|
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 - heywoody
Pages: 1 ... 24 25 26 27 28 [29] 30 31 32 33 34 ... 58
701
« on: March 18, 2013, 10:47 »
I don't think contributor exclusivity makes sense for anyone but if DT offered the same deal for exclusive images as exclusive contributors I'd strongly consider making my level 4s and 5s exclusive - even for an XS I've been getting $4-$5 and, even though sales volumes for these images are much higher on SS and FT, I'd make more money.
DT does offer image exclusivity, and contributor exclusivity.....both.
Yes but the commissions currently for exclusive images are way short of that for exclusive contributor images so not the same deal and not attractive enough to cover loss of sales on other sites.
702
« on: March 18, 2013, 08:22 »
It really depends on the number of images you have and if they have a problem with the type of stuff you do but, all things being equal, they will still make a hell of a lot more than mid or low tier.
703
« on: March 18, 2013, 07:56 »
I don't think contributor exclusivity makes sense for anyone but if DT offered the same deal for exclusive images as exclusive contributors I'd strongly consider making my level 4s and 5s exclusive - even for an XS I've been getting $4-$5 and, even though sales volumes for these images are much higher on SS and FT, I'd make more money.
704
« on: March 16, 2013, 11:33 »
They are not consistent but usually my #2, volumes lower than SS / FT but RPD much better and very occasionally can match SS in $ - this month they are ahead of SS for me.
705
« on: March 14, 2013, 16:54 »
My funniest rejection was when my 3d rendered mermaid image was rejected because I didn't provide a model release.
I've had a few of those across a number of sites but my people had legs 
706
« on: March 13, 2013, 13:21 »
Getting a higher royalty percentage than I would at Shutterstock, Dreamstime, 123RF, or Fotolia should count for something shouldn't it?
So long as you can keep selling, i.e. the site can keep selling, which iS seems not to be doing as before. I had 0 dls yesterday and 3 today.
I was once with a small RM agency which at the time offered 60%. I made one sale. Even 100% of very little is very little.
+1 My earnings have been a steady $30+ per weekdays on iS (average 6-7 purchases), and I have a portfolio of 115 files (I do vectors.) Makes me wish I was here when iS was at its glory days still, sounds like I would have been earning so much more. :/
Wow! $6 per image per month - sounds like you are one of the few who really could be earning so much more by adding more images.
707
« on: March 13, 2013, 08:51 »
Pretty sure that breaks the Flickr terms of service - AFIK you can make commercial references in your profile but not linked to the individual images
708
« on: March 12, 2013, 08:04 »
iStock just seems to have similarly disappeared for me. I know we have all seen the drops there, but this year seems to have compounded the problem. Ignoring the PP earnings, Jan was $219, Feb was $146, March so far is $45 and we are almost half way through the month. Putting on my tinfoil cap, I wonder if we are being penalized for deleting images!
Steve
If you deleted images then I bet they won't sell anymore. Call me crazy but that's my theory! 
I wonder about the -2 (at the moment) on this post?? It's a true statement - if it's not for sale it won't sell.
709
« on: March 11, 2013, 15:34 »
Have you read some of the woo-yay threads on here about people getting 2 sales in a month or how they got one payout on a site after a year. That's what I'm talking about, nothing wrong with being happy about that, it's just a different goal from me. I've never said I'm a top notch photographer or a niche photographer, I'm not, but that doesn't mean I can't make a full time living or set that as my goal.
If you read the monthly sales thread at iS, you'll see that for most established contributors, downloads are falling rapidly. Raising prices can't sustain that for ever.
Devil and deep blue sea.
Yeah it's true. Other sites are cheaper and they pay less out to contributors. Hopefully people get fed up with that and things change. I see you're still exclusive though so it must not be too bad.
When supply outstrips demand prices fall. IS will adapt to the market or it will go under. Unfortunately we have to deal with the world as it is, not how we would like it to be.
710
« on: March 11, 2013, 12:44 »
Exactly the same effort, skill and creativity goes in to an XS as an XXL so why folks get their knickers in a twist over the size of a download is beyond me.
Cost of equipment?
I could take up to L with the camera I had before I ever submitted stock. To get the larger sizes took serious cash investment.
I do see the counter argument that a very large photo might be used once in a throw-away publication and an XS might be used for eternity on a website. But still, that XS could have been taken with the phonecam you didn't buy specially for the phone.
Sorry, same effort, skill, creativity AND equipment Still, the guy with the nice camera will get the same price for a shot of something in his fridge as the guy with that camera plus thousands of $ in lighting, plus paying models etc etc. The 2nd guy then presumably recoups his costs based on volumes rather than the price of the individual licence. Exactly the same effort, skill and creativity goes in to an XS as an XXL so why folks get their knickers in a twist over the size of a download is beyond me.
Money. My last XXXL was for $27.50 and my last L Vetta was for $33. Maybe you are getting more than 25 cents but it would still take 100 XXXL sales on Shutterstock to equal one Large Vetta sale.
If youre getting loads of Vettas and XXXLs thats great for as long as the market supports those kind of prices. There really isnt anything to suggest that IS is offering significantly better or different product to the others so hard to see buyers continuing to pay so much more.
711
« on: March 10, 2013, 13:57 »
So the game plan is to get a large collection of unreleased stock photos of people in disadvantaged circumstances so that their misfortune can be used as the basis for commercial advertising, humilitating them in front of hundreds of thousands of people.
Sounds like the perfect one-stop shop for "no-win no-fee" lawyers, to me. But, hey, I approve! What a great way of transferring money from those who have lots to those who are disadvantaged!
Completely agree - the only ethical way to produce these type of images is to use models and fake them.
712
« on: March 10, 2013, 13:29 »
You should probably wait until 2nd Feb and resubmit. I hear they will need a lot more contributors after that.
Lol! Why is that? (I'm curious)
because there is a small contingent of photographers that hate IS. if you are good at what you do IS is second to none (in my opinion) to any other microstock agency.
Yes, %15 gotta love em!
yes if you are non-ex and don't sell much 15%, but exclusive and selling try 35%-40%. why sell your work for less? 0.25c - 0.33c for a download regardless of size is a crime. my last download on IS was an xsmall and received $2.95 for that, if it was SS I'd need 10-12 downloads of the same image. who in their right mind would sell themselves out for that pittance?
10 @ $0.33 > 1 @ $2.95 and thats ok where you can get the 10:1 sales ratio. On the other hand $0.08 is not that uncommon for an XS at IS and THAT is the lowest Ive come across. Exactly the same effort, skill and creativity goes in to an XS as an XXL so why folks get their knickers in a twist over the size of a download is beyond me.
713
« on: March 09, 2013, 14:55 »
I can't see how it matters in the slightest for a creative image (one where the purpose is to be pleasing to the eye)
714
« on: March 07, 2013, 13:05 »
If you have a small port, 123 are a complete waste of time. Volumes and prices are both too low and the RC system rewards quantity rather than quality. I have ceased uploading and will drop them as soon as I get my day job sorted.
715
« on: March 05, 2013, 16:38 »
Same images that 123 rejected for copyright? Maybe same here (FT rejection notices are generic might be copyright here too). Most likely, the same will happen on IS, DT, and SS if submitted there too.
716
« on: March 04, 2013, 07:37 »
I hear this new club is really great. Nobody knows what happens in there but, whatever it is, its gonna be fabulous and well worth freezing out butts off in the queue and, man, what a queue. Uh oh, seems the doorman has turned away some people at the front but has let that guy in who just walked past the rest of us who have been standing here for hours must be on the list, maybe hes a celebrity? Still, maybe Ill be lucky enough to get in when I reach the top.
If stocksy generates a fraction of the interest in buyers that contributors are showing, it will do really well.
717
« on: March 01, 2013, 13:25 »
Nothing, nada, not 1 single sale in Feb. Tiny port but usually make 2 -3 times more per image than SS. From the sentiments here and over there and the fact that review times have gone to hell on the other sites, it sure looks like a sinking ship.
718
« on: February 26, 2013, 09:27 »
I see that all the time - they disappear and eventually come back
719
« on: February 21, 2013, 13:33 »
I know what you mean, but easier doesn't always mean better... sometime that hard way is the right one.
True, not always, but easier is very often better. Not that I'd be expecting an invite from these guys now or ever, but we have to consider that they have credentials in the business and are not stupid. In order to succeed they are going to have to come up with an approach that is very different to what is there already (or it will be just another low earning startup) and that difference can't really depend solely on the content. It will be interesting to see what happens.
720
« on: February 21, 2013, 09:44 »
I feel iStock is better at looking at the image overall and if the content was great, they would be a little more lenient on the technical side (noise, blur, banding etc). Fotolia, Shutterstock and Dreamstime get out the magnifying glass to check quality. Creative use of focus or noise is generally out of the question.
Funny, I would have said the total opposite!!
721
« on: February 21, 2013, 09:37 »
Image sold 157 times on SS for $58.72, same image sold 30 times on DT for $66.43. Hmmm, I think I'll take both.
722
« on: February 20, 2013, 16:48 »
And I just checked DT to see what sold this morning to find a 21 cent royalty for an XS - I understand it's more than 19 cents, but not much..
On the other hand, an image with very modest sales makes > $3 for an extra small
723
« on: February 20, 2013, 14:04 »
123 pretty much is a free section
724
« on: February 20, 2013, 13:57 »
Simple enough, new stuff gets uploaded wherever it will be uploaded as it's produced. New site's would get portfolio in reverse age sequence, file names are YYYYMMDD_nnn.
725
« on: February 20, 2013, 06:52 »
I hate the regular emails I get from DT telling me they've deleted another image from my port...after the work involved in uploading and the fact some of the images have sold elsewhere, it's incredibly annoying.
Probably less annoying than having them go into the free section??
Pages: 1 ... 24 25 26 27 28 [29] 30 31 32 33 34 ... 58
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
