|
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 - KB
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 ... 57
101
« on: March 20, 2016, 17:33 »
The people who were kicked off FT are justified and were treated wit no respect. Could be that's why so many went anonymous. I'm not that old a member, and I'm definitely not a good one, but I see that my first post was about 7.5 years ago ... complaining about FT.  And, yeah, that's absolutely why I was anonymous (and remain so, though I don't have anything bad to say about FT any longer, I sure do about Getty).
102
« on: March 19, 2016, 18:52 »
$155 in January, $115 in February and $110 so far in March. So in theory, that should work out to about $175 by the end of the month. I doubled all my prices this month as well, which doesn't seem to have hurt me.
Good going; I wish all the lower-priced producers would follow your lead. I wish I could say P5 was doing well for me in March, but it's a disaster. $472 in Jan, $248 in Feb, and $67 so far this month.  
103
« on: March 16, 2016, 11:21 »
I can agree with 10% of those rejections. The ones that are editorial (Fotolia doesn't accept editorial either...)
Has P5 stopped accepting editorials? They certainly used to. In fact, I'm pretty sure I had one accepted in my last batch, but that was last month (before the reports of so many rejections gathered steam). What's happening with P5 is quite sad; it had always been one of my favorite sites.
104
« on: March 16, 2016, 11:18 »
Does iStock's total include exclusives? It would be interesting to know just how many exclusives are left.
105
« on: February 22, 2016, 17:20 »
I wonder, is this list completed and accurate? I would guess it represents just a very small percent of total monies owed to contributors, as surely the majority do not come to MSG. Or am I totally wrong? I guess there's no way to know for sure.
106
« on: February 22, 2016, 11:45 »
$130.50
But you can't squeeze blood out of a turnip (what a stupid saying).
107
« on: February 13, 2016, 20:23 »
4000+ clips for average $300 per month from three agencies. Average per clip 13.3 cents per month.
4000 * 13.3c = $532.00 4500 * 13.3c = $598.50 So I'm confused by "$300 per month from three agencies". I don't know if that means $300 total or $900 total, but neither number matches 13.3 cents per month average.
108
« on: February 11, 2016, 19:06 »
Wow, they got seven files and I got $8.19 (total). And I "sold" six files and got $7.02. So $1.17 each? For ... what kind of usage? We'll never know.  Might as well be bundled with the sub sales.
109
« on: February 08, 2016, 19:39 »
Are you uploading clips on istock? And if you do how much do you get on selling a clip? (If there are any sales)
I removed all my clips for sale after I had my first sale there for < $7 for an HD file (Oct '14). I don't think they've missed me.
110
« on: February 04, 2016, 11:08 »
I've always wondered how old threads suddenly revive themselves after such a long, dormant spell. I suggest that anyone who's considering a sit/stand desk read this article from Wirecutter: http://thewirecutter.com/reviews/best-standing-desk/I purchased their recommended desk, and I love it.
111
« on: January 31, 2016, 12:22 »
Well I think this is an excellent idea, and good luck to the guy. At least he's shown some genuine creativity, and unlike the 'spam image' accounts which have thousands of duplicates, this guy has made a real effort.
I might try some myself. Any ideas what software to use? And I think straight to 4K would be best.
I did this a few times, but gave up. They didn't sell very well, and iStock (which amazingly actually contributed to my video sales back then) rejected them with "We do not accept image scans".  They are extremely easy to create with AE, and if I could think of it myself, it doesn't really show genuine creativity. 
112
« on: January 30, 2016, 18:16 »
Has the upload process improved since 2006?
100%. iStock has made it extremely easy ... to simply skip UL'ing to them altogether. What could be easier?
113
« on: January 29, 2016, 12:17 »
Yeah, probably, I'm the only one paying even the scantest attention to RCs.
My RC total had not changed since 13 Jan, despite having a few (literally) sales since that date. Is it only my account that isn't updating, or is everyone experiencing the same thing and they just don't know it?
114
« on: January 29, 2016, 12:02 »
Google Miraizon.
Google Miraizon yourself. You'll discover they went out of business a year ago. I bought an earlier version, but I never really used it. The files it created were huge, and even looking at 200%, I couldn't see a noticeable difference. In fact, there was a problem with the version I had, and at the time there was no solution. They probably fixed it in later versions, but by the time I wanted to try it again, they were gone.
115
« on: January 26, 2016, 22:33 »
Anyone else having unusual video review delays on Shutterstock?
I have batches going back to 11/27/2015.
I've been with SS for several years. This is the longest I've ever waited to be reviewed.
I don't recall ever having to wait more than a few weeks. My batch a few weeks ago was reviewed in 8 days. I generally UL pretty small batches, though (20-30 clips). I'd say you should definitely write support; something's wrong.
116
« on: January 22, 2016, 18:25 »
And since then did they introduce an On Demand Image (small/medium) price? I always thought it's one price on all sizes at SS (like the one currently also on payment schedule, at 1.88 USD for lower tier).
Since about 2009, IIRC.
117
« on: January 22, 2016, 13:48 »
Regular sales at IS? I've forgotten what that is.
FTFY.
118
« on: January 20, 2016, 19:43 »
Gee, and I thought it was only me.
I've had some sales on CC (only 2 or 3 per year), but nothing since May. It's too bad, because the average sales proceeds beats several other sites. But I've stopped UL'ing there; what's the point?
119
« on: January 19, 2016, 20:42 »
I've noticed they are picking up as well.
Has anyone been able to upload 4k photo jpeg through their ftp?
I've tried and the files get rejected. Their own support team doesn't seem to know what photo jpeg is!
I have, including just today. But as with all sites, I've had difficulties. Sometimes the same file gets re-sent over and over, sometimes it hangs at 100% completed, 0:01 left (depending on the ftp client I use). It's very frustrating.
120
« on: January 18, 2016, 23:42 »
Congrats to Pond5 for coming up with an innovative, unique way to kill video microstock. I don't think it will take longer than a year or two for us to look back and see this as the pivotal change that ruined things.
Forgive my pessimism if I prove to be incorrect (which I would definitely love to be).
I think the VB model is far more damaging than what P5 is planning
Why, what am I missing? In the VB model, the two libraries are entirely separate. The files available in the unlimited library aren't available anywhere else (AFAIK). In the P5 model, the files will remain for sale in the "marketplace" (as well as, most likely, on other sites). Of course we don't know pricing yet, so perhaps P5's unlimited sub price will be so high that it won't be that bad. But it seems to me that whenever you have a file being provided at a virtually "free" price (sort of), it devalues that file elsewhere, as well as all similars from that artist and others. The only damaging part of VB is their pricing of HD files, but I don't see that it's any more damaging than the scores or hundreds of P5 contributors who sell their HD files for $10 or $20, or 4K files for $30 or $40.
121
« on: January 18, 2016, 19:58 »
Congrats to Pond5 for coming up with an innovative, unique way to kill video microstock. I don't think it will take longer than a year or two for us to look back and see this as the pivotal change that ruined things.
Forgive my pessimism if I prove to be incorrect (which I would definitely love to be).
122
« on: January 18, 2016, 12:05 »
Big congrats!
I've yet to sell a 4K video (as 4K) on VB. In fact, it's been over 3 months without a single sale of any kind there; quite disappointing after the great start.
123
« on: January 16, 2016, 00:20 »
Ancient thread alert!!!!!!!
Wow, I fell for it! StockXpert should've given me a clue.
124
« on: January 15, 2016, 15:19 »
I've had 6 sales on iStock (exclusive) so far this year, compared with 33 over the same period last year (and that was a significant decline from previous years).
So, no.
125
« on: January 13, 2016, 20:35 »
This raises suspicion that the customer filtered out 4K versions, possibly unknowingly.
The way SS filter works is really really bad for 4k producers. I'm puzzled. I really don't want to upload HD versions and duplicate my content. But we might be losing out on sales... bummer.
Suspicions were raised long ago. I'd say this all but confirms that some sales are lost for those files that are UL'd only as 4K. I'm equally puzzled why SS refuses to address this. It's been over a year now that I've been very reluctant to UL 4K clips to them. I UL a few, but mostly I skip them entirely. Probably stupid (but not as stupid as their filtering out 4K content on HD searches).
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 ... 57
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
