|
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 - loop
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 ... 44
101
« on: May 29, 2014, 06:24 »
Seems mine is closed too, though I did not receive any e-mail from them.
Fotolia is my second earner. I opted out, but did not delete any images from Fotolia.
You might not be upset Ron, but I am.
No matter how terms and conditions are, it is legal to close an account in this way? I think not. You have done a lot of work for them... think of the hours invested in uploading and keywording, let's say, 10.000 images;in exchange, they were commited to have these images on sale. Then, all of a sudden, they delete all the images, and with them all the work you did for them just because they feel like that. Get an attorney, sue them and ask for a monetary compensation.
102
« on: May 28, 2014, 14:27 »
Exclusive artists need 15 - 30 subs sales (at 34 cents) to replace one normal 5-10 dollar exclusive download.
How long will it take to reach that goal? And how much money will they lose until then?
I think those are realistic concerns if a major part of your income comes from exclusive photo sales.
Did anyone report a 2,50 subs sales? The higher price option is being offered now, right?
Yes, I got four of those. That's about 25% of my sub sales.
103
« on: May 28, 2014, 13:31 »
No, they don't sell books to sell kindles. At least that's is what I read in a interview with Bezos. They sell kindles, quite cheap and witth little benefit margins to sell books. You can a sell a new kindle to a customer every three or four years, maybe; you can sell books to this customer every week.
104
« on: May 28, 2014, 06:21 »
Very poor sub sales. In some way, is logical, because of the monthly limit. With a monthly limit, buyers don't buy as easily as with a daily one; they don't know what they are going to need three weeks from today, and so, they tend to reserve downloads.A rush just can be waited for when the end of the monthly limit is near. But aniway, results are no good. I wish they forget subs and concentrate in ppd sales.
105
« on: May 27, 2014, 16:09 »
It seems it has just started. The bar for subs is gray.
106
« on: May 15, 2014, 06:38 »
Average day, taking in account he new normal after the subs introduction. A bit confusing, too, because they choose this day to began paying credit subscriptions delayed royalties pending from weeks, if not months, ago.
Edited: After looking at my graph: 3rd day in number of downloads for May.
107
« on: May 13, 2014, 16:24 »
I've had posts with many minuses, and I don't care at all. On the contrary, it's a good indication that the idea or comment I've exposed is not shared. That's all. I value and respect many members of these forums, and I admire Leaf, but the people whose opinions could really hurt me are friends and family of flesh and bone, living around me.
108
« on: May 13, 2014, 16:18 »
In my humble view, that seems to tell that Fotolia foresees itself making money with DPC, not with Fotolia.
109
« on: May 13, 2014, 14:04 »
iS has grandfathered the royalty levels for the last two years. So the RC system is kind of defacto nonexistent. I would be very surprised if there isn't a significant change by iS regarding the RC system as it stands today.
I hope they will grandfather too this year. That will possible be the first year I won't reach my 40% level. They should, after the introduction of subs. On the other hand, while they grandfather existing levels, for some is impossibe to reach the next level, even if improving sales. So, in some way, the RC systems stands.
110
« on: May 13, 2014, 04:27 »
Customers are noticing the "missing" images - more than a few tweets like these over the last 10 days:
https://twitter.com/DollarPhotoClub/status/465744399767707648
https://twitter.com/DollarPhotoClub/status/465770470558937088
The first comment talks about the difference betwween subscription and pay per download. The designer finds an image he likes, but instead of simply downloading it at full resolution (as he would have done with a subscription, having a daily limit), downloads a composite (and saves 1 whopping dollar!) and waits for his client opinion before deciding to buy. This is why you can't hope volume in DPC; and if volume occurs it just can be at the expense of other pay per download sites. The people who stays on DPC is shooting no just all of us in the foot, but in their own feet too.
111
« on: May 12, 2014, 08:11 »
1. Svetlana (i have no idea who you are), can you please show people here the pictures you used as boycott advertisement? then everyone will see why i called it circus.
2. what i'm still trying to convince people is please check the background of "leaders" of this "boycott". don't be manipulated by WAREZ people. make your own business decisions. don't be a "herd" for those who wants to be sheppards now.
i have zero trust to people who pop-up from nowhere with already made boycott site and redirecting contributors to their "alliance" later.
people who say they are not stock contributors, but just have a big heart.
people who, on very easy inspection appear to be connected to WAREZ.
if anyone wants such a people to lead him/her or affect his/hers business - don't say you were not warned.
that's it.
It's too easy to see where you come from. Don't expose yourself to further ridicule.
112
« on: May 08, 2014, 15:10 »
Nice thought, but other agencies won't go there. They would likely fall foul of all sorts of anti-competition laws in the EU and elsewhere if they tried that.
No at all. Amazon (Amazon KDP) is doing exactly this since 2011 or so, without any problem. All they got was some moaning in the Smashwords forums (and smashword's CEO admitted that they couldn't do anything about it). Match on a lower price is 100% legal.
113
« on: May 08, 2014, 06:11 »
That came from the true beggining of Istock, when it just was a plattform to swap images among designers. To get a growing database, for each image downladed they had to upload 5. The real mistake, however, was to begin with very low prices: In 2000's context, when RF images used to cost 300-500 at Corbis or Getty, a price of 10 dollars image would have been equally seen as a steal.
114
« on: May 08, 2014, 05:46 »
While Bruce was at the helm at istockphoto, istockphoto was a quite fair agency that showed concern for his photographers and, to a point, listened to their demands. Bruce increased royalties for exclusives until 40%, gave a 10% plus on ELs without nobody asking for that, created the 100% royalties day, took the selling prices from almost nothing to more reasonable amounts, created a subscription system tied to the size of images, gave access to Getty for exclusives, created Vetta among other things.
Most of the really controversial things (getty content ingest to Vetta and Agency, RC system, google deal, quality control relax and abolition of upload limits, thinkstock, new sub system la SS with fixed royalties for contributors, exclusive o no, with delayed reporting of sales) came later.
This is not opinion, but facts.
115
« on: May 07, 2014, 11:14 »
Bruce doesn't say which year the margin was 70% but when I joined in 2004 it was pre-exclusivity and everyone got 20%
Or maybe he means 70% as oppossed to Stocksy 50% (withoud considering end of the year bonus). Anyway, 200,000/month for 60,000 images or so, means a RPI of about 2,85 image/month. That's high.
116
« on: May 03, 2014, 16:30 »
This week has been very volatile. Two very good days, one "normal" day and two very bad days. Waiting for Monday to see whan happens.
And, to ArtPuppy: Using the price slider you can avoid Vetta or whatever content out of your budget.
117
« on: May 03, 2014, 13:10 »
On the other hand, theres is something terribly unfair for the other agencies in this scheme. Let's see: DPC won't sell as --for example-- SS sells, because clients will tend to buy just the images they need (that's not really a subs program, as we all know. In a true subs program clients end downloading 3x what they need). It s is possible to finance the cheapest photo shooting with the returns that this DPC scheme will provide? The answer is clearly no. Actually, that should condemn DPC to lose contributors, professional contributors and their better images, and have to work with photos of pizzas and chessboards by amateurs or week-end photographers, or people images with an not so sleek array of photographers's couples and brothers in law as models. But many photographer's will think: "So what? I sell too at SS, IS, DT and other sites: that will finance the shootings, DPC income is a plus" (at least until they see a decrease in their other agencies more profitable income). So, DPC couln't exist without the other agencies. If the other agencies allow this, they will be indirectly supporting DPC.
118
« on: May 02, 2014, 10:15 »
at this point i wouldnt trust anymore in the counter..
Yes, I still remember (years ago) when they said in one of their press releases that they were the microstock site with more images online. Jon Oringer himself had to come to these forums to discuss it. (They had far less than SS, an even less than IS).
119
« on: April 30, 2014, 06:17 »
Incredible. That looks like plain robbery.
120
« on: April 29, 2014, 18:32 »
I said earlier and I will repeat it now. Contributor's resistence is great, but we would need the help of the other agencies (which would protect themselves at the same time). SS, IS, DT etc should not accept images that are in DPC too. That really would decimate the DPC potential and database. It is legal and can be done, in a similar way as Amazon KDP is doing something similar from three years ago, a move that kept them afloat of their competitors.
121
« on: April 26, 2014, 17:40 »
Other agencies will be affected and, maybe,in the long term, they will have to adapt, an that will be the last chapter of the race to the bottom. I wish SS, or IS or DT give their contributors the choice of being on DPC or being in their agencies. It would be the only way to stop this.
I can't delete my potfolio because I'm no there. All I can do is spread the news to some FT contributors with big portfolios that I know.
Good luck.
122
« on: April 25, 2014, 14:53 »
SS are growing their business (and ours). The growth however isn't coming from subs but mainly from all the higher priced image products that they are selling instead. As Jo Ann has pointed out the subs part of SS is now only about 40% of the total. It seems to me that it is only on SS that RPD is consistently growing (and has been for some years now). Everywhere else it has been moving in the wrong direction __ especially at IS.
Not for exclusives: in fact, RPD has skyrocketed in the last two-three years, going to numbers between 10-20 $ per download. Another thing, quite worse and not less important, is RPI that has gone down (especially now, with the doomed subs).
123
« on: April 24, 2014, 11:36 »
Renters can sign, in my view.
124
« on: April 23, 2014, 07:21 »
As exclusive, my RPD has dropped to about 12 $ as a result of the fact that istock demoted a number of my S+ files to S (food for thought: these files were selling better as S+ than they are now as S!). It will drop more when we have data about susbcription sales (I'm still wondering why can't they add the information and the money instantly, like everybody else).
125
« on: April 07, 2014, 15:37 »
Even the most insignificant subs sites are able to report sales and add the money to the balance instantly. Seeing sales as they happen is part of the fun and a big plus for contributors. Now we have a big minus. Istock was once the site that offered best features for contributors, now these days are gone.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 ... 44
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
