|
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 - hatman12
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 ... 51
126
« on: November 01, 2016, 01:00 »
As part of the integration with Getty's sales reporting, they are taking away real time reporting of credit sales. Credit sales will now be reported monthly in arrears the same as subs. Looks like we will lose an entire month's earnings when they switch to this in January - January's credit sales will be reported on February 20th, and if they follow Getty's payment system, the February statement will be paid in March. Hope I'm wrong, but that's how I read it.
127
« on: November 01, 2016, 00:42 »
Incredibly, they are taking away real time reporting of credit sales. Credit sales will now be reported monthly in arrears the same as subs. Looks like we will lose an entire month's earnings when they switch to this in January - January's credit sales will be reported in February and paid in March. Hope I'm wrong, but that's how I read it.
128
« on: October 01, 2016, 23:04 »
If I recall correctly, a year or so ago DT was standing in the 18-20 area in the Poll. It has gradually deteriorated and now stands way down at 7. With 158 people having 'voted' their earnings, I think this is enough to prove that there has been a widespread overall drop in sales and income for many people. Whether that is due to the search change implemented a few months ago, or some other reason, is open to speculation.
In my own case, with a reasonably large and diversified portfolio, my sales and income have fallen about 50% compared to a few months ago.
I'm not impressed with DT. The quality of the portfolio isn't up to the better standards, the web site doesn't appear to have been changed in years, and they send out silly emails like 'let's blog', the content of which is right at the amateur end of the scale. I suspect the fault lies with management, who simply don't appear to have the positive successful entrepreneur spirit of others, and for this reason I suspect their position compared to other agencies will continue to decline.
Now DT is showing down at 4.8 or so in the poll. That's down from 18-20 area a year or so ago. It might be picking up for some, but the poll shows that most people have seen a serious decline in sales.
129
« on: August 28, 2016, 19:24 »
Seems a bit overpriced at this point.
I'm more excited for the Fuji XT2, which is my next likely purchase. Good image quality, 4K, fast AF and most importantly, affordable.
Yes I'm also considering the XT2. Currently I'm using the Canon 5dii with a selection of top lenses, but I'm finding the weight and size too much. I'm looking for something smaller and lighter, and the new XT2 seems to fit the bill nicely. Of course I'd prefer full frame, but that option isn't available for reduced size and weight. I'll probably keep all my Canon stuff for use in the studio, and buy the XT2 for travel and outside work.
130
« on: August 25, 2016, 19:38 »
If I recall correctly, a year or so ago DT was standing in the 18-20 area in the Poll. It has gradually deteriorated and now stands way down at 7. With 158 people having 'voted' their earnings, I think this is enough to prove that there has been a widespread overall drop in sales and income for many people. Whether that is due to the search change implemented a few months ago, or some other reason, is open to speculation.
In my own case, with a reasonably large and diversified portfolio, my sales and income have fallen about 50% compared to a few months ago.
I'm not impressed with DT. The quality of the portfolio isn't up to the better standards, the web site doesn't appear to have been changed in years, and they send out silly emails like 'let's blog', the content of which is right at the amateur end of the scale. I suspect the fault lies with management, who simply don't appear to have the positive successful entrepreneur spirit of others, and for this reason I suspect their position compared to other agencies will continue to decline.
131
« on: July 25, 2016, 18:35 »
maybe Locke can chime in, he had to take a similar route
I have a feeling that if I was exclusive, I'd probably be making the same now or less at IS as I am making from multiple agencies. Just from reading the reports of others. A lot of my coin came from the Agency collection, and of course, that ended up going poof. But as for SS, no, at least for me, is nowhere near what I was or think I would be making now. Especially this month, lol.
My experience is the same as Sean's. I went non-exclusive in February 2015, so about a year and a half ago. My income from multiple agencies is now about the same as in my last few months as an exclusive. However given what's happened at Istock over the past year or so, I suspect that I am now earning a little more than I would have done had I stayed. Difficult to say, because it really depends on how many S+/E+ you produce and have replicated on the Getty site. It has been extremely hard work getting established as a non-exclusive. Like Sean, I've found SS difficult and I'm making only about half of my expectation there. I like SS, and they are clearly the leading Microstock, but they are awash with images. No easy route to riches there. Overall I'm more relaxed being non-exclusive, without the 'eggs in one basket' worries. But it has been very hard work. Whether it is still possible to drop exclusivity and get a similar or higher income elsewhere really depends on the individual portfolio and how much work the person is willing to do to make it a success (re-keywording every file, for instance). Edit: my only other observation is that you really should have asked all these questions BEFORE cancelling your exclusive contract.
132
« on: July 23, 2016, 18:57 »
 I think this chart says all:
My chart looks almost exactly the same. Since they changed the default search result to 'best sellers' a couple of months ago my sales have dropped by half. And notice how they have dropped significantly down the poll result, indicating that most people are experiencing a drop in sales and income.
133
« on: June 06, 2016, 23:43 »
According to Moody's Financial Reports (generally published in September) iStock had gross revenue of about $350 million back in 2011/2. It started to fall, and has fallen every year since then. The last report (which included comments from Getty) said gross revenue had dropped to $250 million, and was still falling but at a lower rate.
So gross revenue (and hence sales) has fallen by about a third.
Over the same period there have been shifts in the best match to gradually demote exclusive files and give more sales to non-exclusives (presumably in a attempt to preserve profits by selling more of the higher margin non-exclusive files and less of the exclusive files).
So taking the best match shifts into account, it's logical to assume that exclusive incomes should have dropped by 30% or more over that period (all other things being equal), and it's quite reasonable to expect to see large numbers of exclusives showing declines in the 50% area.
And, given the best match shifts giving favor to non-exclusive files, it's also quite reasonable to expect to see large numbers of non-exclusives reporting little or no change to incomes over the same period.
Of course to give some credit to Getty, they mirrored most of the exclusive files over on the Getty main site during this period, so I assume they were trying to compensate for lost income by generating additional income from Getty main site sales.
134
« on: May 27, 2016, 18:58 »
A couple of days ago the quick links black bar disappeared and now I can't find any way to get to the 'my uploads' page. Anyone else having this problem?
135
« on: April 26, 2016, 18:48 »
Is dpc still active or did they close it down?
If they closed it and most us sales came from it, it would explain the drop.
Are you all opted into dpc?
Yes, well spotted Jasmin - the closing of DPC must explain the sudden change. Good - I've been concerned that there had been some mega policy or search shift. Hopefully the DPC customers will make their way over to Adobe and things will return to normal. My sales today jumped back up into their normal daily range, so that's a big relief. The big surprise is how much in sales and income was being generated by DPC!
136
« on: April 25, 2016, 20:52 »
After dragging along for a couple of weeks, over the past few days I've experienced a large increase in sales and, according to the statistics graph, this corresponds to a significant spike in US sales. Maybe the problem has been fixed 
Are you based in the US, or overseas?
137
« on: April 25, 2016, 19:17 »
Sales for me are down sharply over the last week - a drop of about 40% compared to most other weeks in 2016. Most of the drop appears to be due to the lack of US sales. Things were going really well at Fotolia, and it's disappointing to experience such a large and sudden downwards shift in sales. Worrying that US sales have almost disappeared, which appears to be some sort of policy or search shift.
138
« on: April 21, 2016, 01:36 »
Perhaps it's just a temporary problem in the reporting of Adobe.com sales back to Fotolia.
139
« on: April 20, 2016, 18:25 »
Anyone not based in the US noticed a large drop in US sales? Normally avg about 25-50% but for the last 4 days it's been around 5%.
I've noticed lower sales this week, but until you mentioned it, it hadn't occurred to me that it might be something to do with US sales. I hadn't realised that we can select US sales in the statistics menu, so I looked at that and agree with what you've noticed - a big drop in sales from the US this week. Sorting the statistics into weekly and looking from the beginning of this year, this week is only 25% or so of 'normal' - in other words US sales are down 75% compared to all previous weeks this year. Like you I'm not in the US. I certainly hope Fotolia hasn't implemented one of these 'geographic location of photographers' things that's been tried by some other agencies, because that would be very detrimental to photographers not from the US. Let's hope this is just a temporary glitch and things will get back to normal next week.
140
« on: April 16, 2016, 02:52 »
Hi there,
Firstly - keyword ranking. This is not necessary, and doesn't make any difference what so ever. Istock doesn't use the ranking for anything, and all it is, is a way for deepmeta to make sure the maximum 50 keywords you upload, is the 50 keywords you want to upload. There is a maximum limit of 50 keywords on iStock. That means spending time on ranking keywords, is just a waste of time.
This is complete nonsense. Back in September 2012 the search was changed/updated/rejigged by the team from Getty who also broke the keyword priority order system, which still doesn't work properly. A few months later, having realised the problem (and having no way to fix it) istock introduced the facility in DeepMeta to prioritise the keyword order. Why did they do that? Because with a broken system file uploads would just get lost, or only found with remote secondary keywords. The system is still broken, at least for new uploads, because it only 'works' for sales, not views. So in order to get visibility (and sales) for the most important/relevant keywords it is absolutely imperative to upload with DeepMeta and spend the extra time sorting keywords into priority order. If suppliers don't do this, sales for new uploads will be few and far between. The ONLY way to guarantee that files will be seen for the most important/relevant keywords is to use the DeepMeta sort function. To upload without prioritising keywords is akin to throwing files into a lucky dip. If you want sales at istock you HAVE to sort the keywords on upload.
141
« on: April 07, 2016, 02:04 »
s I believe that Fotolia does it that way. I questioned them my first year when my 1099 equaled the total credits earned, not the amount paid out. Their response was that because I could convert credits to make purchases they issued the 1099 on earnings, not payout. [/quote] Yes, this sounds correct to me from an accounting point of view. Amount earned (not paid) is the correct way to report - any cash not withdrawn is a creditor/debtor of the business/individual and goes in the cash flow report not the earnings report.
142
« on: April 06, 2016, 03:37 »
I've got several batches pending, the oldest of which is currently at 19 days. It looks like three to four weeks has become the norm at Photodune.
143
« on: March 23, 2016, 21:22 »
Adobe has posted an impressive set of financial results. Amongst the numbers is an item called Digital Media, which has a sub section of Creative which I assume is mainly Fotolia. Creative shows gross revenue of $733 million, up 44% from the same period last year. Impressive! I imagine Fotolia is showing strong growth.
SAN JOSE, Calif. Mar. 17, 2016 Adobe (Nasdaq:ADBE) today reported financial results for its first quarter fiscal year 2016 ended Mar. 4, 2016.
First Quarter Financial Highlights
Adobe achieved record quarterly revenue of $1.38 billion, representing year-over-year growth of 25 percent.
Diluted earnings per share were $0.50 on a GAAP-basis, and $0.66 on a non-GAAP basis.
Digital Media segment revenue grew by 33 percent year-over-year to a record $932 million, with Creative revenue growing 44 percent year-over-year to a record $733 million.
Strong Creative Cloud adoption drove Digital Media Annualized Recurring Revenue (ARR) to $3.13 billion exiting the quarter, an increase of $246 million.
Adobe Marketing Cloud achieved strong bookings growth, and record revenue of $377 million that represents year-over-year growth of 21 percent.
Year-over-year operating income grew 78 percent and net income grew 200 percent on a GAAP-basis; operating income and net income both grew 48 percent on a non-GAAP basis.
Cash flow from operations was $498 million, and deferred revenue grew to $1.61 billion.
The company repurchased approximately 1.5 million shares during the quarter, returning $133 million of cash to stockholders.
A reconciliation between GAAP and non-GAAP results is provided at the end of this press release and on Adobes website.
144
« on: March 20, 2016, 21:59 »
Colourbox is a very small Scandinavian agency. They have grown and are very professional, but they remain quite small. Commissions are low. Sales volume is very low. I started uploading there when I became non-exclusive in Feb 2014. After a few months of uploading (about 500 images that were proven sellers) I think I earned about $18. I stopped uploading and won't upload any more of my work there.
145
« on: March 07, 2016, 01:26 »
I started uploading to Alamy in February 2014 when I cancelled my exclusive contract with iStock. I uploaded about a hundred images but quickly became disillusioned due to the rather cumbersome upload process and the lack of sales. I stopped uploading and considered Alamy a waste of time.
Then, in December, my first sale popped up. $38 gross, $19 for me. Then in January another sale. Then on March 1st another sale.
So, as Sharpshot pointed out earlier (or in a different thread) Alamy appears to be a case of being patient. And I think it pays to learn the upload process and keep keywords very accurate and to a minimum. It appears that sales do eventually materialise.
Of course I've started uploading again, making sure I'm being very accurate with essential keywords etc.
Naturally I don't know if my sales will continue to grow, but it seems that those who can be patient and professional with content and keywording etc will eventually get rewards from Alamy.
146
« on: March 02, 2016, 01:40 »
Yes, well done Leo. About time.
147
« on: January 31, 2016, 05:17 »
Well I think this is an excellent idea, and good luck to the guy. At least he's shown some genuine creativity, and unlike the 'spam image' accounts which have thousands of duplicates, this guy has made a real effort.
I might try some myself. Any ideas what software to use? And I think straight to 4K would be best.
148
« on: December 16, 2015, 16:01 »
149
« on: November 26, 2015, 20:19 »
Thanks for all the comments everyone. Is it really the case that CanStock only pays 25c for subs? How extraordinary.
150
« on: November 26, 2015, 20:17 »
Since the introduction of the 10 images subscriptions my credit sales have gone down the drain. Right now I have many days with only 5 sales with a port of over 10.000 images (used to get +100 daily with a port of 3000 only a few years back). Of course subscriptions have increased, but the income is a joke compared to what credit sales mean to my income (around 10$/sale).
So it definetely seems that credit sales are trending to 0 and that is the final nail in my istock exclusivity coffin. Are other exclusives and independents also seeing this credit disappearance or is it just me?
It's not just the subs and the new 'credits disguised as subs packs' - the removal of similars from the search (or the burying of them) will have a negative impact on sales of both credits and subs for most people. As I understand it, those similars will now only be seen in the similars carousel and not in the search itself. This of course is potentially disastrous for anyone who has had great sales from sets of images over the years. It seems that istock has absolutely no interest or commitment to maintaining sales and income for any suppliers, including those who have supported the business over the long term.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 ... 51
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
