|
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 - candidcruiser
1
« on: February 28, 2022, 08:42 »
Now that I am $1 away from payout, the sales have stopped. Does anyone else see that happen or is it just a coincident.
2
« on: February 20, 2021, 16:32 »
I hired Shutterstock and Adobe to sell my content and I give them a percentage of every sale. So they work for me.
Too bad you can't decide how much you pay them.
3
« on: June 17, 2020, 08:09 »
I just got an email from a designer who had used a watermarked image of mine in a mockup for a client and when they went to purchase it today it wasn't available. They wanted to know where they could get it. I explained the situation and they will be purchasing it from Adobe.
Their reply to me:
"Wow I don't blame you, that's awful. I was not aware of that, I will definitely not be purchasing from them in the future. I will purchase the image through Adobe, thank you so much for your quick response!"
How did the person get your email address?
4
« on: June 13, 2020, 07:57 »
If DT wanted to do something useful, they would lower their minimum payout. With all the competition, $100 is too high.
5
« on: June 03, 2020, 13:32 »
Based on sales at other sites, it appears that the smaller subscriptions of 10 to 50 images per month are more popular that the large subscriptions of 350+ images per month. Based on this experience at other sites, I assumed the new structure might not be as big of disaster as most anticipated but now that we are three days in, that is not the case. Why are all sales coming in around the 10 - 15 cent size. Its hard to believe so many use the smaller subscriptions at the other agencies but no one does at Shutterstock.
6
« on: May 27, 2020, 06:58 »
Regarding to subscription sales, that always was main sale; we never was paid based on the subscription package that buyer buy. There are 4 subscrption packetes:
10 images for 49usd (Packet 1 or P1)
50 images for 125usd (Packet 2 or P2)
350 images for 199usd (Packet 3 or P3)
750 images for 249usd (Packet 4 or P4)
Based on this and the % presented for SS the earnings per sale under new criteria is:
Level 1 0,74 usd(P1) ---- 0,38 usd(P2) ---- 0,09 usd(P3) ---- 0,05 usd(P4)
Level 2 0,98 usd(P1) ---- 0,50 usd(P2) ---- 0,11 usd(P3) ---- 0,07 usd(P4)
Level 3 1,23 usd(P1) ---- 0,63 usd(P2) ---- 0,14 usd(P3) ---- 0,08 usd(P4)
Level 4 1,47 usd(P1) ---- 0,75 usd(P2) ---- 0,17 usd(P3) ---- 0,10 usd(P4)
Level 5 1,72 usd(P1) ---- 0,88 usd(P2) ---- 0,20 usd(P3) ---- 0,12 usd(P4)
Level 6 1,96 usd(P1) ---- 1,00 usd(P2) ---- 0,23 usd(P3) ---- 0,13 usd(P4)
Thanks for the calculations. But it seems more complicated than that.
There is different pricing if it's monthly or annual subscription, and if the annual subscription is payed in advance or monthly. Further, if not all images are used in a month, the price per image will in reality be higher.
Is this correct? Will they pay the actual percentage based on subs used or s**w us to the maximum by paying the minimum (spend/ allowed number of dls regardless of actual ones used)? I have a horrible feeling it's the latter and that will make huge difference to what we are paid.
They have to just pay the minimum, otherwise they would have to wait until the end of the month to see how many of the photos were used and they don't do that.
7
« on: May 26, 2020, 13:40 »
So from what I read on the Shutterstock forum, this percentage will apply to subscriptions as well. Right now for all subs, I get 36 cents. If the buyer is on the 750 image package, their price per image is only 33 cents so at my level 3 earning of 25%, I will only get 7 cents for a sale. If the person is on the 10 image subscription package, I will do better but probably I will now be seeing 7 and 10 cent sales for subs. I am reading all this correctly.
8
« on: October 14, 2019, 15:55 »
Pard my French, but I just have to let it out.
They reject left and right even images with good selling potential for being "similar", and when something gets rejected, there is no use to resubmit because 100% of rejected images just keep getting rejected for the same reason.
I don't think this is that much due to SS's policy itself, I think it's more about incompetent reviewers. They are not just incompetent, they are f*cking idiots.
I feel better now, but these idiots will remain being idiots and they'll just keep rejecting left and right without using their brain even a little.
I could not agree with you more and you are not the only one feeling this way. Just today I sent a series of three views of a interesting boating locks. One closed, one half way and one fully open to show the operation. One was accepted and the other two rejected for similar content. Is the reviewer blind and does not read the title. Others have been rejected for Out of focus (not) and after submitting them elsewhere, they sold instantly. I don't know what has happened to reviewers at SS but it very annoying since I hardly even had a rejection in the past couple years and now it is common.
Just had one rejected because Title didnt match photo. The title Wooden fishing pier photo wooden fishing pier. Same photo was excepted by 4 other agencies. Something fishy going on at SS.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Just had to add this one more example. I sent a close up of a turret from a British castle, nothing identifiable, could belong to any castle and rejected for No Property Release. Seriously, for a corner of roof?
9
« on: October 14, 2019, 15:39 »
Pard my French, but I just have to let it out.
They reject left and right even images with good selling potential for being "similar", and when something gets rejected, there is no use to resubmit because 100% of rejected images just keep getting rejected for the same reason.
I don't think this is that much due to SS's policy itself, I think it's more about incompetent reviewers. They are not just incompetent, they are f*cking idiots.
I feel better now, but these idiots will remain being idiots and they'll just keep rejecting left and right without using their brain even a little.
I could not agree with you more and you are not the only one feeling this way. Just today I sent a series of three views of a interesting boating locks. One closed, one half way and one fully open to show the operation. One was accepted and the other two rejected for similar content. Is the reviewer blind and does not read the title. Others have been rejected for Out of focus (not) and after submitting them elsewhere, they sold instantly. I don't know what has happened to reviewers at SS but it very annoying since I hardly even had a rejection in the past couple years and now it is common.
10
« on: September 20, 2019, 09:00 »
Can someone explain this connection with Canva. Do we get credited with a sale every time our photo sells on Canva. I didn't think someone could buy your photo and then just resell as part of their collection.
11
« on: September 09, 2019, 08:02 »
Sales seem normal to me but I have to agree about the stupid rejections lately. I really fail to see how a reviewer can say a photo is not in focus when all the other top agencies think its fine and there isn't a spec out of focus. But then again, Adobe rejects things that are top sellers on Shutterstock so I then begin to wander what the real reason for a rejection is.
12
« on: April 26, 2017, 15:01 »
The good week after Easter made up for about half of the pathetic first two weeks of April.
13
« on: April 17, 2017, 18:38 »
How do you make 38 cents per sale when your total is at $20? Something looks wrong here...
Even I was thinking the same.
That was my first thought too and then I looked at the port and there is 21 pages of photos. I think this person has been around far longer than 3 weeks and just trying to get everyone to look at his port. Kuddos, it worked.
14
« on: April 11, 2017, 11:03 »
March was my best month ever and April is shaping up to be my worst month ever.
15
« on: December 11, 2016, 16:47 »
Were some of the photos editorial? I have found they always go down a different channel and have a different review time.
Do they accept editorial photos now??? Are you sending them editorial stuff and it gets accepted?
Oh sorry. I forgot we are talking about Fotolia.
16
« on: December 11, 2016, 16:38 »
Were some of the photos editorial? I have found they always go down a different channel and have a different review time.
17
« on: December 09, 2016, 08:38 »
Everyone concentrates on the number of files at SS but no one gives a stat on the increase in the number of contributors in the past five years. SS is doing fine, the pie is just being divided up into many more pieces.
18
« on: December 08, 2016, 10:05 »
It started off really well but kinda quiet the past few days.
19
« on: December 07, 2016, 13:42 »
That definitely sounds like a logical explanation but it has been too long now. They were on and off yesterday and back again but since this morning, they have disappeared from my port and the searches. The photo still shows in the stats but if you click on the ID number you get the message that they are under review or don't exist. It is all the photos for my last approved batch that were uploaded on the 5th. Is anyone else having this problem still.
20
« on: December 07, 2016, 08:18 »
I don't think that's the problem. I had a batch approved yesterday and I did receive an email of such. They were not in my port for a while and then they showed up only to disappear again. When I went to bed, they were all in my port and in the search results but when I woke this morning they were no longer in the search or my port. If you check your port stats though, they are all there. Something over there is definitely messed up.
21
« on: October 17, 2016, 17:15 »
I had that happen once where one photo was left behind. I contacted support and told them one photo was stuck in limbo and it was approved fairly quickly after that.
22
« on: October 16, 2016, 16:14 »
I've only been doing this a couple of years but I've never had a 30 second review. That would be nice.
23
« on: April 08, 2016, 08:14 »
I would imagine the problem is not with the word Derbyshire but the word dales. That is more of a British term. If you submitted a photo of a truck and called it a lorrie, I'm sure you would get the same response. Try resubmitting with Derbyshire Valley and see what happens. Maybe your reviewer has never travelled too far.
24
« on: April 02, 2016, 19:50 »
As with everything in life - If you are not happy with what you are doing, don't do it.
25
« on: January 05, 2016, 22:33 »
Personally, I'm just fed up with Shutterstock. They reject images that are my best sellers at other sites. They reject entire batches of images for intellectual property reasons when there are no infringments at all and when no other site has a problem with them. One photo which is my best seller on two sites was rejected for poor cropping. One image was sent with a vertical crop and a horizontal crop and the one was accepted and the other one rejected saying it was blurry. That was kinda impossible since it was the same photo. I have close to 90% acceptance on four other sites and yet Shutterstock rejects almost everything. I just don't understand their review process at all.
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
