|
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 - ShadySue
Pages: 1 ... 25 26 27 28 29 [30] 31 32 33 34 35 ... 624
726
« on: February 14, 2020, 17:24 »
This is the same as when you asked about Shutterstock and then decided without an upload, that you would never make any income and be better off donating the images to charity. Yes I know your mind is made up. I think others might consider at least trying before they give up because nothing will sell?
I'm not saying people shouldn't upload at Alamy. My comment was made only to Martha. Did you actually see the numbers I quoted for searches on three very common wildlife species on Alamy: and that was searches, not necesarily sales. I personally know some Live News togs who are doing very well on Alamy; actually for at least one of them, it's his full-time income. One of them opined she wouldn't want to upload to the micros, and I said, "of course not, none of them is any use for Live News". Horses for courses. I don't make decisions out of the blue. (or at least I try not to). I actually know two SS submitters who sell the same subjects as me from the same broad area (where we all live) and although they combined their SS ports to get up through the commission ranks quicker, they're not doing well (and in fact have given up uploading altogether). If I uploaded my existing port there, and realistically with my current commitments, that's all I could do, ALL I could hope to do is get some share of of their meagre takings - and I'd be taking a big hit at iS which is already 1/3rd of the glory days, and that after a LOT of work. That would make no sense at all.
727
« on: February 13, 2020, 14:22 »
You mean an IS exclusive can't sell similar images on Alamy?
That's not what you said. You said, "nor that someone with the same images, exclusive on IS and Getty would have better sales on Alamy."If you meant an indie on IS verses the same person with the same images on Alamy, that would be something for a person who does that to come and answer?
I meant any indie, not an indie on IS. Word is that almost everyone who has a similar number of similar subjects on micros and Alamy does better on the micros. And it's not just because the files are cheaper. For the last 3, maybe 4 years on the trot, my highest netting sale has been via iS. MicroVet may be the only person who is * that trend. The only two other people who have said they do better on Alamy than they do on iS or micros in general have tiny or microscopic ports on the micro/s and large ones on Alamy. One of the loudest shouters about how few sales he got on iS compared to how many he got on Alamy, at the time I checked it out, fewer than 20, sic, twenty, files on iS and over 20K on Alamy. There are several people who joined one or more micros with the recent commission cut, or in the past year, and they are generally astonished that they are doing pretty well, mostly better than they do nowadays on Alamy. Some of them were previously extremely anti-micro. I can't I don't do wildlife, or if I have any it's nothing like you or Martha have. My ground squirrel, birds in the yard or ants, isn't wild enough. 
But perhaps surprisingly, that's exactly what a lot of buyers want. Relatable wildlife, wildlife in your backyard, what can you do for wildlife?, sort of stuff.
728
« on: February 13, 2020, 14:11 »
I was under the impression that only a fraction of the Alamy costumers have their searches recorded for the Alamy Measures feature. I thought it's was most frequent and steady buyers. Unless they changed it.
That's what I said, they changed it. I quoted what they now say on the All of Alamy measures page, check it out for yourself. One of the best sellers of Alamy has a huge portfolio of nature.
Nature, not specifically wildlife, if it's the person I'm thinking of, and if it's that person, he is very concerned about diminishing sales and rpd. Even if it's not the same person, you say this person has 'a huge portfolio'. Like the woman I referenced earlier, they'd probably have done much, much better elseswhere.
729
« on: February 13, 2020, 13:04 »
Sales from Scientific names, not searches. That comes from people who use scientific names and have sales.
Yes, but only a very few people are reporting that. Clearly, if the buyers were always buying on scientific names, which isn't true, that would be even more evidence for Alamy not being a great place to sell wildlife. Who wouldn't put in the scientific names except the clueless, who probably don't know what the species is? (Lots of species misidentifications and deliberate spam on Alamy, as with all the micros.) If you look at the monthly reports, and the recent sales threads, there's a good photographer of mostly wildlife (she's branching out more recently). You one might think that she makes a lot of sales and a lot of dollars, but her port is nearly 21500k, so actually her Alamy sales/earnings, considering her port quality and size is shockingly low. I was just opining that Martha probably hasn't lost much by not submitting to Alamy.
730
« on: February 13, 2020, 12:54 »
..., nor that someone with the same images, exclusive on IS and Getty would have better sales on Alamy.
That's not possible under the terms of both contracts. I specifically mentioned indies.
731
« on: February 13, 2020, 12:07 »
Makes me very glad I never bothered with Alamy. Sometimes just keeping one's operation small and simple is the best approach.
Use scientific names and make sure they are in the title and the keywords. Alamy buyers have been shown to search that way.
Some do, most don't. Easy enough to check in Measures. From Feb 1st 2019 until today: African Wild Dog: 28 searches + 2 for % African Wild Dog Lycaon pictus: 7 searches. American Bison: 9 searches + 2 for % American Bison; really? In just over a year?! I'm astonished!) American Buffalo: 9 Bison bison: 2 Red Kangaroo: 21 Macropus rufus: 3 So obviously put scientific names in (who, who had a clue, wouldn't?), as you would anywhere, and I know Martha does; but don't hold your breath. These are just three examples chosen at random from different continents but you can pick your own species and check for yourself. I just noticed recently that whereas previously, Measures was a selected portion of Alamy buyers, it now represents "all searches from customers who have spent money on Alamy within a specified date range."Whether an indie who placed wildlife pics on Alamy would gain enough sales they wouldn't otherwise have got to make the effort worthwhile, who knows? IMO, probably not.
732
« on: February 13, 2020, 04:11 »
Just because it didn't work for you, it doesn't mean it didn't and still does for others.
Martha never submitted there, she never said it didn't work for her. However, I suggested it wouldn't have been a good fit for her (as I know her port has a high proportion of high quality wildlilfe images), based on personal experience, anecdotal reports from others and - in particular - watching Alamy Measures for searches over the years.
I'm no longer earning $10.000 (net) per year on alamy alone because now I'm earning a small fraction of that. But it's still better than most micros.
And last year I earned 2.5x as much on iS as I did on Alamy. More files on Alamy, each file exclusive on each site, and similar subjects on each. Actually, every year I've earned at least 2x as much from iS. We can't tell anything sensible by other people's ports, as we all have such different subject matter. (iS is falling for me even faster than Alamy is. Last year Alamy had more dls but less $$ than previous years. So far this year, dls are down on Alamy.) I'm just about to start deleting files from Alamy, starting with wildlife.
733
« on: February 12, 2020, 17:44 »
Makes me very glad I never bothered with Alamy. Sometimes just keeping one's operation small and simple is the best approach.
Probably wouldn't have worked for you, Martha. Never was a great outlet for wildlife. I alone sold more pics of African Wild Dogs on iStock in a year than Alamy had searches on 'African Wild Dog' in that same year. And there are loads of great pics of APHD on iStock that must surely have sold a lot more than mine did.
734
« on: February 11, 2020, 17:32 »
And on the thread subject, I fully expect no good to come from this. 
736
« on: February 11, 2020, 13:21 »
Not to open a new thread, did anyone receive January payment yet?
Yes, hit my bank on 6th Feb.
Hmm still nothing here. Are you using Paypal or bank direct?
Direct to bank
737
« on: February 11, 2020, 07:47 »
Not to open a new thread, did anyone receive January payment yet?
Yes, hit my bank on 6th Feb.
738
« on: February 11, 2020, 06:43 »
Hello
exactly the same for me, 3 sales in January and all come from partners. how to remove this possibility.
My Dashboard > Additional Revenue Options > Distribution > Out ( NB, you can only opt out in April) Note that only means you are opted out of distribution, not that you will get the sales at a higher percentage. You'll probably just lose the sales, which may indeed be your choice if rpd is more important than overall earnings. (Added: that's for distibutors, i.e. other agencies. I don't think (?) you can opt out of affiliates)
739
« on: February 05, 2020, 15:19 »
The chinese don't buy stock images 
According to your prejudice.But infact they do buy stock, so much so that ss tailors their search specifically for buyers in China.
And Getty has a partner site in China from which I get (very low-value) sales.
740
« on: February 05, 2020, 12:18 »
I am seeing less download this year.
Can coronavirus be one reason behind this?
Yes, because as any fule kno, this new coronavirus is spread by infected jpegs. 
LOL and someone will believe you. Worse than any virus: misinformation can now be round the world at the touch of a button!
Oh dear, I'd better make it clearer that I wasn't being factual.
741
« on: February 05, 2020, 07:29 »
I am seeing less download this year.
Can coronavirus be one reason behind this?
Yes, because as any fule kno, this new coronavirus is spread by infected jpegs. (NB I just made that up -fake news alert)
742
« on: February 04, 2020, 16:03 »
...
1 was an affiliate sale (whatever that is) -
It's what other sites call Partners, meaning they somehow link to Alamy images and if someone follows a link from their site and buys on Alamy they get a cut.
https://www.alamy.com/customer/help/affiliate-program.aspx
Thanks, I guess the referring site gets 10% and Rakuten gets 3% - seems like a pretty good rakut for them.
I still think that this should come out of Alamy's 60% since it is someone else doing the marketing for them, but nobody is asking me.
I agree totally. BTW, don't know where the -1 came from. Apparently you were at -2 before I plussed you. Who on earth other than Alamy could disagree with what you said? But I didn't think we could minus any more, and I don't see any disagree button. Weird.
743
« on: February 04, 2020, 14:28 »
...
1 was an affiliate sale (whatever that is) -
It's what other sites call Partners, meaning they somehow link to Alamy images and if someone follows a link from their site and buys on Alamy they get a cut. https://www.alamy.com/customer/help/affiliate-program.aspx
744
« on: February 01, 2020, 15:18 »
^^ I don't even understand that figure, with the placement of the dot and comma.
746
« on: February 01, 2020, 06:10 »
No, only 6 sales but none of them distributor.
748
« on: January 17, 2020, 20:36 »
It's sad because every single sale you get on istock for pennies is a sale missing on other agencies that pay you fair...
Hmmm.
iS earned me 250% in 2019 of what Alamy earned me, and I get 50% at Alamy and have about 10% more files there.
Doesn't mean I love iS, and I wish Alamy did better; but it shows that what you said isn't necessarily true. I spent 2.5 years uploading only to Alamy, but in only one month out of eight years has Alamy earned me more than iS.
Different people will have different subjects so different experiences, i.e. YYMV.
I was talking about footage not photo...
Fairy Nuff, but I didn't know that.
749
« on: January 17, 2020, 20:16 »
It's sad because every single sale you get on istock for pennies is a sale missing on other agencies that pay you fair...
Hmmm. iS earned me 250% in 2019 of what Alamy earned me, and I get 50% at Alamy and have about 10% more files there. Doesn't mean I love iS, and I wish Alamy did better; but it shows that what you said isn't necessarily true. I spent 2.5 years uploading only to Alamy, but in only one month out of eight years has Alamy earned me more than iS. Different people will have different subjects so different experiences, i.e. YYMV.
750
« on: January 17, 2020, 16:20 »
The key word is sell. If someone pays for the correct license, theres no problem in what they use it for. Thats microstock. For someone to take a watermarked free image, use it on a page that they likely make money from, and make fun of it... Using that BS fair use excuse, is still wrong to me. But hey, thats just me. YMMV. [/quote] It's not an iStock watermarked image. It has a larger version of the iS watermark engraved into the rock. You can see from the link to what is possibly the original file that iS's watermark is smaller, but repeated across the file. https://www.istockphoto.com/gb/photo/mount-rushmore-rapid-city-south-dakota-gm1126952302-296868683They may or may not have paid for the file; I have no idea but they are surely innocent unless proven guilty.
Pages: 1 ... 25 26 27 28 29 [30] 31 32 33 34 35 ... 624
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
