|
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 - GeoPappas
Pages: 1 ... 27 28 29 30 31 [32] 33 34 35 36 37 ... 51
776
« on: March 05, 2007, 10:18 »
According to StockXpert admin, the switch in sort order has increased total sales by 30%. You keep saying this and as I didn't read this announcement just wondering if you can clarify. Did they say the change resulted ina 30% increase or just that they had a 30% increase??
Here are the exact quotes from StockXpert Admin: "We were doing this as a test to see if it improves sales because if customers see the most popular images by default, they might by more images.""Sales are going up like crazy (there's been a 30% increase in the last two weeks)..."The statements were in reference to a thread which was about the default search result changes. So it seems that the 30% increase was a direct result of a change to the default search order. Here is the link: http://www.stockxpert.com/forum.phtml?f=showtopic&n=2058
777
« on: March 05, 2007, 10:14 »
Thanx Geopappas, just fixed the link.
For some reason, the portfolio links (the small icons at the bottom of each thread post) are still broken for me.
778
« on: March 05, 2007, 08:43 »
They changed the default sort order to Most Downloaded.
Some people have noticed increases, while others have noticed decreases.
According to StockXpert admin, the switch in sort order has increased total sales by 30%.
779
« on: March 05, 2007, 07:43 »
I received my first subscription sale yesterday, but it was for 0.50!
Here are the specifics:
Download type: Member download
Image level: Level 2
Price: subscription
Earnings: $0.50
Resolution: maximum
License: (RF)
What gives?
I'm not complaining at all, but I thought that subscription sales were supposed to be 0.25
Do higher levels receive higher subscription earnings?
780
« on: March 05, 2007, 07:38 »
Yeah, they give you money, just for acceptance. I submitted 5 and one of it was accepted. But that was also the best I would say.
Sale price is the same. Ok I will let you know..
Congrats. I was thinking about taking some photos of the lunar eclipse and submitting them to DT, but never got around to it because it was already in full eclipse before it rose above the horizon. By the time it came over the treeline, it had already come out of full eclipse. FYI: Freezing: Your portfolio links don't seem to be working.
781
« on: March 04, 2007, 17:13 »
leaf: They weren't just congrats, but "massive congrats" and "equally huge congrats"
782
« on: March 04, 2007, 16:40 »
I use it, but take the stats with a grain of salt.
783
« on: March 02, 2007, 08:32 »
If a person buys a subscription, the contributor (seller) gets 20 cents per credit. If they don't buy a subscription, the contributor (seller) gets 50 cents per credit.
Additional Formats are 4 credits - that's a 60 cent commission for subscription sales of additional formats. (based on my experience).
Extended licenses are 50 credits - that's a $10 commission for subscription sales of extended licenses.
Under the normal scheme (non subscription sale), an additional format would yield a $2 commission and an extended license would yield a $25 commission.
Where are you getting this from? That is not my understanding of the process in place. Subscriptions are either 0.25 for non-exclusive or 0.30 for exclusive. You are exclusive. So you should have gotten a 0.30 sale, but your sale was for a RAW file. My guess is that with RAW type files the royalty is double, so it would be either 0.50 for non-exclusive or 0.60 for exclusive. Extended Licenses should always have a $50 royalty. They have nothing to do with subscription sales.
784
« on: March 02, 2007, 03:11 »
The misunderstanding I had was what exactly a subscription sale is. I didn't understand that a subscription sale would be the same thing as subscription credits.
This means that rather than getting $25.00 (50 credits x 50 cents) for an extended license, a buyer gets an extended license for $10.00 (50 credits x 20 cents).
Huh? I don't understand what you are saying.
785
« on: March 01, 2007, 08:17 »
Perhaps you could give us an update if Peter or Steve reply to the forum.
Will do...
786
« on: March 01, 2007, 08:11 »
Since we can't contact them via internet, I wonder if one of the other friends here on MSG can send a mail for us collectively?[/color]
I have posted a thread on the StockXpert forum. FYI: I live in North Carolina and have not had any problems at all.
787
« on: February 28, 2007, 14:47 »
I was thinking more in terms of maximum run lengths. If you have a limit of 250,000 yet you purchase the same image from three different sites are you then allowed to run 750,000? 
If a buyer wanted a higher run rate, then they should just purchase the image from Fotolia or LuckyOliver (which both offer unlimited run rates).
788
« on: February 28, 2007, 14:43 »
As the subject states, have anyone received a subscription sale (@ 0.25) yet?
I'm interested to see how many of them there are at this point.
789
« on: February 28, 2007, 14:42 »
From my understanding, a subscription sale will add to the total # of sales that the image has. This will in time raise the price of the image as it goes up to higher levels. But as the price increases (from increasing sales), will this push buyers to more subscriptions?
For example, lets take an image that has no sales. At first a maximum size image costs $4.00 (at level 1). At level 2 (> 25 sales), the same image will cost $5.00. At level 3 (> 50 sales), the same image will cost $6.00. At level 4 (> 100 sales), the same image will cost $7.00. Finally, at level 5 (> 200 sales), the same image will cost $8.00.
So over time, the price of images that sell well will increase, which means that the average price of sellable images will increase overall.
Will higher and higher image prices push buyers to purchase more subscriptions?
790
« on: February 28, 2007, 14:11 »
Do you think buyers can avoid purchasing an EL by doing this? Pretty weird it happens to all of us and too often to be a coincidence.
Most Extended Licenses are created to allow a buyer to "resell" the image thru various means (mousepads, t-shirts, mugs, etc). So purchasing multiple images from various sites wouldn't help with this cause.
791
« on: February 28, 2007, 07:53 »
I have a 30D, and I am trying to make my workflow more efficient. I shoot in RAW and am trying to find a good, fast viewer.
For those of you that own a Canon, what do you use to view RAW files?
792
« on: February 27, 2007, 21:55 »
Is this a "nature" image, in your opinion?
I would have to say that it is not a nature shot, since the subject is the log cabin. To me, the picture is of a log cabin surrounded by nature.
Nice shot by the way!
So, you would say the cabin is a "natural" shot, but not a "nature" shot?
Sure...
793
« on: February 27, 2007, 18:21 »
The amateur vs. pro is dependent on your definition of the two.
Some say that the difference between the two is that one makes money from his hobby while the other spends money on his hobby.
Others will say that a professional is someone that does it as their primary income source.
But I agree with the sentiment that microstock will probably be more of an entry point for "advanced amateurs" to try out the profession.
794
« on: February 27, 2007, 17:20 »
Is this a "nature" image, in your opinion?
I would have to say that it is not a nature shot, since the subject is the log cabin. To me, the picture is of a log cabin surrounded by nature. Nice shot by the way!
795
« on: February 27, 2007, 15:08 »
I like the idea of a sliding scale by the buyers.
100% nature:
...
...
...
0% Nature
What are you guys thinking?
It sounds like a good idea, but I have no idea how it would be implemented. Who is going to decide how much "nature" is in a photo? The photographer? The inspector?
796
« on: February 27, 2007, 15:06 »
Don't worry about the number [of photographers]...maybe I'll leave it open for a while and see where it naturally settles.
I think that is a good idea. See what develops... What if an image is on another site, and the price is lower, why buy it at PNS for more?
This already happens with most images (that are not exclusive). Most people submit the same images to multiple agencies. For example, a 12 MP image on IS is $10, on StockXpert it's $5, on DT it's $4, on FT it's $3, etc. So why do people buy on IS when they have the highest prices? You just need to find the right balance between price (for the buyer) and royalty (for the submitter). Some reasons that they might buy from your site are: 1. It will hopefully be easier to find an image that is specific to nature 2. There will be a larger variety of nature images
797
« on: February 27, 2007, 13:42 »
The word nature, in the sense that we are discussing, means naturally occurring (and not man-made).
So I would be inclined to think that generic nature photography would include scenes that were either all natural (100%) or predominantly natural (>75%).
An example of an all natural scene would be of an animal in its natural habitat (such as a lion on the Serengeti).
An example of a predominantly natural scene might be of a hawk sitting on a wooden fence. Or a barn/house surrounded by forest/mountains.
In your case, you are calling your stock site PureNatureStock. IMO, the word pure means 100%, so I would think that you would only want pure nature shots.
But I think that it all comes down to your target audience. Who do you expect to be your buyers? Will they be looking for 100% nature shots, or do they want nature interacting with man-made objects?
Some other questions that could be posed (along this same train of thought) would be:
- Are humans a part of nature? IMO, yes.
- Are animals captured in a zoo OK? Or does the animal have to be caught in its natural environment?
798
« on: February 27, 2007, 13:29 »
yeah, that old man image immediatly came to mind.
I was thinking about the same image when it was mentioned that IS would protect their users. Just goes to show you that they probably should have done something in that case. If that image came immediately to mind for three of us, imagine how many others remember that case as well?
799
« on: February 27, 2007, 07:43 »
It looks like DT has implemented the new price plan today.
My big question is: How will the 0.25 subscription sales affect other sales?
800
« on: February 25, 2007, 19:21 »
Why is the word c-h-r-i-s-t-m-a-s being replaced in our posts by "creepermas"?
Regards,
Adelaide
Interesting. I had seen that once, but thought that the person had replaced the word Christmas themselves. Leaf?
Pages: 1 ... 27 28 29 30 31 [32] 33 34 35 36 37 ... 51
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
