|
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 - pancaketom
Pages: 1 ... 23 24 25 26 27 [28] 29 30 31 32 33 ... 91
676
« on: October 19, 2017, 22:08 »
This is a potentially interesting new feature, but it still needs some work.
For instance searching in your portfolio with keywords and then selecting all or at least selecting a range with shift-click would be a lot easier way to add images to a collection. It would also be nice to have the option of selecting which image in the collection will be the cover pic and also how it will look cropped.
I also like the idea of being able to have more collections available to buyers, maybe a button to go to more collections or something.
It would also be cool to be able to see sales stats for each collection.
677
« on: October 19, 2017, 22:03 »
No, not even close. Sorry, I wish it was linear.
678
« on: October 19, 2017, 11:22 »
there is that word - "sustainability"...
I'd be really pissed if they didn't already delete all my stuff.
679
« on: October 19, 2017, 11:19 »
The only benefit of FB is that they know an awful lot about everyone - some of it quite wrong. If I wanted to buy a print I certainly wouldn't go on FB to look, but if I was asking my friends for a recommendation for a local photographer and an ad for one came up maybe it would be useful. I'd probably avoid them just out of principle though.
680
« on: October 17, 2017, 00:41 »
I just got a bunch of rejects for keywords. I'll have to look at the keywords again to try to guess what they objected to, but I think it was for stuff like the scientific name of the subject. How they can complain about that but let some seriously egregious spam through is beyond me, but I am guessing it is semi-automated.
681
« on: October 11, 2017, 15:41 »
I remember $1 an image a year posted re Alamy...didn't believe that one for an average photographer either!
Seems it could be 10c per image per year on Alamy:
http://discussion.alamy.com/topic/8395-alamy-financial-results-for-2016-now-available/?do=findComment&comment=147533
(I'm overachieving, LOL!)
I think there are some people on Alamy that seem to upload their SD cards and keyword them all the same, so they have huge numbers of images, but probably not a lot of sales per image. back when I first heard of stock the number for traditional stock was 1$ per image per year and microstockers were talking $1 per image per month. I am pretty sure those per image per month numbers have dropped drastically. I know mine have. In general I think that vector artists have a higher return per image.
682
« on: October 07, 2017, 17:47 »
I just had a refund at the end of last month for an image sold a few years ago. Frustrating.
In addition with their messed up reporting on the first of the month it made me wonder what had happened to my total (since it was lower than I had recoded the afternoon before).
I suppose I should just give up on their promised doubling of sales when they cut the percentage paid to artists.
683
« on: October 07, 2017, 15:16 »
why any site persists in describing their required sizes this way utterly baffles me.
684
« on: October 04, 2017, 17:39 »
but content can also rise by being paid for, thereby bypassing the very thing you are trying to promote - the best images in front of buyers.
685
« on: October 03, 2017, 18:24 »
It was a better than average month for this year barely - thanks to a few big sales on Alamy. SS was about average for now - so less than 50% of what it was a few years ago. Most sites were just a bit on the low side so it would have been a sad month without Alamy.
686
« on: October 02, 2017, 12:11 »
I'm happy to see the site back up.
In line with a recent discussion thread here, I have a question. Would GL's 'extended' license allow reselling as wall art on Etsy?
Perhaps to clarify the question - does it allow reselling of digital files, possibly slightly modified (like flipped, cropped, or background color changed.
687
« on: October 02, 2017, 12:07 »
As best I can tell I got 4 cents and 6 cents for Istock sub sales. It is pretty pathetic what they roll out after a year of working on it.
688
« on: September 30, 2017, 13:59 »
I guess the real screwing would be if Moovly paid SS a heap of money for this deal (for which we get nothing) and then sells our content rather cheaply, for which we get 30% or less of whatever Moovly passes on to SS. I sure wish the details were disclosed and opt out was possible - what if they take 90%, and we get 30% of what is left?
689
« on: September 21, 2017, 11:48 »
Are there rates and so on buried in there somewhere or are we expected to do custom work for .38 or 33%?
690
« on: September 13, 2017, 16:01 »
submit a few in the middle of a stack of other submissions - don't they only look at one image per submission? I have had that problem with SS - digital noise rejection in pictures of sand dunes - no reviewer, what you see are the grains of sand. Some things just have grain.
691
« on: September 11, 2017, 11:58 »
When they come begging on their knees offering lots of sales and a good percentage and no funny business with accounting.
So in other words, never.
692
« on: August 28, 2017, 18:59 »
There has always been an element of timing and luck in an image making it in this business. Perhaps SS has the search skewed against newer images right now or maybe you just haven't gotten lucky. There are 1.2 million lottery tickets submitted every week, so it isn't a guaranteed thing. It sure is frustrating though. It was a lot more motivating to upload a batch and get sales of many of them the day they were accepted.
693
« on: August 27, 2017, 14:03 »
Not a lot of sales, that is sure. I have 4 days for which I have a total of 3 sales this month. (3 single sales and one nothing). This is like back when I had double digit number of images (I have well over 3,000 now).
It does seem like something port-wise is changed in the search - maybe location, or who knows what. It certainly hasn't helped me. Stick that on top of the huge increase in images for sale and the modest increase in image sales (most of the $ steered to a few contributors?) and it paints a bleak picture for me.
SS might be doing fine, but it is already not worth it for me to put a lot of work into an image, and at some point it won't be worth it for me to upload at all.
694
« on: August 17, 2017, 12:08 »
you need to read the TOS at all the sites you submit to and decide if they are something you can live with. Yes, it is a pain, but then you won't be surprised to find out that they are doing something shady - until the sites change the TOS without notice or just flat out lie to you...
There is a lot of history available here if you wonder why people are not happy with and do not submit to for instance Getty.
695
« on: August 03, 2017, 15:03 »
Looking at StockFresh for the first time, I like the fact that they accept PayPal. I won't buy from sites which don't accept PayPal. But like most of the microstock sites they seem to have a big problem with keyword spam.
It's getting more and more difficult to find the right content to buy at any of the microstock sites. I've spent most of today looking for a handful of images of 'brunch' in a certain style. Should be easy - in my head I can picture the sort of stuff I am looking for. But far too many contributors just add all food related terms to any image of food. Brussel sprouts, a glass of wine, Christmas party, birthday outing etc. It's very annoying. When narrowing down a search, it would be great to be able to hover over an image and select to exclude all results from that contributor. When you end up looking at thousands of results there needs to be a way to quickly exclude spammy contributors. Gets quite depressing.
Since the sites don't seem to want to do that I see a business opportunity - open an API site and remove the spammy contributors from it. I'm sure for most searches there are plenty of decently keyworded images available. Just search on the top few hundred search terms and then remove the ports of the spammy images that show up in the first few pages. I bet it would clean things up a lot. I am sort of amazed that some sites haven't done this (or at least pushed those ports to the back of the line). They could request a readmission after cleaning up their act.
696
« on: August 02, 2017, 11:24 »
What is to stop them from upping the subscription cost and lowering the per item cost once they get going?
697
« on: August 01, 2017, 10:27 »
SS was horrible. Lowest RPI ever, I have to go back to Nov 2007 to find a lower month there - that was with less than 1/6 of the images (nearly 1/7).
It wasn't the worst month of the year - in fact there were 2 worse this year. Ok sales at Alamy and a few of my middle sellers kept things from being completely dire, but it is still pretty sad.
698
« on: July 17, 2017, 16:46 »
I think it will be a camera upgrade that will force me to leave the PS universe. I refuse to go to subscription software. Until then an older version does more than I need it to, although I am sure there are some upgrades that would be nice.
699
« on: July 12, 2017, 10:35 »
For July SS is my number 3 agent so far - Sure the ones ahead are due to one off sales, but nearly half way through the month SS should be ahead of them anyway. It isn't.
700
« on: July 09, 2017, 20:00 »
It's time to accept the market we are in and make the most of it, or leave altogether and make a living in a more "fair" market...
Why?
Why should we have to leave altogether? As I said, I don't consider iStock to be worth uploading to any more but I don't feel inclined to leave when I'm still getting a little bit back for effort I made in the past.
I was referring to Microstock altogether and iStock is the pinnacle of the negative side of the conversation - somehow they represent everything wrong in the industry... Weather we like it or not they are one of the major players and also are part of the overall policy making. Having, even a few, commissions of 0.0something is sad and makes me furious but the overall picture is that their model works for both them and us.
I think worth uploading to iStock cause my spread sheet says so and so does for all their contributors. They are not going to change their approach unless the marketplace punish them for being out of balance. As long as they have happy customers, price/quality-wise and happy contributors return-wise they are going to keep on doing what they do, being major players & policy makers.
We either accept it and do the best with it or leave altogether...
What I'm trying to say is that I'm tired of all the nagging about iStock!
are you a vector artist and thus getting 33% more return for every sale than indy photographers do?
Pages: 1 ... 23 24 25 26 27 [28] 29 30 31 32 33 ... 91
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
