|
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 - Jo Ann Snover
Pages: 1 ... 24 25 26 27 28 [29] 30 31 32 33 34 ... 291
701
« on: January 05, 2022, 12:07 »
I sent the "close account" request yesterday - how long till they even respond with the hoops I'll have to jump through?
I received a reply from support this morning. Other than asking if there was anything they could do to persuade me to stay, there were no hoops to jump through 
702
« on: January 04, 2022, 16:22 »
I sent Alamy support email this morning requesting they start the 45-day clock to terminate my account. I got an automated reply that they're back January 5th with some pointers to where I could find various information online. The kicker for me was comparing my 2021 earnings for the whole year and the second half (July 1 to Dec 31). The second half of the year's gross sales revenue was one tenth of the total year's sales. I would have left the account open if they had continued the royalty rate as before, but with the 15 cent and 21 cent sales and the prospect that those would result in my royalty rate dropping to 20% (something I'd never have even thought about from prior years as gross sales were way above that threshold) I've had enough. When my royalty rate is cut because of an agency's inability to sell my content (which I know can sell because it does elsewhere), I will not reward them with an extra large slice of pie
703
« on: January 03, 2022, 10:38 »
Thanks . . . Blushes. . .
704
« on: January 02, 2022, 18:51 »
I'm so glad that was useful! I like to keep my search skills sharp so this was a good way to test them
705
« on: January 02, 2022, 18:05 »
I don't have that camera, so I can't really offer a solution, but several articles I found in a google search were talking about the Digital Lens Optimizer or Dual pixel raw being enabled and resulting in very slow processing and a busy indicator. Is it possible those are turned on? High ISO noise optimization was mentioned in a couple as well. The other thing mentioned was slow cards, but as you were getting decent results with those cards earlier, I doubt that's it. Hope you can figure this out (without a reset to factory settings )
706
« on: January 01, 2022, 20:25 »
No one at Alamy has had anything to say about this?
I'm ready to close my account, thought we'd get some response by now despite the holiday.
They haven't responded on the thread on their forums either. Many contributors claim to be opted out of distribution and still see these 15 cent distributor sales. One user says she saw a 15 cent (gross) sale for an RM image https://discussion.alamy.com/topic/15193-the-lowest-of-the-low/They may be back in the office on Tuesday Jan 4th - Jan 3rd is a bank holiday in the UK
707
« on: January 01, 2022, 20:10 »
It's probably an image that was licensed a long time ago when Thinkstock was still around (it's been shut down for a while now - 2019 I think). I know it seems strange, but RF licenses are forever. I just got a Google alert about a use in the Boston Globe for an image of mine credited to me and iStock. That image was removed from iStock (along with the bulk of my portfolio) in February 2013. Articles on medical billing issues in the US are as "current" now as they have been for decades
708
« on: December 31, 2021, 11:19 »
I am part of this club with 5 15-cent gross (4 cents net) sales sometime yesterday (Dec 30th). And I thought 8 cents royalty on a 21-cent sale was outrageous just last month!
If Alamy keeps this up - small bursts of totally unacceptable royalties with occasional "higher" value sales - it'll make it very easy to leave them. The last $50+ (gross) sale was in September 2021; it's just been nano-royalties since then
709
« on: December 27, 2021, 01:14 »
Someone put this in the Garbage Bin again - I can't see anything offensive or spammy, so I'm moving it back to off topic.
Whoever is doing this should take it up with Tyler or just stop reading if they're not interested...
710
« on: December 25, 2021, 18:02 »
Why did someone move this to garbage? 
I have no clue - I just moved it to Off Topic ('cause I have no idea where it was originally). Merry Christmas (to those who celebrate it) and here's to a happy, healthy and prosperous 2022
711
« on: December 23, 2021, 11:54 »
How was it being exclusive with iStock. I thought about it going exclusive with them but my sales have halved there since I started uploading on iStock.
At the time, it was wonderful. But then a variety of things changed as the contributor deal worsened, investment in the business slowed (courtesy of the private equity cash-siphon that owned Getty) and customers moved to Shutterstock and other sites. In particular, how iStock handled vector illustrations then was excellent and they made really good returns for the contributor. I wouldn't recommend iStock exclusivity today, but there are some who have been exclusive for a while who stay, sometimes only for one medium, because it still works well enough to balance out the work of getting their portfolio keyworded and uploaded elsewhere (if you keyworded your files using Getty's controlled vocabulary, you were at a disadvantage without "normal" words for other agencies).
712
« on: December 22, 2021, 20:14 »
When it was first sale in different agencies for you?
If you're new to selling stock and are wondering why your images aren't selling, finding out how other people's images performed at other agencies doesn't really help answer your question. And as everyone has pointed out, there really is no way to answer that question usefully. If you're not uploading to Shutterstock and Adobe Stock, the two top sales agencies at the moment, then you should. Chasing sales at low volume agencies when you're new is largely pointless. If you are and you're not selling anything/much, look at your keywords and look at your competition (i.e. do searches for the main keywords of a selection of your images and see who else is offering work for those searches). Bear in mind some subjects sell more than others, so if there are only 50 images for some keyword, it may be a great niche, or it may be of little interest to buyers (or it could be misspelled  . 18 results for Knottingley; 51,676 for Edinburgh https://stock.adobe.com/search?dym=1&k=knottingleyhttps://stock.adobe.com/search?dym=1&k=edinburghIn other words, if your Knottingley images aren't selling, it may be lack of buyer interest in the subject. If it's a picture of Edinburgh you interest from buyers, but have a ton of great images as competitors.
713
« on: December 22, 2021, 17:25 »
Has anyone have experience being exclusive on Dreamstime? How it can benefit random photographers? Could it help selling more images?
I don't have experience with Dreamstime exclusivity, although I was an iStock exclusive from 2008-11 (independent from 2004-08 and 2011 on) and IMO it was never a good idea to be a Dreamstime exclusive, not even in the early days. Today, it's a worse idea than it has ever been. They were never better than #3 in the rankings of agency earnings for most people. For a long time, iStock was #1 in earnings generally and had a good exclusive program for a while. Sales today at Dreamstime are slow - earning in a year what a long time ago I'd have earned there in one month - so selling "more" than their current sluggish pace doesn't really amount to much, IMO.
714
« on: December 21, 2021, 20:22 »
...The idea is a rough attempt to estimate the date a photo was accepted, by ID number.
I can add a couple of additional data points. 18829 uploaded Oct 29 2004 71306 uploaded Dec 21 2004 152974 uploaded Feb 15 2005 248541 uploaded Mar 30 2005 537086 uploaded Sep 06 2005 693135 uploaded Nov 05 2005 888312 uploaded Jan 15 2006 1240080 uploaded Apr 24 2006 2128452 uploaded Nov 7 2006 2900019 uploaded Mar 18 2007 5432761 uploaded Sep 18 2007 6157531 uploaded Oct 16 2007 7146277 uploaded Nov 20 2007 I had saved a page showing the Top 50 images that week on November 8, 2005 and at the bottom it said there were: "420,035 photos available for download 12,259 new photos added in the past week" May 2 2006 top 50 images: "727,930 photos available for download 6,839 new photos added in the past week" Nov 15 2006 top 50 images: "1,219,859 photos available for download 15,397 new photos added in the past week"
715
« on: December 17, 2021, 15:42 »
... However, I can't just fly to Morocco again. :-) I have 2 images from Morocco which could do with a sky replacement. Just not sure if I want to give them to microstock after spending hours on re-editing them just to get 10 cents.... They can have a cookie on white but not travel photos.
Couple of thoughts -With contributors nearly worldwide, it's no longer relevant that you had to travel to get somewhere in terms of the value a stock photo has. For many locations, they're local to someone (unless there's special access and you have an opportunity others don't) -Shutterstock has over 340k photos of Morocco; Adobe stock has over 240k. Take a look at what's there, and unless you can really add something that isn't already well represented after you replace a sky, it's just not worth submitting. It could absolutely happen that you have something unusual, but be brutally honest with your image's chances. -Don't think of the return on time edited on the basis of the royalty for one sale; look at the potential for income overall, over time. For many years, I've read comments along the lines of "SS can't expect top quality for only 25 (38/10/...) cents". If an image sells well and keeps going over time it can earn a lot (especially with the higher value SOD royalties, although obviously since June 2020 trends have been down). Microstock isn't about the royalty per license but the income overall given volume. High royalties x low volume can work, but so can low royalties x high volume (as long as the buyer pool is being expanded; if it's just to line Stan Pavlovsky's and shareholder's pockets, not so much )
716
« on: December 16, 2021, 17:53 »
This has been a very good year for me at Adobe Stock - it has already beaten all the other years except 2018 and the year's not yet done. As others have noted, it is missing those very nice high-value SOD sales from Shutterstock, but the market is changing as the flood of free and cheap media continues. I was very concerned about the all-you-can eat Pro subscriptions announced in April, but so far, nothing below 38 cents has shown up. Yea! I remain concerned that Adobe won't commit to any minimum royalty beyond subscriptions (i.e. Pro Edition and Creative Cloud Express) but let's hope that's circumspect lawyers, not an evil genius in its lair plotting our doom
717
« on: December 14, 2021, 10:51 »
...And Adobe could really do it that way (better than the competition) because they can write the costs off as marketing expense for their software...
I'd be OK with flat 38 cent royalties from any CCX uses. However, at $9.99 a month, if a CCX user put 27 of my images into projects, Adobe would owe me $10.26 and be out of pocket (27 x 38 cents) so they'd have to view these royalties as a marketing expense! It still leaves the question Mat refused to answer about what the "attributable amount" could be - what other types of uses beyond what dirkr saw with his example? Is it possible that the Enterprise and Teams version of this - coming in 2022 according to the press release - will pay different royalty amounts than the flat subscription ones? "Creative Cloud Express for Enterprise and Teams is coming in 2022"
718
« on: December 13, 2021, 13:31 »
...If I understand it correctly, nothing should change - looking at their pricing plans - with 10 assets/month plan we get .99 per sale, 40 assets/month plan it's .65 per sale and any plan over 350 assets/month we still get minimum royalty .38
I found it here, updated today: https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/help/royalty-details.html
I don't think the standard pricing applies to the custom plans. From the page above, note this: "Adobe Stock also licenses assets through custom agreements and non-standard plans, such as Creative Cloud Express plans and Pro Edition plans for Creative Cloud for teams and enterprise. "
719
« on: December 13, 2021, 13:13 »
720
« on: December 11, 2021, 12:01 »
" About $576 million of the expected $1.38 billion in cash from the SPAC deal will go toward paying down existing debt." It's nice to get some financials on just how much of a mess the two private equity deals made by siphoning cash out of the company. I can't see how it will help Getty (versus the vultures who want their cash now) to have to persuade Wall Street they're a great stock. We lost less than last year isn't such a great message. "Getty noted that its marketing spending is about 6% of total revenues, compared with 12% of revenues spent on marketing by its rival Shutterstock, citing a significant opportunity to capture more of the global market by boosting its own sales and marketing spending following the completion of the deal." Spending more on marketing isn't going to compete with Shutterstock whose "margin optimization" program (i.e. slashing contributor royalties) has given them pricing leeway Getty doesn't have. I know there's lot's of exclusive stuff that Shutterstock doesn't have and Getty does, but I'm betting "good enough" will win out. But then my crystal ball is broken, so who knows https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-12-10/getty-images-to-list-in-4-8-billion-deal-with-neuberger-spacThe idea that they're all aglow about chasing trends (NFTs) is also not a good sign (IMO). Monetizing culture... "You think about the NFTs as the monetization of culture, he said, adding that Getty supplies content to Dapper Labs, the creators of NBA Top Shot, an NFT marketplace where fans can buy and sell NBA collectibles. Passions around sports, fashion, celebrity, music, all those things -- I think thats a real opportunity for us, and one that we have yet to really scratch the surface of, said Peters."
721
« on: December 10, 2021, 00:21 »
I requested my payment (PayPal) December 1 and received it earlier today (Dec 9th). If you still didn't receive yours, are you sure your tax information is current?
722
« on: December 09, 2021, 18:11 »
...It's clear that Commercial images far outsell Editorial.
As for making editorial images commercial by cloning out logs etc I think it's a waste of time. I think whether or not to edit an image to allow it to be sold with a commercial license is dependent on the content and location of the image - assuming that the contributor has the ability to do the work invisibly. I have a number of images that have done very well as commercial but would have had to be editorial without a lot of cloning. This is an example - it's in my top 50 images at Adobe Stock and was doing similarly well at Shutterstock while I was still there. https://stock.adobe.com/stock-photo/id/132125856Although some of the uses it sells for would work fine with an editorial license, as the Cayman Islands is a financial center - world-renowned tax haven - many of the uses are in advertising and marketing contexts.
723
« on: December 03, 2021, 22:40 »
...Can anyone make sense of what Connect sales are? ...
Getty launched this program a few years ago: https://www.fastcompany.com/1817835/connect-getty-images-leaps-21st-centuryYou have to be logged in to read this page, but here's their rundown of the uses that show up in this section https://contributors.gettyimages.com/HelpArticle.aspx?article_id=5176But as you noted, the amounts are all very, very, very small. I've even had items show up in this section that they're no longer entitled to license (I deleted most of my portfolio there years ago but have a small set of images I can't license elsewhere). Given how tiny the amounts are, I just can't stomach the thought of spending weeks arguing with "support" to try and get this fixed
724
« on: December 03, 2021, 03:48 »
Extended licenses can be purchased a number of ways at Adobe stock so you won't always see "extended" in your stats. That looks like 33% of the buyer's price.
725
« on: November 30, 2021, 11:53 »
...Has anyone else looked at their custom earnings to see how this plan worked out?
I have been tracking this - as best I can given the absence of any stats tools that let you separate these details out. I was concerned I'd see amounts below 38 cents, the prior floor for subscription sales. I haven't seen any custom sales below 38 cents and although the volume of higher-value custom sales - above $3.30 - has decreased. You can see a rough assessment in an earlier post I made: https://www.microstockgroup.com/fotolia-com/adobe-stock-sales-are-so-slow-this-days/msg567518/#msg567518Bottom line is that I'm happy that the floor didn't drop out on prices for custom sales, although there's none of the upside that I used to see at Shutterstock with SODs - $90 - $120 royalties on some sales. Mind you, I might not still see those at SS either (I'm no longer there).
Pages: 1 ... 24 25 26 27 28 [29] 30 31 32 33 34 ... 291
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
