Hi MSG Folks,

My DT Sales have really tanked as of the last few months- I hoping May to be a turn but so far no luck- here is my past year results to show my sales headed south- so for just 2 sales. Now I don't have a large portfolio (only 573 photos) but it clearly shows a major decrease for at least myself.  What about others?  Thanks T

     Online:    Refused:    Acceptance ratio:    Downloads:    Earnings:    Referral Earnings:    Database Exposure:    Messages:
Sales    Revenue    RPD
May 11    24    23    51.10%    0    4    $1.84    $0.46    $0.00    0.00%    0
Jun 11    38    18    67.90%    0    16    $10.86    $0.68    $0.00    0.00%    0
Jul 11    31    22    58.50%    0    9    $7.67    $0.85    $0.00    0.00%    0
Aug 11    35    25    58.30%    0    15    $15.79    $1.05    $0.00    0.00%    0
Sep 11    29    10    74.40%    0    12    $18.59    $1.55    $0.00    0.00%    0
Oct 11    36    11    76.60%    0    12    $17.70    $1.48    $0.00    0.00%    0
Nov 11    29    27    51.80%    0    16    $13.52    $0.85    $0.00    0.00%    0
Dec 11    22    15    59.50%    0    16    $11.20    $0.70    $0.00    0.00%    0
Jan 12    17    9    65.40%    0    15    $18.56    $1.24    $0.00    0.00%    0
Feb 12    41    29    58.60%    0    18    $17.98    $1.00    $0.00    0.00%    0
Mar 12    52    28    65.00%    0    20    $20.91    $1.05    $0.00    0.00%    0
Apr 12    66    23    74.20%    0    4    $1.75    $0.44    $0.00    0.00%    0
May 12    31    21    59.60%    0    2    $2.80    $1.40    $0.00    0.00%    0

Yet, when I talked to DT they told me everything is back on track. No way. Yes, I know some folks are making a killing while others are doing poorly. Any theories on what is happening? Once again I have a below average portfolio in size and quality compared to 99% of the MSG population thus I would like to hear more...

Thanks T

Every time a microstock site cuts commissions, I spend more time taking photos just for alamy.

Is this a cost effective solution?  Do you find that increasing your Alamy portfolio is helping make up the financial losses in micro? Or is it just more satisfying but less lucrative? 

Quote from: sharpshot on May 09, 2012, 09:24

Every time a microstock site cuts commissions, I spend more time taking photos just for alamy.

Is this a cost effective solution?  Do you find that increasing your Alamy portfolio is helping make up the financial losses in micro? Or is it just more satisfying but less lucrative? 

Sales aren't great with alamy and I think it's a lot less lucrative than micro but I hope that in a few years time, I will be much less reliant on my micro income.  There's nothing certain about the future with alamy but I feel more confident that there's a long term with them.  I struggle to produce good microstock images now, I used to do a lot of isolated on white and conceptual photos but that was only for the money.  I had no enthusiasm to carry on doing that when it became apparent that sites were going to cut commissions over and over.  Until there's an end to commission cuts, I have no idea if microstock is sustainable.  How low will they be in 5 years time?  Working on other ways to make money seems like the best option for me.

Quote from: lisafx on May 09, 2012, 09:29

Is this a cost effective solution?  Do you find that increasing your Alamy portfolio is helping make up the financial losses in micro? Or is it just more satisfying but less lucrative? 

Sales aren't great with alamy and I think it's a lot less lucrative than micro but I hope that in a few years time, I will be much less reliant on my micro income.  There's nothing certain about the future with alamy but I feel more confident that there's a long term with them.  I struggle to produce good microstock images now, I used to do a lot of isolated on white and conceptual photos but that was only for the money.  I had no enthusiasm to carry on doing that when it became apparent that sites were going to cut commissions over and over.  Until there's an end to commission cuts, I have no idea if microstock is sustainable.  How low will they be in 5 years time?  Working on other ways to make money seems like the best option for me.

Thanks for the info. 

I haven't produced anything solely for Alamy.  I just have my RF port there.  But I may spend some time coming up with an RM portfolio for them.  If anything, it would be worthwhile just to have the experience of changing up what I am doing creatively.  I agree with your conclusions that micro is not sustainable. 

DT had been between 12% and 14% of my monthly total income. Last month, and so far this month, it's at 7%.

That's not because all the other sites are having some great bonanza but because DT sales have dropped off - and a few sales at higher prices don't make up for the (a) lower volume or (b) 25 to 35 cent subs (the lower amounts are when they take away for referral bonuses). I don't care about a higher RPD if the monthly totals are lower, and jury's still out, but I think DT hasn't helped things with this massively complex level system masking a price hike.

DT had been between 12% and 14% of my monthly total income. Last month, and so far this month, it's at 7%.

That's not because all the other sites are having some great bonanza but because DT sales have dropped off - and a few sales at higher prices don't make up for the (a) lower volume or (b) 25 to 35 cent subs (the lower amounts are when they take away for referral bonuses). I don't care about a higher RPD if the monthly totals are lower, and jury's still out, but I think DT hasn't helped things with this massively complex level system masking a price hike.

I had a BME there last month and DT's share is just over 4%. Absolutely pathetic!

Quote from: wut on May 09, 2012, 11:55

Quote from: WarrenPrice on May 09, 2012, 11:09

Maybe it's just me -- this is obviously a panned image.  It is editorial but was rejected for:

 Image is out of focus or too much of the subject is out of focus (DOF too shallow or DOF not justified) / Image is shaken. Use a faster speed or a tripod. Please check the files at 100% zoom before submitting them.


Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr....

PS:  the image above is on Shutterstock ... where it is already getting sales.

&^%^&$%^

PPS:  After BME last month just 3 sales (subscription) so far this month.  What the eff is going on there.  Is this the periodical shift in search engine priorities?

And ... for Dt ... if it ain't online -- you cain't sell it. 

--more cuss words --

Sorry, but this image shouldn't be accepted anywhere. The main subject should be sharp, the bg is of course good and gives you sense of speed. Looking at it like a madman, the number could be sharp at 100%, but it's the motorcrossist and (most) of the bike that should be sharp

I like it and I'm sure some buyers would.  We aren't doing photos for a camera club contest.  That's where I think the microstock rules go wrong.  It shouldn't just be about the technical quality of a photo, as buyers often look for something else.  The blur here gives more of an impression of speed.  It's possible to get a blurred background and a sharp bike with panning but that's a boring photo.  Breaking the basic rules can make a more interesting photo.  I see photos that would be rejected by microstock sites being used all the time.

Same could be said for shaken and/or OOF lifestyle or any kind of photos...But if we look at the current standards, it should be rejected. But I do agree, that reviews should be based on things beside IQ. But most would disagree, just as they disagree with LCV rejections. But that's the reason we see so much crap in the libraries. But then again, it's the micros we're talking about, but micros are only micros wehn it comes to prices, because there sure are togs among all of us (me excluded just so someone won't misunderstand) that really upload stunning material, way out of the micro league. And then there are higher priced collections etc

Quote from: WarrenPrice on May 09, 2012, 11:09

Maybe it's just me -- this is obviously a panned image.  It is editorial but was rejected for:

 Image is out of focus or too much of the subject is out of focus (DOF too shallow or DOF not justified) / Image is shaken. Use a faster speed or a tripod. Please check the files at 100% zoom before submitting them.


Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr....

PS:  the image above is on Shutterstock ... where it is already getting sales.

&^%^&$%^

PPS:  After BME last month just 3 sales (subscription) so far this month.  What the eff is going on there.  Is this the periodical shift in search engine priorities?

And ... for Dt ... if it ain't online -- you cain't sell it.  

--more cuss words --

Sorry, but this image shouldn't be accepted anywhere. The main subject should be sharp, the bg is of course good and gives you sense of speed. Looking at it like a madman, the number could be sharp at 100%, but it's the motorcrossist and (most) of the bike that should be sharp

I'm sure you're right.  The image sucks.  BUT ... it's selling.  Isn't that the idea?  

What's a "motorcrossist?"  

Warren, don't be offended mate, the image doesn't suck.

See the difference though:

In focus with panning


Out of focus with panning


It's your old eyes playing tricks on you

ja, my chart is the same, i have just checked.

So DT is going down. Thats a shame, they were nice to begin with.

Yet, DT told me their revenue stream is just fine. 

Well you're supposed to get better at it old man haha!

Let's get back on topic shall we, the downfall of DT