|
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 - Eco
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... 13
76
« on: May 17, 2014, 02:00 »
Despite promises of resuming payments still nothing. I have several pending payments going back as far as November 2013 (almost 6 months now). I am losing hope of them ever recovering. 
77
« on: May 03, 2014, 00:46 »
I opted out 2 496 files.
78
« on: February 28, 2014, 01:42 »
Thank you Robert for the detailed explanation. I think if every agency care to explain/clarify concerns a lot of conspiracy theories will be prevented.
Having said that I think if Panthermedia want to compete with the bigger agencies they need to do something different from the bigger agencies, not just simply trying to follow/mimic them. Why? The whole principle of subscription sales is VOLUME. For the contributor the subscription model is a compromise: accepting low royalties per download in exchange for volume. So when a small agency introduces subscription plans, especially with very low royalties, without the volume they are going to lose contributors and buyers (because of a lack of new contents which is important for the subscription model).
79
« on: February 26, 2014, 09:00 »
Panthemedia is one of my biggest disappointments of 2013/14. I joined them May 2011 and although the sales volume was always low the sales were always for decent money that justified the cumbersome upload procedure. However, those sales have disappeared completely and all that I get lately are subscription sales that average 0.19 per download. Even the occasional non-subscription sale is for a ridiculously low amount. Low volume and rock bottom royalties are the new Panthermedia. Needless to say I stopped uploading and if I don't see an improvement soon I will close my account.
80
« on: February 19, 2014, 08:33 »
Still waiting for my payment that I requested 30 November 2013.
Ouch. How many times did you contact them directly?
My previous request was paid after 3 months. I did not contact them yet - just waiting patiently. To me it is clear that they experience financial difficulties. I am not unreasonable, but if this continues without any improvement I will cancel my account.
81
« on: February 19, 2014, 05:58 »
Still waiting for my payment that I requested 30 November 2013.
82
« on: December 19, 2013, 12:51 »
My payment arrived too. Thank you
Unfortunately I cannot say the same. Still waiting for my Moneybookers / Skrill payment. 
83
« on: November 01, 2013, 01:01 »
They still sell, but they don't pay. My pending payment is now approaching 3 months.
84
« on: October 21, 2013, 00:29 »
Hey iStock, you listening (or reading)? Contributors, myself included, who have stopped uploading but will reconsider if you can get those images onto the partner sites.....time to get things moving again, perhaps....??
I though the connector was broken and no new images from IS are transported over to Thinkstock for months now. Just today as mentioned by someone else in this thread I discover that all my new images are already on Thinkstock, but in a new account. When I search Thinkstock on my "real name" it shows the same number of images for months now. However, when I search on my "IS login name" I find all my new images, even those accepted less than a week ago. I just hope they keep track of my sales there with this duplicate account. With their track record I am always concerned that some sales may be lost in the reporting.
85
« on: October 06, 2013, 02:46 »
My experience exactly and even worse is that I have a pending payment since August. Uploads disappearing, no reviews and no payments - I think a closure is eminent.
86
« on: October 02, 2013, 02:14 »
QuickTime movie, H264 codec at 100% quality will reduce the file size significantly and H264 is accepted by Fotolia.
87
« on: July 30, 2013, 13:51 »
Huge preview images with the watermark virtually invisible. Who needs to buy anything from them if you can simply download the image at a useful size?
88
« on: June 24, 2013, 09:39 »
Anyone tried to upload images to their EVO collection? Uploaded images make it to the Processing Queue, but when I check back after several hours all the files are listed with a red error message "Failed to complete processing - Not valid image type". The only option then is to remove them. However, even the "remove" function is broken, because after I removed them and checked back again later all the files are still listed with the red error message. I tried both the web uploader and FTP - no difference. 123RF is now off my upload list until they can fix their website.
89
« on: June 19, 2013, 01:56 »
Thank you myaartist. That make sense. Just waiting for official confirmation that this was indeed the case.
90
« on: June 19, 2013, 01:09 »
Anyone else noticed a problem with reporting footage/video sales on SS lately? This is the message send to SS support. Still waiting for an answer.
"Just want to find out if footage sales are reported accurately or if there may be a bug? Yesterday I observed the thumbnails of three of my video clips displayed on the "world map" of latest downloads. Yet, 12 hours later none of those clips are reported as sales. In fact I did not have any footage sales for a few days now. The images displayed on the world map of latest downloads at the same time as my video clip thumbnails all appear under my earnings summary, but none of the footage sales. Is there an explanation for this discrepancy?"
91
« on: December 27, 2012, 05:13 »
Thank you for the kind words Microstock Man
92
« on: December 25, 2012, 01:50 »
I also had a $75 single download for this image: http://www.shutterstock.com/pic.mhtml?id=61142929I don't understand how "sensitive use" can apply to that particular image, but I am not complaining about the $75. On that particular day (17/12/2012) I had no less than 6 single downloads for large amounts, though not all of them $75.
93
« on: December 24, 2012, 07:31 »
If these mistakes or errors in calculation are truly ACCIDENTAL then statistically it should in some instances favour the contributor. It may thus be significant to note that these "mistakes" are ALWAYS in favour of the agency. How can this be?
The second thing of note is that these "mistakes" are almost always corrected only after an observant person started an enquiry. To be honest this does not inspire confidence, especially in an industry where we have to depend on the honesty and integrity of the agency. I am not saying that 123RF is dishonest in this case, but with the eminent royalty cuts there is a growing negative sentiment towards 123RF, which will inevitably result in an increased awareness of all matters related to the royalty structure and the calculation of royalties.
In my opinion 123RF is heading for a turbulent start to 2013. Hiding the page with the new royalty structure, deleting negative comments on their Facebook page, an escalation of errors in the calculation of royalties all these things add up to an ever increasing divide between the agency and its contributors. I am surprised that 123RF is following this route. Any agency that thinks it can mistreat its contributors and that it wont hurt them in the long run, is making a big mistake more so if you are not one of the big four.
Contributors dont necessarily need to delete their images or stop uploading to hurt an agency. Many contributors are also buyers and they will stop buying from 123RF. The removal of links on their websites and bad publicity in forums and elsewhere will eventually hurt an agency financially more than what they have gained in the short term with the royalty cuts. When will agencies understand and appreciate that the support and goodwill of ALL their contributors is essential if they want to grow and prosper in the long term.
94
« on: December 03, 2012, 01:20 »
I am doing fairly well there in terms of number of downloads per month, yet I still have mixed feeling about DP. With the lowest RPD of all the sites that I contribute to I am concerned about the fact that they apparently are gaining market share by undercutting the competition with some of the lowest prices in the industry.
Despite paying us a higher royalty percentage than many other agencies their low prices can only encourage others to do the same, thus devaluating our photography even further. They have just done the same with video. But then since everyone is singing their praises I am probably missing something here?
95
« on: November 28, 2012, 13:13 »
A fairly accurate logo I would say - It symbolise the long interval between successive sales. 
96
« on: November 21, 2012, 14:30 »
I am also still waiting for my payment.
Slow sales, slow reviews, slow payments. Makes me wonder if Veer is still serious about their Microstock commitment. Very disappointing.
97
« on: November 14, 2012, 01:04 »
Contributors are tricked with the Getty name. Your images will ONLY go to their low budged sites like Thinkstock and possibly Photos.com. They will sell your images for a subscription commission of $0.28 for which you will receive 50% ($0.14) through Zoonar. Are you willing to sell your images for $0.14? I suggest you opt out of this very bad deal with Getty.
98
« on: July 12, 2012, 16:01 »
You will have to get John Lund http://www.johnlund.com/
and Nico Smit http://www.dreamstime.com/Ecophoto_info to sign up.
Thank you Lorraine for the recommendation. I am hesitant to join yet another new site, but this is an interesting concept and I will definitely follow the progress of the site.
99
« on: June 20, 2012, 05:29 »
The sad part is that there will likely be many photographers signing up, even members of this forum. History showed that if there is a promise of some income - even $0.01 a download - there will always be people that will join.
100
« on: June 20, 2012, 01:11 »
Thank you Anglee. It is working for me now.
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... 13
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
