|
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 - robynmac
26
« on: February 21, 2012, 14:51 »
In February, 2011 we didn't receive any PP earnings at all. We were paid for January and February in March, 2011. I hope there's no repeat of that this year!
27
« on: February 16, 2012, 23:11 »
^^No, not the top 10.  Was in the top 50, till sales declined. Now overall rank is dropping, as 7 day rank has blown out. I don't think I'm the only Emerald to experience this.
28
« on: February 16, 2012, 21:05 »
Before the change to big thumbnails, I was averaging about 14-18 views per download. Since the change, it's been averaging about 5 views per download, which indicates to me that when buyers actually see my images they sell. Problem is that only a small number of the images I've uploaded in the last few months has had more than 1 or 2 views. Result is a decline in earnings of about 35-40% compared to same time previous year. I'm happy for those contributors who are experiencing increasing earnings. I'm sorry I'm not one of you. 
29
« on: February 16, 2012, 01:23 »
A very sad decline in both views and earnings. My earnings are down 30-40% on same time last year. Decline began in March, 2011, and has been getting sharper month by month. Many images uploaded over the last few months have zero views. They can't sell if no-one sees them! 
30
« on: January 02, 2012, 14:42 »
I met the revised RC target to stay at 19% this year. But my royalty rate is now showing as 18% for 2012.   I contacted support to ask why.
31
« on: November 30, 2011, 16:28 »
Looks like Ill be dropping from 19% to 18%, which is very sad. Currently sitting on 130,000, so I doubt I can make it to 150,000. That would certainly add insult to injury after the decline in traffic/sales this year.
If there genuinely has been a decline in sales this year (which most of the available evidence suggests) then they should reduce the targets accordingly. Not only that but, as an independent, you've had to cope with your images being far lower down the best match sort-order than their sales should warrant. Istock have presumably had to take that action in an attempt to hang on to their exclusive contributors __ again due to falling sales.
You've done your bit and it is only the agency's actions that have caused you to fall short. I guess we'll soon see how honourable Istock are with regard to the RC targets.
My thoughts exactly, but I couldn't express them as well as you have (especially since it's morning here and I haven't had a coffee yet...)
32
« on: November 30, 2011, 15:57 »
Looks like Ill be dropping from 19% to 18%, which is very sad. Currently sitting on 130,000, so I doubt I can make it to 150,000. That would certainly add insult to injury after the decline in traffic/sales this year.
33
« on: September 26, 2011, 15:19 »
Oh no! This new best match is simply awful. My August sales were excellent, and I dared to think for a few days that earnings had recovered after the last best match/Vetta/Agency debacle. But September sales are dismal. Last week in particular was well down and all over the place. What on earth are they doing over there?!
34
« on: September 24, 2011, 18:05 »
FWIW, I would expect to leave FT if I was dropped to white commission level. My income there is already less than half what it was a year or so ago. I will not be told where I can upload. That's the whole point behind being independent.
+1 I'm Emerald, and suffering a major 7 day ranking and income drop from last year. My income from FT has dropped from around 25% of my total last year to 13% this month! While the loss of even this income would still hurt, I would not hesitate to pull my port if they dropped me to white.
35
« on: September 23, 2011, 15:11 »
My first thought when I read the email from Fotolia this morning was that I had time travelled, and it's actually April 1.
36
« on: August 16, 2011, 18:18 »
37
« on: August 16, 2011, 16:25 »
Can I email support and get them to do a mass price change for my subscription prices ?
Yes, you can. From my own experience (Emerald since March, 2010) it's worth doing. But given how sales are falling month by month this year, it's all a bit of a lottery, it seems.
38
« on: August 12, 2011, 05:06 »
Count me in. I'm in Australia, and would be very interested to see the results of such a test.
39
« on: July 26, 2011, 16:38 »
snip...Why would a VB customer have to obey different licensing terms than buying the image him/herself straight from Fotolia?
What you say makes a lot of sense.
40
« on: July 25, 2011, 19:19 »
I've written to Fotolia Support with just one question: "Do sales on the visionbedding.com site of images sourced from Fotolia require an extended license?" I hope they give a clear answer to this simple question!
Fotolia's response is: "The Visionbeding site is an api partner and does not require the extended license for their sales. Each and every sale generates commission for the artists in real time like normal sales. It is a great relationship for Fotolia." That's pretty clear.
41
« on: July 22, 2011, 17:36 »
I've written to Fotolia Support with just one question: "Do sales on the visionbedding.com site of images sourced from Fotolia require an extended license?" I hope they give a clear answer to this simple question!
42
« on: July 22, 2011, 16:51 »
I asked visionbedding to confirm whether or not a particular image had sold through them. This is their response: " sure - log into your fotolia account and it will tell you there". I've responded to say that Fotolia does not tell contributors who has bought our images (although they used to do so), and asked them to check their records and tell me about this particular image. 
44
« on: July 22, 2011, 06:34 »
I haven't had a response from visionbedding yet re which particular stock site they sourced my example image from. As I said earlier, the visionbedding image number does not match the Fotolia ID number for the image I queried. Do we know for sure that Fotolia actually is the source agency?
45
« on: July 20, 2011, 22:50 »
One thing in Visionbedding's favour is that they responded immediately to my questions. This is what they said: " We completely understand your questions and concerns.
First, Im not sure that image you are referencing has sold at all - I think you may be confusing the reviews - those reviews are by product type for example on this page http://www.visionbedding.com/rainforest-river-panorama-custom-size-suede-fabric-p-2429853.html
- the reviews are for the "fabric" product type (not the particular image) so those reviews you are seeing are customers who have purchased that kind of fabric not that particular image.
We have full rights to all the images you see on the website as we have an agreement with a stock gallery which is where you must have uploaded your images to. You will be paid each time an image sells according to the agreement - some of the images on the website sell regularly and some never - depends on the image as there are more than 10 million. You will be paid each time that image is used so many artists are paid regularly over and over for the same image - it just depends on how popular that image is. The fee is transferred directly as the two systems are connected so you will be paid for each sale individually. We can not download the large image file until the stock gallery has been paid first. If you do not show any fees paid in your account then that image has not sold yet. When you do sell an image it will tell you who that image was sold to as well.
I hope that answers your questions..." I've replied to ask them a second time which specific stock site they sourced the particular image from, and to confirm whether or not it has sold at all.
46
« on: July 20, 2011, 21:39 »
...One of the customers who bought a product with my image on who left the comment stated he needed it and got it before April.... I got the identical comment on two of my images that I've looked at so far. So I wouldn't assume that there was necessarily any sale at all! I've written to visionbedding asking a few questions. BTW, the image I asked about has a different ID # on their site compared to its Fotolia #, so I'm not assuming that they sourced it from Fotolia.
47
« on: July 20, 2011, 20:41 »
I found several of my images on this site, in just two minutes of digging. Curiously, two different images have identical comments posted by the same customers. What's going on there?
48
« on: July 12, 2011, 17:04 »
I'm another Emerald who has experienced a sudden, dramatic drop in sales on FT. My sales for June 2011 were down 37% on June 2010. I keep waiting, hoping, that someone will flip the switch back again. Looks like that's a forlorn hope.
49
« on: July 11, 2011, 06:29 »
The website removed an image of mine that I complained about. They apologised, and gave this explanation of the copyright breach: "Note: You should understand that we do not intentionally violate copyright. We will not steal your. The our bot crawlers collect from other sites, like google search. so there will be unwanted pictures." I guess by "unwanted pictures" they mean images in offered in breach of copyright, but they figure it's not their fault if they take these images from some other site offering them illegally?? Sheesh!
50
« on: July 10, 2011, 22:57 »
I've lodged an online Google AdSense DMCA complaint form (having just found out what that is...). I suppose the more complaints they receive the better the chances of establishing a pattern of abuse.
A search of random images on the website using Google Images shows that a good proportion have links back to microstock sites.
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
It was early morning here, and I hadn't had a coffee...
