|
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 ... 28 29 30 31 32 [33] 34 35 36 37 38 ... 624
801
« on: December 19, 2019, 16:58 »
something is pretty wrong on istock/esp
esp - summary -
contract: Ramy hamada
This is not my name.. so i can see the earnings from another one?
Me3. I'll post on their forum and Fb group and hopefully get a fast reply. Oh, they have really excelled themselves this time. There are lots of people who have already reported this issue. Eejits. This must be against all sorts of Data Protection Acts.
802
« on: December 19, 2019, 15:34 »
The website is not displaying some pages correctly so they must be uploading the stats now.
The 'unexpected error' displaying pages has been happening on and off all month.
So mebbes aye, mebbes naw.
'Should' be reported by end of day tomorrow on PST.
But.....but.....but.....I already got the popcorn! I will not be denied my popcorn! lol
Patience, Poppet! "Statement data is currently not available because we are importing new statement data. Please check back later."
803
« on: December 19, 2019, 14:00 »
The website is not displaying some pages correctly so they must be uploading the stats now.
The 'unexpected error' displaying pages has been happening on and off all month. So mebbes aye, mebbes naw. 'Should' be reported by end of day tomorrow on PST.
804
« on: December 18, 2019, 19:00 »
Sue, you mentioned checking out Adobe and here's some info you may find of interest:
I didn't really. I only asked what the average percentage is there. Like I said, I have virtually no time to make more images now. I also don't know anyone with my sort of port there, particularly location, to know if there would be any point me submitting (I don't have models, I don't have a studio, I live in the boonies: none of these is going to change). Thanks anyway.
805
« on: December 18, 2019, 17:02 »
Here's my final answer  Ask Sean how he feels about the differences in return. I know he was one of the top ten for years on IS, but now that he's off there and working the non-exclusive sites, maybe he can tell you what you might expect?
Sean's port and mine are polar opposites, so I'm afraid his experience would be extremely different to mine. E.g. I don't do models. I know we all have different images and markets, yours vs yours?
I do know that two people who submit similar subjects to me to SS don't do well there, even though they combined ports to get to higher levels quicker. My intention still is, as I've said often before, that when I finally get sick of iS, I'll probably give up on micro altogether, and donate my wildlife pics to charities I support. As always, reserving the right to change my mind. I have caring responsibilities, so almost no time to shoot nowadays. I know I'm always on here, but that's mostly on my very long commute, or at night.
806
« on: December 18, 2019, 14:10 »
I left iStock almost 3 years ago. Their history is like the boiling frog experiment unfolding in real life. I have no sympathy for those who accept such a despicable treatment.
So, I get 30% from iS. I understand that's about the same as the average at SS. I don't know about Adobe, can anyone enlighten me? Getty is a bunch of foetid dingoes' kidneys, but the rest aren't much better; and I probably get a higher average rpd than most on SS and Adobe also. That isn't saying much, my sales are way down and my rpd way, waaaaaay down from a few years back, but I don't see that I'd do better elsewhere.
807
« on: December 18, 2019, 09:27 »
Wow, so in a time when downloads per contributor have in general been trending down....they are increasing targets?!
They do it every year. They need to increase their profits. It takes a lot of money to service a debt. It's a major disincentive but l don't mistake them for a company which gives a d*mn
808
« on: December 18, 2019, 09:22 »
^^^ Yebbut that's talking about being fair to contributors. When was that ever Getty's modus operandi, or indeed any of the other micros?
809
« on: December 17, 2019, 18:50 »
I visited a particularly nice cathedral and actually purchased a photo permit. The bloke selling them clearly didn't sell a lot as he had to search for it. Took lots of nice pics then when I got home looked at the small print on the photo permit (to be fair, it was surprisingly inexpensive) and it was for personal use only. There was no indication anywhere that there might be a two-tier photo permit system, and the bloke certainly didn't mention it. Ho-hum. 
810
« on: December 17, 2019, 12:26 »
They also didn't mention how Getty has pretty much always been ahead of the curve in taking the largest percent of every sale for themselves.
Did everyone else get the email today, offering 25% off the subscription packages? Does that mean a cut or they will make less, but give us the earned commissions?
I can't imagine why it would be different from every other commission they offer, the cut is shared between both them and us. So if a file used to cost e.g. 40c, it will now cost 30c and that will be divvied up according to our commission rate.
811
« on: December 13, 2019, 16:32 »
In the past, we have had various newbies complaining about their Alamy payout because they hadn't done their basic homework and didn't realise that in the easiest to access sales reporting page on Alamy, prices are quoted gross. I didn't mention, nor did I even think about you, (sorry to disappoint).
As you can see, I didn't even "assume" that the OP didn't know.
Where do you see what we enter the gross in the poll or are quoting gross in sales on forum? How do I know that I'd like to watch.
Are you in the same parallel universe as YYY?!
I understand what he asked that you didn't answer how do you know what he enters and what I asked that you didn't answer except to write an insult. How do you know what anybody enters gross or net and how do you know newbies are complain because they haven't done their homework. Are you a teacher critic poll monitor for all of us?
If you had taken the time to actually read what I have written, you'd know that I nowhere said anything about Alamy re the msg poll. I know some newbies complain because some have complained here some on Alamy's own forum, a few on both. But about what I was talking about (red above), nothing to do with the poll here.
812
« on: December 12, 2019, 17:48 »
In the past, we have had various newbies complaining about their Alamy payout because they hadn't done their basic homework and didn't realise that in the easiest to access sales reporting page on Alamy, prices are quoted gross. I didn't mention, nor did I even think about you, (sorry to disappoint).
As you can see, I didn't even "assume" that the OP didn't know.
Where do you see what we enter the gross in the poll or are quoting gross in sales on forum? How do I know that I'd like to watch.
Are you in the same parallel universe as YYY?!
813
« on: December 11, 2019, 10:40 »
As the OP says he didn't read all the details, I'll just say that Alamy sales prices are quoted gross, as we've had a number of other people who haven't realised that then been disappointed down the line. If you already know that, that's good.
My Alamy results are real, not gross, How do you assume to know what everybody else reports?
You appear to be addressing me but I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about, and I was neither talking to, nor referring to you. In the past, we have had various newbies complaining about their Alamy payout because they hadn't done their basic homework and didn't realise that in the easiest to access sales reporting page on Alamy, prices are quoted gross. I didn't mention, nor did I even think about you, (sorry to disappoint). As you can see, I didn't even "assume" that the OP didn't know.
814
« on: December 11, 2019, 05:40 »
I realize Im not the first to talk about this and I understand its a very competitive business for microstock companies but, seriously, $24.05 for 63 photos sold on Shutterstock, nothing too encouraging for a newbie like me. Rant over, thanks for listening.
Did you research the selling rates before signing up?
No, I just based my decision on the Microstock Poll Results and started submitting to the top 6 (excluding iStock). I currently have an approx 300-500 photo port depending on the sites.
Weird way to base a decision. (IMO)
Even if it wasn't for the people who deliberately post false results, you have no way of knowing what media the people posting honest figures are submitting: so they might only submit video, or only illos, or a mixture so have no relevance to your port.
I'm not sure what other information you could base it on that would give a different result other than trial and error. The only anomaly is pond 5 as thats really a video specialist.
I meant more research would have meant he knew the prices to expect. So i this case, he might have been happily surprised that not all his SS sales were 25c ones. In particular, if he feels that sales of $1 - $8 are reasonable, and that's more Important than overall totals, he could have chosen where to submit accordingly. Not that that helps with falling prices at e.g. Alamy, but it could have been a starting point and avoided this disappointment. As the OP says he didn't read all the details, I'll just say that Alamy sales prices are quoted gross, as we've had a number of other people who haven't realised that then been disappointed down the line. If you already know that, that's good.
815
« on: December 10, 2019, 20:41 »
I realize Im not the first to talk about this and I understand its a very competitive business for microstock companies but, seriously, $24.05 for 63 photos sold on Shutterstock, nothing too encouraging for a newbie like me. Rant over, thanks for listening.
Did you research the selling rates before signing up?
No, I just based my decision on the Microstock Poll Results and started submitting to the top 6 (excluding iStock). I currently have an approx 300-500 photo port depending on the sites.
Weird way to base a decision. (IMO) Even if it wasn't for the people who deliberately post false results, you have no way of knowing what media the people posting honest figures are submitting: so they might only submit video, or only illos, or a mixture so have no relevance to your port.
816
« on: December 10, 2019, 19:38 »
I realize Im not the first to talk about this and I understand its a very competitive business for microstock companies but, seriously, $24.05 for 63 photos sold on Shutterstock, nothing too encouraging for a newbie like me. Rant over, thanks for listening.
Did you research the selling rates before signing up?
817
« on: December 10, 2019, 09:40 »
Anyway, why I see grass photos when I am looking for dog?
No idea.
In a clean browser, all of the first page in a search for dog ('relevant') feature a dog, as a major or minor feature, except on which is a chbby chap running along a desert road chasing a carrot.
Sorting by 'Latest Uploads' I get a lot of 'dog roses' mixed in, plus one landscape which has 'dog' in the keywords, but I don't see a dog.
Sorting by 'best selling', I see a lot of images I saw when sorting 'relevant', minus the bloke chasing the carrot, but there is a photo of an empty kennel keyworded 'dog house', 'doghouse', 'dog' and 'house'.
So on the first page of each search, I don't see photos of grass (without a dog or dogs), but if you do, maybe you have DT cookies which are giving you a different sort from me, maybe they factor searcher location into results or  , but presumably 'dog' comes into the keywords somewhere.
This is a long standing keyword/search issue that Dreamstime has no interest whatsoever in addressing.
Any word put in the description shows up as a keyword. Two word phrases are broken into individual words.
They don't see the problem.
Maybe if more BUYERS complained, they might do something. However, potential buyers tend to just wander off when they get bad search results, rather than take the time to complain.
Actually, that happens on most sites, I know for a fact SS, Alamy, adobe and iS, but on the latter if it's cleanly keyworded, these words usually turn up at the end of a search, or in a search with no hits. To check for it, check for Blue Whale on any site. Trouble is that there are always some contributors who will keyword blue and whale separately, which creates its own problems, but on most sites you'll see lots of pics of blue sea (or sky) and any whale or whale shark because of the splitting issue.
818
« on: December 09, 2019, 14:44 »
Anyway, why I see grass photos when I am looking for dog?
No idea. In a clean browser, all of the first page in a search for dog ('relevant') feature a dog, as a major or minor feature, except on which is a chbby chap running along a desert road chasing a carrot. Sorting by 'Latest Uploads' I get a lot of 'dog roses' mixed in, plus one landscape which has 'dog' in the keywords, but I don't see a dog. Sorting by 'best selling', I see a lot of images I saw when sorting 'relevant', minus the bloke chasing the carrot, but there is a photo of an empty kennel keyworded 'dog house', 'doghouse', 'dog' and 'house'. So on the first page of each search, I don't see photos of grass (without a dog or dogs), but if you do, maybe you have DT cookies which are giving you a different sort from me, maybe they factor searcher location into results or , but presumably 'dog' comes into the keywords somewhere.
819
« on: December 01, 2019, 12:13 »
[... I would call that dishonest myself, but I will say that when I worked for the NHS information for patients had to be written so that a ten year old could read it, maybe they could follow that example.
That has changed. For example my sister was recently told she had 'deterioration of the foot' (sounds like 'footrot'!) which I Googled and found it means osteo-arthritis. Another friend was told she had three different conditions after a brain scan - again Googling and adding them together it seemed she has Vascular Dementia, and indeed she has; but she isnt fully accepting it, because that "isn't what my scan showed".
820
« on: November 30, 2019, 17:41 »
Hi, I'm an exclusive photo contributor.
After about a year, I'm uploading again.
I have couple of submissions in the inspection queue.
I have been waiting for 15 days for inspection. is it normal?
Not normal. Mine usually go through within 12 hours, sometimes a lot less. Maybe delete the batch and reupload? If you don't want to do that in the first instance, e.g. if it was a massive upload of many files, you could post on their own forum or the Fb exclusive forum and hope a moderator will help, but I've seen official advice to delete-reupload a few times.
821
« on: November 30, 2019, 15:51 »
Thank you, it helps a lot. It shows how dishonest Alamy is by hiding the most important information (the amount I earn from a sale) under several clicks and weird and complicated information table. On the front page you are just prompted with gross sale that makes you think that you made a huge sale, since thats what we are used to see on other agencies - the amount we earn.
To be fair, Alamy started out with more macro-like earnings, and it was traditional for macro agencies to quote files sales gross.
822
« on: November 30, 2019, 12:08 »
Very nice report!  And a stupid question... can you sell prints of editorial images on FAA? Or do you just upload commercial stuff in there?
There is no inspection there, so it's 100% up to you to keep on the right side of the Law in your country, or wherever you took the pics.
823
« on: November 26, 2019, 04:41 »
I just got my royalties for these two images used in this ad, from what i read it was used in a full page ad in New York Times. The royalties received was 12.50 each with the agency that's submitting to Getty taking 12,50 (50/50 split) i know the NY Times got a pretty large print run i would have thought the price would be more?
https://www.theaftd.org/new-aftd-awareness-ad-to-appear-in-oct-20-new-york-times/
I doubt the agency gets 50% of the sale price. What usually happens (unless your agency has some special deal) is that you get 50% of what the agency gets, which may or may not be 15%. So possibly the buyer paid $166.66, your agency got 15% of that, and you got half of what the agency made. Even in the case that the agency gets 50% of the sale price, it all depends on the discount the buyer has negotiated. For instance, maybe it was a Premium Access sale, whereby buyers pay Getty a Premium to Access images at a very low price. The price on the agency page is a 'rack rate' - the price a buyer would pay if they just arrived there to buy one image only. You can imagine that doesn't happen often.
824
« on: November 24, 2019, 11:23 »
Alright folks, you'll have to excuse me for not being up to date with IS because I left them a long time ago and rarely read threads related to them.
I was googling for stock footage and seems video's are priced 475 euros for 4K video (HD same price btw) so people should be making big bucks there no? even if there's only 10% left for the contributor.
What gives? no sales or are those numbers fake?
Woops was Getty but still are people making video sales with them?
As in other places, the 'rack rate' shown on the page isn't necesarily the price the customer pays. There are super deep discounts, and Premium Access, whereby it seems that iS keeps the premium and we get peanuts.
825
« on: November 20, 2019, 07:40 »
By dint of having one decent value sale, a better than usual nowadays rpd meant it was my second best month of the year. Download numbers poor and my worst October ever (since 2017). But I haven't been in a position to upload much this year, so I'm relying on my back catalogue - on the upside, no expenses!
Pages: 1 ... 28 29 30 31 32 [33] 34 35 36 37 38 ... 624
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
