26
Adobe Stock / Re: Call for content
« on: May 09, 2017, 02:22 »
Thanks.
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. 27
General Stock Discussion / Re: Shutterstock 70.7 Rating.« on: May 06, 2017, 18:03 »also remember that SS accepts editorial, but Fot does not.Yes, the exclusive number has shot up since last month. It's a bit odd. Perhaps they employ an army of sockpuppets ![]() Meanwhile, Mr. Tickstock seems to be hiding in the bushes ![]() ![]() or he went for a long vacation with the fortune that he's made at IS... for what it's worth, I don't really pay attention to the numbers on the right... I only care about what I earn with my portfolio 28
Off Topic / Re: External Bluray burner won't show up« on: May 05, 2017, 08:43 »
I would go to the Device Manager through the Control Panel and see what is going on there. Does the drive appear in the Device Manager at all, are there errors? I would also try other USB cables and other USB ports.
29
MicrostockSubmitter / Re: FEATURE REQUEST: print-on-demand websites upload and submission« on: May 04, 2017, 19:04 »30
MicrostockSubmitter / Re: FEATURE REQUEST: print-on-demand websites upload and submission« on: May 04, 2017, 18:24 »
Have you ever sold anything on photo4me?
31
Adobe Stock / Re: Adobe is going to put an end to Fotolia« on: May 04, 2017, 10:20 »
Adobe has been overcharging European customers for their programs for many years. The prices for CC are much higher in Europe, and there is no way around it.
If they now pay European contributors (who usually happen to be their customers as well) a little more... well, two wrongs don't make it right, but as far as I am concerned, let it be... 32
Shutterstock.com / Re: 422 videos made me only 99$ on shutterstock« on: May 01, 2017, 12:48 »thank you for your reply. It is "kinda possible". Some people can make a living, if they are very good. Most, however, cannot and it will only get more and more difficult, because the market is saturating rapidly. My advice is: don't quit your day job to shoot stock.
"Nice" is relative. What matters more, is this content useful to the customers, how much competition you have in that subject matter and how good your competitors are. 33
Shutterstock.com / Re: 422 videos made me only 99$ on shutterstock« on: May 01, 2017, 12:36 »
It's more important what kind of videos you upload than how many.
You can upload a gazillion of videos and not see a dime. How big are other people's portfolios, is irrelevant, because they have different clips, different subject matter, different positions in the search results than you do. If you want to increase your earnings, you should upload the kind of clips that the agency's customers need and not compare the size of your portfolio with other people. If I say, I make $xxx per month with xxx videos, how can it help you? Many people make more, and many make less. 34
Dreamstime.com / Re: Dreamtime still does not delete my account. (Day 601)« on: May 01, 2017, 12:28 »Dreamstime politics are quite ridiculous on this. Photo's don't sell very well (on Shutterstock and elsewhere they sell really good), so I also want to close my account, also because there is a 100 dollars to be sold before I get paid. Means I'm competing on my own uploads elsewhere, where I get paid every month. Close the account! "Welcome to the Hotel California, Such a lovely place, such a lovely face, You can check-out any time you like, But you can never leave" ![]() 35
Dreamstime.com / Re: Dead dead and dead« on: April 30, 2017, 05:18 »My RPI this month at DT is around $0.10. Nowadays, it is usually around $0.12 - 0.15. You're confusing RPI with RPD. My RPD this month is $1.10. 36
Dreamstime.com / Re: Dead dead and dead« on: April 29, 2017, 15:47 »
My RPI this month at DT is around $0.10. Nowadays, it is usually around $0.12 - 0.15.
In the good old days it was between $0.25 and $0.35, I think. 38
iStockPhoto.com / Re: Slow (very slow) Inspection at Istock (Getty)« on: April 09, 2017, 01:51 »
Get a life, man. This is 2017, normal people don't upload to istock anymore.
39
General Stock Discussion / Re: Why am I still in the .25 group?« on: April 04, 2017, 02:04 »The system is so advantageous to the stock sites that they really don't need to take the risk of messing it up to try to squeeze more cash out of it. The belief in someone doing us down because our wonderful files don't sell as fast as we think they should really strikes me as coming out of the same place as the old complaint that "my image was perfect the reviewers rejected it because they are stupid" - which almost invariably turned out to be wrong. In order for your theory to work, these guys must get at least SOME sales. If they don't get any sales, the system is not advantageous at all. If they are really so bad, they might use some help in the search results. You contradict yourself, to some extent. 40
General Stock Discussion / Re: Why am I still in the .25 group?« on: April 04, 2017, 01:42 »You think the stricter review stopped a significant number of these people? they just kept submitting till they passed. The most hopeless cases just gave up. Others had to improve, analyze their mistakes and learn and learn. The filter was working. The ones who got through had at least some idea about stock. Shutterstock had a very good collection compared to other sites. Guys with thousands of marijuana shots or gradients didn't have a chance. If I remember correctly, back then 'delinquents' uploading s#&t would be forced to re-take the entrance exam after a warning, but I may be wrong on this. Conclusion: they don't care at all about "adminitration costs" per contributor. 41
General Stock Discussion / Re: Why am I still in the .25 group?« on: April 04, 2017, 01:19 »"If they were concerned with administration costs, why did they practically abolish entrance exams?" Because they cost money? What costs more money? Reviewing 10 files from a contributor in an exam, or reviewing hundreds and thousands of potential c#%$ images from the same guy and thousands like him? (and storing them, using bandwidth, etc.) 42
General Stock Discussion / Re: Why am I still in the .25 group?« on: April 04, 2017, 01:04 »The vast majority of income comes from the top contributors. These are invariably on the highest rates. For those that are in the top at Shutterstock 5%, the highest rates amount to less than 2 months income from Shutterstock. Generally these contributors have very low review and administration costs associated with their accounts because they have successful portfolios that have already been reviewed. Administration costs measured per download for a $5000 payout are also much lower than someone that just scrapes in for $100. Again, at the moment of download, administration costs incurred by the contributor in the past don't matter. Irrelevant. What counts is only how much the agency earns with that particular download at that particular moment. If they were concerned with administration costs, why did they practically abolish entrance exams? Now, they would accept even dogs who know how to press the shutter button and accept a gazillion files per minute. They want a bazillion contributors and a gazillion files per minute, therefore they don't seem to care about administration costs per contributor. You don't understand causality. The reason why the top contributors bring the most income is simple! As a group, they have the most appealing images and customers want them, for crying out loud. That is the reason, and not the lower administration costs that they incur. And that doesn't exclude the possibility that the agency might try to increase short-term earnings by giving lower-ranked contributors a small push at certain times in certain markets, without making buyers too angry. The agency is concerned only with their bottom line. Obviously, they cannot kill top contributors in the search results, because the buyers would leave, but they do experiment every now and then and test which settings earn them most money. Generally, store owners tend to promote products with the highest margins. 43
General Stock Discussion / Re: Why am I still in the .25 group?« on: April 03, 2017, 21:58 »
Your logic is flawed. It doesn't matter what they cost in terms of support and reviewing, if they are on board, then apparently the agency wants to have them. What matters is the profit per download. The agency earns more when a file from a lower-ranked contributor is sold. Therefore there is financial motivation to give them some kind of a boost. This boost may vary with each implementation of the search algorithm. You can't just deny that the incentive to tweak the search results exists. And many new contributors are actually good and able to submit good files. 44
General Stock Discussion / Re: Why am I still in the .25 group?« on: April 03, 2017, 21:10 »It'd be nice if they'd give us another rise for hitting, say, $50,000. And penalize you in the search results even more, because you're 'so much more expensive' than the newbies? I suspect that a good position in the search results is more valuable than your base royalty per download. 45
General Stock Discussion / Re: Impossible accept/reject rates« on: April 01, 2017, 10:40 »
Submitting 1000 images to iStock? I'm sorry, I can't help you. My sincere condolences. A hopeless case. Why people do that to themselves?
46
iStockPhoto.com / Re: Is iStock worth it?« on: March 29, 2017, 11:30 »I can see my earnings from this year compared to the last few and they are much better now. Maybe because you're so exceptional ![]() 47
iStockPhoto.com / Re: Is iStock worth it?« on: March 29, 2017, 11:14 »FWIW these first couple months of the year have been very encouraging, I'm more optimistic now than I've been in probably 4 or 5 years but I'll have to see how it plays out in the next few months. Tickstock, I find your posts extremely entertaining, but do you really believe in what you write? You'd make a fantastic career as a fiction writer, you're a man of many talents. A modern-day Leonardo da Vinci. ![]() 48
General Stock Discussion / Re: Are there anyone living with micro stock only?« on: March 27, 2017, 10:21 »
Those who can survive on microstock alone, are an endangered species.
Like animals threatened with extinction, they can survive for some time in areas with the most favourable conditions (i.e. "low costs of living") or if they are very strong. But I am afraid that at some point in the future, they will all go the way of the dodo, nevertheless. Unfortunately. 49
General Stock Discussion / Re: Artflakes VS Fine Arts.« on: March 20, 2017, 21:10 »
Artflakes used to be OK, but several years ago.
Now, for me, they sell next to nothing, and if they do, once in a blue moon, it is usually followed by a refund. I stopped uploading long time ago. What site is Fine Arts? Generally, POD is not what it used to be. My best years were 2013-14. 2016 was bad, 2017 so far even worse. 50
General - Top Sites / Re: How is this possible ?« on: March 19, 2017, 21:52 »I posted on Jon's FB feed, and he said "We are working on it.". So, I guess it isn't going unnoticed. Meanwhile at Shutterstock: 1.269.450 new stock images added this week ![]() When I started, I think it was around 50K/week. |
|