|
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 - pancaketom
Pages: 1 ... 65 66 67 68 69 [70] 71 72 73 74 75 ... 88
1726
« on: October 08, 2011, 21:43 »
I was thinking I should get it and download selected images from contributors here and tell them which ones and which dates and see how well they reported them. oh well.
1727
« on: October 08, 2011, 12:09 »
I agree w/ jsnover - a good tool but a few refinements would help even more. I'd like to be able to sort by $ and not just dl #s (for all the darkroom stuff).
I like the idea of something on an image page that says "this image is in the X lightbox - click here to see that lightbox". Maybe only for lightboxes you select to be linked lightboxes, that way if you set up a lightbox to show somebody something it won't necessarily show up this way unless you want it to.
1728
« on: October 07, 2011, 17:55 »
My earnings and downloaded page don't agree again. I wonder if they are no longer updated in real time but now take a while to sync up. As an aside having to log in and then do the captcha seemingly every time I check the page is getting old. The login should really last more than a few hours.
1729
« on: October 07, 2011, 09:10 »
My brother has a projector and his old guitar amps set up with a few sofas for sitting on - it is a very civilized way to watch movies. His setup is at least 2 years old, so I imagine that projectors are brighter and higher resolution. His setup isn't very good when it is sunny outside.
1730
« on: October 06, 2011, 18:58 »
My glitch from yesterday and today seems to be fixed.
1731
« on: October 06, 2011, 12:06 »
I too have a discrepancy. I don't know what day exactly it is from because with the new captcha every 2 hours or so I don't know when the missing sale is from, but there is one missing from today and another missing from some other day. - these sales are reported on the commission page but not the downloaded_stats page.
From others reports it sounds like sales from the last 2 days aren't reporting correctly.
1732
« on: October 04, 2011, 19:21 »
I find it ironic that the last illustration photo (#10 of 11 - but that is another issue) talks about getting the timing right for the light but then has a photoshopped sunset.
1733
« on: October 03, 2011, 20:43 »
While I find the captchas a pain I do applaud working with companies that actually communicate with us.
It would be pretty slick to have an api for accessing your data via a 3rd party that had a separate server and a different password - that way the worst that a 3rd party program could do even if it got hacked would be to access your download data - no way to swipe your earnings.
1734
« on: October 03, 2011, 17:07 »
Folks,
After carefully considering your feedback, we've decided to focus on retail pricing rather than commissions. Most of the photographers that we have spoken to agree that destructive retail pricing is not good for the industry. We have worked with industry leaders such as Yuri Arcurs and Mark Butler (Monkey Business) to convince agencies like deposit photos to sell at sustainable prices reflected by the current online market leaders. We applaud their recent success and hope the trend will continue. We encourage all photographers with portfolios on this and similar sites to do the same.
Based on your feedback, we've modified our rule to allow Fotolia to decrease retail pricing to the lowest tier, if a photographer's images are being sold on other sites for significantly less, **without** modifying the royalty levels.
Please note that this rule only applies to Emerald, Ruby, and Sapphire ranked images that are non-exclusive, and selling at prices above the standard XS price. No changes will occur without prior communications with the artist.
Chad Bridwell
Director of Operations
Fotolia.com
I suppose that it is hard to compete with others on commissions when you are the low commission leader. actually I agree that sites offering images for too low is a problem - I believe Fotolia offers free images does it not? What are you going to do about that assault on retail pricing?
1735
« on: October 03, 2011, 14:11 »
Actually it is more like if any macrostock company paid their photographers microstock royalties if they sent any pictures ever to a microstock company. I don't think any tried that, but a few wouldn't work with anyone selling microstock - a sure way to keep them there and keep them from moving "up".
I still don't think that any of the companies reducing commission % are doing it because they are unprofitable, I think it is because they see it as the easiest way to increase their earnings. Without looking at their real books it is hard to say if it is a good strategy or not, but I have a feeling that in the long run it might not be.
1736
« on: October 03, 2011, 12:52 »
I must say that you should allow logins to remain active a little longer or else only require the captcha for checking download stats or something. It is a real PITA as it stands now. It is a shame that everyone has to bear the brunt of the "solution" to the problem of automated scripts to check stats.
Also the earnings page seems to have reverted to showing all earnings even when I select a specific year. I think the default should be to only show the current year. It would also be nice to be able to click on something like the $ total for that month and be taken to the most recent page of the downloads (to see what images were sold).
1737
« on: October 02, 2011, 21:47 »
If the reviewer/site thinks that isolated means the background is all one color, or even more stringent all 0,0,0 or 255,255,255 for RGB then isolated is definitely not a suitable keyword for that image (or the image is very poorly isolated).
I don't know about SS as far as what they consider isolated, but their database is pretty full of what appear to be spammed keywords.
1738
« on: October 02, 2011, 11:06 »
It will be interesting to see what % of sub sales are from the different #s. As I stated elsewhere I am guessing there are a lot of 0 sale days and a fair number of using most of the sub total. We still won't know what the number of 0 dl days are though. I am guessing Shutterstock users have a similar buying pattern, so perhaps we can get more insight into what the actual royalty % there is.
One question is that originally I thought that the Veer subs were up to 30 a day (3.00 to .10) the new schedule looks like it goes up to 20 a day total.
1739
« on: October 01, 2011, 18:17 »
....
No agency grows by itself!
Well, they certainly should be for 40-85% of the take. Maybe some place like the old featurepics wouldn't grow itself and you had to market your own stuff, but you also got 75% of each sale. I'm all for helping out the sites that pay well but it shouldn't be expected or required.
1740
« on: October 01, 2011, 18:12 »
If they do it will be to get away from that "unsustainable" >20% royalty they are paying the exclusives for IS sales.
1741
« on: October 01, 2011, 12:14 »
DT has always been a bit of an on/off site. It really seems to go in surges. This seems to apply to subs/credit sales too, although it could just be my mind trying to find order in chaos.
In August I had more sales than ever before there, but the RPD was pretty miserable. Lots and lots of sub and low level small sales. In Sept. I had a very bimodal set of sales. Plenty of double digit higher level larger size sales and lots of subs and low level little sales. My RPD was nearly twice August and it was my BME there. At least with lots of sub sales the images move up levels. I do wish all my subs were level 0 though.
1742
« on: October 01, 2011, 11:10 »
BME for me. SS led the pack with a good month, then a BME at DT, Veer (ELs), IS (decent sales, but since I went from 939 to 49 images at the end of the month probably the last decent returns I'll see there), Canstock was a BME and 123RF did well too.
Other than the developments at IS, it was a good month. My RPD at DT was nearly double last month, although it was very bimodal with 1-3 credit and sub sales mixed with double digit credit sales. They seemed to go in waves.
1743
« on: September 30, 2011, 11:01 »
Making a few hundred a month - no problem (which is a living wage in much of the world). Making a few thousand a month might be more of a problem. There are a lot of factors to consider. Starting from no equipment is a big hurdle too. If you already have a computer, internet, and dslr you could poke your toe in the water with little investment. If you don't have access to any of these things it is going to cost a fair bit just to try it. If you had a bit of skill and actually put in full time effort I think it would still be possible to make a decent return (eventually - the first year or 2 might be painful). I don't know that you'd be better off flipping burgers, but I wouldn't be surprised at all if there were entry level positions that would have a higher return. One of the advantages of microstock is that you can do it at all hours of the day and even if nobody is hiring in your area. I wouldn't recommend relying entirely on microstock though.
I am guessing that things are not going to get easier in the future though, supply is growing faster than demand.
1744
« on: September 30, 2011, 09:10 »
my guess is that it is to block the software that automatically checks and compiles statistics... Perhaps something like Lookstat? I think that is why SS started too. Still, a PITA.
1745
« on: September 29, 2011, 21:13 »
Maybe the owners were looking to sell and SS figured if they didn't buy it, Getty would. If that is the case, thank you SS.
1746
« on: September 29, 2011, 21:10 »
@xalanx - we've compressed the tables a bit. Hope it's to your liking.
...
Thank you.
Alex
Nice. It would be even cooler if the year on the left was clickable to expand that year (can you get to the old monthly data anymore somewhere?). Much nicer the way it is now though, and cool to see suggestions getting implemented. Thanks, I for one do appreciate having 2 way communication rather than the one way take it or leave it we seem to be getting from some other sites. One thing I'd like to see is some sort of views and downloads data on the faves page so that when I am trying to decide what images to fave I can look at that data w/o having to open the specific images. --=Tom
1747
« on: September 29, 2011, 15:47 »
It sounds like you were arguing the merits of Fotolia over some other unnamed site undercutting prices.
In the original notice you didn't make any distinctions about the images. Perhaps you should let people sell older smaller and crappier images that aren't on Fotolia on other sites for whatever price they can get for them. It seems once a site rejects an image you should be able to sell it somewhere else or even give it away if you want to.
What really doesn't seem to sink in is that the return the artists get is important to the artists. I'd rather get 50% of $2 than 15% of $4 even if the $4 agency thinks that the $2 agency is engaging in "destructive retail pricing". I am sure there are a few macro agencies that would consider anything under a few hundred bucks to be destructive.
Continually cutting things for the contributors sends the message that their contributions are not worth much and then you are surprised when they send them to every site they can.
1748
« on: September 29, 2011, 13:52 »
nothing has changed for me
(I hope that works).
I have gotten more ELs in the last few months, but more OD and regular downloads too.
1749
« on: September 29, 2011, 13:20 »
Nope, no humor there, or hear. I think the IS forum is the only one with humor. yep. lots of humor at IS.
1750
« on: September 29, 2011, 13:11 »
If they surprised us with something good more often we might like it and look forward to it.
Pages: 1 ... 65 66 67 68 69 [70] 71 72 73 74 75 ... 88
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
