|
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 ... 70 71 72 73 74 [75] 76 77 78 79 80 ... 88
1851
« on: July 11, 2011, 15:40 »
Other than a nice EL, my IS sales are staggeringly low this month. Sales for me there are sporadic and random enough that it could just be within the statistical norm, but for 1/3 of a month, they are 1/10 of what I was making per month last year. The EL throws everything off though, so I can't really say much at this point.
1852
« on: July 08, 2011, 22:01 »
I messed with it a bit. There should be a way to designate which image is the "cover" image for an album other than adding it last. (or if there was a way of doing that I didn't see it or refresh properly or something).
It looks potentially useful though.
1853
« on: July 08, 2011, 21:10 »
It seems like IS and FT are a bit like big casinos, where what you really need to remember is that the house always wins.
but I suppose we should also remember we shouldn't be playing against the house, it should be a situation where we can both benefit even if some places say that is unsustainable.
Personally I'd like to see IS and FT buyers go elsewhere since they are the leaders in low and dropping commissions.
1854
« on: July 07, 2011, 14:10 »
I'd be more concerned w/ what I got for the sale than what the cost was - for example at the lowest level on IS, a 20$ sale will return the artist $3. a 10$ sale at a site with 50% commission gives the artist 5$. - Note that most of the sales on CanStockPhoto are from members which are half the price listed for non members (so $5 for a vector if I am reading things correctly = $2.50 for the artist).
Someone please correct me if I am wrong.
In general the new site looks like a big improvement. The search does tend to clump similar images from the same artist, but that is understandable if they all have the same keywords.
1855
« on: July 03, 2011, 21:56 »
I didn't see the total download stats on the individual image page, thanks. I liked that info in the "faved" section, but at least I can find it if I need it.
Thanks for getting back to us with questions. It is appreciated.
and thanks for all the sales lately, last month was my BME at 123RF
1856
« on: July 03, 2011, 21:51 »
I wonder when some shady company like Getty will open up its own reseller sites so that they can skim another % from the sale before it gets to the photographer. If site A sells a file for site B and takes 50% and then site B takes 50% the photographer only gets 25% - now try the math with Istock level of % ages or with 3 or more reseller sites and pretty much the $ is all gone before we get it.
1857
« on: July 03, 2011, 13:46 »
level 0 25 credit U-EL gets me 4.38 - that is a bit painful.
If they didn't go with the 25% I'd be happy with the whole level 0 thing though.
1858
« on: June 27, 2011, 17:03 »
A while ago (like a year?) the sales stats were removed from the "my images" and "fave images" sections on 123RF. I found this information useful both to see how images were doing and to decide which images to fave/unfave. I would like to know if this information is available somewhere other than adding up individual month sales and if it isn't available somewhere is there any plan to make it so. This seems like an important bit of information for us photographers (and the total $ amounts would be nice too while I am wishing).
1859
« on: June 21, 2011, 21:08 »
Without seeing the companies real books it would be hard to say what commission %age is fair (but I bet it isn't 15% or even 30%). There should be some lower limit that a company can't pretend to be fair trade without being above it.
Most of these things previously mentioned should be there. I'd like to see more transparency in a lot of things from "partner" programs to what the buyer actually paid for an image and what the photographer gets. Look at Fotolia for how not to run credit costs, exchange rates, etc.
Without some teeth I doubt it will make much difference and I applaud the effort.
How long do you think is reasonable for a company to take to resolve an issue before one goes to the internet with it?
1860
« on: June 21, 2011, 16:18 »
I haven't sent them a lot of pics in the last 2 months or so, but the reviews seemed reasonable, then today I got a 100% rejection pile. I must say that it is frustrating, although it would be even more so if recent uploads sold the way they used to. At least they were accepted at most of the other sites.
1861
« on: June 16, 2011, 17:12 »
He actually has "Shutterstock-Business" as his album title. Did you contact Shutterstock?
That looks like it is business images swiped from shutterstock - he also has architecture
1862
« on: June 15, 2011, 23:14 »
Lots of my uses are on pages that aren't in English... about 5 of my dad on Thai people's facebook pages. I presume if you bought it that is legal as far as the stock sites are concerned, but I am not sure FB would be happy about it (and I doubt they were bought for this use).
Some of the European ones were sellers with links back to DT or other stock sites - presumably partner sites?
Interesting, it sure does bring up a lot more than tineye ever did.
--=Tom
1863
« on: June 15, 2011, 15:38 »
The idea of collages does rub me the wrong way too. Maybe they'd prefer cubist photos with all angles covered.
Unless server space is too expensive for them though, they ought to just put something in the algorythm that pushes old low sellers back. It is a little annoying when they reject something for too similar and you can't find anything similar when you search.
Still, it is their sandbox so they get to set the rules (and we get to complain about them here).
1864
« on: June 15, 2011, 15:30 »
after over a year wait I sent them an e-mail and was accepted a few days later.
1865
« on: June 11, 2011, 20:15 »
Nothing special there for me, it continues to be somewhat steady but very very slow.
1866
« on: June 09, 2011, 19:24 »
I don't know when I applied there, but I am guessing it was over a year ago. Either they are incompetent or don't care for my application or have other things they'd rather be doing.
--=Tom
1867
« on: May 19, 2011, 00:12 »
In my experience sales are a slow trickle - it does seem to be somewhat steady though. I do wonder if the increase in files from the bridge to BS has diluted sales somewhat though.
1868
« on: May 17, 2011, 20:21 »
Yep. The sudden introduction of P+ in particular (in effect considerably reducing the benefits of exclusivity) makes me think of deckchairs being re-arranged on a certain ship.
Hmmm wonder which one that is. 
I want my deckchair on a lifeboat. I'm already wearing 3 coats and 2 lifejackets.
1869
« on: May 17, 2011, 13:55 »
"Huh-wha? It's a map. What am I supposed to do, add another panhandle to Florida to make it more interesting?"
I think maybe Florida would be more interesting with a mountain and maybe another set of keys instead of a second panhandle.
It does sound like SS is getting pretty picky with their applications. In my experience they are worth fighting and jumping through the hoops to get in though. I did find that what SS accepted was often not what IS took and vice versa. (sometimes it seemed like IS only accepted my worst sellers)
1870
« on: May 15, 2011, 21:13 »
Far more significant, than designers hoarding a few images, is the sheer number of new images continually flooding the market. There is an ever-growing disparity between supply and demand and ultimately that is what will devalue our portfolios. Microstock is most likely to become a '10-year bubble' for most contributors. Enjoy it whilst you can.
AND
I don't think many buyers, especially large companies, are this organized.
Both right and explains why people used to sell more when agencies only had 1 million competing images, now have 15 million. Dilution of sales. 15 times more of the same shots, with bigger, better cameras, better lighting and better production. (models, make-up artists, editors, production departments...) The competition is stronger as well as greater in number. Sell anything from your old P&S lately when the top competition is now running a studio and using 5D full frame cameras?
And the second one. (sjlocke) Also true, Big organizations don't need to stockpile or invest time and effort, saving things, they just buy a subscription and get what they need, when they need it. Stockpiling for big buyers, is a waste of their resources. Even if they did try, they wouldn't be organized enough to classify and be able to find things again. Why waste the resources for a dollar?
actually about 40% of my sales today were from my old point and shoot - (old images though, not recently uploaded). But I do think the massive # of images is one of the main factors in reduced income per microstock submitter.
1871
« on: May 15, 2011, 18:24 »
It gets more frustrating when you feel like they are rejecting something because someone else might have a similar - makes good sense for DT, but doesn't help the recent submitting photographer. In the long run it would probably make more sense for them to get rid of the old not so good or large pics and accept newer better ones. Except the old ones sell and are at a higher level.
It just seems pretty random and arbitrary to me, that is my main frustration.
1872
« on: May 14, 2011, 13:11 »
I certainly have the lowest % age I've had in a while - at least the last year. Mostly supposed (or real) duplicates and "not quite what we are looking for". Hopefully either my pictures get better or they start to make sense to me. I suspect the former is more likely.
1873
« on: May 13, 2011, 16:22 »
Leslie, just one additional piece of advice about Dreamstime. Recently they are VERY strict on uploading similars. I would suggest culling out a few of the very best images from each series, rather than uploading them all to Dreamstime. It is important to have a high acceptance ratio at Dreamstime, more so than the other sites, because it is a big factor in search placement.
Lisa -by similars, does that mean they won't take a series of expressions? For instance, where I have a model isolated on white and she's looking up in one, looking to the side in another, smiling in one and with a neutral expression in another, would they consider those to be similar? Otherwise, I don't think I'll run into that problem. It takes me sooo long to process one image it's hard to imagine having time to process multiples! Also, on the istock forums awhile back, didn't you say you were having trouble becoming exclusive at istock because other agencies had long lag times for removing your images on their sites? Is that still an issue? Thanks for the advice! Leslie
If you have a man and a woman, they might be too similar, or apparently if it is similar to something someone else uploaded, so maybe now you get one person pic, one object pic, one landscape pic, and that is about it. or maybe they will take a whole series with only minor differences between pics. Sometimes it really just feels like a crapshoot, but if they reject pictures apparently it does hurt your placement. Good luck and have fun trying to figure out what they want and don't want.
1874
« on: May 11, 2011, 22:13 »
This is what I wrote to IStockphoto... My exclusive application has been stuck on pending for days now. How long does the process take? I originally applied on April 26th 2011. It has been way over 48 hours.
(I would like to get my 35% back instead of this 17% I have now. That's why I reapplied)
The reply i got was this...
There is currently a hold on evaluating Exclusivity Applications. The Development Team is doing some maintenance within this area of the site.
You will need to wait until this routine maintenance is finished. After this point in time your Exclusivity Application will be reviewed. Unfortunately I do not have an ETA as to when this will be completed.
I don't understand what that means. Is this normal? 
P.S sorry if this is in the wrong thread.
Broken is the new normal at IS- sad but maybe true. but what I wanted to comment on was that if you are getting 17% there now as an exclusive you would get 30%, not 35% (as I understand the RC targets, I could be wrong).
1875
« on: May 11, 2011, 01:12 »
Don't know what your problem is. Sean himself says for quite a while now that his revenue is stagnating. Am I wrong
Not that I wouldn't trade places with him any day... Hell I'll settle for 15% of his revenue.
All I am saying (giving sean as an example) is that if your portfolio grew by 20% but your revenue stayed more or less the same, it is a safe assumption that if you grow your portfolio by 30% (for example) you CAN expect a rise in revenue. No need for a math degree for this.
If one wants to predict future revenue and hence RC's, you must ALSO take into account by how much your RPI will drop (and it willl) and how much your portfolio will grow, nothing more, nothing less.
And no, 20% for an exclusive doing MS as a full time job isn't that high IMO. Then again, its not just a numbers game.
Please don't take this personal anyone, these are only numbers and opinions. I have great respect for Sean, and many other individuals not only becuase of how much $$ they make a month but because they are talented artists (which I might add, I am NOT!).
In my experience best match changes make a much bigger change than portfolio degradation. 20% might not be that hard for a few years, but eventually if you are working solo it will become unsustainable. If you are not exclusive there the upload limits alone will stop you.
Pages: 1 ... 70 71 72 73 74 [75] 76 77 78 79 80 ... 88
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
