|
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 - Mantis
Pages: 1 ... 27 28 29 30 31 [32] 33 34 35 36 37 ... 219
776
« on: July 09, 2017, 15:11 »
If you have 10 days without a single sale, you should re-evaluate your images first, instead of trying to come up with some conspiracy theroies.
Completely wrong recommendation if you have a selling port. What if I have a year of great sales then those same images stop selling altogether for 10 days? I am to attribute that to my portfolio? That's just funny man.
777
« on: July 09, 2017, 10:15 »
I try to always look at current events. If you have niche, pursue it. But for me I diversify and my next theme is what is popular in the news. Not a one-day news story but longer term current events like politics, gun control, global warming, etc. This is to say that I evaluate my submissions against current events for the most part.
778
« on: July 08, 2017, 18:27 »
Time to open a new thread: July algorithm change?
June=july....horrible. No need for a new thread .....lol
779
« on: July 08, 2017, 18:23 »
Sales are non existent there. Perhaps for those shooting more Asian style content have different results, but for me they are the graphic leftovers of video. Great people, good communication, but no sales.
780
« on: July 08, 2017, 09:48 »
This is just another example of voodoo from another agency who purposely misled contributors. They need to come out and make the factual claim that $49=100% regardless of how much they actually charge a customer.
781
« on: July 07, 2017, 07:56 »
They are not agencies, they are more like some kind of online supermarkets (of which we are the exploited suppliers).
Nobody is forcing "exploitation" on you.
You can always leave if you don't like the way you are treated.
That is true, for sure. I have left a number of sites of my own free will, mainly because of the low sales and some due to treatment. But the analogy Chichikov makes is much closer to a supermarket model than a true agency who represents their contributors. Contributors are the suppliers who are gouged and not represented with a partnership bias. So I see it much like Chichikov states, but to your point, nobody is handcuffing us to stay.
782
« on: July 07, 2017, 07:48 »
PD recently went in a new direction. One of the things they did was delete images. Many HIGH END content accounts purged. No contributor had any say. They reviewed your portfolio and if it did not fit their new ELEMENTS model criteria, they deleted your images. If you were 'lucky' enough to not have all of your images deleted, you made it into ELEMENTS (their new model). You say ALMOST. That infers that you have remaining images. Probably they want to keep what you have left and include them in their new collection. You should have received emails from them telling you that they deleted XXX from your port. For me I had 3800 images there and now I have a couple of hundred. I haven't done anything with Elements, not uploaded to PD's new model, nothing. Too confusing for this simple mind and I really don't understand what they are doing or how I can make any money with just a couple hundred images. There are a couple of threads here talking more about this move. In a nutshell, most contributors had their full ports deleted.
783
« on: July 05, 2017, 22:06 »
iStock provides us higher spirituality money can't buy. Suffering makes us a better person.
Excellent insights. I bow to thee for your wisdom giveth so freely here.
784
« on: July 05, 2017, 18:54 »
If iStock representative says "Get a real job", you should.
But they didn't say that. So.......let's get factual....IStock cut royalties......then IStock said "money isn't everything". You understand that, right?
785
« on: July 04, 2017, 13:02 »
If they said it's real, I'm sure it's real.
And money doesn't make you happy according to a statement from an Istock representative, should we believe him? Seriously, would you expect them to say anything different?
786
« on: July 04, 2017, 08:58 »
For me VB never worked at all: less than 5% of my video sales.
The sales pattern has always looked fake to me:
- I have always had 2 sales per month, every single month for 2 years, same number of sales when I had 100 files as now with over 2000
- The first month with about 30 files I got 4 sales, a welcome aboard package
- I have never had a file selling more than once, while in other agencies sales tend to concentrate in best selling clips
- The videos that sell there are always the worst ones, the ones that never sold anywhere else, or the ones uploaded by mistake
I have made a similar claim before. Some months I get 10-12 sales, then very little (1-2) for three months, then 10-12. It does look fake to me too, but VB has come in here assuring us that it is real. Real or not, their pattern is more or less predictive. With 500 videos vs. 1500 videos, the pattern is the same. No growth, consistently low, then one spike, then consistently low then one spike, and so on. I am going to keep uploading, though, until I have a strong reason not to.
787
« on: July 03, 2017, 22:14 »
Vb is on, off, on, off, on, off
788
« on: July 03, 2017, 10:49 »
It's easy to have a BME when you've only been around for a year or two. I've been with Shutterstock now for 12 years, and June was the worst month in 5 years, down 50% from last year. Something is seriously wrong.
Exactly my experience. 50% down. Over 4,000 assets, mix of video and stills.
789
« on: July 02, 2017, 17:26 »
"Money isn't what's going to make you happy."
But having no money at all is pretty much guaranteed to make you unhappy to a certain extent! Unless you lead a completely self-sustained lifestyle... then it would be ok. Own your own home, grow your own food, solar power etc.
You probably weren't around when this iconic statement was made by an Stock executive when they FKDUS on royalty cuts. It is a sarcastic post.
790
« on: July 01, 2017, 21:33 »
Depends on where you upload. At Alamy you will need model releases. This might be accepted elsewhere, but different inspectors have different opinions. I had a silhouette rejected on Stock once because they said if you can adjust the image enough and see facial features it won't bee accepted. I mean, you would have had to drag sliders dramatically enough that the image quality would not be worth using. But its their company, not mine. It is one of my better sellers on other micros.
791
« on: July 01, 2017, 08:38 »
SS down 50% over last month....$1200 down to $600. Very low with whatever change they made in the search. Everywhere else was average, nothing spectacular to report on except the huge drop at Shutterstock.
792
« on: June 30, 2017, 16:04 »
Yes. But, if Selma is NOT Michele, there is a problem.
What if Michele is not Selma, but Selma is Michele?
793
« on: June 29, 2017, 07:56 »
Old thread alert.
Very cute... You got 3 "+" from your fans.
Your first ever post was to call someone a "mother f**ker" and a "dumbass", your fourth to revive a 3 year old thread and your sixth to patronise/ insult one of the main contributors to the forum.
We could be in line for the greatest first ten forum posts ever! Can't wait to see what numbers 7-10 bring!!
HAHAHA..excellent post
794
« on: June 29, 2017, 07:53 »
This time last year I was making a little over $200 a month. Now I am at $75-$100 a month with 4000 images and video.
795
« on: June 28, 2017, 18:38 »
I think that $100 is too much for them to hang on to. Yes, it is in their terms, so you really don't have much to go on. But they should consider lowering that mainly because it takes so long for many to even achieve $100. Its just stingy. Most contributors don't quit correctly, though. Know the terms and them quit after you reach your threshold. I know that's too late but just for others' future reference who don't know better.
796
« on: June 28, 2017, 18:35 »
Old thread alert.
Very cute... You got 3 "+" from your fans.
Now it's four.
797
« on: June 28, 2017, 07:55 »
Interesting how Achilles says that it is important for customers, they want it, but very few of them will use this option.
If very few of them will use this option, why implement it? And I can go further by questioning the claim that "we made the decision based on what our customers want." Well, customers want free imagery. And that is certainly the direction DT and other MS companies are going in.
I also agree wholeheartedly with Sean regarding this comment: the print industry struggles a lot. One could make that claim about most other industries who use images to promote their business. Blogosphere, retail, travel, and so on. So while they resell one's work the artist gets his/her .35 cents, or whatever. And we're supposed to be happy with that? I also call BS on his statement that our overall royalties would go down if he didn't make this change. This is likely based on assumption. I assume, so therefore we are giving away even more of the goods.
DT is struggling and this move was nothing more than a way to appease one or two big customers.
798
« on: June 28, 2017, 07:39 »
FAA is not very good for me. I might get one sale a year. I have 3,500 or so images there.
799
« on: June 25, 2017, 15:37 »
Well if the conspiracy theories are thrown out then perhaps
SS have lost a ton of customers
Highly likely thats exactly whats happening.
These things happen overnight. It's not customers that drive this royalty behavior in that short of time. If anything they are playing with the search to yield some kind of strategic outcome. I would say that this is the most likely scenario because it's one of the levers they can easily manipulate and measure. If this is the case, some will win and some will lose until the next time, depending on the criteria they use in the search adjustment.
800
« on: June 24, 2017, 19:11 »
A four year old return? No idea.
And you reluctantly paid them, right?  Seriously, I wonder how far they are willing to take something like that if you just say nicely to GFYourselves.
Pages: 1 ... 27 28 29 30 31 [32] 33 34 35 36 37 ... 219
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
