|
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 - Perrush
1
« on: March 06, 2009, 05:15 »
I'm being the devil's advocate here, but I think they could find a "legaleze" wording to do it in the contributor's contracts if the group has any legal status at all. If it is just an informal group, that would be more difficult. However, an informal group might not work as efficiently on the issues it advocates.
I think an agency would think twice before doing that. Like someone on the FT said : "If we all pulled are portfolios at agency X, we actually wouldn't lost any $$ at all" ... because buyers would just change agency and we have all the same images there. regarding FT. It has been a good earning for me the past 6 months and this month looks good too. Maybe I'm not to happy about their changes, but I'm not happy with IS either. StockXpert and BigStock are why too small to mean anything. Leaves only SS and DT to be content about. So FT isn't the worst place on earth (yet) ... exceptfor that $---issue where we don't get any answer from FT. It really annoys me not getting any response for management. They know there are wrong, that's why they don't want to speak about it. But again, let's do the math : I have/had 55 affiliates at FT 7 of them are registered at the US 46 in the UK 1 in Germany 1 in France Of my last 10 sales, I sold 4 images to a german customer and 3 to a french one. The other 3 seems to be english or american. Now, you don't need to be a professor to see why they increased the credit price in europe and refuse to pay the US and UK contributors their fair share. Are am I wrong ?
2
« on: March 05, 2009, 04:30 »
Well there must be something wrong with me. I DO post on the FT forum I AM sceptical about their 'improvements' and I DO tell this in my posts so why do they not ban me ?? why am I being discriminated ?? It's just not fair 
3
« on: February 20, 2009, 06:08 »
I understand your concern but, even at 40%, FT are still paying double the % you receive from IS. Is it still the case that FT are your highest earning site?
gostwyck, it doesn't matter if they make us more money or not. It's the way they treat us. Have you heard anything about the $-issue ? Are you aware that many of us are being paid 40% !! less than those in Europe ? Do you really believe the EL license change was a mistake ? Or did they suddenly feel the heat of everyone who said they would opt out? (thank God there is an opt out button) We'll never know. why must they lover our commissions ? Why not just increase the credits (maybe a bit less) and leave the commission. Why do sub sales don't count for your ranking ? I had 40% subs last month !! Why did they changed contributor levels so much ? why ... it's endless. And all these changes are for the worse for use or does benefit FT much more. why don't we see this at Dreamstime ?
4
« on: February 18, 2009, 14:37 »
my reply at the FT forums : About the increase in total commissions. I took my last 100 sales which were distributed as followed :
sub : 42
XS : 13
S : 6
M : 16
L : 13
XL : 10
Those generated me 78.19 credits at current prices and commissions rate.
With the new prices AND the old commissions rate of 37% they would earned me 92.62 credits which is a 14% increase (not the 20% you said in the newsletter, but close)
With the new prices AND new commission rate of 34% they would earned me 86.2 credits. Still a 8% increase in total earnings. I don't know if the X license was a typo or that they felt the heat. Doesn't matter imho. X license stays the same, that's the most important.
6
« on: February 18, 2009, 12:06 »
EL = 20 credits payout = 30% earned credits = 6 1 credit = 0.60 earned = 3.6 converted to $ = $5.2 !!! are they NUTS  If they get away with this, they can do everything ! Sorry, this is way over the limit for me.
7
« on: February 18, 2009, 11:32 »
This is going to far.
The 3% decrease is actually close to 10% !!. 3% of 37% in my case ...
Along with the non-communication about this - - $ thing, I've had it. We should really do something about these ... well ... 'guys'. But what ?
8
« on: February 12, 2009, 13:43 »
don't waste your time here, report him to SS and he will be gone in seconds
--
oops thought I was on the SS forum. Well anyway, I can't imagine StockXpert won't take the same action ... could only take a little longer.
9
« on: January 29, 2009, 15:25 »
I find it very correct of DT that they clearly state the image is upsized. Good work imho (although I would never buy such an image myself)
10
« on: January 29, 2009, 13:49 »
You gotta start somewhere... I have less sales on DT.
I guess every high seller had 25 sales, at one point 
of course, but read the whole quote : recently I had quite a bit of rejections like this. but it's fine for me, DT knows not to oversaturate the site with too many of the same old same old stuff. it won't do us any good to have too many images that don't sell either. i would rather have a small portfolio with more sales than a large port with no sales. DT is reasonable, and they give me the sales, so i will go with their rejections, if any. he's saying that he accept the rejections because in that way the database is under control so he can get some sales from a small portfolio ... to be honest, I don't think you can tell that from 25 sales in 8 months. But I wasn't really pointing the finger to him, that why the '  ' was in the post. Everyone was small once, I'm even small today 
11
« on: January 29, 2009, 10:39 »
and they give me the sales.
Total sales: 25  don't you think you're overreacting
12
« on: January 29, 2009, 09:51 »
xposure : I don't mean an agancy, I even don't mean a Yuri or Lisa. I think if even smaller photographers with between 1000 and 5000 images make their portfolios public that this could have an influence on sales because many good selling micro images are so generic. $1 is cheap, $0 is cheaper and can't be beaten.
Maybe it's just my silly brain which is turning sour ... maybe not
13
« on: January 29, 2009, 09:16 »
Uh oh, this thread looks like it's turning into a shooting match. (this is not aimed at you, perrush, or anyone else in particular)
you don't have to take everything that serious Sharply I don't either I wondered what will happen if one of the big guys (or even smaller ones) who make their complete portfolio for free. Because many microshots are so similar, I think this could have a big impact of sales across all sites. I think this will happen one day
14
« on: January 29, 2009, 09:06 »
IF this would be a world where money wasn't important and images could be downloaded for free ... this wouldn't be a problem at all. Now, many are in for the money (although it didn't start that way) and because of that they don't like ANY competition. They would love the see them being the only contributor to micro's so THEY could make money, Money, MONEY, ... do you know have I call this ... ... G R E E D ... ... it's one of the seven deadly sins (if I recall the movie seven well  ) ) No seriously. Money just kills it all. I'm happy some do share idea's / knowledge and so. If this wasn't the case I wouldn't be the photographers I am today. just my 2 cts
15
« on: January 29, 2009, 08:45 »
Well I know for one exclusive who isn't happy. http://www.istockphoto.com/Liliboas I followed her by coincidence because one image of her interfered with my best selling. I was amazed she had such an amount of dl's with such average portfolio. with the new best match, she lost 80% of her DL's !! Once she was second or third by DL/last 90 days, a long with Yuri and Lisa. Now she fell back from 450 DL / day to just over 100 ... ... I you rank the site by most downloads, she is n17 (although made anonymous)
16
« on: January 27, 2009, 14:39 »
I mentioned it in the "totalitarian" thread, but I'll agree here, that sales at istock are not down across the board. Just shifted.
The people who got a HUGE bonus of sales from mid October through December are no longer so heavily favored, and those of us who lost thousands of $ in sales during that time are recovering to the sales levels we had before that massive best match shakeup in October.
Yes, I'm seeing the same. The previous best match favored exclusives very much. But like I said before this didn't serve the buyers who don't care if they have to buy from exclusives or non-exclusives, they just want the best images (best match ?) in front of them. IS restored that imho. Now those who got a boost from that weird best match are seeing a drop. My sales are back to normal. I think this will be my best month since feb.
17
« on: January 23, 2009, 05:16 »
I can respect that. And I think in taking this new approach to just create the images you want to create for the sheer gratification of creating images you like, you just might create a niche for yourself that will sell. If everyone is scrambling to create a certain type of stock image because it seems to be what is popular, you might be better served to go in a completely different direction. Serve a different buyer, but dominate that niche by creating images that are genuinely crafted with a passion for the artform. at least someone who read between the lines
18
« on: January 22, 2009, 19:09 »
Indeed, if you get paid for doing something you enjoy it only serves to expand magic as you explore further possibilities and horizons, the old magic of playing with chemicals in a darkroom is just as present in the excitement of sitting down in front of a new batch raw files.... being paid for doing something creative which you enjoy is a gift few people have in this day and age.
if you shoot for stock, there isn't any magic. You know what you will shoot and how it will look like even before you start shooting. It are not your own idea's because you need to see what sells and shoot those subjects. I can see the magic in your eyes when, what you thought will be your best image, is rejected for whatever reason OR when your good selling subject is being copied by others whom are much higher in the search ranks. Being paid for your images is not bad, changing your workflow to meet standards isn't either. Only shooting good selling subjects in mass IS imho. Depending on the money you earn is an other one imho.
19
« on: January 22, 2009, 18:11 »
and how you consider your future on stock ? I stopped with micro's in 2007 after doing it for one year. Why ? because I was shooting for stock instead of shooting out of love for photography. I became bored with the 'objects on white' and sold all my gear ... ... now I bought back all my stuff and made myself one promise. Only shoot images you want to shoot because you like them and not because they would sell. Now I'm much more orientated towards art. I shoot mainly images of my kids and do projects I wanted to do. I'm much more proud of the images I make now then those I made in my last micro year. But yes, they will probably sell less. Does this make me sad ?? (I mean that they sell less) Well actually not really. Why did the majority of us entered the micromarket ? Because the images they shot could make them some money to buy some extra gear. Some (most ?) are now shooting for stock because it makes them some money. But does it bring them pride too ? Are they happy with their images ? Does shooting make their lives more pleasant ? I don't know , but I doubt it. So I went back to the original idea. Sell what you shoot and if it sell, be happy and buy some gear. In my case, I always wanted to do high speed photography. Well I will use micro money to buy me a dozen flashes and see what I can produce. Will it sell ? maybe some. Will I use my time in the most productive way ? certainly not ! Will I be proud of my images ? probably well I hope you see the point. Just shoot and be happy. Once you start shooting for money it takes away the magic of photography.
20
« on: January 22, 2009, 17:30 »
total : 829
excellent : 72 (9%)
good : 748 (90%)
ok : 9 (1%)
21
« on: January 19, 2009, 05:38 »
Why don't you stick to drawing and let posting to someone else anyway, I think everyone can do whatever he wants to, the buyers decide if the image is good enough or not. Besides, isn't that the point of micro's ? Becoming better a long the way ?
22
« on: January 17, 2009, 08:33 »
I'm already beyond nov and dec earnings at this moment. Looks like my best month since apr '08. this again shows the importance of search result 
23
« on: January 15, 2009, 10:25 »
I think I'll come out at +20% compared to Dec and even with Nov. But I have to say I started uploading again halfway Dec from an absance of more than 1 year, so I have some new iamges being DL'ed
24
« on: January 07, 2009, 17:42 »
Just out of curiousity I made an account to see what lookstat does. Although I'm not convinced at the moment if it will be more than a gadget. Will it bring something meaningful to my 'business' ? Not sure yet. Why ? Because if an image sells at one site or not is not (alone) about the quality of the image but maybe even more about the 'exposure' it is granted. Exposure can come with best match results, lightboxes, and so on. And this differs from site to site. That's why some images sell good at one site but doesn't sell at an other. It would be of great interest which keywords are search for for a certain image. How many views are generated by which keyword. That would be interesting. But we'll see
25
« on: January 03, 2009, 12:50 »
imho the idea behind this move is the following. Most contributors are at UK and US, But FT sells a lot in europe. So most buyers comes from .EU Buyers pay in , FT pays 33% commission in or $ ... twice a profit
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
