|
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 - stoker2014
Pages: 1 ... 39 40 41 42 43 [44] 45 46 47 48 49 ... 53
1076
« on: December 03, 2022, 08:55 »
McDonalds
McDonalds is not a popular restaurant in the US. Few people go there. There are many other chains where people go and where it tastes better. The quality that McDonalds offers is not suitable for Americans. Yes, McDonalds is popular in Europe, but not in the US.
1077
« on: December 03, 2022, 08:52 »
What I most want to know is: How long before AI can make vectors?
Faster than video and photo. A vector is just a conceptual drawing or diagram. It is easy for a computer to convert any drawing or photo into vector format. Yes, now perhaps such programs do not work very well, but this is a matter of a short time. The vector workers will go bankrupt first.
1078
« on: December 03, 2022, 08:48 »
December started much worse than November.
Just a statement of fact.
1079
« on: December 03, 2022, 08:35 »
and on with the good news
received for a video
How do you create such a display of statistics in your account? At the beginning, the amount, then the date, and it's all there. Or did you write the amount, date and make a screen yourself? This is how sales are not displayed in my account - the amount and the date next to it. Make another screen where it will be clear that this is really a screenshot from the shutterstock account. Yes, and I don't know of any such deductions now. For 4K? They would also provide a screenshot of the video.
1080
« on: December 03, 2022, 06:42 »
It is not easy for most authors to find their photo in the free collection.
How do you know this?
Did you not know, stocker2014 is an expert on everything - Even on photos in the free collection, even though, according to him, he does not even offer any photos on stocksites and, since he asked whether Adobe pays for them, apparently has absolutely no clue how the free image gallery deal works.
By the way, took me exactly 2 seconds and one single keyword combination to find multiple of my images in the free collection at once. Seems quite "easy" to me...?
1. I have a lot of photos in my portfolio. I used to take a lot of photos. My photos were also accepted into the free adobe collection. 2. If you found your photos in a free collection, then adobe doesn't pay you money for it. The posting period has already passed. 3. The topic was not created by me, but by the one who does not pay for it.
1081
« on: December 02, 2022, 13:08 »
For me, volume of sales at SS remains largely unchanged compared to the previous years. What has changed is the near total disappearance of larger value sales over the last 2 months. These are mostly footage sales and occasional SODs. Footage especially at SS has crashed with most sales now less than $1.
However, not all bad as the this drop in SS $ is dwarfed by the uplift elsewhere. I now just focus on work for them and SS receives what ever time I have left at the end of the month... if there is any.
What other places are you talking about?
1082
« on: December 02, 2022, 13:07 »
Hello everyone,
I still have almost 300 photos in the free collection at Adobe Stock from 2021.
Shouldn't the campaigns have already ended? How about you? Many thanks
in advance for your responses.
Best regards
Juergen
Does adobe pay money for this? An interesting thing. It is not easy for most authors to find their photo in the free collection.
1083
« on: November 26, 2022, 13:11 »
And no, Adobe was very clear. This is the EXACT text of the message:
The text said:
You've got X eligible assets that could earn up to X upfront if seltected for the free selection. No one expect you thought he'd definitely get the possible maximum amount, not for photos, not for vectors and not for videos.
1. We are not in court.
2. This marketing stunt greatly offended the authors who agreed to participate. If Adobe initially planned to accept 0 or several videos from people, you need to write about it. Then most of the authors would have responded by refusing to participate in the program.
3. Are you an Adobe lawyer?
Yes the stunt was offensive, but only because they thought we contributors love to give stuff away for a measly $8 to be featured in a free collection... Oh, that's not what you meant?
No, that's not what I meant at all. I meant that it's one thing to give away 1-10 videos for $8, and another thing to give away 200-1000 videos for $8. So it makes no sense to give a few videos, but there are 1000, because. 8x1000=8000 dollars.
If 1000 videos cannot gather at least 36 downloads of $28 in a year, then yes, giving them away for $8 is an okay deal. But then you probably have some quality issues with your portfolio to worry about.
What is the size of your video portfolio? How many videos do you sell per year?
You probably did not know, but adobe takes into its free collection only the video that has not been sold even once in the last year.
Perhaps you want to say that all your videos are sold within a year. Which I highly doubt.
I have 500+ videos. And about 100 video sales I think, 7x 70, 40x 20-28 range and many below 20 all the way down to 2.80.
So they definitely did not all sell, I have a couple of strong sellers and many duds, but Adobe also nominated strong sellers that have been sold at least once this year. So giving up those videos would be a bad choice.
If out of 500+ videos you only sell 10-20 videos, and the number of these sales is 100, then 480 videos are not of high quality. It if to argue following your logic.
1084
« on: November 26, 2022, 12:48 »
I don't think it's possible in Adobe. But, if you get on adequate support, it can be helped.
1085
« on: November 24, 2022, 18:39 »
And no, Adobe was very clear. This is the EXACT text of the message:
The text said:
You've got X eligible assets that could earn up to X upfront if seltected for the free selection. No one expect you thought he'd definitely get the possible maximum amount, not for photos, not for vectors and not for videos.
1. We are not in court.
2. This marketing stunt greatly offended the authors who agreed to participate. If Adobe initially planned to accept 0 or several videos from people, you need to write about it. Then most of the authors would have responded by refusing to participate in the program.
3. Are you an Adobe lawyer?
Yes the stunt was offensive, but only because they thought we contributors love to give stuff away for a measly $8 to be featured in a free collection... Oh, that's not what you meant?
No, that's not what I meant at all. I meant that it's one thing to give away 1-10 videos for $8, and another thing to give away 200-1000 videos for $8. So it makes no sense to give a few videos, but there are 1000, because. 8x1000=8000 dollars.
If 1000 videos cannot gather at least 36 downloads of $28 in a year, then yes, giving them away for $8 is an okay deal. But then you probably have some quality issues with your portfolio to worry about.
What is the size of your video portfolio? How many videos do you sell per year? You probably did not know, but adobe takes into its free collection only the video that has not been sold even once in the last year. Perhaps you want to say that all your videos are sold within a year. Which I highly doubt.
1086
« on: November 24, 2022, 15:31 »
I do not anticipate more selections being made this round.
Thank you,
Mat Hayward
Judging by the number that you have chosen, you will have a very small collection. You started on a grand scale, but in the end everything was blown away to a minuscule. Probably the price of 8 dollars is expensive for you. That's why I wrote, reduce the price to 4-5 dollars.
According to the photo there were several rounds, at least 3.
even if you beg for money likely your content isn't good enough even for the free collection...we din't sell bread where the cheapest sells,put your heart at rest...
Compared to others here who wrote in the topic, I have a lot of videos were nominated and approved. But only in comparison to others. What can you brag about?
1087
« on: November 24, 2022, 15:30 »
And no, Adobe was very clear. This is the EXACT text of the message:
The text said:
You've got X eligible assets that could earn up to X upfront if seltected for the free selection. No one expect you thought he'd definitely get the possible maximum amount, not for photos, not for vectors and not for videos.
1. We are not in court.
2. This marketing stunt greatly offended the authors who agreed to participate. If Adobe initially planned to accept 0 or several videos from people, you need to write about it. Then most of the authors would have responded by refusing to participate in the program.
3. Are you an Adobe lawyer?
Yes the stunt was offensive, but only because they thought we contributors love to give stuff away for a measly $8 to be featured in a free collection... Oh, that's not what you meant?
No, that's not what I meant at all. I meant that it's one thing to give away 1-10 videos for $8, and another thing to give away 200-1000 videos for $8. So it makes no sense to give a few videos, but there are 1000, because. 8x1000=8000 dollars.
1088
« on: November 22, 2022, 10:40 »
The topic author should not have created this topic at all, and advertise what will not be done. Here on the forum, legal contracts are not signed and communication does not take place in the courtroom. Here it is customary to trust each other.
Of course, I did not understand if adobe will continue to accept videos in the next months, then it will be a normal conversation. But if that's all, it looks extremely bad.
1089
« on: November 22, 2022, 10:27 »
And no, Adobe was very clear. This is the EXACT text of the message:
The text said:
You've got X eligible assets that could earn up to X upfront if seltected for the free selection. No one expect you thought he'd definitely get the possible maximum amount, not for photos, not for vectors and not for videos.
1. We are not in court. 2. This marketing stunt greatly offended the authors who agreed to participate. If Adobe initially planned to accept 0 or several videos from people, you need to write about it. Then most of the authors would have responded by refusing to participate in the program. 3. Are you an Adobe lawyer?
1090
« on: November 22, 2022, 05:14 »
Her Ugliness, did you have at least one video nominated?
1091
« on: November 22, 2022, 05:13 »
Yes, and foolishness is everything, nominate a bunch of videos, promise a bunch of dollars, and then accept 0 or a couple of grand.
Nowhere did Adobe PROMISE you any amount of $ at all. All they did was give you a selection of images to nominat with absolutely no promise of accepting them into the free gallery.
You are obviously completely off topic. Adobe clearly wrote in my account that he wanted to nominate my video, indicated the amount and indicated the amount that I would earn.
1092
« on: November 22, 2022, 04:38 »
If there are those who take part in this program and think that adobe did not fool them, write about it.
1093
« on: November 22, 2022, 04:29 »
Were did Adobe claim that they would accept all or even a great part of the nominated videos into their free collection? Adobe has been pretty transparent about this. If you thought they'd take all or most videos then that's because you didn't read or understand the offer properly.
Yes, I personally dont worry too much, I dont have 0. But I think that many here on the forum will have 0 or around it. Just the approach itself, write to people that you will receive so many thousands of dollars, and then accept nothing at all. It would be interesting to read here how much they took. Also, if you remember this program from the photo, then the photo was taken more and there were at least 3 rounds, if not more. So far, I can see that adobe has a very meager and limited budget, which means that adobe is having a bad time. Yes, and foolishness is everything, nominate a bunch of videos, promise a bunch of dollars, and then accept 0 or a couple of grand.
1094
« on: November 22, 2022, 03:21 »
In my opinion, we were greatly deceived, hmm. They waved dollars in front of their noses and showed the muzzle.
Why reassure people if you werent going to take a lot of videos anyway.
Adobe drew mountains of gold for the authors, and as a result threw a handout. This is not correct behavior.
1095
« on: November 22, 2022, 03:18 »
lol.. I'm so bad at making stock footage that my clips are not good enough even for the free collection  --> none selected 
How many have you been nominated?
1096
« on: November 22, 2022, 03:17 »
I do not anticipate more selections being made this round.
Thank you,
Mat Hayward
Judging by the number that you have chosen, you will have a very small collection. You started on a grand scale, but in the end everything was blown away to a minuscule. Probably the price of 8 dollars is expensive for you. That's why I wrote, reduce the price to 4-5 dollars. According to the photo there were several rounds, at least 3.
1097
« on: November 21, 2022, 15:57 »
Hi Everyone,
I want to let you know that the transfer process from paid to Free for approved opted in videos has begun. Some of you should be seeing your balance already changed. An email will be sent out later today with confirmation of the number of approved files.
Thank you for your participation!
Mat Hayward
1. Where can I see which videos have been selected? 2. Is that all, or will you also choose next month? How many more months will the selection last?
1098
« on: November 15, 2022, 03:16 »
Adobe--No sales in (4) Day is a little strange to me!!
Yes, Adobe barely breathes. More dead than alive.
1099
« on: November 14, 2022, 11:04 »
I want to be able to critique agencies without fear of being banned (like happened to Sean and Jo Ann).
And what happened to them there? Are there a lot of snitches on the forum?
1100
« on: November 14, 2022, 10:59 »
So it is a bit of a mixed bag for me, but I can totally see why drone can be a great tool to have an edge in stock photo/videography.
If you are allowed to fly in Amsterdam, then a drone can help. Otherwise, absolutely useless thing. I have a drone, and I dont live in a country where there are strict rules, I fly in the city, but they practically dont buy drone videos from me, obviously this is all low-stock. A good drone video also needs models. In general, I will say this, a normal drone costs about $ 1000, it makes sense to buy if you can fly in major tourist cities. If you shoot video for stocks, then a drone is the last thing after a tripod, a gimbal, a slider, a good PC.
Pages: 1 ... 39 40 41 42 43 [44] 45 46 47 48 49 ... 53
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
