|
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 - gbg2000
Pages: [1]
1
« on: August 05, 2013, 08:34 »
I actually went ahead and closed my account with Fotolia after several years of frustration. I had about 35% acceptance rate with them on the same photos that would get 75% with iStock and near 90% on SS. It made no sense, having in mind that iStock is usually the most arrogant agency out there (don't get me started on their 'exclusives'). Maybe I shouldn't have closed fotolia, since it still brought a few dollars, but the frustration was too much.
I agree with the OP that the best way is to sell direct and do assignments, but how? The market is over-saturated and I know more than one 'professional' photographers who work in the food service industry.
2
« on: November 08, 2011, 08:10 »
The lowest in the industry is 25%?? I guess you aren't on Istock then. I make 19% there and they go as low as 15% for some independents.
I am on IS, Lisa. They were one of my 'initial set' of agencies when I started in microstock 5-6 years ago, however I completely stopped uploading when they changed their commissions for independents. I didn't go through the trouble of deleting my portfolio there, as I went through lots of frustration to get even those accepted, IS being who they are - one 'new' rule from indentured slavery. Obviously only 'exclusives' prosper at IS, however my biggest earner has always been SS, and if they had exclusivity I'd probably go with them, regardless of their 'unknown' contributor percentage. IS robotniks...ahem...'exclusives' seem to do pretty well, though. A buddy of mine who started in microstock about the same time as me, went exclusive for IS after a few months, and nowadays he makes about a $1000 a month, enough to move his 'real' job to part-time status. Unfortunately, I make much less than that with ALL my agencies combined (I started with getting into 13 agencies back in the day, but cut them down to 5 in time), so having my real job as top priority and microstock as a moderately serious hobby is paramount  DT, BS and 123 were always nice to me and my pics, so I think photogs should support them. After reading the above, I'm definitely not putting anything on PD. If enough people did the same, maybe PD, and others (probably not IS, since they think they are just one step below God) would reconsider their policies. But maybe that's just a vain hope. With the advent of the digital, photography has become so commoditized I've heard many art curators not wanting to consider it art anymore. When I was studying photography at my undergrad university in the mid-90s things were different. Not everyone could handle the finicky taste of Velvia 50 or get just the 'right' creamy tonality from Ilford, and there was a camaraderie among photogs, a sense of solidarity, of belonging. That all seems to be gone now. RIP. /end rant
3
« on: November 07, 2011, 17:40 »
I am reading the above on their author tutorial site and cannot comprehend it... Are they for real? That must be THE lowest cut for independents in the industry? And how come is photodune at no.7 for earnings on the right? Does that mean that many people here on MSG are exclusives for photodune, or are they doing some unbelievable traffic to be able to earn serious money at 25% commission (more than canstock, veer and even BIGSTOCK, which is, personally, a serious earner for my portfolio)? Any thoughts appreciated
4
« on: September 26, 2011, 18:51 »
Since the Mods locked the previous topic with the same title (thanks a bunch!) I am posting the conclusion here in the interest of the truth and integrity.
SS issued the replacement checks and they cashed successfully. The timeline was as follows:
Jan 2011 - Original checks issued and bounced
Feb 2011 - promises, promises from SS to send the replacement checks ASAP (funny)
Jun 2011 - SS stops responding to emails or any other kind of inquiry
Sep 2011 - replacement checks are issued
So there you go folks, draw your own conclusions. And egomaniacs, please refrain from apologetic comments in which the contributor and not SS is guilty. Not interested.
5
« on: August 30, 2011, 13:45 »
Good to hear from people who are getting sales from Veer.. I had a bunch of pics on snapvillage for years with minimal sales (only one payout) and when they didn't transfer my port to veer, I was quite upset, but after a few months I applied to Veer with my best sellers from IS and SS and they were rejected for "pixelization"  (having in mind how anal IS are).. so I haven't bothered again, but it might be worth it as it seems to be very solidly in the mid-tier by reported earnings..
6
« on: August 30, 2011, 13:39 »
Hmmm, DP still standing strong in the mid-tiers.. that means lots of people are reporting making decent money there.. maybe it is time to start uploading
7
« on: August 30, 2011, 13:31 »
FWIW, I am really surprised to see FT is listed in the big 4, as it is definitely not in my top 5 earners, and their editors seems to take a special dislike to my style, my acceptance rate being half of that at IS. But I guess they have enough customers, so it works for enough people
8
« on: August 30, 2011, 13:27 »
IS has the most aggressive promotions for its exclusives from any agency out there, so the latest move is not surprising.. Unfortunately their dominance does not look like is going to change any time soon and plenty of "non-exclusives" (that seems to almost be a bad word over at IS will continue to mumble and upload up to the brimful of their limits
9
« on: August 30, 2011, 13:23 »
I am not sure if exclusivity makes sense after you have had some portfolios on several sites and some sales there. For one, if you quit the other sites, it is difficult to change your mind later, and also, you are losing actual income for some future earning potential. Maybe, if the math is right
10
« on: August 25, 2011, 18:12 »
Ohhhhhhh... It never ends.. I should know better than to go against photographers egos.. they are big.. thanks again for your answer, ppdd, however, if you read the question better, you would have realized i asked the people who HAD problems with their cheques bouncing, not the people who hadn't... And yes, plenty of people in my situation PMed me, so yes, people can help me, just not you thanks again!
11
« on: August 25, 2011, 16:31 »
Are you confused ppdd? Lisa's help was in a completely different direction. I have no need of replies "it works fine for me", they don't help me at all. I am fully aware that this issue is NOT affecting the majority of contributors, thus unless you are in the small group that I am - ppl getting paid by check AND had the checks bounced in February - please keep your well-meaning help to yourself.
How difficult is that?
12
« on: August 25, 2011, 15:37 »
RacePhoto: don't answer any of my threads, ever again. I have no time do deal with creatures like you.
13
« on: August 25, 2011, 15:24 »
RacePhoto: The troll are you. Don't reply to my threads anymore, please.
Batman: kudos for putting time to google me. I am not hiding who I am, though I don't like people gogling me to find something wrong with me, instead of answering my question, or just going away. Why are there people like that?
Again, if you feel like you need to add your personal opinion and indignation here, go ahead, but this thread is about a very specific question relevant to a very specific subset of people.. Anything else is trolling
14
« on: August 24, 2011, 14:01 »
no, cclapper, I haven't. I have explained what I did and how I contacted the people, read my other thread. I don't need someone to tell me to go google their phone numbers and call them. Of course I did that from the bat, and if anyone thinks otherwise, they have a problem. My question was directed purely to the SS contributors who are being paid by check AND to the small subset of those who had their checks bounced in the last 6 months. All others stand down. Please. (<-- yep, a Canadian please And then the other guy started bitching about Canada and Canadians, as if our country is neck-deep in crap right now, not his. I don't take well to that.
15
« on: August 24, 2011, 13:37 »
And I am on SS, iStock, Fotolia, DT and all the others since 2004, so there was plenty of time to iron out any and all info/tax problems. And all my checks arrived fine until this one. Just to preempt any future conversation in this direction
16
« on: August 24, 2011, 13:35 »
Lisa, I know you mean well (and great pics btw , but no, that is not the case. I am aware that this is not a site-wide problem. Only a small subset of the contributors getting paid by check got their checks bounced. The vast majority of the contribs got their payments fine. That IS the major problem. THere are quite a few of us, I got PMs on SS site from at least half a dozen in the same situation. They also tried to get through to SS and are getting cut down. I don't care that there are only a few of us who got affected, SS needs to fix their crap equally across the board, and waiting SIX MONTHS for a check is ABSOLUTELY UNACCEPTABLE.
17
« on: August 24, 2011, 13:28 »
cclapper: maybe you should have stayed on hold and actually talked to a "customer representative" .. then you would have realized that those numbers are FOR CLIENTS ONLY, NOT CONTRIBUTORS.. and the customer service guy would POLITELY tell you to go write an email and wait.. until they feel like replying.. which has been 4 months now.. RacePhoto: wow, you must be so smart, it is a miracle how brain matter is not overflowing through your ears No I didn't make anything up. Unlike you, I have some inside knowledge on the matter. Read my other thread. I am Canadian. The Canadian electronic banking and payment systems are at least a decade ahead of the US. However, I CHOOSE to be paid by check, because that is an option offered by SS and I CHOSE IT. SS has the responsibility to honor ALL of their payment options, not just the ones that are the cheapest to them. The email you quote is the one I am writing to every week and have not received a reply in 4 months. How does that taste for your "4-6 weeks weeks for a check to arrive"? So, keep your unsolicited advice to your self, and as all our mothers have told us "if you have nothing smart to say - keep quiet" and enjoy your all-american trailer park.
18
« on: August 24, 2011, 13:17 »
That's all great and dandy, Cogent, but all those phone numbers and nice replies are for CUSTOMERS ONLY!!! Please mind the difference. I am an independent photographer, a CONTRIBUTOR, and none of those numbers are for us, contributors..I called all of them (yes, of course I did 411 search, and yellow pages search, and I called a cop buddy in NYC as well).. And yes, the people on the phone were nice, telling me TO GO WRITE AN EMAIL, as there is nothing they can do to help me, because I am a CONTRIBUTOR.
To the guy who gets paid every month by check: good for you bud, for having the time and motivation needed to build a portfolio that will get you a payment every month! However, I nether have that kind of time nor motivation, so I usually receive 1-2 checks per year, and the one from February is still not here (for real).
19
« on: August 23, 2011, 10:28 »
That's just an automated algorithm. It never worked properly to begin with. Those numbers are for clients only. You will be told to write an email when you call them.
20
« on: August 23, 2011, 10:25 »
so, nobody here gets paid by check from SS? I guess that's why paypal is still in business
21
« on: August 22, 2011, 19:09 »
As I am sure it isn't news, the SS contributors who are paid by check got their checks bounced in January/Feb this year because SS used some naive check issuing company which went belly up.
To all affected SS contribs out there: did you get the re-issue check including the 'bounce' fee charged by your bank?
I have got big, fat NOTHING from SS!! They don't reply to emails, there is no phone support and there is no money. I posted on their forums with questions about this, but my posts get instantly deleted. What is going on here??? Is it possible that SS is a fraud and trying to cheat us out of our money? Is a legal action the only way to collect the money???
peace,
22
« on: August 22, 2011, 19:05 »
Shutterstock does not provide phone support for the contributors, only for the clients. I called their client line to resolve my contributor problem but the guy just said he will 'put a not in the system'.. their system seems to be they can do whatever they want to the people that depend on them
Pages: [1]
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
