|
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 - adamkaz
1
« on: May 23, 2013, 14:08 »
I don't think you can expect to just tell someone to clean up your mess and be absolved of your responsibility. You knew something was messed up, and you had the ability and responsibility to fix it, and you refused.
2
« on: February 02, 2012, 16:29 »
Unfortunately the flaw in that plan is that my images aren't tagged with the iStock image number or exactly the same title so you can't automate the process. That'll learn me for not adding the metadata in LR at creation time.
A suggestion... you can request to download your entire portfolio from IS for backup purposes. I think it costs like $75. You go to a web page and you click 1 by 1 to download each file. Takes a while but they do include the file number in the file name. I'd imagine that a programmer could find a way to match part of the file name that includes the file number to a line in a database/spreadsheet, and take the rest from there.
3
« on: February 01, 2012, 17:55 »
 IS Exclusive, BME, last BME was May 2010. $ +40% over Jan 2011 ETA: January has never been one of my best months. At best, it has usually been an average to below average month each year. This has me excited for the rest of the year.
4
« on: January 18, 2012, 22:07 »
I guess we'll have to wait and see the results of the 2011 survey (2010 here: http://blog.microstockgroup.com/microstock-income-vs-portfolio-size/) to see if the average exclusive income is still over 3x the average independent.
(ETA: not trying to be snarky, but putting data out there that supports my position without giving you my personal numbers.)
I'm sure it will be, especially this year. Exclusives seem less hurt by the decline in the latter half of the year.
Even so, as long as my istock earnings are still less than 1/10th of what I'm getting from all of the other microstock agencies, RPD is a pretty meaningless statistic to me. For exclusives especially, RPD at istock is quite high. But I'm more interested in the bottom line at the end of the month, and in that regard istock doesn't even come close. Not now, not if I were exclusive, not even if istock let me be exclusive and paid me 100% royalties. It still wouldn't put as much money in my pocket as being independent does.
I'm glad to hear that istock is such a small percent of your income. Gives me hope that the alternative to exclusivity is viable, if it comes to that for me. A sense of comfort.
5
« on: January 18, 2012, 20:25 »
"us indies" can always go exclusive and get a fair price for your work, a higher commision and so on. (much MORE then you get anywhere else).
I love the RPD arguement. Apparently that's all it takes to keep many people exclusive.
RPD doesn't pay the bills. Good monthly totals do.
I guess we'll have to wait and see the results of the 2011 survey (2010 here: http://blog.microstockgroup.com/microstock-income-vs-portfolio-size/) to see if the average exclusive income is still over 3x the average independent. (ETA: not trying to be snarky, but putting data out there that supports my position without giving you my personal numbers.)
6
« on: January 18, 2012, 20:02 »
"us indies" can always go exclusive and get a fair price for your work, a higher commision and so on. (much MORE then you get anywhere else).
Is this suggestion actually meant to be taken seriously?!! Or am I having a flashback to two years ago? Istok is in total freefall. No informed person in their right mind would consider going exclusive now.All the momentum is moving the other way. You probably will be too, and sooner than you think.
Maybe... I'm having a hard time seeing earning as much per sale by going non-exclusive as I do as exclusive. It's not just the significantly higher royalty rate but the higher price points. Seems like it would take a lot of SS and DT sales to make up for 1 large Vetta sale, or even 1 medium E+ sale.
7
« on: December 21, 2011, 17:26 »
If there's one thing exclusives love, it's being favoured at the one time of the year when nobody is buying. 
LOL!
Yeah... I don't mind it. This December is on pace to be +100% over last December and finish with numbers like October or November. Maybe nobody is buying, but it sure seems like a lot are.
8
« on: December 06, 2011, 18:15 »
I'm very concerned... I've been at 40% since May of 2009. Last year I had around 125,000 RCs and kept my 40%. This year, I'll end with between 145,000-148,000 RCs (give or take a thousand), it will take something close to a Christmas miracle for me to break 150,000.
And some basic math will show that I stand to lose quite a bit of $ unless they adjust the targets or that Christmas miracle happens.
9
« on: September 22, 2011, 14:49 »
So, this is like Hogwarts?
10
« on: September 12, 2011, 12:41 »
Sorry, I don't post in here often but don't like what's being said about sjlocke. Just met Sean and he is not "clearly to keep it all to himself" or many of the other negative things being inferred by a couple people here. He was a pleasure to be around and a very likeable person. It's shallow to confine your perception of a person based on what they post on message boards, and then rag on them.
11
« on: August 25, 2011, 14:00 »
what's the point here?
12
« on: August 18, 2011, 17:40 »
Since iStock started sending out their survey today, I was curious what it would take to make you happy with iStock again. By happy, I'm referring to money (more precisely royalty percentages).
I would be satisfied with the original system being grandfathered for contributors who were active under it. I would also be fine with them changing the game for new people signing up under the new system. It's the lowering of an earned rate that I have issue with. Not to mention increasing the requirement for diamond by 25% over last year. 25% growth in this day and age of microstock is pretty ridiculous at that high of a volume of sales.
13
« on: August 18, 2011, 17:35 »
I suppose it's like a company meeting versus the suggestion box. people tend to be less showoffy and more honest when the communication is direct. I think they're also looking to distill comments into actionable points rather than sifting through rants....the proof will be in the application (or lack thereof) of the data collected ....
I'd suggest that Rebecca has simply breezed in to her new job, had a meeting and been told that dissatisfaction amongst contributors is one of the issues facing the business. So she's decided to have a survey to find out why (she doesn't know because she wasn't there). She probably thinks that giving contributors the opportunity to vent will probably help anyway.
I wasn't aware that she had started yet. I thought the change was to take affect after this month.
15
« on: June 10, 2011, 14:56 »
I'll put you back on ignore now.
On an unrelated note... I never noticed this nifty little feature, which is so desperately needed particularly in this forum. Thanks!
16
« on: June 10, 2011, 12:33 »
$188.50 Vetta EL... could go for a few of those right about now.
17
« on: May 25, 2011, 11:37 »
I don't have a problem with the pricing, if you have 3000 images online you should be making plenty to pay $50.00 a month.
I just can't get the software to work, it tries to process files but fails shortly in. Tried on Windows 7 (2 comps) and Windows Vista. I've already e-mailed him about it.
It's not about 'making plenty'. Personally I would just prefer to spend $500 (a year price) on extra photoshot, flash light or even short cool holidays,.
$500 a year is EXTREMELY exaggerated for something yeah cool and convenient, but not necessary. Even though I don't get funky graphs and exact numbers, I spend maximum 15 minutes browsing those 4 sites (about 2500 images porfolio) to see which pictures and sessions were successful.
Then don't spend it. If the pricing structure is "unsustainable" then he will find out the hard way. I'd rather him start high and lower the price than start low and have to raise the price.
18
« on: May 25, 2011, 10:29 »
I don't have a problem with the pricing, if you have 3000 images online you should be making plenty to pay $50.00 a month.
I just can't get the software to work, it tries to process files but fails shortly in. Tried on Windows 7 (2 comps) and Windows Vista. I've already e-mailed him about it.
19
« on: May 21, 2011, 01:57 »
Yes indeed, Friday was good for a Friday. Thursday was BDEWOEL. This May stands a chance to meet or exceed last may, which was my BME by a longshot.
20
« on: May 10, 2011, 11:00 »
I'm up about 10%, but last year the fall season dropped like never before, in spite of the "Half of our RC's come in the last 4 months" comment. So really, I'm about the same as last year. With about 30% port growth.
21
« on: May 05, 2011, 10:56 »
Best to you JoAnne. I'll be keeping up with whatever you post about how things go.
22
« on: April 12, 2011, 17:03 »
FWIW sales seem back to "normal" for me. Normal-ish...
23
« on: April 08, 2011, 14:30 »
Today is looking like a Saturday. About 20% of an average weekday. It can't get much worse than this! At this point I HAVE to consider non-exclusive. This in the week that I get POTW!  I hope that it is just a 1 week best match experiment and it gets fixed next week.
24
« on: April 07, 2011, 16:48 »
The week has been down. I'll probably end the week down about $300 than "expected." Though I probably could have expected more, given it's April and that has historically been my best month.
25
« on: March 31, 2011, 14:58 »
Actually today is Cesar Chavez Day in the U.S. In california I believe it is a holiday and here in Arizona the City of Phoenix is closed today in observance of this day as well. Although the State of Arizona government is still open for business.
In California this was observed last Friday. Sales seem fine for me. Slightly lower than my daily goals for this time in the day, but nothing of serious concern, it could easily catch up and be an above average day.
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
