|
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 - qwerty
Pages: 1 ... 33 34 35 36 37 [38] 39 40 41 42
926
« on: January 06, 2010, 05:05 »
Could Fotolia come up with any more bad news for contributors.
We've had
reduction in % commission
increase in the canister levels
taxation stupidity
the worst communication plan in the world
To offset this we've had amazing announcements like
The idiots who got lost in the desert who submit photos to fotolia
Fotolia university
In the last 6 months fotolia has been Istocks best friend tipping many people over the edge to exclusivity.
I wish they would just sort this taxation mess out the same way everybody else has.
927
« on: January 01, 2010, 04:30 »
Well you can cross zymetrical off the list.
Maybe you could add to both to increase chances of being a submitter to the next one to be closed.
btw my tip is stockxpert the next to go
seriously I've been loading to veer and am a bit disappointed with the results, probably had more dl on snapvillage. but they are easy to download to with no categories. I haven't tried out yay and probably won't be any time soon.
928
« on: December 28, 2009, 01:07 »
welcome to the honey moon, I remember when my port was new there, seemed unreal, the newbie boost is good while it lasts, enjoy it.
929
« on: November 30, 2009, 15:14 »
440
40850
------------------------
41290
930
« on: November 26, 2009, 05:07 »
any news on the future of bigstockphoto, I much prefer OD from shutterstock than sales on bigstock.
931
« on: November 26, 2009, 05:02 »
my smallish port of around 400 images covers the average for another 9 contributors.
some of the biggest portfolios range up to 20,000 photos. = 450ish contributors.
I'd imagine its less than 80-20 rule and more like 90-95%
100,000 images per week accepted. that's one every 6 seconds !
932
« on: November 26, 2009, 03:03 »
errrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr. let me guess they'll announce soon they're leading the microstock market by implementing this exciting new inovation.
933
« on: November 24, 2009, 22:07 »
Hi Leo,
I would not step outside of these groups myself. Getty, Corbis, Masterfile, Blend, Cultura, Image source, Superstock. That would be my first choices. I see some people here who have done really poorly on their sales at Getty. I don't get that myself, my Getty way outsells my Micro by a mile. Much less than what I made 3 years ago but that was almost illegal we were making so much on our returns. Now I would say you can count on a well produced image at Getty making you about 400 dollars in it's shelf life ( about 3-4 years ).
Hope this helps,
Jonathan
if your returns we're "almost illegal" what would you call the 80% getty made ? 
934
« on: November 24, 2009, 01:14 »
What do you think is the situation when the same image is purchased on the same day, same license, size, etc., multiple times but by different agencies? This has happened to me several times and it makes me curious. Are the purchases from the same buyer who is supporting the different agencies? What's your opinion on this? 
I forgot to mention, the images in question are old images, way back in the closet - not new or recent images added to my portfolio.
Pure coincidence. I don't think that there would be a single buyer in the history of microstock that would buy the same photos from different agencies to "support" them.
935
« on: November 23, 2009, 05:39 »
To the best of my knowledge they can be used to connect images as a series...
http://us.fotolia.com/id/9262165 ... toward bottom of page. And I think it helps search engines too.
I'd like to make full use of Fotolia. If anyone has some insights or anything, let me know. I think I've barely tapped it... my rank so far is
Overall rank 604
7 days rank 355
... I have no idea what these numbers mean, but they are better than a year ago I think.
I wouldn't worry too much about underperforming with numbers like that.
936
« on: November 19, 2009, 02:06 »
hey fotolia do a search of the forums before you post incase it's already been covered
937
« on: November 19, 2009, 02:04 »
I've had photos there in the que for 2 weeks, atleast someone is getting their files reviewed.
938
« on: November 14, 2009, 22:33 »
I think there is a difference between taking news photos in public places and taking news photos from within private events. Part of the condition of entry might be that you can't take photos for sale etc.
If you sit in the car park and take the photos I can't see how they can stop you for editorial.
939
« on: November 12, 2009, 03:25 »
boy, you guys are making me self conscious about my quality 11 jpgs.
I deleted my test images but I couldn't tell any difference .. so I am not sure there would be a point in posting them - unless of course it was just me.
How did you know which one to delete ? 
940
« on: November 07, 2009, 18:23 »
cclapper,
I think their main concern is people saying their images are not in micros while they are. This is what Elena wrote me:
We are a small agency and it takes too much time to find out that images listed as RM on our site are on FT For $0.14 under RF.
Today I deleted almost 400 such images.
The same story with mid-stock images. 95% of images submitted as mid-stock are on DS.
(I suppose DS is Dreamstime).
I told her images in my macrostock account (I have two FP accounts) are not in micros, but that indeed some listed as RM in FP are in Shutterpoint as RF (their only option). As I said before, I do that specifically in SP because they don't have RM. Images I set as RM at FP are the same RM I have at Alamy and MyLoupe. In the cases I sold an image as RM in one of the sites (including FP) or directly to a buyer, I removed from SP (or rather set a price of US$999 only to keep the image in my portfolio there, but if those few images were an issue, I would delete them from SP). I would also do the opposite (if an image sells at SP, delete images from other sites if it's listed as RM, reupload as RF), but it hasn't happened yet.
But she also said:
We had a problem with an RM image that had been found by our client as RF on another site. That is why we are cleaning RM images.
I don't think this would be a problem to a buyer unless he purchased the image as RM maybe paying more than the image is listed elsewhere as RF, even if not micros. I have seen the same images selling at Alamy as RM and RF and Alamy doesn't bother (I reported this) because they come from different sources (partner agencies).
One point however that I observed recently is that setting a basic price for RM at FP doesn't mean much. It seems to be used to calculate final price only in some situations (like commercial use). For magazines, however, the quote they give is the same regardless of the base price, what came as a surprise to me, especially because these editorial prices are VERY low for RM images (such as a magazine cover, mere US$90).
I had plans to use FP to market my images, using their collections and HTML tools to embed in my site or send to a prospective buyer. I think that selling through a site give a certain "respectability" that a direct sale sometimes may not (due to all the legal stuff in the license terms, for instance). Given their move, prices and apparent irreductible position about this RM conflict, this probably will not happen. I will probably remove my RM images from there and build my own gallery in my own website and negotiate directly like I've been doing on occasions. It's really a pity, because I supported FP a lot.
Dear Madelaide,
It is off limits to sell image on one place as RF and on other place as RF. It is moral matter as well playing unfair from your side. And, any big buyer who wants RM won't be happy to see the same image listed somewhere as RF. In the matter of fact and for your own reputation in stock industry you should remove all that images you listed as RM. If you don't do that you'll have less and less sales for sure on RM agencies.
Did you mean RF and RM ??
941
« on: November 05, 2009, 04:20 »
I was just looking at my sales at Dreamstime and all the recent sales either quote x credits (2008) or subscription. Why would I not have any 2009 credit sales ? Does anybody have (2009) credit sales on Dreamstime ?
942
« on: November 05, 2009, 02:53 »
qwerty,
Does FT do that in other languages? It would actually make sense, especially about people.
Yes I think its a good idea. I don't know if fotolia already have anything like that. I was just posing a question on what a localised search was. I remember reading something about a localised search order (Sjlocke has mentioned about best match at Istock so it must have been Istock I read about)
943
« on: November 04, 2009, 02:28 »
few of mine have been yanked. I figure it is because of the insurance guarantee they are now giving subscribers.
That seems like a logical reason why they're doing a cleanup I won't comment on whether removal of individual files is suitable
944
« on: November 03, 2009, 15:28 »
Does it mean they have localised search weighting ?
like search for "business man" puts people who are turkish at the top.
I assume that it is in turkish language aswell.
945
« on: November 03, 2009, 02:40 »
my photos were still on photos.com just then
946
« on: November 03, 2009, 01:07 »
Any particular "niche" that your site intends to be involved with.
What photos does your site want to represent ?
947
« on: October 30, 2009, 23:54 »
commodore 64
948
« on: October 30, 2009, 04:44 »
80% revenue is from photos.com and jupiter unlimted. Not looking good when those sales stop.
I had a large batch rejected for "we don't want this" since then 90% acceptance. reviews about 1 week
949
« on: October 24, 2009, 19:32 »
Some easy numbers to illustrate.
say month 1 you start microstock put 20 photos and each gets $1 of DL = $20 starting
say month 2 you put another 20 photos each gets $1 + each of the existing photos also get $1 of downloads = $40
unreal I just increased my earnings by 100%
month 3 another 20 photos and $20 (total $60) you increased your earnings by only 50%. oh no the microstock gravy train is dying, market saturation, clean up the database and get rid of everybody else photos, best match must have changed etc.
Month 4 another 20 photos and $20 total 80% you only increased earnings by 33% etc.
But each month you increased you monthly earning by the same amount. ie $20 for every 20 photos.
Increasing portfolio size should,(or use to) increase you sales on existing photos as every photo provides a link to your portfolio which may lead to extra sales (especially in subscription sites such as shutterstock)
When you get to 3000-5000 photos the effect of this dies off as you are only increasing the size of your portfolio small % at time.
The effect of image lifetime also needs to be considered somehow.
Doing calculations monthly on small portfolios (in comparison to 3 -8 million total) doesn't really hold much statistical accuracy as there are to many variables. Overall yearly trends would be better but most contributors would be 3 years or less in this game.
950
« on: October 24, 2009, 03:10 »
as far as I'm concerned (although this makes no change to the reality of it) if Fotolia sell your photo and then find out it's a fraud then they should only be able to retrieve the money back from the contributor if they're able to return the goods sold to the contributor. Which they can't.
The "agent" gets 70% of the money for each sale for doing the marketing, providing the platform and the transactions. This commission should include the risk of bad transactions and the contributor has no control over this component.
Pages: 1 ... 33 34 35 36 37 [38] 39 40 41 42
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
