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 ... 44
51
« on: October 12, 2015, 17:25 »
Composition an colors quite good, but it has a lot of artifacts and noise in the defocused background. Could be rejected here and there. A dslr will do better.
52
« on: October 07, 2015, 17:33 »
I'm not with them, not even applied, but I think it is not te fairest, but the only fair agency to contibutors. I wish them luck.
53
« on: October 06, 2015, 08:29 »
On the other hand, if the costumer buy the annual plan with 100 images/month at 209 euros/month.
And if the costumer buy 100 S+ images at 2,5$ each for 250$...
Istock receive 209 euros which are about 250$ and give 100% to you.
The bigger the plan, the biggest the possibility that won't be fully used. I wouldn't bet for more that 70% on average for annual plans. On the other hand the S+ subscription includes essential, S and S+ files. In my case the percentatge of S+ is beetwen 1/3 and 1/2. Note that customers don't have a way to know if a file is S or S+. They simply buy what better fill their needs.
54
« on: September 19, 2015, 10:35 »
10 s+ images would be 25 for the exclusive contributor. Even so, istock would keep 60 dollars, 71%. But S+ (in my case) are just one of every two downloads... and I have also some 0.34 essentials dls, probably bought with the s+ subscription. Then, you must bear in mind that even in this kind of subscriptions no all the monthly allowance is always downloaded. So it is difficult to know what percentage is paying istock in average, but it is not much.
55
« on: September 08, 2015, 17:04 »
sorry ppdd but, if i can get it on google without watermarks, then its for me legal. google images and their search function is the same like on 'your agencies'. main problem is that these agencies and photographers mislead customers on purpose. For example in my country many people dont understand proper english, but on these sites you have royalty free images (that leads to misunderstandings) or like in my case they invent licenses with absurd fees. theres a big problem in this stock business
That's like saying "If I can kill you without being caught, then is legal" Good luck, **hole
56
« on: September 07, 2015, 13:21 »
If I were Angelloz I would open my own shop/line of T-shirts with news designs in the same line right now.
57
« on: August 04, 2015, 06:26 »
In my case, RPD, including subs and Getty, is a little more than 5, being at 40% (just for regular IS downloads, of course)
58
« on: August 04, 2015, 06:16 »
I wont agree with "too late" attitude no matter how many posts i see about it. I simply know its not too late, actually its very simple. Digital media market demand is growing faster than we can upload all our pictures at once.
I know people who earn 2k $ per month. I'm earning much more than that. But this, with thousands and thousands of photos already uploaded, and produced when production costs where balanced with revenue. Beggining now, if not in a pure amateur week-end basis, will mean that you are going to lose money (and lots of time), don't matter how little production, equipment cost and so are. That's what's happened with friends, decent photographers, that I cheered to join in the last two-three years.
59
« on: August 03, 2015, 19:06 »
In many cases, even almost identical (or copycated) images don't serve the same purpose in the same way. Besides being a photographer I'm a buyer, and it's when you are buying and choosing when you realize that.
60
« on: August 03, 2015, 17:15 »
Non exclusive photos are a commodity that can be found elsewhere for the price of 1 credit or less, and most customers know that. I wouldn't make sense to put it at 2 credits. Exclusive content can't be found outside the Getty group, so it'ts natural giving it a higher price.
61
« on: August 03, 2015, 11:40 »
Answering to your initial question: Yes, it is too late.
There are hundred of commercial activities where your work will be better rewarded, without any doubt.
62
« on: August 02, 2015, 06:21 »
The new interface simply doesn't work at all, it messes up searches, it hides search options, it irritates customers that leave fast. Hard to understand how after months of moths of this problem, they haven't come back to the old one.
63
« on: July 13, 2015, 14:05 »
I's weak, quite outdated and it lacks originality. I my view, you would need about 4.000 of those to have 10 subscription downloads a day. I'm sure you can do better.
64
« on: July 01, 2015, 10:33 »
Not excited about the deal. Fiverr is not a reputable site. Cheap, yes, but that's all. I've tried several times their services and I've got works that weren't at all good even considering the price. Some of them were simply 100% useless. On the oher hand, the deal isn't easy to understand by sellers there.
65
« on: June 30, 2015, 04:05 »
You mean "extortion" letters to loving image thieves?
that is another topic but many use an image they find online then Getty will try to bill them for about 1000 times the cost of actual licensing it.
Yes I know, all those poor souls who downloaded and used an image "thinking it was free because it was online... It isn't free all what is online??" or saying that "they did not know", "no one had told them", "had they know they had bought the image paying gladly for the license" ... Sometimes I awake in the middle of the night and cry thinking about such a great injustice. (And remember, this is not extortion, it's just an offer to avoid a lawsuit. If they are so confident they are right, they can always refuse to pay and meet demand)
66
« on: June 29, 2015, 23:42 »
You mean "extortion" letters to loving image thieves?
67
« on: June 22, 2015, 06:23 »
So, customers get a big discount when buying images if they pay a monthly fee to Adobe C.C. ... but photographer's don't get nothing of this monthly fee.
68
« on: June 05, 2015, 17:26 »
The new IU is a fiasco, it doesn't work (haven't for MONTHS) and searching for images is very difficult, I'm not suprised people look elsewhere. It's a shame. (Not to talk of the SCORES of "gosth" unexplained and unpaid downloads). Yes, at same point they said it was a display issue... but tell me how, please.
69
« on: May 26, 2015, 05:14 »
Not everybody can pay mid-stock prices, ok. And so what? Every business has to know who its target customers are and that they can't have ALL the customers in its field.
All I know is that just a year ago, or less, I was selling almost as many files like I'm selling now with subs, and most of them (more than regular ones + Vetta) were E+ files, with an average of 18-25 & comission per download and an average price of about 50-60 $
70
« on: May 25, 2015, 17:28 »
Let me remind that when istock,first with Bruce, then with Getty, was raising prices year after year, a lot of people, including a lot of photographers used to angrily protest (for example in this very forum). Recently, someone said that istock is still selling ex-Vetta and S+ images at "ridiculous high prices as if these fotos were gems" (meaning about 2 dollars and a half with the S+ subscription!!).
Obviously, introducing subs at istock was a (another) mistake. For what I can infere from my sales and revenue, and sales and revenue of some friends, we are losing money, yes, but Getty is losing money too. A lot of money.
71
« on: May 20, 2015, 13:50 »
So, what are they doing? I don't really underdtand what they are meaning wiith this "single tier price" expression.
72
« on: May 12, 2015, 06:29 »
Not very bad here (just a little less than past month), but it seems that there are a non-small number of "ghost" downloads not resgistering properly, not adding to the balance. They say "they know" the problem and that they are investigating, but it has been more than a month without any new.
73
« on: May 05, 2015, 16:01 »
even on my RPD on IS as exclusive of around $10 that is still 541 downloads from just that one shoot to break even. Is your RPD actually still $10? Given that what I've seen from other exclusives, around 70% of downloads are coming from subscriptions these days for them as well, paying $0.75 or $2.50. As those are added only later, people tend to only look at their current month and forget to count in all those subs sales when calculating averages. I am seeing RPDs of around $4-5 on the 40% payout level these days as more realistic.
I guess $10 is still possible if you get lots of images into S+ and mirrored to Getty. But in that case I wonder why you would bother with iStock as images in that consistent quality could sell better in macrostock without those cheap subscription sales that require you to get 10 downloads to pay your parking fees.
RPD including credit, subs and getty sales, in my case, goes to 5.5 dollars. That's low, and not enough to finance even small productions, but it's even lower at other sites.
74
« on: April 30, 2015, 17:35 »
quote of the article:
The stock award was designed "with the objectives of retaining and motivating him while providing a strong pay-for-performance element"
Given the lack of pay raises commented now and again by contributors, it seems that contributors don't need to be retained or motivated.
75
« on: April 24, 2015, 16:30 »
If iStock's exclusive content were really better than what's out there at other agencies, having exclusive content might matter. Unfortunately for them, they backed up the Getty dump truck and loaded the site with masses of bog standard images priced as if they were gems. Some of the Getty rubbish might sell OK if it were priced lower, but it completely undermined the appeal of exclusive content, IMO
Once upon a time things were different, and there are some talented iStock exclusives - real exclusives not the Getty factories - who got undermined by the private equity owners who I'm guessing directed this strategy of unloading anything and everything on iStock.
I know we've harped on the lemon and lime slices that are underexposed with a black border, but when you shove that high priced dreck in front of buyers as the reason they should shop with you versus the competition, you won't be taken seriously.
PRICED AS IF THEY WERE GEMS? At about 2 dollars the sub download, any size?? I see that some people has internalized the fact that stock photos shouldn't cost more than the 0.30 that SS clients pay. Great. Well, not great: rather sad. Let's talk about Stockholm syndrome. Let's talk about slaves. On the other hand, the point about exclusive content is the fact that it can't be found elsewhere. Period. There's a lot of great exclusive content, and also no-so-great exclusive content (the same applies for non-ex), but that's not the point. As an example: I know of an hotels searching page that have hotels that doesn't appear in almost all the others (booking, etc). I use the others often, but I never forget to look at the one that has what the others don't, and I've booked often there.
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 ... 44
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|