|
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 - tickstock
Pages: 1 ... 26 27 28 29 30 [31] 32 33 34 35 36 ... 151
751
« on: June 09, 2015, 15:55 »
The whole thing should be scrapped, it doesn't belong on a forum for professionals (which this claims to be).
752
« on: June 09, 2015, 09:47 »
I say if you have less than 5-10k images it is a waste of time uploading to the little sites. You may never make payout, but if you do have a few sales, they end up keeping 100% if you don't get to payout. Even if you have big strong port some sites will only earn maybe $50-100 per year. Not worth the time uploading.
Agree 1000%... PixelBytes knows. If you use batch uploading software or services, then you may as well submit everywhere. There's not much loss of time, especially if you have unlimited bandwidth and high upload speeds. But don't waste your time ftp-ing and submitting all of these files manually until your porfolio is rather large. Maybe once a year I will throw my portfolio at a newer or smaller agency where I think I can pick up an extra $50-100 / month, but sometimes that much doesn't even pan out. It's like gambling, except your time is the risk. There is no financial loss to try a new marketplace.
Of course there is financial risk. Lots of those small sites are sketchy with opaque reporting and dodgy partners. Remember albumo or DP? Or somewhere like Stockbo that was only entering the business to sell it off to the highest bidder once they got enough content. If you are uploading to many sites you have to be vigilant or you might get burned or you might get burned even if you are vigilant. How many people read and understand the terms of agreement on all 20 or 30 sites? I know not many do considering how many people are clueless about the terms for the top few sites.
753
« on: June 09, 2015, 09:39 »
Ah I forgot... Reporting good news is a nono. I apologise to the down voters for upsetting them. Next time I'll consider your envy before I post something.
MG used to be such a nice place while ago! Look at his members(not all) now full of negative energy ready to criticized everything? Why instead of helping people are so mean to each other these days? Guess it's MONEY issue and I understand that money makes the world go round but don't forget we are here to share and help each other.
I know,I know sounds like crap but still....
Best,
Alex
Like others have said this thread isn't meant to help anyone, it should be added as a note in the monthly sales thread, if at all. There is no reason to start a thread about the best Sunday ever just like there is no point in starting a thread about the best Tuesday morning or the worse Thursday between 8pm and midnight or anything like it. It clogs up the site and makes it look even more amateurish.
754
« on: June 09, 2015, 08:52 »
I've had my worst morning of the second Tuesday in June ever WMOTSTIJE!!! Maybe this is off topic since this is just about last Sunday, I guess I'll start a new thread. If it turns around at noon you can expect another thread and another and another....
Seriously this is just Ron being Ron and trolling you guys, he should post this crap on the SS forums but I guess he's still banned there. It's easy to put him on ignore, I've just done it. Too bad these threads can't just be moved to the garbage bin.
755
« on: June 09, 2015, 07:23 »
DT is about the only site where I can steadily grow my earning by uploading. Their tiered pricing based on popularity of an image is a great idea. I wish the other sites would take it on too, it would mean more cash for everyone.
They used to pay 50% for all sales, then they changed to the tiered system which pays between 25 and 45%. This tiered system is paying you 10-50% less than they used to.
756
« on: June 09, 2015, 07:10 »
All the above plus a few clarifications if i may.
Please for heaven's sake fix the 4K+HD price search.It has forced me -as well as others- to upload 4k and hd separately for the past month cluttering my portfolio. ...
Raise the minimum pricing at least to $50 for HD and $100 for 4K.
...
I'd like to set prices for 4k and HD instead of the automatic pricing.
Guys there is already solution for this. Under Action dropdown menu there is "set downconverted price(video)"
Thank you for that. It's not the most intuitive and I would still rather do it at the same time I set the price for 4K but it does work.
757
« on: June 08, 2015, 13:59 »
Raise the minimum pricing at least to $50 for HD and $100 for 4K.
Don't accept so many similars. Get rid of the ones you have.
Please start rejecting some stuff, there is a ton of really horribly done video that gets through. Shaky, poorly exposed, and identical videos should be rejected.
I'd like to set prices for 4k and HD instead of the automatic pricing.
758
« on: June 08, 2015, 09:54 »
Just resubmit them.
759
« on: June 08, 2015, 07:10 »
I wouldn't consider contributing to a site that I didn't expect to make a payout every month. RM or sites that pay $100's per sale would be different but none of the microstock sites. There is no way the effort is worth it to get a payout once a year.
That is most likely due to you being used to consider it "normal" to upload through a proprietary software, click on every second keyword to define its specific meaning for the term, upload new model releases with each single image etc. That kind of "effort" indeed isn't worth my time, even when I get paid more regularly.
There are agencies which make it a matter of minutes to upload 20, 50 or 100 images at once. For those I don't see why I wouldn't send my files to them. There are others which make it a bit more complicated but none come even close to iStock.
The only condition to me is that there must be a realistic expectation to "eventually" get paid and not just collect one or two dollars a month for a $100 payout limit. Otherwise I basically would be submitting my images for free as I would never get a chance to cash out my money. And my personal limit to this expectation is to be able to reach payout level at least once a year.
If I'm uploading to a site I need to know what is going on on that site. If I upload to 20 sites I need to know what partners each has, best practices for each site, what's changing within the terms for each site. It's a lot more involved than just uploading and forgetting about it. The time to upload is only a very small part of the equation. I used to be on many sites so I know what is involved in keeping up with that.
760
« on: June 08, 2015, 07:07 »
OK that's as good of an explanation as I'll get, thanks.
It still seems weird that they can't make retrospective adjustments (not as if they send individual payments to revenue for each contributor) but ,given their incompetence with the big stuff, it's no surprising they can't handle anything small that's out of routine.
Of course they could make those adjustments but they won't because it's too much like hard work 
I think I read that it's an issue the contributor has to take up with the IRS.
761
« on: June 07, 2015, 14:41 »
Shooting themselves in the foot, IMO. SS actually encourages separate icons (at least in a recent video). DT's refusal to accept separate icons and "similars" that are similar in subject matter but not visually similar will just serve to increase the disparity between the size of their library and Shutterstock's. I already submit fewer files to them anyway; this will just discourage me further.
Shutterstock is doing a poor job encouraging separate icon sets, there are 2 million files that show up for a search of icon sets.
This file has 3,450 icons in 47 sets http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-180645041/stock-vector--icon-set.html and there are many many more that have over 1,000 icons per file.
Gee...tickstock, who does not do vectors, still won't miss an opportunity to try to slam Shutterstock? Quelle surprise. 
I think bundles are bad on any site, I'd never seen some so big as when I looked at SS which I did because you said they were discouraging people from uploading icon sets. You brought SS into this discussion, not me.
762
« on: June 07, 2015, 14:25 »
I wouldn't consider contributing to a site that I didn't expect to make a payout every month. RM or sites that pay $100's per sale would be different but none of the microstock sites. There is no way the effort is worth it to get a payout once a year.
763
« on: June 07, 2015, 14:18 »
Shooting themselves in the foot, IMO. SS actually encourages separate icons (at least in a recent video). DT's refusal to accept separate icons and "similars" that are similar in subject matter but not visually similar will just serve to increase the disparity between the size of their library and Shutterstock's. I already submit fewer files to them anyway; this will just discourage me further.
Shutterstock is doing a poor job encouraging separate icon sets, there are 2 million files that show up for a search of icon sets. This file has 3,450 icons in 47 sets http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-180645041/stock-vector--icon-set.html and there are many many more that have over 1,000 icons per file.
764
« on: June 06, 2015, 12:16 »
Contributors in the developed countries are okay to make almost nothing from their photos because they keep their other job, this is a hobby for so many of them so they don't think they deserve to be paid a fair amount.
765
« on: June 05, 2015, 13:45 »
Now that the RF stock business has been saturated, I would say a reasonable earning with 5.000 travel images will be 100$ per month, not more. If the quality is medium/low I would say a lower ammount. There is too much competition!
Try with a self hosted site. Probably there you will earn something more
Do you mean $100 per day? If you really mean $100 per month with 5,000 images you are doing something wrong.
If "travel images" means "stuff I randomly shot on my vacation", then it's probably about right.
Yep, snapshots in any genre are not worth the time or effort.
My snapshots make me 900 per month. Well worth the effort
I bet your well thought out travel images do better than your snapshots I know mine do many many times over.
766
« on: June 05, 2015, 13:32 »
Now that the RF stock business has been saturated, I would say a reasonable earning with 5.000 travel images will be 100$ per month, not more. If the quality is medium/low I would say a lower ammount. There is too much competition!
Try with a self hosted site. Probably there you will earn something more
Do you mean $100 per day? If you really mean $100 per month with 5,000 images you are doing something wrong.
If "travel images" means "stuff I randomly shot on my vacation", then it's probably about right.
Yep, snapshots in any genre are not worth the time or effort.
767
« on: June 05, 2015, 12:54 »
Now that the RF stock business has been saturated, I would say a reasonable earning with 5.000 travel images will be 100$ per month, not more. If the quality is medium/low I would say a lower ammount. There is too much competition!
Try with a self hosted site. Probably there you will earn something more
Do you mean $100 per day? If you really mean $100 per month with 5,000 images you are doing something wrong.
768
« on: June 05, 2015, 12:26 »
With only 10 sales a day especially if most of your files are newer you can't make any meaningful conclusions, not that it would change anything if you could. Wait a few months, upload a few thousand more images and then compare, what you'll do with that info to increase sales is another issue.
769
« on: June 05, 2015, 11:57 »
Look at the poll on the right.
770
« on: June 05, 2015, 10:18 »
Shutterstock was the cheapest place to get nonexclusive images and buyers go to the cheapest place.
771
« on: May 31, 2015, 09:36 »
Seems region specific.
"We have the eyes of Australias largest news publishers"
http://www.buymyphotos.com/faq
Now if only the largest news publishers wanted blurry, crooked, poorly exposed, iphone photos of cats they would be in business.
772
« on: May 31, 2015, 09:03 »
The site looks like a joke. I wouldn't touch it with a ten foot pole.
773
« on: May 30, 2015, 11:25 »
You can find the royalty rate and pricing structure in the link you posted.
774
« on: May 29, 2015, 17:55 »
For a search claiming to be about relevance all the images on the first page (out of 100,000 images with that keyword) should have a latte as the focus.
How could that be done without a human looking at every image and rating all the keywords for relative relevance, given that AFAIK there isn't a keyword ranking system when uploading to SS (correct me if I'm wrong).
Keyword ranking when files are bought. Popular = best selling image with that keyword Relevant = best selling image for that keyword, for example. To put it another way popular ranks images, relevant ranks each keyword.
Right.
So on SS, a new file in a high supply area can't get into a good position in 'relevant' until it has been bought several times by buyers sorting on 'new' or 'undiscovered', no matter how relevant it really is?
I'm not sure what you're arguing here. Are you saying they should manually go through 50 million files and rank each keyword or each file and then try to do it again every time a new file is uploaded? Buyers should determine which files are popular and which keywords are relevant, files with no sales shouldn't be high in those searches. I doubt many people would be happy with an inspector ranking their files.
775
« on: May 29, 2015, 17:24 »
For a search claiming to be about relevance all the images on the first page (out of 100,000 images with that keyword) should have a latte as the focus.
How could that be done without a human looking at every image and rating all the keywords for relative relevance, given that AFAIK there isn't a keyword ranking system when uploading to SS (correct me if I'm wrong).
Keyword ranking when files are bought. Popular = best selling image with that keyword Relevant = best selling image for that keyword, for example. To put it another way popular ranks images, relevant ranks each keyword.
Pages: 1 ... 26 27 28 29 30 [31] 32 33 34 35 36 ... 151
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
