|
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 - stan
1
« on: September 09, 2012, 08:51 »
odd, when I cut and paste alamy.com into the bar I get no site, www.alamy.com does work and forwards to http://www.alamy.com/#loc=all no problem.
stan have you tried going through a Google search? that works too.
I tried this forwarded link of yours and it works, tnx
2
« on: September 09, 2012, 08:48 »
Fair enough, I get 50%+ of my income from the smaller sites all added together so it is worth it for me, provided as I say, they aren't undercutting my sales on other sites by competing just on price.
If it isn't worth it for you, you are right not to upload.
It makes sense in your case, I don't think I ever got over 15%. But then again, comparing us is like comparing apples and bananas; I'm a tog and you're an illustrator, we all know that some small sites work great for you, I've read many post from another illustrator (I can't remember her nick, but she has her own site that also works great for her), come to think about it, there were a few actually
3
« on: September 09, 2012, 06:29 »
Paying between 30% and 60% with achievable lower tiers easily makes the new terms some of the best (the best?) among the the bigger sites.
If you are, say, a platinum seller on IS you should be making 50+ percent on 123, on IStock you would be lucky to make 20%
When will some of you get a grasp on basic math? What is better:
Making 1000 sales/month with 1,5$+ RPD at IS or getting 200 at 0,6$ RPD at 123RF or 150 at DP at 0,4$ RPD. I've made up the number of DLs, while the RPD and DL ratios are (almost) exact, when I look at my stats. You see, if I earned 1500$ at IS, I got only 120$ at 123RF and 60$ at DP. Can you understand where I'm coming from now? On top of all that IS rolled out the RC system and said this is the deal, take it or leave it, while 123RF promised some of us we wouldn't be affected and later on broke that promise. They hustled us, those that were close to the 250 DLs limit to UL all they have and the rest of us to UL a while longer/delete our ports at a later date or in the best case scenario (for them) either don't delete our ports, just stop ULing. All in all the RC system is of course bad, it's exactly this https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=472614526105332&set=a.244903342209786.71434.212514318782022&type=1&theater
Wow, your RPD on 123 and DP is really low!
Please factor in all those 25c (ever increasing) Thinkstock downloads before making your calculations for IS though, that would only be fair given that the RPD on 123 and DP includes their sub schemes. Then have a think about the demand curve and the fact that number of sales increases with a drop in price for no marginal cost to us and that IS is pricing themselves out of micro, and you start to see that it isn't as easy all that.
Just make your assessment and decide where you want to upload.
Indeed it is, but at least when it comes to DP, I hear it from many people they're getting the same. Yes, I haven't factored in PP. It would lower the RPD. But it would only further increase the differences in earnings. You do see that don't you?  . And as I've said many times, all I care about is the bottom line, RPD by itself is meaningless, if it's not multiplied by a healthy number of sales. OTOH sales can get really low if they're multiplied by huge RPD. I really don't care about the formula only the end result. That's why, I've been saying that for me, only top 4 agencies really matter. I am making the assessment as I go all the time. I've deleted some non top 4 accounts, while I just stopped ULing at the others. I'm pretty sure I'll drop DP and 123RF at the end of the year. Perhaps the whole bunch, I might be doing more damage than good to myself. Meaning those pathetic double digit earnings at those sites don't make up for all the google searches that lead to the cheapest sites and the price difference can be huge. And about IS, their latest price change was a reduction, for indies and E+.
4
« on: September 09, 2012, 06:05 »
Paying between 30% and 60% with achievable lower tiers easily makes the new terms some of the best (the best?) among the the bigger sites.
If you are, say, a platinum seller on IS you should be making 50+ percent on 123, on IStock you would be lucky to make 20%
When will some of you get a grasp on basic math? What is better: Making 1000 sales/month with 1,5$+ RPD at IS or getting 200 at 0,6$ RPD at 123RF or 150 at DP at 0,4$ RPD. I've made up the number of DLs, while the RPD and DL ratios are (almost) exact, when I look at my stats. You see, if I earned 1500$ at IS, I got only 120$ at 123RF and 60$ at DP. Can you understand where I'm coming from now? On top of all that IS rolled out the RC system and said this is the deal, take it or leave it, while 123RF promised some of us we wouldn't be affected and later on broke that promise. They hustled us, those that were close to the 250 DLs limit to UL all they have and the rest of us to UL a while longer/delete our ports at a later date or in the best case scenario (for them) either don't delete our ports, just stop ULing. All in all the RC system is of course bad, it's exactly this https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=472614526105332&set=a.244903342209786.71434.212514318782022&type=1&theater
5
« on: September 09, 2012, 05:38 »
It is, I'm trying to access alamy.com and this is what I'm getting every single time for a couple of days now.
6
« on: September 09, 2012, 05:34 »
I don't consider what 123rf did as stunt, their new compensation system would still make them one of the fairer sites out there. They even offered to grandfather in anyone with a sizable portfolio or number of sales. Big players shouldn't see a drop in commission in any case.
DP hasn't become any more shady, they are pretty much the same as ever.
Them saying anyone with over 250 sales (or something like that) is going to keep on getting 50% and than changing it is not a stunt, but one of the fairer sites? Wow, people just keep on surprising me with their interpretations about what fair is. I don't know anything about grandfathering, was that kept quiet, did they just send emails to the chosen ones? So that makes them just ok then? 
7
« on: September 09, 2012, 04:56 »
I'm getting this:
Network Access Message: The page cannot be displayed Explanation: There is a problem with the page you are trying to reach and it cannot be displayed.
Try the following:
Refresh page: Search for the page again by clicking the Refresh button. The timeout may have occurred due to Internet congestion.
Check spelling: Check that you typed the Web page address correctly. The address may have been mistyped.
Access from a link: If there is a link to the page you are looking for, try accessing the page from that link.
Technical Information (for support personnel)
Error Code: 403 Forbidden. The server denied the specified Uniform Resource Locator (URL). Contact the server administrator. (12202)
8
« on: September 09, 2012, 04:36 »
I you said I was flat out wrong, you didn't say why. Highest commissions from small companies?!? Name 1, for photos of course. And that has the volume as well, or else even a 10$ RPD doesn't help much (which you don't get anyway). You say gross generilazations based on my opinion, but what are you basing your post on?
Sure the small companies make better pricing. For the buyers
Be specific, tell something, don't just talk for talk's sake
I can't comment specifically on photo sales as I'm not a photographer, but here's what I'm talking about (and most of these sites sell photos as well as vectors):
StockFresh. $10 vector sales, $5 in my pocket for each one, over $100 per month total earnings.
GL. $6-$15 vector pricing (set by contributor, option to set it higher). $3.60 - $7.80 per sale, good sales volume.
GraphicRiver. 33% royalty (not great but more than double what istock will be paying me next year). 2nd highest earner last month in total earnings for me, behind SS, out of 20 sites I sell at.
Unnamed site (I'm not giving away any secrets), it's not even on the poll list. Over $3,000 in earnings there so far this year.
Veer. I saw a ton of $7 royalties last month, a good number of $2-$5 royalties. Significant growth in the last few months. Veer will probably move ahead of DT on my list soon.
My earnings from middle and low tier sites last month represented 30% of my total.
These sites are far from bottom feeders. They pay no worse than the worst of the top 4, percentage wise and in some cases in total earnings for me. And I sure as heck wouldn't want to do without the 30% of my income that comes from the small sites.
You can hate on small sites for whatever reason. And I'm not interested in convincing anyone that they should participate in them. But I'm not ok with anyone making these general claims about all small site based on your opinion of how a few of the bad ones operate. These sites are important, and I think it's reckless and damaging to the industry to discourage people from looking into them because you say they all pay poorly.
How about you let people decide for themselves? Why try to discourage people from trying smaller sites that, in some cases and contrary to your generalization, do pay well, do offer good deals for contributors, and do not contribute to this "race to the bottom" you're so concerned with?
And since we're being "specific" as you asked, how about you be specific about which sites you think are bad for the business, and why.
You see. I stopped reading right after you said you weren't a tog. Irrelevant info for me
9
« on: September 09, 2012, 04:33 »
At least for me. Can anyone access the site?
10
« on: September 08, 2012, 17:26 »
That's exactly the reason why I don't upload to the agencies outside the top 4 and deleted half of my accounts already. Shady business practices all the time. On top of offensively low commissions we get from sales that happen on their sites.
Again, false. This is just flat-out wrong, and yet you keep saying it in this forum.
Yes, there are a few bad apples among the smaller agencies. But some of the worst business practices come from some of the top 4 companies as well. Fotolia is probably one of the shadiest companies in the business.
And we get some of th highest commissions from small companies. My highest RPD sites are not the top 4.
You're certainly entitled to your opinion about these sites, but gross generalizations based on your opinion of just a few less reputable companies doesn't help anyone.
And how does you comment differ in any way? LOL!
I don't know what you mean here. My comment is the opposite of yours. It's not full of gross generalizations. I clearly said that while I understand that there are some bad apples among the smaller companies, there are also plenty of companies that make far better offers than the big 4 in terms of pricing, royalties, etc. I recognize that not all companies are the same, unlike you who chooses to label them all identically based on the actions of the few.
I you said I was flat out wrong, you didn't say why. Highest commissions from small companies?!? Name 1, for photos of course. And that has the volume as well, or else even a 10$ RPD doesn't help much (which you don't get anyway). You say gross generilazations based on my opinion, but what are you basing your post on? Sure the small companies make better pricing. For the buyers Be specific, tell something, don't just talk for talk's sake
11
« on: September 08, 2012, 13:51 »
All the agencies are the same: business, and quite greedy. Depositphotos, it seems, has had some success (at least like an start-up)... so, having success, no needing so much more photographers... why not screw them a bit? (That's something that at the very beggining you can't do). The least a business can do is deliver (like IS and SS do) to their suppliers, that's the reason I see no logic in uploading to minor agencies that don't do much, except selling for cents to get some customers and accelerating the race to the bottom.
Finally a voice of reason! I gave you a heart
12
« on: September 08, 2012, 11:49 »
That's exactly the reason why I don't upload to the agencies outside the top 4 and deleted half of my accounts already. Shady business practices all the time. On top of offensively low commissions we get from sales that happen on their sites.
Again, false. This is just flat-out wrong, and yet you keep saying it in this forum.
Yes, there are a few bad apples among the smaller agencies. But some of the worst business practices come from some of the top 4 companies as well. Fotolia is probably one of the shadiest companies in the business.
And we get some of th highest commissions from small companies. My highest RPD sites are not the top 4.
You're certainly entitled to your opinion about these sites, but gross generalizations based on your opinion of just a few less reputable companies doesn't help anyone.
And how does you comment differ in any way? LOL!
13
« on: September 08, 2012, 08:25 »
That's exactly the reason why I don't upload to the agencies outside the top 4 and deleted half of my accounts already. Shady business practices all the time. On top of offensively low commissions we get from sales that happen on their sites.
14
« on: September 06, 2012, 18:05 »
Yeah, the magical number is 500 for whatever that's worth... so the average photographer on MSG is saying he is making just under $500 on SS
A Dow Jones type overall market rise fall would be useful I agree. I'll think about how to make it work.
So an average tog at MSG is really noticeably above average. Makes sense, since most people posting here are really into it and also better informed than those not participating in any MS forums.
15
« on: September 06, 2012, 13:56 »
There's a glitch at IS and my royalties are calculated at E+ instead of P+ prices. I just wish I was also credited at that rate 
16
« on: September 06, 2012, 10:18 »
Why are people still with this agency, I dont get it. Honestly. If its such an evil agency and stealing bastids, why are people still contributing? There must be something I am missing.
Because you're still averaging 5$ or so for max sized DL. Contrary to mid tier sites where you don't even get half of that on average, 123RF being the worst of them all, usually below 2$. On top of higher commissions, the volume of sales is dozens of times higher at IS for most.
Ok, but from what I read on the forum here, there is little to nothing people mention is positive about IS and the comments on how bad they treat the tog and the ricidulous low commission are plenty.
Don't worry about what people think, most of them don't use their brains anyway
17
« on: September 06, 2012, 09:44 »
Why are people still with this agency, I dont get it. Honestly. If its such an evil agency and stealing bastids, why are people still contributing? There must be something I am missing.
Because you're still averaging 5$ or so for max sized DL. Contrary to mid tier sites where you don't even get half of that on average, 123RF being the worst of them all, usually below 2$. On top of higher commissions, the volume of sales is dozens of times higher at IS for most.
18
« on: September 05, 2012, 15:08 »
Once istock manages to work out the bugs and get their site back online, I'm wondering what sort of impact the Standard Pricing initiative will have on buyers. It seems like one of the things that made istock's prices a bit easier to swallow was the credit system, which masked the true cost of images. By putting the actual price right there on the page, I'm wondering if this might be a put-off for some buyers.
Any thoughts? Could this new initiative have a negative effect on buyers' perception of where istock pricing is positioned relative to other companies?
Yes, they could get a seizure from laughing so hard in the face of ridiculously low prices. If anything the credit system masked just how dirt cheap images are. Sure, price is too high for many crappy images, but for those gems that you can find in virtually every MS library...
19
« on: September 05, 2012, 12:21 »
Wow, the site is totally messed up since the downtime. I'm getting bad gateway all the time.
20
« on: September 04, 2012, 17:09 »
This grabbed my attention immediately: "I remember that when I became exclusive with iStock, when a ranking boost is applied to the new exclusive contributor images, my earnings multiplied by eight in the next month, part of this is better commissions and higher prices and part of this better placement."
With DT and for some FT nosediving, it could make more sense than ever. Every agency, except SS is cutting our commissions anyway.
21
« on: September 03, 2012, 19:04 »
Just a bunch of perverts buying on DT lately 
22
« on: September 03, 2012, 18:48 »
.
23
« on: September 03, 2012, 16:27 »
But if you put yourself in our (small fry) shoes, then you'd see that it's just fair for us to get a chance of getting some premium search positions as well. For a long period of time there was a lot of old files with a ton of DLs, that just weren't up to today's standards anymore, getting all the sales. That's not fair either, after all it's 2012, not 2005. Everybody should get a fair chance. It's gonna be a small window of opportunity anyway, given how saturated the market is
Stan, I am not advocating only putting old best sellers in front of searches. I am suggesting that PENALIZING successful contributors as a group is the agencies shooting themselves in the foot.
Bottom line is the search should never be about what's "fair" to contributors, nor about padding agency profits. It should be about getting the best content in front of the buyers. A good mix of new stuff AND best sellers would accomplish that, and the sites that consistently do it, like SS, are the ones that have not seen either buyers or contributors leaving in frustration.
I wasn't saying you were. But sometimes you top seller sound like conspiracy theorists Indeed, that's what I've been saying all the time. It's just that if there's 19 mio crappy images out of 20, it's hard for the search engines to deliver.
24
« on: September 03, 2012, 15:57 »
It looks like that's the case at IS and especially FT. However looking at Aug sales thread at IS, it seems that things improved for many diamonds, a few had BMEs or 2nd BMEs. Still, some top contributors like Sean are down, but not as much as they were in some of the prevoius months (30% instead of 10).
I hope that is a trend and that it continues. Sites need to wake up to the fact that they are actually hurting themselves by burying some of their best content in favor of short term boosts in profits.
But if you put yourself in our (small fry) shoes, then you'd see that it's just fair for us to get a chance of getting some premium search positions as well. For a long period of time there was a lot of old files with a ton of DLs, that just weren't up to today's standards anymore, getting all the sales. That's not fair either, after all it's 2012, not 2005. Everybody should get a fair chance. It's gonna be a small window of opportunity anyway, given how saturated the market is
25
« on: September 03, 2012, 15:10 »
But you can lower your prices at FT.
I doubt that would work for me as most of my images that sell are level 2 so I would risk the possibility of halving my earnings.
Well then the theory that your images are too expensive just doesn't hold water, now does it?
Right. Nobody's saying that the images don't sell because the IMAGES are too expensive. We are saying the images are deliberately buried in the search because the CONTRIBUTORS are too expensive. If I make 37% and someone else makes 25%, who provides the bigger profit margin for the site?
That indeed makes sense. But without this explanation of yours there's room for a couple of interpretations. It looks like that's the case at IS and especially FT. However looking at Aug sales thread at IS, it seems that things improved for many diamonds, a few had BMEs or 2nd BMEs. Still, some top contributors like Sean are down, but not as much as they were in some of the prevoius months (30% instead of 10).
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
