|
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 - kabby
Pages: [1]
1
« on: September 16, 2009, 08:44 »
An additional list for non-recommended sites, meaning sites that have gotten a lot of comments for non-payment and non-response from the site.
2
« on: August 22, 2008, 12:52 »
Chumley, at this moment there's 1672 members on this forum, and many, many more visitors who haven't registered. I think that one or two of our members were riding you a little hard but you have earned the respect of many more. I, for one have read everything you have said and I thank you for your time. I wish you would stick around, you are a great mentor. If you think about starting your own blog on the topic, I'll be the first to sign up.
Agree! Thank you Chumley for taking the time to share your valuable experiences here!
3
« on: July 21, 2008, 08:54 »
The suggestions are an improvement, however not completely acurate, since it pulls words with part of the word.
This is what came up for the simple search "cat":
Suggestions:
sex education
asthma medication
engine catalyst
engine catalytic
catalyst
4
« on: June 17, 2008, 05:54 »
I believe it takes a day or two for the images to appear in the portfolio section.
You should be able to submit more images anytime.
5
« on: May 07, 2008, 07:57 »
In the voting - I give my best site a 10 and my worst site(s) a 1 and put everything else in the middle. Just because a site goes down doesn't mean people experienced lower sales, it just means that people experience lower sales COMPARED to the other sites.
While this is how you are voting, I never even thought of doing it that way. ranging the sites from 1-10, assuming 10 sites. There really isn't much for instructions in the voting section. It really just has excellent, or very poor or somewhere in between. It is all very subjective. Also, I think it is somewhat misleading that the voting starts at one. I bet if there was a zero for no sales that month that the low earners numbers would go down even more.
6
« on: April 22, 2008, 08:24 »
Interesting calculator.
The most a diamond can earn from a single XS download is $105.50.
The most a non-exclusive can earn from a single XS download is $91.20.
You have to really hit the jackpot for that though. Still something to hope for. Overall I am thinking this might actually get us more money than the current pay-per download set up.
I think (and hope) that this will be enough to put an end to a lot of the smaller Microstock sites that are only alive because of their subscription plans. I would much rather have a higher concentration of buyers at the big 6 sites instead of spread out over 40+ microstock sites. So it's time for Crestock, Canstockphoto, Albuno to start shutting down or make some changes.
Weird I just checked it out today and I put in 480 credits/day, over 100 users, and subscription duration of 3 months... and it shows -The most a diamond can earn from a single XS download is $105.50. -The most a non-exclusive can earn from a single XS download is $52.75. (If they use all 480 credits on your images then it goes to $91.20) Looks like maybe they changed pricing... or maybe I missed something
7
« on: April 21, 2008, 10:17 »
Just looked and it loaded for me, but not everything loaded correctly. Then after a few clicks it didnt load.
My guess would be that more people may be realizing it is closing, think the site may not be able to handle all the traffic.
8
« on: April 18, 2008, 13:33 »
I don't think it has to do with exclusivity, I noticed this on one of my images (not exclusive). I think they rotate a small percentage of newer images in the best match for maybe the first few days then remove them if they arent selling.
This is just a theory of course.
10
« on: April 18, 2008, 11:14 »
11
« on: March 18, 2008, 07:29 »
IS- you need an acceptance ratio of at least 50% to become exclusive
16
« on: October 03, 2007, 19:26 »
17
« on: October 03, 2007, 07:14 »
19
« on: September 26, 2007, 12:40 »
I uploaded fine last night as well, and just checked, there are no alerts and nothing about it in the forum.
20
« on: September 22, 2007, 16:32 »
Have had a few sales, but not sure if it was from this or not. Just checked and the lightbox isn't public yet, so it can't be searched in the lightbox searches. So it is only getting traffic from the banner on each of the images. If you go into edit lightbox you can change it to a public lightbox.
Thanks again Leaf for doing these.
21
« on: September 10, 2007, 10:03 »
I had a batch of photos in since the 31st that just got reviewed yesterday (9th).
This past week they also decreased the upload limits because a lot of reviewers were on vacation.
22
« on: September 05, 2007, 10:53 »
Wow, I just tried the calc, I thought for sure my number was in the lowest possible grouping since I just started and dont have a lot of images on all the sites, and the number of images per site widely varies.
So my $/image based on the calc is: $0.59, over three sites (IS, Dreamstime, and FT).
This seems high to me knowing what I actually made. Because if you multiply the $0.59 by the total number of images on those three sites during August you get: $53, which is 4 times the actual number made for the month. If you divide the $0.59 by the number of sites (3) creating an average $/image/site and then multiply the total images the resulting total income is much closer to the actual income. Therefore that average across the sites is a much better indicator, my average $ per image per site is $0.19 (which is right on par with what I expected).
I could easily see how someone with the calc indicated in this thread could make $5/image on shutterstock or istock and not be bringing in all that much on all the sites. Just because most of the income comes from the one site, you cant automatically multiply that $5 by the number of images at all the sites.
Just for a comparison, since this was calc is based on the microstock diaries column, if you multiply Lee Torrens total $/image=1.27 by the total images at all sites=3101, then the predicted income would be $3938, almost 8 times the actual income. Granted that includes lots of lower performers. Do the same calc with only the top 6 and the new total $/image=1.15 multiplied by total images on those sites=2442, the predicted total is $2808, still almost 6 times the actual. Showing that this number really doesnt mean much. Divide the 1.15 by the 6 sites and you have $0.19 per image per site, multiply the $0.19 by the total images on the 6 sites=2442 and the total is $468, much closer to the actual number of $479. While this number is close it still can be very skewed if you have a larger proportion of income at any given site.
I find it interesting that Lees number is $0.19 per image per site as is mine. Weird coincidence I think.
Sorry, am a bit into math i guess.....
23
« on: September 05, 2007, 05:55 »
24
« on: August 24, 2007, 13:07 »
Pages: [1]
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
