|
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 - dingles
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... 18
76
« on: March 17, 2014, 10:47 »
I only recently added links to my portfolio. There were a couple of reasons why I went anonymous for a while. One being I had a small portfolio. The other being I didn't realize I'd be coming to this forum as much as I do. Not hidden agenda, although I was initially accused of having a hidden agenda by many. In reality I was fairly green to selling stock and my understanding of the agencies and business didn't span back to the so called glory days of microstock...so my opinions were immediately deemed as having an agenda, especially if I said anything positive about some of the most hated agencies...in reality I just wasn't screwed in a$$ by them yet... 
77
« on: March 17, 2014, 10:34 »
There are probably two types of exclusives as far as iStock is concerned...those with huge ports that they make $$$ and then there are the little guys with smaller ports that they make only $ from...they probably could take or leave the little guys...they just have to keep the big dogs happy as they supply a decent amount of revenue...and we are aware of backdoor deals with 'special' exclusives.
78
« on: March 16, 2014, 10:24 »
Dreamstime sales are so sporadic for me. I'll often go a while without a sale then a clump of sales and then nothing again.
79
« on: March 16, 2014, 10:17 »
Double my typical PP sales this month excluding the months they recouped.
Now, is that lucky, or what?
I'm 20% below average so I reckon I'm pretty safe.
I'm hoping for lucky, but I wouldn't be surprised if it wasn't
80
« on: March 16, 2014, 10:15 »
I'm a Nikon snob also. I do video and photography and I stopped buying Canon after purchasing the awful Canon XL1 back in the day. It was a terrible camera. The Panasonic HDX follow-up was 100X better. I see a lot of Canon DSLRs out there, but I consider it a consumer camera. Pros use NIKON . Nah, I'm sure the Canon DSLRs can hold their own, I've just always used Nikon for photography...I think it is hard to switch once you invested ion lenses and accessories.
81
« on: March 16, 2014, 10:09 »
One of my 4 machines is still on XP. It's an old laptop I use as a backup. I wonder if Windows 8 will run it. It is 32-bit...but probably has 64-bit capabilities. I might have a copy of vista...actually I know I do, so I may have to just upgrade to that for now. I have Windows 8 on my main machine and I had to hack it to run like Windows 7. Windows 7 is a decent OS...Vista was okay...XP was solid though. I
82
« on: March 16, 2014, 09:58 »
Double my typical PP sales this month excluding the months they recouped.
83
« on: March 16, 2014, 09:57 »
The Livestock 2 app is good for tracking what has sold, for how much and what day.
Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk
Is this app desktop, Android, iOS?
84
« on: March 14, 2014, 22:59 »
They just seem not to know what to do with exclusives. I agree if they didn't want them they would just pull the plug in exclusivity. I also think maybe the pressures from Getty have pigeon held them into overpopulating and pushing indie content. So exclusive benefits have diminished. I'm exclusive with videos, but for convenience factor as videos are a pain to upload and too much work goes into them to have the commission a be any lower.
85
« on: March 14, 2014, 20:31 »
Is there anyway to track these? I have some showing up but it is hard to tell what or when they sold.
Kind of. You can go to 'my uploads' and then select 'partner program' on the left. Then you can see total PP download by file. Then you can go back to 'my uploads' and choose a file then select partner program at the top to get some specifics for that file... They don't make it easy.
86
« on: March 14, 2014, 19:10 »
PP sales are strong. I'm more worried than excited... 
87
« on: March 13, 2014, 21:11 »
None here
88
« on: March 10, 2014, 11:02 »
maybe my exclusive content is the exception  . Some have decent placing, but others are burried deep
89
« on: March 10, 2014, 11:01 »
I'm curious if you sell the rights to an image that was previously RF...are the buyers aware that others may already have access to the file...or is the sale of rights only availble if the item is exclusive and has 0 downloads?
90
« on: March 10, 2014, 10:59 »
do they really favor exclusive content is best match? Or is this an IS myth? My videos always seem buried and the relevance to search of some of the videos that bury mine is questionable. I can say that once a file hits the magic ten downloads, it does seem to get much better placement.
91
« on: March 10, 2014, 10:54 »
Its the same on Alamy for that matter. I sold a Medium RF image, list price 180.00 for 1546 x 1058. My cut, $13.69
When I asked them about it they said:
Our price calculator lists the shop front pricing. Customers we actively go after, contact us about specific needs or key customers with large spends and image requirements may negotiate on price; which always starts with our shop front pricing.
The license details of the images sold are available in your summary of items sold page. We cannot provide you with any further information.
So they decided to discount the image from $250 to $27 but cant tell me anything about it.
At least Alamy does tell you how much the image sold for and how much you get.
Yes and they own up to special pricing...we get nada from Getty...can't even get a resolutions or size that sold.
92
« on: March 10, 2014, 10:19 »
Ah yes, the thread where people complained that their HD video files are getting downloads for 3 - 5 dollars over on getty, with one guy reporting 7 out 9 last month, has been moved.
That is a lot less for videos than on istock and just a fraction of what you get on SS or Pond5.
Yeah, I'm involved in that thread there. Got moved to Exclusive forum. Some of my videos have sold low at GI...but I have no way of telling what resolution sold...but even at the lowest resolution I should net a nice amount...however the GI prices seemed to just be a suggestion...seems like most don't pay those prices, but they will not disclose the prices...so again we have no idea what resolution is selling and can only guess the prices...and most seem to actually sell for less than iStock sells them for. And 5 cents commission for and HD video is beyond a disgrace and for them not to provide an explanation is insanity. They could provide details without giving away a specific buyer...it is all so sneaky...I can only be lead to believe that this is intentional and something dishonest is going on behind the scenes.
93
« on: March 09, 2014, 15:54 »
The issue with these sites is that you are always underbid by someone in a different country will to work for far less. At least that is what I have found
94
« on: March 08, 2014, 22:23 »
Thanks for the reply.that is good to know. I tend dumb down a lot of my ideas as the time a effort involved won't get the extra return, but at a place like Stocksy it may be worthwhile to produce full realistic scenes
95
« on: March 08, 2014, 11:30 »
I'm just curious, looking at more options these days for obvious reasons. I am a animator and I like creating realistic scenes in CG. I am a trained studio photographer and a lot of the techniques and lighting translate. I like to do things in CG that aren't easily photographed as I have complete control.
Note: my current port is based on what sells in microstock and have less time put in than my capabilities
96
« on: March 07, 2014, 18:08 »
Getty is a pimp no doub ...I guess that makes us the prostotutes 
97
« on: March 07, 2014, 11:52 »
If this is such a swell idea then lets open ALL the collections on Getty! This is a PR stunt aimed at killing ShutterStock.
People seem to be assuming that SS would never do anything like this. But right now, SS management is getting calls from angry investors, asking "why aren't we in this market?" and demanding that SS announce something similar before it's too late. Which I believe they will.
I don't think anyone assumes that. In fact if this does what it is intended to do, SS and others may have no choice. It's one of many points of contributor backlash.
98
« on: March 07, 2014, 11:49 »
The potential is there to mine data, place ads and collect ad revenue. The minute they place ads I feel most folks would stop using it. The data mining is probably the thing and the bad thing for us is they themselves will use our images freely to profit from them. Not ethical in the least, but also not something that is transparent and easy to prove...this is all conjecture, but as I said the potential is there and I am sure Getty has discussed such possibilities internally.
99
« on: March 07, 2014, 11:46 »
I'm thinking they need to be more clear with this. Everyone seems to think the images are now free to use, but not many have read the limitations. They are not to host these images...just embed them, but most folks see FREE, I doubt Getty is ready to police this enough to have an effect. I'd be more okay with this if the image url was masked and they had something in the viewer that distorted or removed to image when taking a screen capture...I'm not sure how possible that is, but I have seem something similar with video. In the end there are still going to folks that steal the images...I find it hard to just dismiss them and say they weren't going to buy anyway...doesn't mean they should be allowed to steal freely.
100
« on: March 07, 2014, 10:12 »
What makes me ill about all these articles promoting the Getty free images is that most people will stop reading after they see FREE and will not understand the limitations associated with these to begin with. A viewer is nice, but annoyed bloggers will change the ifram size to hide it or just save the image out. And as said before...policing this is going to be much harder than policing the other. Just one of many issues I have with this idea.
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... 18
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
