|
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 - BaldricksTrousers
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 ... 206
176
« on: January 31, 2018, 23:04 »
Hang on, though ... why do you think you know what ranking Alamy has for me? It was already in my top three for earnings last month. So perhaps it can't do better. It certainly already meets your criterion for an agency that's doing well.
177
« on: January 31, 2018, 11:31 »
I'm no marketing expert, therefore I'm not in the position to advise anyone how to do better. ..... Alamy is NOT a good performer. They can do better. Much better. 
In other words, your repeated insistence that they can do much better is what is known as an "unsupported assertion".
On the contrary: numbers are speaking very loudly: 5.4% of my revenue and number 6 among all my agencies are NOT indicators of good performance.
I will consider Alamy a good performer when they will be able to break into my Top3.
Until then, the factual assertion and the obvious conclusion are simple: they can do better! Much Better!
So every agency can do much better until it is number one in your sales list?
You replied too fast. See the doctor/mechanic edit on the post above.
I did't say number one. I said top 3. Until then, an agency can do better. Moreover, when an agency is number 6, with only 5.4% of my revenue, then that agency can do MUCH better! As simple as that!
Ah, but that's my point precisely. Why should top three be good enough? I think only the top spot in your list is good enough because, clearly, everybody else can do better, much better. You don't set the bar high enough. Alamy needs to adopt all the policies and practices or Shutterstock, or whoever is number 1, and not be satisfied until they have sold a billion licenses.
178
« on: January 31, 2018, 10:50 »
I'm no marketing expert, therefore I'm not in the position to advise anyone how to do better. ..... Alamy is NOT a good performer. They can do better. Much better.
In other words, your repeated insistence that they can do much better is what is known as an "unsupported assertion".
On the contrary: numbers are speaking very loudly: 5.4% of my revenue and number 6 among all my agencies are NOT indicators of good performance.
I will consider Alamy a good performer when they will be able to break into my Top3.
Until then, the factual assertion and the obvious conclusion are simple: they can do better! Much Better!
So every agency can do much better until it is number one in your sales list?
179
« on: January 31, 2018, 10:41 »
Interesting. So one in every 7,500 sales has been mine. I guess that's pretty good, all things considered.
180
« on: January 31, 2018, 10:14 »
I'm no marketing expert, therefore I'm not in the position to advise anyone how to do better. ..... Alamy is NOT a good performer. They can do better. Much better.
In other words, your repeated insistence that they can do much better is what is known as an "unsupported assertion".
181
« on: January 31, 2018, 06:36 »
Micro, if you expect little, you will get little. In the end it's up to you what you want. Contributors who look at the next penny ahead instead of looking a little bit further (even some animals can wait for reward - why can't photographers? Is it a matter of greed, selfishness ignorance or stupidity?) ruin it for the rest of the trade.
Total nonsense. There's never any guarantee that because you want a lot you will get anything at all. Digital technology changed the balance and opened the doors to the masses - that was what ruined things for the old-timers who were used to coining it in without encountering serious competition. But I thought this old argument had died of boredom a decade ago.
182
« on: January 31, 2018, 00:25 »
Not negligible, but far from the success story claimed by the OP.
They can do better.
Much better!
The only claim was that they had done blog posts with three people who had totalled more than $100k. Your experience doesn't contradict that. I'm sure they would like to hear from you if you know how they can do "much better".
183
« on: January 30, 2018, 08:37 »
Quick note about some of your keywords (although I'm not sure that's the cause of your rejection):
- Ingrediend.
- Zattar is spelled za'atar.
- 'erb' is how Americans pronounce it but it's not an actual word.
I corrected "ingredient" in the uploading process. It's difficult to keep abreast of US variants, I thought I'd seen "erb" written down somewhere as well as hearing it on TV.
184
« on: January 30, 2018, 06:08 »
Obviously not going to be a huge demand for this but competition is non-existent. Now, thinking more broadly about other specialist subjects...there's opportunities.
This is why I've never been bothered about the lack of "high commercial value" images in my portfolio. A search on "beautiful woman" produces 3.7 million results, a search on Rana cretensis produces 3 results. Now, I could photograph beautiful women till the cows come home and not have much chance of getting a sale, whereas if I go and find a Cretan frog I'll get on the first page of results and if only one-in-a-million as many buyers search for the frog as for a beautiful woman my chances of a sale will almost certainly be better for the frog than for the woman. I've applied this theory to microstock but it probably works even better for Alamy, where the sale value if I do eventually get a hit would probably be much higher than on the micros, so a single hit could justify all the work.
185
« on: January 30, 2018, 01:55 »
if you know how to use it and have the patience, there's huge opportunities to increase CTRs.
But if everybody does it, everybody ends up back where they started (and that's assuming it works). Which means making a huge effort to achieve nothing. There can't be 1,000 people getting their picture onto the first page of a search.
186
« on: January 30, 2018, 01:23 »
The contributors that do understand the system are doing very well (they state this publicy) and getting good keyword rankings. Alamy provide a lot of analytics so if you know how to use it and have the patience, there's huge opportunities to increase CTRs.
It's all comparative but the first few posts in this thread indicate that even the most successful and professional of their contributors are lucky to be making $2,000 a month. That's nice money, of course, but it's not really a living wage in the West. People self-reporting "doing very well" can mean a lot of different things - the newbie picking up a $5 first sale tends to view him or her self as having a great achievement to report. Others like to exaggerate their success with vaguely-worded "woo-yay" type comments that paint them as stock-photo heroes.
187
« on: January 29, 2018, 13:32 »
But they have the most easiest system. Images only needs keywords and title. Upload them and they are directly on sale.
True. But how much exposure do they get if the keywords aren't prioritised and if you don't fill in the optional details? If failing to prioritise your top 10 keywords pushes your image behind all the prioritised ones, then your chances of getting a sale will be greatly diminished. If a file doesn't make the first five or six pages for a given search it is pretty much dead.
188
« on: January 29, 2018, 12:09 »
Believe it or not a nearly identical situation was the subject of a lawsuit a few years ago. A movie studio digitally edited all the billboards in Times Square in their film to show things other than what was really there and got sued by another company for depriving them of advertising. The lawsuit got thrown out.
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2002/08/13/business/media-business-advertising-lawyers-for-spider-man-win-fight-over-times-square.html?referer=https://www.google.com/
Interesting. That must have been around the time that canstock took my picture off sale. Maybe the company concerned was inspired by that case. Differences in copyright law in different countries might make that a winnable case somewhere outside the US, and while all the agencies use US law the end users could be in any jurisdiction.
189
« on: January 29, 2018, 07:53 »
You probably have some arab writing in your photo.
I had a lot of rejection for this reason : on mosque pictures, prayers flags, ....
Oh, right. Thanks. There were a couple of price labels stuck in the sacks. So it means that they have no idea of what it says so they reject it. It's pretty obvious that they are just grocer's hand-written labels.
190
« on: January 29, 2018, 07:43 »
I don't know what Shutterstock are playing at with their "files with large amounts of non-English text are not accepable" rejection.
Here's the text:
Sacks of dried herbs on sale in Souq Waqif, Qatar, Arabia. The leaves are used in traditional infusions and cookery.
Here are the keywords:
souq, Doha, Qatar, Arabia, herbs, dried, dried herbs, chamomile, sage, parsley, thyme, green, traditional, shop, herb, erb, ingrediend, food, cookery, tea, herbal tea, market, zattar, middle east, plant, nature, natural, qatar, cuisine, cooking, asian, arabia, leaves, ingredients,leaf,rose
It's irritating. The only non-English word I see there is souq, where souk might be more common. Souq Waqif is a place name .... l
191
« on: January 29, 2018, 03:25 »
It's back with not a single sale for last three days.
ditto But it's not unheard of for me to go three or four days there without a sale.
192
« on: January 29, 2018, 01:49 »
It's a city skyline shot, the only change to the building concerned was removal of its logo and CS stated that the company who owned the building had made a copyright complaint. I can't imagine any agency accepting that city skylines can be vetoed by the owners of any one of the buildings just because their building forms part of the skyline, so the only thing left that I can imagine a complaint being made about is the removal of the very prominent logo.
Incidentally, another skyscraper in Doha (not in the picture I'm referring to) is built in the shape of the Doha Bank's logo - which makes logo deletion a bit difficult.
193
« on: January 28, 2018, 06:48 »
And all the time, I'm realising how much more time/tedium it will take if indyref2 prevails and I have to remove UK and British from the majority of my files.
I wouldn't worry about that. Scotland will still be geographically part of the British Isles and I can't imagine anyone accusing you of spamming for legacy "UK"s. In any case, didn't the nats want to keep the Queen, so they wouldn't be cancelling the Union of Crowns, only the Act of Union. There you go, I've just saved you from that!
194
« on: January 28, 2018, 06:15 »
Still, if you haven't been involved since the changeover, you might want to revisit your old files to see if the system has mashed keywords together, or split keyword phrases.
I wasn't aware of that. I just hope mine haven't suffered because, frankly, the effort involved in trying to make corrections to thousands of files wouldn't be justified by any likely additional returns. It sounds horribly like "disambiguation" all over again.
195
« on: January 28, 2018, 01:25 »
I just had a look at my rejections and the last two were for pictures of piles of old Greek coins. Rejection reason: banknotes must be partially obscured to thwart forgers. There weren't any banknotes in it, of course (and any forger churning out counterfeit Greek drachma coins is going to struggle to make a living).
196
« on: January 28, 2018, 01:17 »
A major company seems to have complained about a photo of the Doha skyline which shows their tower. It happened 5 years ago but I just stumbled over "photo deleted because of copyright complaint" by company XYZ in my list of rejected files on canstock.
Unfortunately, I didn't receive any notification besides the cryptic message in the "rejected" folder that I never bother to look at.
As far as I can make out, the complaint is that in the picture their prominent logo has been deleted from the top of their tower, depriving them of the advertising impact of putting it there in the first place.
I've wondered for a long time about the legalities of altering bits of commercial architecture like that and had, in fact, held back that photo for a long time because the logo seemed to me to be an integral part of the skyline - but someone else then posted an edited picture of the same thing and was getting sales I could have had so I decided to upload after all.
Anyway, it seems you can run into problems from deleting logos, as well as from not deleting them, which may be of some interest. Perhaps the best solution is to submit such material as "editorial" and let the end users decide whether their use is likely to offend.
197
« on: January 27, 2018, 10:49 »
Curiously, they appear to have reworded the outage message into Indian-style English.
198
« on: January 27, 2018, 09:11 »
It wasn't pulling in sales, wheras iStock was, so they closed it long, long ago. Probably more than 10 years back.
199
« on: January 27, 2018, 00:45 »
They also gave Oprah three hands, but later deleted the image.
200
« on: January 27, 2018, 00:43 »
Hello, it is maybe too late....
lol
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 ... 206
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
