MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Show Posts

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 - Nica

Pages: 1 [2] 3
26
Alamy.com / Re: 2986 View but No Sales
« on: November 13, 2016, 14:05 »
Hi All,
I've about 600 images on alamy and I've received 2986 views - 6 zoom but never got any sale, Is it still keywords fault or just the Alamy slow sales?

Thanks!

6 zooms out of 3000 views equals a click thru ratio of only 0.2%, while the Alamy contributor average is usually around 0.6%. This means your pictures are thee times less likely to be clicked on than average.

This is a strong indicator that there's something wrong. Maybe you added too many irrelevant keywords, so your images show up in searches they shouldn't. Remember to keyword only what the image is of, not everything that's in the image. Or maybe your images just can't compete with other similar images on Alamy. Professional postprocessing is a must.

In the end, without a link to your Alamy portfolio, or without knowing your Alamy contributor name, it is impossible to tell what's wrong.

While I agree that it is probably not wise to have the same pictures on Alamy and on microstock agencies, I don't think this is the main problem in your case. After all, potential customers don't even click on your images to zoom them (I assume a customer zooms an image before trying to get it cheaper somewhere else).

well I'm new to alamy so I am not an expert, but I wonder if it isn't a bit more complicated than that. I currently try to get to understand the system and thankfully they give a lot of information to work with.

So for example if an image got a view with a specific search term it doesn't go automatically, that there had been a zoom at all with that search term or even a sale. This information can easily seen in "my alamy". I have just downloaded my list with search terms and views and 58 % of the search terms I had a view hadn't any zoom at all, so they haven't got any sale neither.

I agree that correct keywording is a must but I wonder if the conclusion that many views and few zooms mean bad keywording is right.


27
123RF / Re: Review time at 123
« on: November 12, 2016, 11:30 »
If this hasn't been mentioned: the wait for photos isn't much better.  >:(

I'm not going to upload anything else to them at the moment. I contacted them about a batch of 30 photos after a few weeks wait. It took a day or two to get the "we're busy" answer. Then two were inspected right away and it was nearly a week before the other 28 were. I was very surprised at the level of oddball rejections too.

After years of pretty reliable performance, the last two months have been really awful for sales - 50% drop from the same month a year earlier type awful. I uploaded batches of remodeling pictures earlier this year that SS also got. They're selling at SS and nothing much at 123rf.



As I had the same experience I wrote them a long e mail explaining my concerns and asking for some explanation. After some days I got a very polite reply apologizing and asking to give the IDs of rejected images to look into that. They stated as well that reviews are taking 5 working days now.

Well I am waiting for what is coming out but meanwhile I stopped uploading as well.



28
123RF / Re: Review time at 123
« on: October 24, 2016, 06:43 »
After my images had been hanging around for a couple of weeks I send them an e mail. I got an answer after 1 week again and then 1 week later they finally reviewed my pics.

From an acceptance rate from well over 90% I dropped to about 60% (!)  :-\  acceptance, the lowest acceptance rate from all agencies I submit to included SS FT DT Alamy (100%)

I find this a bit strange and alarming. The given reasons are all the same and nonsense. I can't see any dramatic changes in my photos which justify such a dramatic decrease in accepting them and also comparing to other agencies.

Anyone else?

29
General - Top Sites / Re: image theft wallpart.com
« on: October 19, 2016, 07:36 »
they have 21 images from me all with a dreamstime watermark. Impossible to send an "item violation" every time I click send there is an error page message

what do you do to stop this?

30
Shutterstock.com / Re: Review times longer than normal
« on: October 16, 2016, 13:46 »
well bot has its day off  ::)

6hrs...



bot specific standard time  8)


31
Shutterstock.com / Re: Review times longer than normal
« on: October 16, 2016, 13:19 »
well bot has its day off  ::)

32
Shutterstock.com / Re: SS grace period of 6 months
« on: October 09, 2016, 10:46 »
Hi all,

Some people claim that SS gives something like a grace period of couple of months (6?) to new contributors by making their pictures sell no matter what, with good numbers. So as to create an illusion of extremely easy and profitable business with them. I kind of didn't believe this and still have some reservations as to this theory, however, my own statistics of 1.5 years' experience with SS basically supports this claim:


(greyed area - uploads, red line - downloads, blue boxes - revenue)

As you can see, my upload rate was always quite stable, without much interruptions. Basically, in these 1.5 years my port increased almost 600%, and while the very first 6 months my revenue increase rate followed uploads, as of 7th month everything just fell to the levels of the first 4th-5th months where it stays until nowadays, no matter how many material I upload.

Of course, there's always the fact of insane increase of their library (almost 1 million per week!) which dillutes everything, but back in mid-2015 their library was also increasing significantly each month (300K-500K per week?).

From the very beginning SS was my Top-1 earner, hence all the motivation. But it's clearly loosing steam very quickly, and the problem is that none of other agencies can make up this loss (even Fotolia's recent increases are still a matter of statistics, not a real substitute to SS).

Oh, and my only 4 or 5 ELs so far sold with SS were made in those first 6 months...Not a single EL since then (i'm still opted in).

Some food for thought.

Thanks for posting this because I was thinking about slowing down uploading to SS as well.

 Grace period of course.
I have a Referred Contributor for a couple of months now. Of course he has a much smaller port than I have. As the number of images he sold are mirrored on my earnings page I can see what's happening.

Interestingly there is an repeated up and down. I will say that days when I sell fewer images than average he sells quite well and days when i sell quite well he sells a bit less.

Nevertheless over the entire period I can see the number of  images sold are not proportial to the port size. I will say that the number of images the referred contributor sells in relation to his port size is much larger than what I sell now.


33
For freestockhere website send an email to : [email protected]
All my links were removed in 1 day

thanks for that. My images had been removed in less than 24 hours.

34
Alamy.com / Re: 2986 View but No Sales
« on: October 03, 2016, 09:02 »
I'm new to Alamy and it's interesting what you say.

If you submit some images only to Alamy not to the micros because of what you said, it's sort of exclusive images at Alamy or where do you submit these images additionally if not to micros?

35
123RF / Re: Sales
« on: September 28, 2016, 07:03 »
I have about 400 video clips waiting for review.
I hope when I reach 1,000 I will get a nice price...
Are they still interested in video footage?

I submitted in April and it was reviewed in September  :o 8)

36
Does anyone know how to delete the entire port without deactivation every single image?
... I think they asked DT to do that.

There is a new posting from Achille on their forum. They reverted to the old version but they are cooking something in secret:
"We will revert this info for the initial batch as well, while we will work to bring the best decision for everyone."
They are not trustworthy any more

unacceptable for me.

Leaving it to DT deleting my images I wouldn't have any control on my images and account any more.

In the past they sold some of my deactivated images. They didn't give any satisfying explanation for this although I asked them to do so. 

I am cautious :-\




37
Does anyone know how to delete the entire port without deactivation every single image?

38
The trials of a submitted image to Shutterstock in September 2016:

Attempt 1: Rejected for not having a property release. No property release needed for this shot. Re-submit.

Attempt 2: Rejected for focus and poor lighting, as well as potentially infringing on "intellectual property" this time. Nonsense. Re-submit.

Attempt 3: Rejected for not having a property release, again. Now it's a just a dumb game. Do I write a note to reviewer in the description and edit it out later? Who knows what they want anymore. I re-phrase the description in an attempt to alleviate this incorrect property release concern for their robot reviewer. Re-submit.

Attempt 4: Rejected for focus, composition and overuse of effects. Gettin' pretty silly now. Re-submit.

Attempt 5: Rejected for poor lighting. That old chestnut again? Re-submit.

Attempt 6: Approved.

All the same image, never re-edited. This whole process occurring in about 20 minutes. I was really just curious what would happen.

And yes, I really should be doing something better with my Saturday night.

Boiled down:

- costs for SS are declining because no need for reviewers any more
- time for contribs increasing for multiple submitting because of nonsense reduction criteria
- revenue for contribs declining

 :)  :o  8)  ???

39
let me decide what I want for myself.

yep!!! I can't agree more

40
General Stock Discussion / Re: Be careful to an illegal free stock
« on: September 25, 2016, 03:56 »
found a couple of mine too, but there are  simply too many to look at all .....  :-[

41
Now how difficult can be for a hacker to find out all information about anyone, phone number..... when your name, country and city is publicly displayed? How can it be helpful for buyers if they know my exact location? Is this some kind of discrimination?
They should remove the text itself (confidential info) and let people choose what they want.
This comes after Facebook blocked millions of users and they ask a copy of a governmental ID to unblock them.
Unbelievable, and some of you still believe that this is done in good faith.

Please keep us informed if anything happens. I have nothing to hide but I can't stand to be pressed, especially not form people who make their money from my work. I will close my account on DT the moment they force me, they are not worth it anyway.

I agree. It's just one part of the puzzle how contributors are treated by agencies.

The point IMHO is not the brought question disclosure of personal data or not but the attempt of an agency to take away the inherent right to every single person to decide him-/herself where to publish personal data. It's a No-Go that an agency publishes full names and home location to people (buyers) we even have not the slightest clue about. That's absolutely not acceptable.

BTW in Germany we have the Bundesdatenschutzgesetz (Law to protect personal data). It might be one of the most severe laws in this field. It's simply unlawful to disclose any information without the written permission of the person.

Anyway if an agency seems to be dying it seems to me counterproductive to chase away contributors. Obviously ports had already been deleted.





42
I misunderstood your original question, Nica, and am guessing so did everyone else.  As far as I know, most if not all agencies' licenses permit the use of a licensed photo on a product for sale.  It may require an extended (higher cost) license depending on the use, and how much of the value of the product derives from the image.  For example, someone made calendars a while back using licensed images.  Shutterstock went after them, since the photos were much of the value.  They got the customer to pay for extended licenses, which made a nice payout.  But I suspect a yoga mat wouldn't need more than a standard license.

thank you so much for that clarification  :)

43
Really? That's strange. Can you link to the person's portfolio. They could have other people's work too. Which agency is it?

https://wanelo.com/trippygypsyshop

44
Report them to the agency where they are selling your image.

of course I did - no reaction

45

Hi,

Just a short question:

Obviously one of my images had been licensed (I guesss so if not copied somewhere) and is now resold by someone else.

I can't remember that this is allowed by any agency if it had been licensed at all.

Had anyone else had such experience and if yes what did you do?

N


46
The new keyword and deactivation policy is to prevent contributors from yanking their best files after August 20th.  If I couldn't delete my best ones, then my next move would be to change 20 relevant keywords to 5 unrelated terms and effectively make it un-searchable.

well as far as I understand we won't be able to change keywords, so this isn't any option  :-[

47
iStockPhoto.com / Re: istock mail about Royalty adjustment
« on: July 28, 2016, 04:55 »
Don't worry about their forum.
Apart from the monthly bugs thread, there isn't much traffic there.
However, it makes much more sense to check there, or post there, if there's an issue than to ask here.

yes Sue sure but ... well what I don't like is that some agency decides where I have to get clarifications about errors they do. that's all

I start wondering upon which legal basis founds their terms of lots of things they publish recently starting from not deleting images in our port if we decide to do so and which still belong to US not them till forbidding about sharing anything from their forum concerning a matter by which they themselves started  irritating contributors by sending e mails.

48
iStockPhoto.com / Re: istock mail about Royalty adjustment
« on: July 28, 2016, 01:51 »

Apparently, their new terms say you're not allowed to share anything from the forums in public.


 :-X :-X :-X

thanks Jo Ann

Strange. I MUST sign up for their forum to get information about errors they do! If in this case the e mails were an error why can't they just send another one with an explanation and apologise for it but instead determine where I HAVE to get some clarification about it?

 8) But may be it's a good idea to sign up to their forum because it seems that top secret matters are discussed there.  8)


49
iStockPhoto.com / Re: istock mail about Royalty adjustment
« on: July 26, 2016, 23:41 »

The message in this e-mail was an error. These were actually adjustments to subscriptions from June.

ohhh so the message of an error was an error .... ok ...  :o :o

50
iStockPhoto.com / istock mail about Royalty adjustment
« on: July 26, 2016, 14:45 »
Hi,

in the last hour I got 2 e mails from istock saying:

"Dear Contributor,

The following file(s) were recently licensed to an iStock customer in a transaction that did not occur through the website:

xxxxx

We have made an adjustment to your account and added your royalty from the license(s), which totals xxx

Sincerely,
The iStock Team"

(presently obviously 7 purchases didn't show up.)

Anyone else??  8)

Pages: 1 [2] 3

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle