|
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 ... 34 35 36 37 38 [39] 40 41 42 43 44 ... 51
951
« on: January 08, 2007, 19:19 »
Honesty is relative. Honesty is only relative for people that don't believe in an absolute truth.
952
« on: January 08, 2007, 06:24 »
FYI: StockXpert now has 360,625 images online...
953
« on: January 06, 2007, 03:35 »
In a perfect world I guess people would read previously posted explanations, too.
If you had clicked on the link to the calculator I posted above...
Ironic, since if you would have read the whole post yourself, then you would have seen that the link that you posted had already been posted at the beginning of the thread...
954
« on: January 05, 2007, 07:53 »
Getting bogged down in trying to figure out the precise formula for every sale is going to drive you nuts. Posting about it every time it happens is going to drive the rest of us nuts.
Hey vicu, I just had a 0.52 sale. How do you think that happened? 
955
« on: January 04, 2007, 21:51 »
GeoPappas,
If the 84c came from four sales, you can see the earnings from each one at the image stats.
No, for the third time, the 0.84 came from one medium sale!
956
« on: January 04, 2007, 17:47 »
But I have no idea how they got 0.84 for the medium! If you use the old credits (@ $1.00/credit) it would be 0.80. If you use the new credits (@ $1.20/credit), it would be 0.96.
It must be from a subscription package. They give discounts for the buyer and our earnings are reduced as well (as of my understanding of the new rules). If you see the sales statistics for this image, doesn't it say anything? I thought the "type" column would show that.
No, the stats page for the image shows Type=Regular, Size=Medium, and Royalty=0.84. That's all it shows. From this we can extrapolate the cost of the image at $4.20. Under the old credit system, it would have been $4.00 (@ $1.00/credit). Under the new credit system, it would be $4.80. So maybe they used 3 old credits (@ $1.00/credit) and 1 new credit (@ $1.20). What a mess!
957
« on: January 04, 2007, 07:33 »
New Prices and Sizes for dls at IS. I really like it. Lets see if it will increase our earnigs. I belief so :-)
I was just about to post the same news on IS's new pricing structure going into place today. So far I have had three sales: Medium: 0.84 Small: 0.40 Small: 0.40 I understand the price for the two smalls: 2 old credits (@ $1.00/credit) * 20% royalty = 0.40 But I have no idea how they got 0.84 for the medium! If you use the old credits (@ $1.00/credit) it would be 0.80. If you use the new credits (@ $1.20/credit), it would be 0.96. Anyway, here is a link a chart that includes the new royalties with the new credits: http://www.myersonphoto.com/private/istock/2007royalties.php
958
« on: December 30, 2006, 10:05 »
Without extended licenses:
iStock: $0.449
SS: $0.251 (this is slightly higher because of the $0.05 CD backups)
DT: $0.781
StockXpert: $0.949
FT: $0.503
LO: $0.871
BigStock: $0.567
With extended licenses:
iStock: $0.470
SS: $0.264
FT: $0.567
959
« on: December 23, 2006, 04:51 »
Well, Extended Licenses are now live on the site.
They offer unlimited runs of templates, resale products (mugs, tshirts, etc), and posters.
I like the idea of an Extended License, but I don't like the "unlimited" part.
I think that an Extended License should be just that, an extension to the license that allows other provisions, but still has limitations.
Otherwise, you might as well call it an unlimited license.
What do you think?
960
« on: December 22, 2006, 18:08 »
This could be a pre-release of the brochure, sent to us in advance, who knows?
Wouldn't you know if it was a pre-release or not? Why did they send you the brochure? What was the purpose?
961
« on: December 22, 2006, 17:56 »
iStockphoto has "Best Match"
Shutterstock has "Most Popular"
Dreamstime has "Relevancy"
Fotolia has "Pertinence"
BigStockphoto has "Search Match"
They all have different names, but they are all essentially algorithms that are trying to return the most relevant results when a buyer searches for images.
Which stock site do you believe returns the most relevant results when you search for images?
And why?
962
« on: December 22, 2006, 17:03 »
Extended Licenses will cost $50 and submitters will receive 50%. You can optin or out on each photo. No details on what the Extended License will offer yet (resale, larger print runs, etc). Here are the details: http://www.luckyoliver.com/blog/156/Extended+License%21
963
« on: December 21, 2006, 18:19 »
I didn't "forget to conveniently mention" it. I said it straight out in my post above when I said "I think this is a very positive thing for the agency and it's contributors and since I'm exclusive there - I'm betting on it and putting my money where my mouth is!" 
You are 100% correct. I humbly apologize for my mistake. I must have "conveniently" glossed over that fact  What does it matter if you have the same images on all the sites? The only person this will harm is exclusives like myself...if I were exclusive at Shutterstock. It makes absolutely no difference to the person who has the same images spread out all over.
This is where I disagree. As you stated in another thread (on DT), SS is one of the top paying microstock sites for most photographers. So removing sales from that site would hurt it, and eventually the photographers associated with it. I personally think that SS is the best stock site out there. They accept ANY image, as long as it is technically good. They don't complain about having "too many" of a certain image, they accept post processed images, they accept fractals, they accept artsy images, they accept editorials. They don't release announcements willy nilly and upset their contributors. They have forums where people can actually discuss things. In other words, SS treats people (up to this point at least) with respect, which I can't say for most other sites. It is obvious that DT is trying to compete with SS on the subscription front. While I don't mind competition, I don't think that it should come at the expense of the photographers (by lowering royalties). It won't do any of us (photographers) any good if SS and DT get into a shooting match and continue to lower prices (and royalties) to try to drive each other into the ground.
964
« on: December 21, 2006, 14:35 »
Geopappas more subscriptions would be a win, win, win.
The agency wins because it takes customers from Shutterstock
The contributors win because eventually, they will see similar downloads to what Shutterstock's volume is (and many contributors have expressed how much they favor Shutterstock because of all the downloads they get)
And as you mention, the buyers win because of your examples.
Taking into account the big picture - all of this means more exposure to our portfolios at DT. As you mention, time will tell.
Mr. Endicott: You might view this situation as a win-win because you are an exclusive photographer with Dreamstime (which you conveniently forgot to mention), but I doubt that others would want to see subscriptions from SS go to DT. This might create a subscription plan battle between the two sites, which might lead to lower royalties. Remember, DT currently gives a 0.50 royalty for subscriptions, which they plan on cutting in half for this new initiative. So you now have to sell twice as many images (via subscription) just to make the same the same royalties.
965
« on: December 21, 2006, 13:37 »
2) The only difference between the DT subscription model and the SS subscription model is you will get less of them at DT (which means more money based on #1) and it will attract more customers.
I'm not sure about that for two reasons. (1) The current SS subscription is $159/month for 750 images. That calculates to 0.21/image (if they download all 750 images). The current DT subscription is $139.99/month for 300 images. That calculates to 0.47/image (if they download all 300 images). SS obviously wins there, since you get a lot more images for your money. But now DT wants to drop their subscription to $89.99/month for 300 images. That calculates to 0.30/image (if they download all 300 images). That is over a 50% reduction in cost and it brings it much closer to the SS model. I think that this will mean that there will be an increased amount in subscription downloads. If you do a direct interpolation, then you are looking at 50% more downloads than before. (2) The second reason that I think that there will be an increase in DT subscriptions is because it is much easier to download 300 images (10/day) from DT, then it is to download 750 images (25/day) at SS. SS is basically using the business model that counts on buyers from not being able to take full advantage of the offer. It is hard to find and download 25 images/day, especially when you have weekends and holidays (and other work to do). But it will be much easier for buyers to take advantage of the DT deal, since it will be a lot easier to download 10 images/day and therefore take full advantage of the deal that is offered. I guess time will tell...
966
« on: December 21, 2006, 13:22 »
Questions:
Do you find that the rate of sales decrease as your image moves through the higher and more expensive levels?
I don't think that a buyer is going to quibble over $0.50 or $1.00. If they see an image that will fit their criteria, then I don't think that they are going to reject it because it is $1.00 more. If there are other images that are very similar to yours, then there might be an issue, but the buyer will probably take into account that your image has had many more sales which means that it likely is a quality image. Do you find that there is constant pressure to upload new images in order to compete with the lower priced files?
Yes, but I don't think that it has anything to do with the pricing levels of lower priced images. Do you feel like you will ever reach a point where you can feel secure enough to "retire" on the income from your images (by this I mean reach a point where, say, it pays your mortgage each month), or do you feel that if you ever decide to stop uploading regularly, your income will suffer?
I'm not sure on this one yet. The industry is too new, and there are too many developments happening every month to try and figure out if an image will allow one to "retire". And I think that it is pretty common knowledge that you have to keep uploading in order to keep sales at a steady level (otherwise your portfolio gets smaller and smaller, since the database continues to get larger and larger).
967
« on: December 19, 2006, 17:57 »
I only have four images there, but yes, I try to be on every site I can benefit from!
But if you never reach a payout, how are you benefiting?
968
« on: December 19, 2006, 11:50 »
However this doesn't help if my house burns down. I can store the dvd's at a friends house, but old discs sometimes go bad and loose their data. It would be nice to have an off-site 'hard drive' copy of the images.
I have a USB hard drive that I store in a media fire safe in my garage. Other ideas are to store the USB drive in your car, in a bank safe deposit box, or another house (family member or friend). But storing it offsite makes it hard to update.
969
« on: December 19, 2006, 11:33 »
1. DT has announced that they are going to be giving a pay raise on 02/15/2007! The min royalty is still 0.50 cents, but the max royalty has changed from $1.00 to $2.00 (for the lowest level). 2. DT is adding new image sizes as well. The new sizes are as follows: Web (800x600) Medium (up to 5 MP) Large (up to 8 MP) Max (> 8 MP) 3. There are also new levels, which are as follows: Level 1: 0 - 24 DLs Level 2: 25 - 49 DLs Level 3: 50 - 99 DLs Level 4: 100 - 199 DLs Level 5: > 200 DLs Image prices are a combination of image size and sales level. 4. Extended Licenses have been reduced to $50. 5. There is now a Free upload section. For all the details go here: http://www.dreamstime.com/thread_6421
970
« on: December 19, 2006, 08:01 »
I don't understand why you people bother with such a loser site. Wouldn't you rather be taking more photos that you could submit to sites that actually accept your images and make you money?
971
« on: December 18, 2006, 13:33 »
Why don't you just purchase it yourself via the Internet and then have it shipped to him with overnight shipping (or some other fast shipping method). This way he doesn't have to shell out the money or even go to the store. All he has to do is then receive the shipment and bring it to you.
If you don't trust him, then do the same thing as above but ask him for his credit card and use it to purchase the order and have it sent to him. Then you can repay him when you receive the merchandise.
Another option is to purchase it on eBay thru a seller that has a good reputation and have them ship it to you directly.
972
« on: December 18, 2006, 10:09 »
...but I see that there is a lot of angry people on their forum.
I would say that you are greatly exagerating this. There are a few people that will write angry threads, but that is expected from any site that has thousands of contributors. You have to remember that happy people rarely will take the time to post anything positive, while angry people are more likely to vent their frustration. IMO, Shutterstock has the best forums out of ALL of the microstocks. Period.
973
« on: December 15, 2006, 13:38 »
Is CS3 a major or minor (upgrade) release? In other words, will there be a charge for it once it comes out, or will it be a free upgrade release?
If it is a major release, I am confused.
The major feature (according to Adobe) is as follows:
"Our primary reason for releasing this beta version is to allow our Macintosh customers to run Photoshop natively on the latest Intel based systems
What is the big deal about this and why should anyone pay for it? This seems like it should be an upgrade/minor/FREE release.
974
« on: December 14, 2006, 09:59 »
Out of curiosity, how fast can you gat out of the IS exclusivity deal as an photographer?
According to this site: http://www.istockphoto.com/exclusivity_intro.phpyou can cancel your exclusivity with a 30-day notice.
975
« on: December 13, 2006, 10:19 »
If I go to http://www.istockphoto.com/user_view.php and click on the Stats tab, under the Monthly Statistics graphs it shows a Total Sales Amount and a Total # of Downloads. But those totals don't match the #s under the Financial tab or the Member Profile page. For example, the total # of downloads under the Monthly Statistics graphs shows 1084, but the Member Profile (@ http://www.istockphoto.com/user_view.php?id=805257), shows that I have 1082 downloads. So there is a difference of (2) downloads. The difference in the Total Sales Amount is $2.50. Is anyone else seeing this issue?
Pages: 1 ... 34 35 36 37 38 [39] 40 41 42 43 44 ... 51
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
