|
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 - MatHayward
Pages: 1 ... 67 68 69 70 71 [72] 73 74 75 76
1776
« on: October 22, 2009, 12:13 »
I don't know the answer to whether or not this option is open to existing contributors. I doubt if it is as I don't think it would make a lot of sense from a business standpoint but that is an uneducated guess. You are mistaken as I'm not an employee of Fotolia. I have been a member there since the beginning and had taken an active role in the forum years ago. It (the forum) was essentially un-moderated and got a bit out of hand so myself and another active contributor Christina aka Kerioak from the UK volunteered to moderate the forum. I have always been a glass is half full kind of guy. Lets be honest, pretty much any time any change is made people tend to immediately freak out rather than think it all the way through and view it from all perspectives. Just because it doesn't necessarily benefit me right now doesn't mean it won't in the long run. If more high end, professional stock photographers are recruited to Fotolia that would serve me by increasing traffic from buyers as the FT reputation will continue to grow and pick up more momentum. That is good for me, good for all at FT.
It's easy for you to see a positive side in this Mat because you yourself have benefitted from a similar artificial boost in your ranking and therefore your earnings. I suspect if that had not happened, and you were still a couple of years away from Emerald, then you might have thought differently.
That is definitely a fair point and I can't deny your logic. Keep in mind however that when the criteria for Emerald was switched from 10,000 sales I had somewhere around 9,985 sales under my belt. In my very biased opinion I feel that I have earned the rank of Emerald but again, you make a fair point. I am grateful for the rank crank and appreciate my high commission rate and flexibility with pricing.
1777
« on: October 22, 2009, 11:16 »
Slightly OT.. but has anyone looked at FT on Alexa lately? The line I find interesting is: "Where people go on Fotolia.com: 63.4% - de.fotolia.com"
Is it just a coincidence that Istock has set up shop in Berlin recently... I know the rent is cheap there but I'm thinking that they might have other intentions with the move.
@ MatHayward ... I notice that the one question you're not answering, and that FT is silent on so far is "So what's the word on whether this is open to existing contributors?" I'm not wrong in thinking that you're better connected at FT than most of the rest of us here?
I don't know the answer to whether or not this option is open to existing contributors. I doubt if it is as I don't think it would make a lot of sense from a business standpoint but that is an uneducated guess. You are mistaken as I'm not an employee of Fotolia. I have been a member there since the beginning and had taken an active role in the forum years ago. It (the forum) was essentially un-moderated and got a bit out of hand so myself and another active contributor Christina aka Kerioak from the UK volunteered to moderate the forum. I have always been a glass is half full kind of guy. Lets be honest, pretty much any time any change is made people tend to immediately freak out rather than think it all the way through and view it from all perspectives. Just because it doesn't necessarily benefit me right now doesn't mean it won't in the long run. If more high end, professional stock photographers are recruited to Fotolia that would serve me by increasing traffic from buyers as the FT reputation will continue to grow and pick up more momentum. That is good for me, good for all at FT. Just my .02, Mat
1778
« on: October 22, 2009, 02:00 »
I don't see why people that weren't contributing to Fotolia before wouldn't want to now. There is strong momentum with increased visibility in the market and the commission rate for photographers is so much higher than it is at I-stock. Doesn't I-Stock pay somewhere around 20% commissions? At Fotolia I am getting 55% commission and can charge $5 for XS files and $30 for XL if I want to (though I choose the $3-$18 range instead).
It's not true. Fotolia doesn't pay 55% commission to non exclusive so why you compare it to non exclusive commission at IS?
And dont forget a footage. Fotolia's deal is the worst in this industry. 3,5$ for HD video!
An
My earnings (total and per download) are much, much higher at Istock. Talking about porcentage is useless. Only money in my pocket count.
And now most important point : I just don't trust Fotolia anymore. They can give something today and take it back tomorrow. They change rules (subscriptions, rankings, commissions...). They take back our money too. Recently they took 400$ from Jason Stitt' account.
There is no this kind of problems at Istock. IS is thieves free.
I'm not sure what the commission rate is for exclusive or non at I-stock so I apologize if I misquoted. I was referring to the commission rate I personally receive at FT. What is the commission rate at I-stock? I remember a comparable debate about this last year and I remember being surprised at how much lower the commission rate was at I-stock with so many people vehemently defending them. I agree with you about the money in pocket stat being the most important. For me, I've seen consistent and dramatic increases in activity at FT and I think many others have too. My money in pocket stat keeps going up so I keep on feeling pretty good about my decision to be an exclusive contributor there.
1779
« on: October 21, 2009, 22:45 »
I don't see why people that weren't contributing to Fotolia before wouldn't want to now. There is strong momentum with increased visibility in the market and the commission rate for photographers is so much higher than it is at I-stock. Doesn't I-Stock pay somewhere around 20% commissions? At Fotolia I am getting 55% commission and can charge $5 for XS files and $30 for XL if I want to (though I choose the $3-$18 range instead).
Whoever posted about the professionalism of micro-stock hit the nail on the head in my opinion. It's not a market for amateurs anymore. So many of the big dogs have made the switch. The switchover from macro to micro reminds me of the reluctance to switch from film to digital. It took a while to get the ball rolling but once it did there was no stopping it.
1780
« on: October 17, 2009, 11:16 »
Mat, I am curious and I hope you don't mind answering: what is the % of your sales that are subscriptions? Not in $, but in number of downloads.
Of my most recent 100 sales, 35 were subscriptions. Mat
1781
« on: October 16, 2009, 23:50 »
I am exclusive to Fotolia and have consistent sales with generous revenue month to month. It seems to be getting busier and busier too. I get a 55% commission on my sales and can charge up to $5 for the extra small sized files (these perks come with rank increases) so I am happy.
Mat
1782
« on: October 16, 2009, 13:27 »
Overall: 110
7 Days: 258
Given the fact you are emerald and earn more per download it's no surprise your ranking is high.
Patrick H.
Plus I am exclusive which jacks it up even higher. My rank has actually been slipping though. I was in the top 100 for quite a while. I don't think the rank is based solely on sales though. I've been trying to figure it out for a while but it's still a mystery. Mat
1783
« on: October 16, 2009, 11:28 »
Overall: 110
7 Days: 258
1784
« on: October 12, 2009, 09:09 »
I agree with Life regarding protecting our tails in this regard. The thing I like as far as FT is concerned using the same release for the same model is that buyers can click on the link to see other images of the same model and is taken to a gallery with all different shoots. If this trend picks up and we have to do it everywhere this feature would go away.
1785
« on: October 12, 2009, 01:13 »
I have a wedding photography business and I'm asked at least a dozen times a year to give an aspiring photographer tips on what they should do before they shoot their first wedding which is inevitably right around the corner from when they contact me. I cringe every time it happens because I realize how humongous the responsibility is to do a good job. "Fake it till ya make it" will only take you so far.
The fact the Bride and Groom sued for damages and won frightens me as a concept but clearly they were entitled to a full refund. The award didn't grant them even that. 1450 pounds is what? Around $2,500 American? That isn't super premium prices but it isn't "this is my first wedding, let me shoot it for you please" cheap. I wonder how he put together a portfolio worthy of charging that much.
1786
« on: October 11, 2009, 11:55 »
Stokfoto is right about needing to upload in sRGB to Fotolia (90% of the time I forget  ) or you can get that muted/flat appearance online. It appears you are doing that Peter, so I don't know what the issue would be. Could you post a link to an image of yours on FT along with a link to the same image on a different site so we can see the difference?
1787
« on: October 09, 2009, 13:07 »
Matt,
I am not contrary to the poll the way it is, it's just that people have to clearly see what it means. Indeed, higher numbers say that people can make a living out of microstock. It only doesn't explain if the smaller figures are unsuccessful contributors or people who do not dedicate themselves to it.
That is true, but I think it's a logical assumption that the people making the least amount of money are putting in the least amount of effort. Often I find the loudest critics of Microstock in general as well as specific sites are the contributors with the smallest portfolios. I have always said that Microstock is a very tough way to make an easy living. I consider myself a fairly active contributor. Certainly not near the top but not near the bottom either. I stand by my logic that exclusivity is the smart route as the higher commission and prices I get would require me to quadruple my efforts by uploading and keywording everywhere else to make the same money. I take home a decent amount of money but of course I want more. I'm nowhere near the amount required to do this full time but I put in quite a few hours every week either shooting, editing, uploading, keywording, learning more about photography or spending time in the forums. Clearly there is plenty of money to go around and it appears to me that the public opinion of micros by both buyers and contributors is continuing to swing in our favor and so we should just be at the beginning of a large growth spurt.
1788
« on: October 09, 2009, 11:35 »
You're right guys. It isn't a perfect poll by any means. It could have been 60 questions long to get super specific but I was just interested in a snapshot version to see where the average is. My intent was to ask how much YOU are earning, not how much revenue is being produced from your images grossly. It should have been obvious I was referring to microstock since it's a microstock forum but I know now I should have really spelled it out. Sorry about that.
I do appreciate those of you that answered honestly. There is more money being made on average it appears than I had originally thought.
Best,
Mat
1789
« on: October 09, 2009, 02:15 »
That's a fair point. I just figured 2-5 was an upper-mid range. It's already interesting to see the diverse mix. I'm impressed to see the ratio of photographers in the top two categories.
1790
« on: October 08, 2009, 23:03 »
I am very curious about this. As many of you know, I'm 100% exclusive to Fotolia and love the 55% commission rate on the inflated prices of my images. For me it makes sense. For most of you, I know you disagree. That's OK. Reading the polls and threads about favorite sites has me very curious about the level at which we are all at. I remember there was a large poll that many of us participated in but the numbers were skewed because it was an average system where the top couple of guys made a disproportionate amount compared to the average.
Please take a moment and answer this survey honestly.
Thanks!
Mat
1791
« on: September 23, 2009, 23:27 »
This is a pretty interesting move. I doubt it will have much impact overall on the contributors uploading to both sites. I imagine that Shutterstock has been declining in profits the past year with the heavy marketing of subscriptions by the competitors. In my opinion they are the most limited in potential of all the micros as they require such a commitment from their buyers that isn't necessary elsewhere unless they truly want it.
Someone made the point earlier in this thread that the content of their database isn't unique either with the majority of photographers dumping their images in every site that will take them. If I had to guess I would imagine they were in a corner that forced them to either make a move or move out of the way.
I wonder how much they paid.
Mat
1792
« on: September 22, 2009, 15:30 »
Geez, Dingo. I expected you to chime in 3 days ago. You're getting slow!
I guess I haven't been paying close enough attention to this forum as I've never seen this Dingo guy around before. What a brilliant analysis by yet another anonymous photographer who for all we know is shooting with his phone cam. What's the point of contributing to any forum if all you plan to bring to the table is trash talk. It's boring.
1793
« on: September 22, 2009, 03:25 »
I'm with you Lisa, that seems like a very low number of contributors for I-stock in my opinion. I would expect them to have the most in the industry and I've heard much higher numbers for FT.
1794
« on: September 17, 2009, 19:29 »
It's a good looking photo. From what I understand of Shutterstock (I don't contribute to them) it is a revolving door of photographs as far as what sells and what does not. Newly uploaded images are sought out by the buyers and as the photo's stay in there for a while they get buried deeper and deeper in the database. Enjoy the sales while they last and keep shooting to keep the sales coming.
1795
« on: September 10, 2009, 13:01 »
Since the new premium subscription is in effect I realize a DRASTIC decrease in PPD. It means significantly less income as well. I am not happy.
Exactly. Except that Fotolia doesn't quite care about whether we're happy or not.
I would really like to see a mass exodus from Fotolia, this is the worst ever agency from photographer's point of view. I simply hate those emails "congrats you have sold another Premium Subscription XL size photo". They also dropped in revenue for me to a funny place 5, even after 123RF.
Kevin, I am curious as to how many photo's you have in your portfolio there. Can we see an example of your work to determine if it is in fact the agency that is causing your poor revenue stream? I see my sales and profit continue to increase month after month with a diverse mix of regular subscriptions, Premium subscriptions, L, XL and EL sales every day on Fotolia. Looking forward to seeing your work, Mat
1796
« on: September 03, 2009, 09:17 »
Why not rent them to try out for a week before you decide? www.lensprotogo.com I have used in the past and he has both those lenses in stock available to rent. Mat
1797
« on: August 31, 2009, 23:46 »
For standard shooting like the Zoo or maybe a whale watching trip I use my 70-200 f/2.8L IS and if it isn't long enough I use the 2X II converter and shoot at 400mm f/5.6 with IS which works pretty good.
For NFL Games, I rent the 400 f/2.8L IS. It would be very tricky to catch good action shots without the speed of the lens and the sharpness added by IS.
For MLB games, the 400 is too long, the 70-200 isn't long enough and I don't like to lose the stops of light with the converter so I rent the 300 f/2.8L IS.
For my trip to Africa, I also rented the 400 f/2.8.
Those events are special enough that I didn't mind putting the money into the rental fees but they are infrequent enough that I can't justify the expense of the lenses.
If you have something special in mind you may want to consider that and purchase a more practical lens for everyday use with the the converter. Some scoff at the 2X converter but from what I understand the problems were with the first version as I've been very happy with mine.
Whatever you decide, I hope you love it!
Good luck,
Mat
1798
« on: August 31, 2009, 23:19 »
I'm pretty sure that if you have an argument in the forum and cross the line far enough you have your forum access removed but not your FT account closed. You might want to double check it as I would assume you can still access your funds unless there is a detail or two you have left out of your post. Either way, they would not withhold funds you are entitled to so the story is not complete here. I think even Bobby would acknowledge being paid in full though his scenario was completely different than what you are speaking to. Mat I'm so sick of fotolia policies and I had an argue in a forum, next thing I got was my account blocked BUT my pictures kept online and funnies thing: I was receiving every day many emails "Photograph Sold" so I was selling pictures and I couldn't enter into my account, It was a entire nightmare to send and send and send again emails to support to remove my pictures online... Those money I made selling pics with my account disabled I lost it.
*
1799
« on: August 30, 2009, 21:21 »
Tell them they can have a free photo for a free full page ad. I bet their cheapest advertising space is more than an enhanced license. The first issue likely doesn't even have a big enough run to require an EL.
This is exactly what I was going to say here. Work out a trade, if you have a website have them give you free ad space. For a photo credit only, it would not be worth it in my opinion. Mat
1800
« on: August 27, 2009, 15:52 »
No, this was a test image for me from a while back (maybe 6, 8 months or so). As I mentioned, not a crazy amount of sales but similar photo's in the same series were hardly looked at so it definitely did impact the revenue on that particular shot. I'm not sure if any of the new photo's are even showing up yet. I was in on this originally and had just one photo in the collection. There is so much traffic that while the pic was probably downloaded thousands of times for free I ended up selling what would have in my opinion been a very unproductive pic (based on similar shots of similar looking girls in my portfolio's sales) and it sold over 100 times. Not a crazy number of sales, but again..more than it would have had under normal circumstances I am sure. Including multiple EL's. Here is a link to the photo originally used... http://us.fotolia.com/id/3029748
I've added more pics this time around and have received a bump in rank to Emerald (I was at 9950 sales when the criteria got changed from 10,000) so I am very happy about the increase in commission and believe the added sales from the increased visibility on some of my best pics plus the extra % should work out to be a lucrative deal for me.
Mat
Wow, so it has sold over 100 times in a month or so? I have also accepted this offer too but I didn't notice any significant changes in sales.
Pages: 1 ... 67 68 69 70 71 [72] 73 74 75 76
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
