576
Veer / Re: Veer Subscription Royalties Update
« on: September 30, 2011, 12:54 »
Woo-yay! (In other words: opt in)
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. 576
Veer / Re: Veer Subscription Royalties Update« on: September 30, 2011, 12:54 »
Woo-yay! (In other words: opt in)
577
Alamy.com / Re: Alamy now offers Paypal and funds transfer« on: September 30, 2011, 06:22 »
Again, Alamy shows the correct way to do it: You can choose if you want your Paypal payment in US Dollars, Euros or UK Pounds instead of getting the currency converted by Paypal with its poor rates.
I will continue with direct funds transfer though. 578
New Sites - General / Re: Superhug sells stock images« on: September 30, 2011, 05:49 »
I have always thought it was DreamStime. Well, maybe it's both 579
Nikon / Re: Nikon says, A Photographer Is Only as Good as the Equipment He Uses« on: September 29, 2011, 16:41 »
Haha... Social Media marketing FAIL
580
Adobe Stock / Re: Return to Start - Fotolia reserves right to put you back at white ranking.« on: September 29, 2011, 16:30 »
BTW it's really interesting that FT thinks a low-earner like DP is their real enemy. Maybe they are preparing for sinking to the low-earner level (where they are clearly headed according to my data)?
581
Adobe Stock / Re: Return to Start - Fotolia reserves right to put you back at white ranking.« on: September 29, 2011, 16:18 »
And it's really, REALLY annoying that FT can't write a list of the "bad" agencies but still they keep blackmailing us. It's almost Kafkaesque.
I think FT is miscalculating just how valuable they are to the average contributor. IS forced us to go to Thinkstock or leave IS. Most people earn so much money with IS, they cant afford to leave, so IS won. +1 582
Alamy.com / Re: Help me, I'm new to Alamy« on: September 29, 2011, 16:02 »
Thanks, I hope my avatar keeps cheering people up!
583
Adobe Stock / Re: Return to Start - Fotolia reserves right to put you back at white ranking.« on: September 29, 2011, 15:52 »I am sure there are a few macro agencies that would consider anything under a few hundred bucks to be destructive. Yes. And that's one piece of evidence why the "Fotolia logic" is faulty. They don't seem to know the old phrase "The pot calling the kettle black". Here's a reminder for Chad http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pot_calling_the_kettle_black This nothing more than blackmail for squeezing some extra bucks from the backs of poor contributors. Do they really think we wouldn't see their real motives? If FT is having financial trouble (could be because their current low sales volumes), they are doing a major mistake trying to make us pay for their bad business decisions. 584
Adobe Stock / Re: Return to Start - Fotolia reserves right to put you back at white ranking.« on: September 29, 2011, 15:37 »Folks, Very arrogant post. If you touch my hard earned ranking and/or try to steer my image submissions to other sites in any other way I will close my account. I'm sure many will do the same thing. You can have as much as you want, even 100% of NOTHING. 585
Newbie Discussion / Re: women in bikini without model release« on: September 29, 2011, 13:37 »While in Spain a few years ago I have pic of my wife in the foreground and two naked (attractive) ladies in the background. Funny how I had my camera set to F18 - purely accidental of course... I think my camera would have mis-focused in the same situation. "Sorry honey for the blurry pics, some weird back-focus issue!" 586
Shutterstock.com / Re: Shutterstock's New Single Image Product: Higher Payout per Download | Shutterbuz« on: September 28, 2011, 17:50 »
RT, I'm sure some agency soon discovers a way to sell images for $1000 a pop. And then they could give 1% = $10 to you and you would be happy because "it's more than I get at IS" and not at all bothered that you have financed the CEO's new Mercedes?
I think there is some levels of royalty percentage that is considered "fair". In traditional stock (in Ye Olde Slide times) 50/50 split was considered fair. Nowdays at micros seems that 30% is "fair". 17% is crap. 587
Alamy.com / Re: Help me, I'm new to Alamy« on: September 28, 2011, 17:45 »
You just have to wait, usually one day, sometimes a bit longer.
588
Shutterstock.com / Re: Shutterstock's New Single Image Product: Higher Payout per Download | Shutterbuz« on: September 28, 2011, 17:18 »
is this the IS/DT/FT killer? I have high hopes for this one, I hope though they don't screw up the pricing.
The Royalties could be better, but 30% is MUCH more than 17% I get at IS 589
Adobe Stock / Re: Return to Start - Fotolia reserves right to put you back at white ranking.« on: September 28, 2011, 15:41 »Chad, just so you know how poorly your agency pays, my 2011 stats tell the truth. I have uploaded only a part of my portfolio to PhotoDune (I had to start uploading there to compensate for my FT ranking change , and so far my revenue per download has been $0.73. Fotolia's revenue per download this month has been $0.72. It definitely can't be PhotoDune Fotolia is talking about. (SS last month $0.66 IS (inclusive ThinkStock etc.) last month $0.87 DT last month $1.44) 590
Veer / Re: veer subs« on: September 28, 2011, 05:33 »Perhaps the most fair way to pay contributors for subs would be to match the pay per download percentage? Add up all the money buyers have paid at the end of the month and distribute a fixed percentage to contributors. We really don't know what percentage the other sites pay us but the impression is that it's often less than we get for pay per download. That's an interesting idea! 591
Adobe Stock / Re: Return to Start - Fotolia reserves right to put you back at white ranking.« on: September 28, 2011, 05:09 »
If FT is truly worried about the pricing/royalties on the "cheap" sites but would like to do the right thing, it would be: Make a tick box "I hereby promise that my images are not for sale in the following low-price agencies: ThoughtStock, PhotoSahara etc. etc." and give those contributors that have ticked the box MORE royalties/better canister lever. Punishing without a good reason is just bad business. As someone said earlier, "Honey catches more flies than vinegar."
592
Adobe Stock / Re: Return to Start - Fotolia reserves right to put you back at white ranking.« on: September 27, 2011, 17:44 »It has come to our attention that some new agencies are selling the same contributor content at prices far less than most other microstock agencies. We feel that this is bad for both photographers and stock agencies. We do understand photographers are free to choose their own destiny in a free market economy, and our intention in these actions is to encourage everyone to support fair pricing for customers and commissions for contributors. Only a handful of sites and contributors have been identified thus far, and we will communicate with them before taking any action. Isn't this ironic? A Microstock site complaining about the same thing the "traditional" stock agencies have been complaining about for years. I suggest Fotolia to check their own pricing and royalty rates first: they are among the lowest ones in the whole industry. 593
Shutterstock.com / Re: 111,655 new photos added in the past week« on: September 27, 2011, 08:05 »Don't forget that SS have two aces aces up his sleeve that are kept there for ''bad times''... I have no idea why they don't already have the "2.". They have Bigstockphoto and On Demands, but no "regular" credit download possibility 594
Veer / Re: veer subs« on: September 27, 2011, 08:03 »
I opted out, mainly because of the EL pricing.
The regular subscription price seems a bit more okay, I just wish there was a way to make the prices start from $0.20 (instead of $0.10) 595
Adobe Stock / Re: Return to Start - Fotolia reserves right to put you back at white ranking.« on: September 27, 2011, 07:44 »
Fotolia logic:
When a contributor sells on sites with significantly lower pricing and commissions, we will reset their rank to white to allow for competition. -> By cutting the photographer's royalties we will sell more and get more profit! The real world logic: When a contributor sells on sites with significantly lower pricing and commissions, we will reset their rank to white to allow for competition. -> The Photographer will remove his/her portfolio from Fotolia and we don't get ANYTHING. ZERO! ZILCH! NOTHING! (And the customers will go shopping elsewhere) In a strange way I wish they would put me back at white ranking. It would be the last straw. The final push. I would pull my portfolio and cancel my account. I really don't like the *insult removed* at FT think they can screw everybody the way they like. Then I could freely give them some feedback with some harsh wording and really start a campaign to move customers from FT to... at least somewhere else.... Are the people at FT totally clueless they have been screwing their contributors for a long time and that there is a limit to everything? P.S. I'm currently uploading my first batches to PhotoDune. I need to compensate for my dropping rank at FT 596
Adobe Stock / Re: Return to Start - Fotolia reserves right to put you back at white ranking.« on: September 24, 2011, 06:19 »
Correct me if I'm wrong, but you can opt out from ELs at PhotoDune?
597
Alamy.com / Re: This sold for $228 ???« on: September 24, 2011, 04:39 »unknowingly you've created what could be (and obviously is) a very commercially viable image. At micro sites this image would still be rejected because its "low commercial value"... 598
Newbie Discussion / Re: women in bikini without model release« on: September 23, 2011, 18:41 »
This is not stock photography, this is stalking...
599
Adobe Stock / Re: Return to Start - Fotolia reserves right to put you back at white ranking.« on: September 23, 2011, 17:39 »C'mon... you sell ELs on FT for 100 and on PD for 5... and you don't see a connection You can't compare physical products with "zeros and ones" 600
Adobe Stock / Re: Return to Start - Fotolia reserves right to put you back at white ranking.« on: September 23, 2011, 17:33 »
*insults removed* With sales going down they just don't have the leverage for a stunt like this. They are TINY. It's like the some obscure king in some tiny obscure country would start acting like the ruler of the world.
My current FT earnings are only about 20% of my earnings at IS. They are also about 20% of my SS earnings. They are about 10% of my IS+SS earnings. And propably something like 7% of my overall earnings. Do they really think they have the power to pull this crap? |
|