia advertising as the fair treatment agency when iS announced their rate cut. They didn't mention cutting rates two weeks after iS did back then. What effing hypocrisy! Not that it surprises me. Fotolia was where the pay cutting all began.
and I believe some IS exclusives left and now this..
6370
« on: January 20, 2011, 12:18 »
from 2007 (33%) to 2011 (20%).. this is unbelievable, how can they do this? instead of been once with contributors and tell IS they suck..
6371
« on: January 20, 2011, 12:01 »
cannot belive in this SHI*.. a person is doing his best to reach other ranks levels and now for what??.. to reach 25 instead of 31??.. another 5% cut sweet thanks IS
6372
« on: January 20, 2011, 00:35 »
right next to obama, what a pleasure check this regarding obama speech, nice job by a friend of mine
6373
« on: January 19, 2011, 19:52 »
November PP sales were payed on the third week of December like usual (next month and the end..) Like they will this month, perhaps next week (for Dec sales)..
Weird, I seem to remember reading a bunch of people complaining just recently that they still hadn't gotten partner program royalties from november. I thought it was on Istock's forums. Maybe it was really StockXpert they were talking about and I am misremembering.
Anyway, thanks again Luis, for providing clarification. I don't want to be spreading misinformation...
no problem and yes delay is from StockXpert
6374
« on: January 19, 2011, 19:51 »
it is not usual Mike just these last days..
6375
« on: January 19, 2011, 12:46 »
sweet
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
