|
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 - Mellimage
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 ... 19
51
« on: June 03, 2014, 03:53 »
I had another BME due to two ELs at Stocksy. SS was alright (one EL), the others flat or below average Stocksy 80% SS 12% DT 3.1% 123rf 2.4% (my last month with them, deleted my port after being paid less than 10USD for an EL and discovering that images i deleted last year are still being sold) FT 2.4% - slightly above my WME... 
52
« on: June 03, 2014, 02:47 »
opening this thread, just in case anyone has and wants to report anything. 
53
« on: May 31, 2014, 11:10 »
guys, the mudslinging at eachother is not doing anything to the value of the discussion - could you take that elsewhere please?
54
« on: May 31, 2014, 03:50 »
I opted out and thank DT for giving me the opportunity to do so beforehand.
However, I think agencies generally should take note: the time that we get excited about having our images used in deals with no compensation to us - just for the extra exposure and the potential-maybe-maybe-not-future revenue-streams (or dribbles) - that time is over. That is not exciting anymore.
Imagine how my day was I received the mail from DT. I had come home to my stock stats to see that I had had an Extented license sale at Stocksy. And then open my mailbox and found the exciting news from DT. Can you guess which of the two events I found more exciting?
56
« on: May 22, 2014, 11:42 »
I had some, though not many compared to the overall amount of sub sales, the highest were some for 1,25 Euro instead of 0,35 Euro.
just a question to all - why does answering a poster's question in a normal informative way lead to negative votes? I see nothing wrong with Rob's post.
I didn't give a down vote myself, but the down votes are probably because he is opted in to DPC.
But DPC is not part of the question here so why would that be relevant? Question to all... .
57
« on: May 22, 2014, 11:31 »
I had some, though not many compared to the overall amount of sub sales, the highest were some for 1,25 Euro instead of 0,35 Euro.
just a question to all - why does answering a poster's question in a normal informative way lead to negative votes? I see nothing wrong with Rob's post.
58
« on: May 21, 2014, 07:18 »
well he may mean that you get 0.14 cents for a small sale because the credit price the buyer paid only 0.5 USd per credit due to some rebate. Or maybe he is fed up getting 9$ for an Extended License because it is sold so cheap.
At least these are my reasons for leaving (aside from the fact that i still got a sale recently on a file I deleted last year - so far for "allowing reasonable time for removal"). If I hate the price undercutting the DPC is doing I can't like this kind of price undercutting 123rf is doing. My RPD with 123rf has been the lowest of all agencies consistenly for over a year, the RPI is awful. I see no reason for wanting to stay... .
59
« on: May 21, 2014, 04:54 »
Hi
I want to terminate my account and the last mail from them sounded a bit as if they would act as shady and dubious like many other so called "agencies" (Dreamstime eg) which make the process of termination so painfull that contributors leave their content online only because they do not want to spend a huge part of their lifetime with clicking "delete buttons".
Thats the hostage-strategy.
Does anyone have experience how a termination works with them?
If it turns out that its a hostage-company i better ask my attorney to get that done.
regards axel
PS: and this term from their TOS makes the impression that 123RF is something quity shady complete:
"Effect of Termination: Within a reasonable time after termination or expiration of this Agreement, 123RF shall delete all digital files representing the Accepted Images and withdraw the availability of such files for search and licensing from all Distributors databases and repositories. "
Reasonable time......
aha...that sounds very much like something very crook to me
And of course you forfeit any balance acquired unless it reaches the threshold. Now i am in the process of terminating my account as well - my balance is that high that i should receive payout with the next payment period. Yet if they take their sweet time removing my images that could be a way for them to earn 100% on my images. Leaves a sour taste really... .
60
« on: May 13, 2014, 17:12 »
For me - sales were crap all April before opting out - and remained crap after opting out.
Rob - not sure that your decline in sales is directly correlated to opting out to DPC.
61
« on: May 13, 2014, 17:10 »
The minimum amount you will be paid for a subscription commission is the rate that it has been. If a member pays only $0.74 for an image you will still receive 0.33 credits if you are an Emerald contributor as it has always been. This will not go down. There is no downside to this..at all. The only changes made here are massive increases in monthly subscription commissions. If a members pay $5 you will earn 1.25 credits if you opt in to DPC or 1 credit if you are opted out DPC. Either way, it's a win for contributors.
This is good to know, thank you for clarifying this, Mat.
62
« on: May 13, 2014, 16:21 »
Technically it is good news (and I appreciate that Mat came to the lion's den and brought the news).
It does not neccessarily make opting in into DPC more attractive, because I might get higher subscription commissions on Fotolia than on DPC. What it does is (from what I see and understand) it rectifies the injustices in contributor shares brought on by the mini-sub-programms.
On the other hand - it also makes following through how commissions will be calculated extremely difficult and it does not prevent FT from slashing down subscription package prices tremendously - in which case contributors will earn their agreed share, but their RPD is gonna sink (I foresee commissions below 25 cents or 20 cents in the future). This will need careful watching!
63
« on: May 09, 2014, 02:59 »
I made a screen grab of what I posted on KelbyOne's Facebook page saying what I thought about them promoting the DPC - I'm assuming they'll remove the comment.
Equally disappointed with them. Told them so on their FB page. Thanks JoAnn for bringing this to our attention. As of this morning (CET), your comment was still there.
64
« on: May 08, 2014, 01:32 »
Also, do I detect a non-too-subtle change in the wording of what the photographer gets from Stocksy? I thought they originally got 50% of the revenue from image sales. Now apparently, they get 50% of the profit. There's a very big difference between those words.
That's probably a mistype by the author. It's still the same - 50% of the royalty, 100% of the EL, and a share of the profit at year end.
and to me as a contributor it is all easy to calculate, i know which size the image sold for, my 50% share is fixed on the original price. If the agency applies a discount, it does not affect my share of the sale - unlike at other agencies where selling an image at size XS you earn between 14 cents and 25 cents.
65
« on: May 06, 2014, 02:19 »
SS is a US based company. Would it be illegal for them to say we dont accept images that are for sale on DPC? Anyway, The risk with that is, contributors might choose to go with FT and SS would have no images
Really? You'd think they choose FT (DPC) over SS?
66
« on: May 02, 2014, 08:55 »
I opted my 860+ images out of DPC
I will not upload to FT for the time being
And focus most of my efforts to agencies that bring a good return and treat me fairly.
67
« on: May 01, 2014, 08:54 »
BME!!  +29% over March - and it is to Stocksy's credit, as Stocksy brought home 75% of my income and my stocksy income rose by 102% compared to March (all regular sales, no ELs) One has to love an agency who trades its contributors fairly, pays fair commissions, listens to contributors and ALSO brings home the bacon. Go Stocksy, that was one motivating and encouraging month! Stocksy 75% SS 11% DT 7% 123rf 3% FT 3% WME
68
« on: April 23, 2014, 15:24 »
so you are taking away all my SS sales then... knew it. . Congrats Sean!!!
69
« on: April 05, 2014, 12:09 »
Came close to having a BME - my BME is from 2009.
Rev +24% over Feb, +129% from March 2013
Stocksy: 47% BME (+23% over Feb)
SS: 25% (+62% over Feb)
DT: 12% (+79% over Feb)
FT: 11% (-34% over Feb)
123rf: 4% (+46% over Feb - though overall pityful and pityful RPD)
70
« on: March 06, 2014, 10:49 »
Question to Yuri: Do you still think you made right decision by moving subscription sites to Getty? Everyone can make a mistake. I would really appreciate your opinion of this Getty's decision. Do you still think you port worth more on Getty than on sub. sites?
At times like this, I think about Yuri's "professionals work with professionals" comment and just have to smile.
Indeed, but I wonder if he manages to side-step all the sh*t the rest of us have to 'take - or get out'.
It's fun to bash Yuri but the way I see it, if it hurts him it's going to hurt all of us. Maybe you should be careful what you wish for. Oh and it seems childish and petty.
while the community was in turmoil over the google deal trying to take a stand by deactivating files or even leaving istock - in the middle of all that - Yuri decided that istock and Getty were his best possible outlets. One may wonder if a year later, when he (possibly) gets the subscriptions he tried to escape at SS and an even worse promotional use deal than what the Google deal ever was - if he still thinks that was his best decision. I fail to see how it could be, but I'd love to be enlightened... .
71
« on: March 06, 2014, 07:06 »
From BJP FB: The British Journal of Photography We'll publish industry reactions later today, asking rival stock agencies, photographers representatives and others for their opinion. Stay tuned.
Quite curios about the reactions
Maybe Photographers should react on BJP FB's page!
72
« on: March 06, 2014, 07:02 »
There is only one reason behind all of this. Kill off the microstock competition. Who will be hit hardest by this are middle and bottom tier agencies.
to me this argument does not make sense. By fostering a "images should be free mentality" - for everyone (because seriously the line between commercial and non-commercial usage here is soo blurry that lots of usages fall under their terms - they do not just kill microstock competition, they also put pressure on higher tier price segments. Images generally speaking have just lost further value.
They are betting on bloggers, web builders and other small business getting their images for cheap at the micros, cheap credit or subscription sales. They just wiped that business out. Big ads are not created from 400x500px images. This will hit the micros harder then it will Getty. When the micros fall over, there is only one way to get images, from Getty.
Only thing I can think of why this wont work is that I personally dont want to see the big Getty banner at the bottom of the image with the social media buttons if I were to use it on my blog or website.
that may be what they are betting on, the longer term consequence though is that buyers, small and big in the future will think that a certain price of an image will be too high, specifically if you can get web usage i"non-commercial" mages for free - then why should you pay a massive amount for book cover images, print images etc. It is not about the market segment they are wiping out that i am immediately concerned about - it is what it does to the value of an image that i am worried about.
73
« on: March 06, 2014, 06:55 »
Someone said Getty is promising to pay commission on advertising revenue.
Someone said - Getty is promising... seriously - does anyone still believe any Getty promises? When they come via someone or directly from Getty??
I'm just trying to provide information. Someone who has been in on the Getty-only forums said they have stated that IF they use this for advertising they will pay 20% to exclusives and 15% to independents on the Getty 360 scheme. I've no reason to doubt that, and since it means worse terms than ever for both exclusives and independents it sounds about right.
I know BaldricksTrousers and my remark was not intented to discredit you in any way. Sorry if it came across that way. Whenever I read Getty promises... I get sarcastic, because they seem to be dragging the ethics of the industry down and lower. And any promise they give is bound to be broken the next minute. Whenever one thought it was rockbottom in ethics, they made sure to prove one wrong. I am not directly affected as I left Istock years ago, but as I said elsewhere, this is devaluing images generally plus I worry about community members who are dependent on income from this source.
74
« on: March 06, 2014, 06:03 »
There is only one reason behind all of this. Kill off the microstock competition. Who will be hit hardest by this are middle and bottom tier agencies.
to me this argument does not make sense. By fostering a "images should be free mentality" - for everyone (because seriously the line between commercial and non-commercial usage here is soo blurry that lots of usages fall under their terms - they do not just kill microstock competition, they also put pressure on higher tier price segments. Images generally speaking have just lost further value.
75
« on: March 06, 2014, 05:40 »
Someone said Getty is promising to pay commission on advertising revenue.
Someone said - Getty is promising... seriously - does anyone still believe any Getty promises? When they come via someone or directly from Getty??
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 ... 19
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
