|
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 - pancaketom
Pages: 1 ... 30 31 32 33 34 [35] 36 37 38 39 40 ... 91
851
« on: July 09, 2015, 13:22 »
Within the last 2 month I uploaded 550 images.
I know my images is not in the "right" position yet because of the search engine system takes time. But right now Im earning about 500 dollars a month, and if my old statistic "works" that will about tripple within 4 months time (search engine system )
I wouldn't count on that. The search giveth and the search taketh away. Depending on the images I'd say with 550 images getting $500 a month is about as "right" as you can get these days.
852
« on: July 08, 2015, 21:45 »
I'd much rather sites up the percent they paid us than lowering the payout threshold.
853
« on: June 23, 2015, 16:59 »
Thanks, I wouldn't have found that on my own... I don't know if any of mine have been deleted, but I have a baseline now.
It does seem that just a few images make up almost all my sales there (not surprising considering the usage).
854
« on: June 22, 2015, 23:13 »
how do you see your portfolio? I mean the images that are for sale, not the whole mess including rejected and pending cutout?
855
« on: June 19, 2015, 17:08 »
Of course we have scared off some agency reps. Who wants to be on here getting ripped up and down as the face for the corporate entity that is screwing us? Of course they mostly can't take it (or have no incentive to anyway).
In general I think that reps that are honest and somewhat open are an asset to MSG and the agencies they represent. That doesn't mean we have to agree with or like what they say, but it is nice to hear from their side when they are honest. Of course there has been plenty of double speak and outright lies too, and the reps need to know we will call them on that. Sometimes the best answer is "I hear your question and I can't (or won't) answer that" - at least it is honest.
856
« on: June 18, 2015, 15:50 »
I'm surprised you can disagree with what I'm saying. I'm saying there will be some buyers who choose to go to Adobe Stock, that doesn't seem very controversial, look at the stock price it didn't get hammered when this was first announced and when it was implemented because investors are worried Adobe Stock will get only brand new customers. I'm saying those buyers that do move will earn you less money for like sales (subs, on demand, single sales), that's a fact, you can look it up and compare for yourself. What I think we can disagree on is how many customers will be brought into Adobe Stock that would not have been customers at other sites, that is a much harder thing to predict. I think it will be a low number, much much lower than the amount converted from other sites and specifically SS but again we can disagree about that point. Time will tell. About the ratio of packages I would expect buyers that move from SS to Adobe to buy those packages in the same ratio they would when they were at SS, why not? And each of those packages will pay the vast majority of contributors less than they would have had.
I think this is correct in the main. I just disagree that the impact will be more at SS than istock. Why quit a stock leader when you can dump the site(s) that treat both customers and contributors the worst. I suspect that if AS takes off, it will be the finally nail in the coffin (or stake through the heart) of what was once a great company. But yes, time will tell.
iStock may lose Essentials subscription packages but SS could lose all their subs packages. Adobe has the same content as SS, Adobe is more convenient than SS since a subs buyer most likely already has photoshop and uses it regularly, the price is exactly the same as SS. I think having different content and cheaper pricing at iStock probably will result a smaller percentage loss of subscription packages, what does SS offer that Adobe doesn't have? That's going to be a tough question for them to answer. Inertia should keep them steady for a while but how will they keep customers when it's time to renew?
Adobe has SIMILAR content to SS and IS and everywhere else. There is a lot of overlap, but between exclusivity, reviewing differences, and people not having work at various sites for various reasons they are not the same content. With the size of the image libraries the quality of the search is probably more important than the actual images for most users though.
857
« on: June 18, 2015, 14:21 »
I'll be more positive when there is more (or anything?) to be positive about.
On the other hand, I am a bit like Arena Creative - except with much less work over the last 5 years and much much less income. Luckily it doesn't take much to support me in the manner I am accustomed to. I think if one continues to keep at this the $ return will only go down slowly (unless you were wildly successful in the past in which case the slide will be faster - but won't end up as low).
There are all sorts of cool new things you can do with digital imaging and there are some new options for selling that are promising if you can work them. Hopefully the AS deal will not be a net negative, although I don't think anything from FT has been positive in ages (except maybe some backsteps from really really negative things). Anyway for me any sale lost to AS from anywhere other than FT is a 100% loss.
We shall see. My best guess is that things will get worse, but they won't get really really worse and it will happen slowly.
858
« on: June 18, 2015, 12:58 »
Are they still playing the currency game (paying different rates if you sign up in Europe vs. USA for example?)
It will be interesting to see what happens. I am of course very leery of any "exciting news" etc. from the agencies. This one looks to mostly be good (at least for those that are on FT - and possibly will require other sites to be more contributor friendly which would be great across the board).
I wonder what happens to all your stuff if you cancel CC (from the buyers side).
Maybe Adobe can regain some trust, but FT itself still has little to none.
859
« on: June 10, 2015, 15:39 »
I generally hit the agree if the person said something close to what my comment would have been or if I agree. I "disagree" a lot less, but usually it is when I think they made a wrong statement.
860
« on: June 07, 2015, 22:33 »
The cost of doing without is about the same everywhere.
Still, just in the USA the cost for housing can vary very wildly.
Also what standard of living people expect to be able to afford varies greatly around the world.
861
« on: June 06, 2015, 16:26 »
It's not just a number's game. It matters a lot what kind of content you upload. With 600 photos+clips online, I get close to 1k downloads on SS:
May: 941
April: 946
March: 1026
Unless you are deleting files, that is a poor trend. Especially if you are uploading a lot... I guess deleting files is going to hurt your long term sales trends too. Still, it does matter a lot what content you have and its placement in the searches.
862
« on: June 05, 2015, 00:30 »
Lots more downloads at the lower portfolio end, lots less at the upper end (probably as much due to the portfolio to total images for sale ratio as anything else). There was a sort of nice correlation between new uploads and sales at first - up to 1000 images or so, and then there wasn't. In fact despite new uploads (although not at any blistering pace) I have less downloads now than I did in about 2008 with 1/4 to 1/3 of the portfolio - mostly taken with a point and shoot. Thankfully the $ have gone up, but nowhere near the increase in pictures or quality. Since many of my sales still come from old pictures I have no idea how the numbers stack up now.
863
« on: June 04, 2015, 10:39 »
I am guessing this was a mistake on FT's part. But the way they reacted to it was pretty telling. They have a long history of doing questionable practices and things that are very damaging to contributors and usually they eventually admit it is their policy and tell us to take it or leave it or do a very small back pedal.
Or maybe someone tried to pull a fast one and their lawyer told them that they would lose this time, so they reversed course. Their credibility is long gone and it is going to take a whole lot to get any back.
In any case I bet it is only a matter of time before the next sketchy "partner" or "exciting opportunity" or "glitch" or whatever they might call it.
864
« on: June 02, 2015, 15:08 »
DT is nearly 100% subs for me now, The only time I am really happy to see that a sale there is a sub is when it is a "level 0" sale. The credit sales are nice, but almost like ODD or EL at SS now. I am getting a fair number of $2 subs now, but I think those are "pseudo subs" - where they sell some sort of image pack or something and pretend it is a sub - at least they pay over the .35 for it. It was nice when the higher level files also yielded more for subs sales.
According to the quarterly earnings graph they have bounced around a bit but in general been flat curving to a downward trend since 2011 for me. At that time they were about = to IS with double the files and 30% of SS with a similar # of files.
865
« on: May 29, 2015, 01:21 »
other than PD which died the 22nd for me this last week has been pretty good for me - Monday was another weekend day, but the rest of the days have been ticking along nicely... This is in comparison to the rest of the year which has been rather poor compared to 2012-2014. Maybe they shook the search snowglobe and a few flakes went my way, or maybe my expectations have been lowered enough that this looks ok.
866
« on: May 28, 2015, 12:15 »
google giveth and google taketh away.
especially for the smaller sites I bet google search is pretty important - supposedly the last round of changes pretty much sunk GL.
It would be good to be able to improve SEO for our images, but why we'd want to do that for IS, FT, SS, or any of the big players that take the biggest chunks is beyond me. It would be definitely worth doing it if you have your own site though. Also maybe for P5 or similar.
The biggest problem is that what might help you now might hurt you later. So unless you are willing to go back and change things each time google changes it is probably best to just have accurate and descriptive titles, keywords, etc.
867
« on: May 27, 2015, 17:54 »
I think the toxic RC system (I stopped uploading) and then forcing us into PP was the worst. It made me pull most of my port and lowered my income a bit and theirs a lot. It was nice to have all my remaining images in P+ while that lasted though.
868
« on: May 19, 2015, 15:28 »
no increase here, in fact I'd say 1 since January is probably a bit low.
869
« on: May 18, 2015, 14:42 »
Part of it is how do you feel about getting 15% of a sale and .27 (or whatever it is there) for sub sales and supporting the company that treats contributors that way. Unless you get lots and lots of sales at IS which seems unlikely these days you will probably never move out of the bottom tier.
As far as short term $ goes, they probably are in the upper tier (top 3 or 4 at least), but they are also a pain to deal with - both for uploading and just about everything else.
870
« on: May 17, 2015, 14:06 »
Reliable income stream is the important thing here, unfortunately for many of us at some point we are running to move backwards - or in my case walking...
871
« on: May 14, 2015, 14:35 »
yep, that pretty much hits the nail on the head. Number of images going up faster than number of sales.
Under "Contributors" PP 6-7 or so it is unclear when you are talking about images licensed per year and images licensed per quarter.
872
« on: May 13, 2015, 21:14 »
I expect our Shutterstock captchas to be keywording pics soon.
873
« on: May 12, 2015, 14:51 »
Most wildlife photographers are not starving artists only because they have some other source of income. The time and equipment (not to mention skill) required to get top notch wildlife pics do not match up with the return, especially from microstock. Lots of people spend their time and money on things that do not provide an adequate monetary return.
874
« on: May 11, 2015, 16:25 »
What should we do if your CV does not include the meaning of the keyword for our image?
875
« on: May 06, 2015, 13:06 »
To some extent as long as the conditions are not hidden I think that if you sign up for it, then you have decided it is fair.
When sites move the goalposts and change conditions then that is not really fair - sort of like a bait and switch. Sure, you could just delete everything and leave (at least with some sites), but after all the work, that isn't really fair. I can't think of any major sites that haven't made changes to the detriment of the artists. Some have been quite egregious such as FT, IS.
The other thing is that originally I at least was getting .25 for sub sales that were 4 mp taken with a point and shoot. Technically my images are much better now, but the compensation hasn't increased as much as the quality. I don't know that that has anything to do with fair, but it is a fact.
Pages: 1 ... 30 31 32 33 34 [35] 36 37 38 39 40 ... 91
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
