|
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 - dirkr
Pages: 1 ... 35 36 37 38 39 [40] 41 42 43 44 45 ... 56
976
« on: January 21, 2011, 10:52 »
I do have a little problem understanding DT pricing here: I recently had a file downloaded as TIFF for 18 credits - but when I click on it the pricing chart shows 11 credits as price for the TIFF. Today the same file had another download, a medium - for 6 credits. But again, that's not the price shown on the file (that is 4 credits). It's a level one non-exclusive file. I'm a bit puzzled where these higher prices come from (not complaining though  ), I am not able to see them on this file (whether logged in or logged out). Anybody has an explanation?
977
« on: January 13, 2011, 03:59 »
edit: so kelvinjay suggested deactivating the image twice. He says it's been that way for a year. Well, I've been deactivating regularly for the past two months and I haven't had to do everything twice. Until now. So now, we're being punished for deactivating by being made to do everything twice. I can't wait to be done with this site.
It's taken two times for me for as long as I can remember. Occasionally one time will work, but not reliably.
I deactivated close to 700 images in the last two weeks of December and only clicked once for each of them. And it worked every time. But: Sometimes after clicking on "Deactivate" it showed the deactivation page, sometimes the site went back to the original image page as if nothing had happened. But the image was deactivated in all cases, and I received a deactivation notice via email in all cases.
978
« on: January 10, 2011, 18:43 »
3rd world has come to mean undeveloped
That's why I refer to the USA as "second", not "first". Everytime I'm over there I'm really wondering about the infrastructure (like streets etc.) in the "Leading Economy of the World"  [ducksforcover...] 
979
« on: January 10, 2011, 17:26 »
I didn't know saying "third world country" was unPC either. No offense intended here either.
I didn't either. I tend not to use it myself just because it doesn't seem logical... I mean... if the 'rich West' (not so rich any more...) is supposed to be the 'First World', what's the 'Second World'? Did they just skip that one?
The "First World" is the "Old Europe". The USA is the "Second World"
980
« on: January 02, 2011, 17:01 »
And to the other extreme: If everyone goes on like before after Istock's royalty cuts that sends a clear message to all the other agencies and they will follow. And soon we will see 10% royalties everywhere. As an independent contributor the only logical reaction (when thinking about long term implications) would be to remove the complete portfolio and not sell for the lowered rates. But for those relying on the income this obviously is not an easy decision, in some cases probably not even an option. But to answer the original question: As the istock commission cuts are happening 1st January 2011 and we have all had a few months to think about it, I thought it would be interesting to see what people are doing now. I have stopped uploading and started removing some of my portfolio. I will leave gradually and hope there are new owners soon that have a better long term strategy.
Yesterday I finished removing my files, down from close to 700 to 1 (I'll keep that one just for fun, to have an active account. And if - what I doubt, at least for the near future - Istock returns to reasonable commission rates, I may re-activate my portfolio). For me it is an easy decision, as Microstock is just a hobby for me and irrelevant in terms of income. I have no illusions that anyone at Istock will even notice my few files missing and that this is any kind of relevant "statement" whatsoever. But I am not willing to sell at their new commission rates.
981
« on: December 10, 2010, 13:18 »
We don't give away free images - we didn't choose any specific image to be free and then give it away. We give away free credits to select prospective clients, so far the response has been encouraging and we have no plans to drop this as a marketing and promotion activity. Some prospective clients we give less, some we give more.
Other sites that give away free credits still pay contributors for the downloads.
As I understand it they do pay us - just at a drastically reduced rate of $0,20 per credit. And no, I don't agree with that. These are essentially marketing costs and marketing is one of the generic tasks of a stock agency that should be paid from the agencies share of the revenues. (I know, paying 50% of the sales price makes 123RF one of the better paying agencies percentage-wise. But still, their 50% share should be enough to pay for their expenses including any marketing offers. Else their business is (cough) unsustainable.)
982
« on: December 09, 2010, 10:50 »
Hi All,
I shall explain pricing.
The scenario :
Our cheapest package = $15 for 15 credits.
Price per credit = $1 / credit
50% share to you = $0.50 / credit
If customer purchases an S size image from you, you'll get $0.50. Clear?
If the customer purchases an XXL image from you (5 credits), you'll get 5 x $0.50 = $2.50 for that image downloaded.
Of course, we have discounts, loyal customers, customer who want a big discount as they've been with us for a very long time, so we then discount them for bulk purchases. Nevertheless, we will go through the same calculations and contributors will get 50% of the effective credit price.
Those discounts seem to be the norm rather than the exception. The example you give above is your smallest credit package, i.e. the one with the highest per credit cost. The biggest package costs only $0.68 per credit (according to you website), which results in a contributor share of $0.34. Nevertheless, today I had two downloads, a small (two credits) that netted me $0.65, a XL (four credits) that netted me $1.17. So these credits did cost the customer 65 cents or 58.5 cents each, well below the lowest advertised rate. Such high discounts from a already low price (the same sizes cost a lot more at most competitors) are not encouraging. I'd rather see prices go up. P/S - Forums were closed because we decided to shift to Facebook. They have excellent searchable threads there.
Alex
There are still many people (me included) who don't want to deal with Facebook. In my mind that's a bad decision - but it's your business.
983
« on: December 06, 2010, 16:23 »
If I ever get close to a payout at FP, I'll start to bother... 
984
« on: November 25, 2010, 08:41 »
anybody out there?? (talking to "contributors") Yes, they're fine. I just bought my second Ferrari from my commissions there. 
Seriously, they are very picky on nature and city shots, more picky than IS on technical quality. Models are always fine with them. They are a bit carnivorous, like Fotolia.
The acceptance policy is certainly different from the one of StockXpert before, even if they have the same reviewers.
It's clearly a choice. They want the best, as jbarber873 said.
If you applied with only city/nature shots, that was perhaps a mistake. I only applied with recent models. I sneaked in my nature later.
I only have nature / wildlife / travel pics, no models at all. Overall acceptance rate above 80%, though this is after resubmitting those rejects that were easy to correct.
985
« on: November 19, 2010, 09:29 »
I think both Fotolia's and Dreamstime's pricing schemes are clearer and more logical than Istock's.
First off, they are completely performance based - performance of the image, in DT's case, and performance of the contributor in FT's case - unlike Istock's, which appear pretty random.
FT and DT's higher priced content are better integrated into the main library.
The prices do not fluctuate by tens or hundreds of dollars for regular RF license.
Most importantly, the default search engine isn't front loaded with (almost) entirely the most expensive files, but offers buyers a nice mix of price points.
All good points, that does make a difference. But at FT there still is the infamous "Infinity Collection" with different price tags, sometimes starting at 55 credits for an XS. And they are also mixed into every search page, not as prominent as on Istock but still this looks a lot like an effort to promote that collections. Even if you sort by downloads these images appear on the first pages, and I very much doubt that their real download numbers (which are not visible) are taken into account. So there is intransparency to a certain degree on all these sites.
986
« on: November 18, 2010, 17:36 »
The review times are usually about a week, so if the expected time is on monday, it is to late to upload now.
That was my usual experience as well, but I uploaded some images yesterday, submitted them this morning and a few hours later they were accepted and are now online. The first time that I ever had such a fast review from DT.
987
« on: November 18, 2010, 15:14 »
One thing that's really hard for me to understand:
Fotolia restricts the ability to increase prices for contributors (effectively leading to a closer price range for similar images) and most people are upset.
Istock increases prices for parts of their collection (effectively leading to a wider price range for similar images) and everyone is upset.
So what would be the right way? 
I think this is probably a rhetorical question, but in the event you were actually looking for an answer, it would be:
The right way would be to treat contributors like partners in the business so that (a) gains and belt-tightening were reasonably shared, (b) communication and in some cases a discussion would accompany significant changes and (c) the long term success of the enterprise would be kept in mind, not just profits for the current quarter/year.
Being yanked around ticks people off. Both the changes you note felt like being yanked around. People got upset.
I fully agree that the treatment of contributors as partners seems to be a low priority for both these agencies. And that this contributes a lot to the negative sentiment is obvious. But in the Istock threads a lot of people argue about how bad it is to have different prices for similar images on one site and that it drives customers away. Nobody really mentioned that the same existed at other agencies as well. Now that Fotolia is moving towards a smaller price band and removing these perceived unfairness against customers, almost all voices are negative again. And the question was not completely rethorical, what would people really prefer? A simple pricing scheme, same for all images? Special collections with higher prices as Istock offers (but maybe with stricter control to not allow similars with different prices)? The ability to set your own prices (as Fotolia still offers, just a bit more restrictive)? A image-level system as DT offers? What I see here is different agencies trying to raise average prices using different methods. These different pricing schemes are competing on the market, and it looks like FT fears that their scheme was not competitive enough. I personally would not be able to predict what's the best way to maximise prices without driving customers away. In the ideal world these different schemes would be open for participation for all (including independant) contributors, this way everybody could find his/her own strategy. Unfortunately this is not the case, it's only for exclusives and/or higher level contributors, so for myself these changes have no practical impact.
988
« on: November 18, 2010, 05:20 »
One thing that's really hard for me to understand: Fotolia restricts the ability to increase prices for contributors (effectively leading to a closer price range for similar images) and most people are upset. Istock increases prices for parts of their collection (effectively leading to a wider price range for similar images) and everyone is upset. So what would be the right way?
989
« on: November 13, 2010, 08:33 »
8MP camera will be about 23.9 (just a smidgen under if I figured it right?)
But if you check, a Canon 20D is an 8.2MP camera, 3504 x 2336 which comes out to 24.6MB TIF.
Not quite right, see my post above. I need to upsize my files from my Canon 30D (same sensor as the 20D) to 3550 Pixels on the long side. Without upsizing the uncompressed size is 23,4 MB (as shown in PS). All of this leading to, most 8MP cameras won't need to be upsized, if you fill the frame with the image and 10MP cameras will leave a little crop room
You'll need about 8,4 MP if you want to avoid upsizing.
990
« on: November 12, 2010, 16:58 »
Until now I have not got any rejection from Alamy. The smallest sizes I have submitted were about 6 MP (cropped out of a 8,2 MP photo) before upsizing.
991
« on: November 12, 2010, 03:34 »
Where are those "opt out" buttons? I couldn't find them! I don't want to hear about Pixmac ever again!
FT doesn't allow you to opt out.
Oh yes they do. I dropped FT, which in effect opted out all my images, that solved the problem. 
Of course that solution always works
992
« on: November 11, 2010, 17:55 »
Where are those "opt out" buttons? I couldn't find them! I don't want to hear about Pixmac ever again!
FT doesn't allow you to opt out.
993
« on: November 08, 2010, 09:53 »
It used to be 48mb? but 24mb uncompressed size is achieved by mostly 6MP camera.
Not quite. You need about 8,4 MP. I have to upsize my Canon 30D files (8,2 MP) a tiny little bit to reach the 24 MB uncompressed. To the OP: Your Tiff file size should be exactly what you are looking for (uncompressed file size), so if that is 25 MB you should be fine without upsizing. (Here's the calculation: 24 MB = 24x1024x1024 Bytes = 25.165.824 Bytes. As a 8-bit RGB file needs 3 Bytes (uncompressed) per Pixel, you end up with 25.165.824 / 3 = 8.388.608 Pixels, i.e. roughly 8,4 MP. Attention: Cameramakers normally seem to calculate "Mega"pixel = "1 million"pixel, in contrast to IT folks where "Mega"byte = "1024x1024"byte. And forget about looking at JPG file sizes, the compression algorithm can lead to vastly different file sizes for different images of the same uncompressed size.)
994
« on: October 25, 2010, 15:30 »
Just commenting that the sentence above wasnt written by a native German speaker.
Much of the website looks like it wasn't written by an English native speaker either.
995
« on: October 25, 2010, 03:13 »
Gre aus Kln
Kln ist gut da bin ich aufgewachsen. Mittlerweile aber FFM.
996
« on: October 19, 2010, 16:52 »
I just learnt today the credit we earn is also affected by what currency the customers had paid..and i am not sure how much we really get after all.
Wrong, you get your fixed payout per credit used, independent of which currency was used to buy the credit and independent of what discount was awarded to the buyer. Therefore you know exactly how much money you will get for a sale of a specific size, but you don't know at all what percentage of the real sales amount that is.
997
« on: October 19, 2010, 10:51 »
I'm bronze. I didn't know I can change my price. Can you please be more specific how can I change that?
Send a message to support and ask them to change the prices for all your files. They'll do it for you. Alternatively you can do it manually - one by one.
998
« on: October 15, 2010, 04:49 »
No problems here.
999
« on: October 15, 2010, 04:31 »
Nice one. Some of the scenes are cut a bit too short in my view though. And showing cheering soccer fans in the stadium in yellow and black... That's certainly not the home team Cheers from the same village
1000
« on: October 15, 2010, 01:54 »
I like the fact that most of the smaller sites pay higher commissions and they might provide some competition to the bigger sites, if they can get enough images. Sticking to the top 4 sites gives them too much control and we can already see where that is going, lower and lower commissions.
+1 And for some of these sites (like Yaymicro) the effort really is close to zero, just upload via FTP and you are done.
Pages: 1 ... 35 36 37 38 39 [40] 41 42 43 44 45 ... 56
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
