|
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 - xst
76
« on: February 11, 2010, 20:43 »
figured this out
77
« on: February 04, 2010, 22:02 »
Also, DT has now emailed me stating they will not send me my $65.00 payout as it has not reached the $100 mark. You should have posted that on the forum and made an agreement with another contributor to buy his images with converted credits. He could send you his earnings then by paypal. At least you wouldn't lose the full 65$. (obsolete)
I have to add that neither YAY, LO or CC offered me payout of my below-threshold earnings when I left there, so it's common practice.
DT lock time is 6 months. So 6 month in advance you know that you are going to leave. Hold on asking for payout in the last 2 weeks before getting out (or whatever time it takes you to get $100 on DT) Delete all images and only then ask for final payout. Its only problem with sites like crestock, where getting to payout takes ages.
78
« on: February 04, 2010, 19:18 »
Instead of going one by one
you can e-mail support and ask them to change EL prices an all your images.
They will do it for you
79
« on: February 02, 2010, 18:15 »
I think the more important measurement is downloads. Of course short term earnings will go up for exclusives. It's on average about a 70% increase in price.
I'm exclusive and my downloads are down from Nov and Dec. Not sure if that's economy, buyers fleeing from the price increase, buyers buying non-exclusive files, or whatever.
Earnings are up. Not as high as I was hoping but that's better than a decrease.
I dont quite agree. THE most important measurement is money. My downloads number in Jan is up comparing to Dec. However much bigger % of them is Xsmall and $$ revenue is actually down.
80
« on: February 02, 2010, 17:25 »
The US offer seems to be here:
21 credits = $ 24.00 (included 1 bonus credits - $ 1.14/credit)
55 credits = $ 60.00 (included 5 bonus credits - $ 1.09/credit)
115 credits = $ 120.00 (included 15 bonus credits - $ 1.04/credit)
180 credits = $ 180.00 (included 30 bonus credits - $ 1.00/credit)
325 credits = $ 300.00 (included 75 bonus credits - $ 0.92/credit)
700 credits = $ 600.00 (included 200 bonus credits - $ 0.86/credit)
1500 credits = $ 1,200.00 (included 500 bonus credits - $ 0.80/credit)
3200 credits = $ 2,400.00 (included 1200 bonus credits - $ 0.75/credit
The Credit for contributor is worth $1. They should really pay us % of the price, i.e. if someone buys our image with credits worth $0.75, our percentage should be calculated from that.
From looking at the above prices it is not really 100% if it would result in bigger or smaller commission (for us in US zone).
so if buyer paid for package of 325 credits or more - we are actually getting higher % then specified in our level?
81
« on: February 01, 2010, 20:32 »
Jan stats.
Jan stats thread on IS shows overwhelmingly earnings increase among exclusives
Several non-exclusives who responded there mostly reporting earnings decrease. Although most of the independents reporting there have really tiny portfolios and under 2500 downloads. So Im not sure how representative it is.
Mine states are even lower then in December.
82
« on: January 28, 2010, 21:30 »
The subject of model release has always been a problem in SP, as they don't review images. This is not an issue for me personally as I don't upload images of people.
Recently they added a restriction that no nude shots whose subject can be recognizable (I suppose this mean not only face, but tattoos and body marks) are acceptable without a MR even as editorial. Do they check this? I don't think they do it routinely, but I can't really say. But it's an improvement, since there used to be many snapshotish nude photos sold as "editorial". I wonder how many girls would feel when they discovered that those photos taken for fun with a former boyfriend were online for sale. Another issue with nudes in SP is that some are really porn (woman with legs spread, closeup of genitals, stuff like that) and it seems SP is very lenient with that - maybe because it sells.
Currently there is another case, a requestor asked for vintage portraits of women, apparently for making paintings for resale (she asked for commercial use). People uploaded images without a MR, one of the sold images had in the description that the photographer found that image in an antique shop - so he is not even a relative of the person in the image. Not to mention that the usage, in my understanding, requires a Full License and not the Standard, microstock-style, license.
PS: in addition, given Holgs concern on their terms of full license, I think you only need to price images accordingly. Some people sell at US$20 (SP's minimum) and if the image is good, it's really an absurdly low price. I even have some at US$40 that I believe are still very cheap.
where can you see requests there?
83
« on: January 28, 2010, 20:34 »
I'm sure you mean well, but that was not exactly my question.
Looking for the best place to sell nude, not whether or not to sell nudes.
I think Sean is right, not selling them on cheap RF sites is an option and one you should consider.
BTW, prices for porn is not that high. Set of 50 is ususally sold $100-$400, wich translates to $2-$8 per picture.
84
« on: January 26, 2010, 20:46 »
it took them 4 days to answer to my e-mail. here is their reply ***********************
There are unfortunately significant delays to payouts at the moment. They are being processed chronologically, but can at the moment take significantly longer than the normal 2-3 weeks.
Sincere apologies for the delay, just let us know if there is anything else we can do for you.
Best regards,
Gudmund
Gudmund Aarseth
The Crestock Team
[email protected]
************************************
85
« on: January 26, 2010, 20:40 »
Also FT dislikes sensual nudity.
and genitals, even in art non-sensual images (although they claim that it's not true)
Every image with genitals visible is immediately rejected for "Moral standards"
i havent found that to be true -- several of my khajuraho images have been accepted at FT, for example
http://www.fotolia.com/Member/IndexContent/19325088
maybe it's the captioning? i keep the caption PG rated, but include more specific keywords
I'm talking about live people 
86
« on: January 25, 2010, 21:53 »
Also FT dislikes sensual nudity.
and genitals, even in art non-sensual images (although they claim that it's not true)
Every image with genitals visible is immediately rejected for "Moral standards"
87
« on: January 25, 2010, 21:42 »
I have two files waiting for inspection on istock. Upload date 11/29/09. Anyone experience anything this long before?
they had glitch on 29th. some files are stuck contact support with the numbers and they will fix it
88
« on: January 22, 2010, 15:22 »
I enjoyed quite high acceptance rate on IS for quite a while.
Last couple of weeks Im getting much higher then usual number of rejects.
If somebody want to help me find artifacts on one of the images give me your e-mail. I dont want openly post images since they are NSFW, 18+ type
89
« on: January 22, 2010, 14:47 »
My sales for January are significantly down and on track to by even lower than Decembers. (Not mentioning October and November)
Also Im getting unusual number of tech rejections in latest weeks. Most of them I have hard time to decrypt
90
« on: January 22, 2010, 14:31 »
My sales at IS the first part of January were definitely down. Unlike last year when January rebounded quickly from low holiday sales.
The last week or so sales finally seem to be returning to what was my average through most of last year. The month end totals will still be down quite a bit from what I have become used to.
The best match has been yoyoing over the past couple of weeks
91
« on: January 13, 2010, 19:00 »
got response from support:
All royalties will be transferred to your Paypal or Moneybookers (as you
chose in your account preferences) account this coming Friday, January 15,
2010.
Starting January 15th, all payments will be processed weekly, every Friday.
We apologize for the delay and appreciate your patience during this
transition time.
If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Yours,
Darek
iStockphoto Team
92
« on: January 08, 2010, 17:41 »
It is all relative. Can anyone see another site launched last year that is doing better than VeerMP? They are in the "up and coming" section of the poll here, that is amazing for a relatively new site. I don't know if they have started marketing the site seriously yet and how ambitious they are but with Corbis behind them, I will keep uploading. Not had any big problems with rejections yet. Some reviewers are stricter than others but that is the same with most sites. I upload small batches and most of them are being accepted. They have their quirks but overall I think they are doing much better than SV so far. If they do get aggressive with marketing and Corbis really is interested in microstock, they could be in the top 4 sites by the end of 2010.
From a marketing perspective - you all are correct, we've barely begun and there hasn't been much at all. This will change later this year.
While I know it looks like we are quiet now - I can tell you we are working hard behind the scenes on some great stuff. And that 2010 is going to be a big year.
We'll definitely give our contributors a heads-up on marketing and traffic generating initiatives as things get rolling.
- Brian
Since a lot of people considering IS exclusivty around July this year, you are better to hurry 
93
« on: January 08, 2010, 16:42 »
Its Mom and pop store,
catreing to very specific market.
I'll keep some content with them on RM basis
If it's RM then you can leave them there __ exclusivity is only about RF.
I have some RF with them as well.
94
« on: January 08, 2010, 16:25 »
Ive send form back to Istock with list of agencies and wrote that no agency requires advance notification.
There's actually an agency that states you have to give them advance notice that you will be closing your account? It must be one I don't contribute to, as I've never heard of this before.
Its Mom and pop store, catreing to very specific market. I'll keep some content with them on RM basis
95
« on: January 08, 2010, 14:50 »
It's not as simple as an e-mail expressing intention to go exclusive. You must send termination notice to all other agencies.
Read the beginning of this topic and about halfway through...it shows you the content of the pdf that you must fill out with your request for exclusivity.
Apparently their e-mail and pdf awkwardly composed. Ive send form back to Istock with list of agencies and wrote that no agency requires advance notification. And that Ive stopped uploading to DT to start 6 month time-out. I attached notification to only one small agency that requires advance request IS had no problem with this.
96
« on: December 21, 2009, 18:53 »
BTW SS and DT allow you to disable images without deleting them.
So you can go exclusive to IS and then if you changed you mind later, you can just reactivate your portfolio on SS and DT.
I don't know if FT has such option?
97
« on: December 03, 2009, 18:39 »
Is Crestock.com dead? cannot access it.
----
UPD: disregard. It's back again
98
« on: September 24, 2009, 09:13 »
It's again. site is hiccupping Up and down The most ironic part: off site server to provide emergency status http://www.istockscoop.com/ is down as well
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
