|
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 - Daryl Ray
126
« on: May 23, 2016, 03:56 »
Pond5 (video/audio/photo)
Shutterstock (video/photo)
Videoblocks (video)
Fotolia/Adobe (photo/video)
Alamy (photo)
The most disturbing thing I've learned from this thread is how many people still submit to iStock, even with all the crap they pull and the insulting smallest % in the industry they pay out. Yes, I realize this means they're a "top 5" income generator for so many, but at what cost in the long term? They're crooked, lying thieves, and perpetuate the weakening of our role in the partnerships we have with the stock companies. Anyone still submitting to them is contributing to the demise of all of our futures, doing what we do.
Oh please.  Says the guy whose top site is Pond5, the site that's in the process of erroding the video market like. IS erroded the still photo market. Check out this thread:
www.microstockgroup.com/pond5/the-membership-program-is-a-disaster-for-contributors/msg454565/?topicseen#new
Also, FYI, Istock is one of my top sellers despite not uploading there for almost 2 years.
Pond5 pays out 50%, more than 3 times iStock's 15%. Some ridiculously simple math to overlook when evaluation of one's role is in a business situation, and what the company believes the creator of the content is worth to them. Claiming they're "erroding" the market in any comparable way to iStock is absolute nonsense. A few cynical speculative opinions can't change the fact that Pond5 treats us like a an equal partner, while too many are perfectly fine being given ever shrinking scraps by a company that views it's contributors with contempt. iStock is only relevant and gets away with it what they get away with because people keep blindly uploading to them, no matter how bad the deal is.
127
« on: May 20, 2016, 17:33 »
Pond5 (video/audio/photo)
Shutterstock (video/photo)
Videoblocks (video)
Fotolia/Adobe (photo/video)
Alamy (photo)
The most disturbing thing I've learned from this thread is how many people still submit to iStock, even with all the crap they pull and the insulting smallest % in the industry they pay out. Yes, I realize this means they're a "top 5" income generator for so many, but at what cost in the long term? They're crooked, lying thieves, and perpetuate the weakening of our role in the partnerships we have with the stock companies. Anyone still submitting to them is contributing to the demise of all of our futures, doing what we do.
128
« on: April 29, 2016, 17:16 »
Just a reminder; if you opt out of ELs and a customer requests one, you will get e-mail from support asking if they can process it for you. You don't have to opt back in. I turned down one at $22 and accepted two at $40 each - my policy now is to say yes if the royalty is $28 or higher
Awesome, thanks for this tip. Wonder how long until ShutterStickItToThem finds a way around this "loophole".
129
« on: April 23, 2016, 12:13 »
I apologize, my mistake on 400/200,00 figures. Didn't read that far into your post. But honestly, your posts are so long and numerous that I would be here all day if I actually read them in their entirety.
But again, take a second and think about what motivates those more experienced and accomplished than you or I, that are imploring you to raise your prices.
130
« on: April 23, 2016, 11:05 »
Thanks for the breakdown SpaceStockFootage. I suppose you have to be an astrophysicist to figure their methods out.  If they raise the prices up to match Shutterstock but with a better %, hard to argue the validity in the reasoning of contributing there. My work may not be Academy Award worthy, but it's worth more than $8. If Alamy wasn't so stubbornly stuck in 1996 and introduced video uploading, they'd sure have a lot of Pond5 contributors eyeballing them right now. Maybe with an improved collection and focus, they'd actually be a player in the game. Missed opportunity, IMO. Cobalt, not sure where you get your info, but your facts and theories have flaws all over them. Pond5 has 200,000 clips in the membership program, not 400,000. The $500+ contributors' best clips are not generally among them. If you re-read their forum postings correctly, they allowed alternate shots from high end shoots, not their best, all poor sellers. The membership program is totally voluntary, and the clips are offered for sale at normal price to non-membership subscribers. Seems like a smart idea for a contributor with 10,000 clips to allow 1,000 into the program and collect $500 a month on previously non-selling clips. Why Pond5 decided to start spending $1.2 million a year on renting clips for their membership program and how they plan to sustain the program and grow it, I have no idea. But it's unlike other membership programs, and is an interesting experiment. Being a high quality producer and being part of the Pond5 membership program is not hypocritical, it's a smart business decision that's making them real money. The participation of so many bright, talented contributors kinda shows that. Pricing yourself as low as you do without the benefits of the membership perks is a terrible idea that's killing your income and bringing down the industry with it. I don't know why you're on this mission of proving otherwise, but do yourself a favor and actually read and internalize more of what people are telling you, many of whom have been doing this successfully for a long time.
131
« on: April 22, 2016, 15:37 »
Thanks for the answer, Blackjack.
Why can't they just be upfront and simplify their pricing and commissions like every other stock company? It just reeks of deceptive intentions.
I suppose that % is not far from Shutterstock and considerably better than iStock. But at only half the price or less of a HD video on Shutterstock, you lose the only forgivable reasoning to allow a company to take that much % of a Contributors work. Content creators would walk away with a starting maximum of $14 off a $40 MAX PRICE sale and $1.50 off a $5 sale, if that percentage is correct. If they set the pricing, wow...
I'll never understand why people upload their work to places like Videohive and iStock. Just support the good, fair companies and let the crappy ones adapt or die. It's simple math. Stop shooting yourselfs in the foot and taking everyone else the industry down with you.
132
« on: April 22, 2016, 14:34 »
250,000 video collection at Videohive aka Envato, maximum price of $40, seeing a lot under $10. Quality pretty weak though for the most part, can't really imagine anyone that values their own work contributing there, so that makes sense.
Can anyone tell me, out of curiosity, what is the actual split is between the contributor and Videohive? At first glance it appeared to be straight-forward, but upon further reading, they seem to using intentionally deceptive, unnecessarily complicated methods in the pricing there. After "buyer fees", "author fees" and "handling fees", how much does a contributor make on a $40 sale, for example? On a $5 sale? Thank you!
133
« on: April 14, 2016, 22:00 »
Difference of opinion. This forum is only useful if useful information is being shared. Even good news and positive personal experience. Videoblocks is a great company when it comes to setting precedent for contributor shares of profits. If they succeed, other companies may take notice, if they're smart, and maybe the trend goes towards OUR favor for once. The best thing we can do to protect our assets and livelihood is to encourage the contributor-friendly companies growth. The greedy stock agencies are the enemy, not your fellow contributor.
That is unless of course one has such cliche, unimaginative content that just having more, possibly superior, shots from competition alone takes away all their sales. However, that's not a problem you can solve long-term by being deceptive and hiding the good new companies for "yourself". Better to consider shooting more original ideas. But then again, we might just be talking about self confidence issues, if I were to venture a guess to the type that would live by such a negative philosophy.
Anyways, my sales are great there and I'd encourage more contributors to join.
134
« on: April 14, 2016, 16:35 »
I'd like to thank the members here that clued me into Videoblocks. Made a few grand off that tip so far. Keeping a great company like that a "secret" would be a total d!ck move. The beauty of a place like MSG is that artists can share the good as well as the bad. I know many of you have an instinctual urge to undermine your "competitors" and do nothing but complain, insult and try to drag everyone else down around you. That's a depressingly lonely way to go through life.
135
« on: April 12, 2016, 08:40 »
Stocksy's visual direction is directed by a small group of elitist editors that are looking for a very narrow and specific Instagram/VSCO/foodie/hipster aesthetic, exclusively. They only give vague indications as to what they want, and the few hints that they want variety is contradicted by their recommendation to refer to their existing collection for guidance. 98% of the content on that site could be shot by one photographer. They claim they don't want "typical" stock photography, yet their most vocal supporter, representative and cheerleader is exactly the style of shooter they claim they don't want to accept. No offense to the gentleman I refer to, but this dude wouldn't have been accepted to Stocksy based on the content style they historically provided to iStock, etc. Again, not a rip on quality, just the irony of the insincere Stocksy philosophy. I don't know why anyone would want to be subject themselves to the guaranteed rejection they'll give you or the BS excuses the apologists here will make. You have great work "Indie", their denial of you into their little world was a massive oversight. It sure would give the cheerleaders here a bit more authenticity to admit that. I'm guessing they have a contractual obligation to never speak of Stocksy in a negative manner. Which would be another major reason I'd avoid doing business with them. Stocksy is going to drop off the relevance map like a ton of bricks the second the "current" fashion style changes. Which it ALWAYS does, eventually. For this reason, their public business model doesn't make a lick of sense. All the stress of being accepted, the work to put into it for exclusive sets, then bam, the hipster-bearded-manbun-lumberjack-granola-gluten-free look goes out of style. Ooops, all of a sudden 75% of the collection looks dated and useless. "I might suggest submitting something other than head and shoulders looking at the camera glamour model portraits." "i too had the same first impression as slp" https://www.stocksy.com/2460https://www.stocksy.com/2069https://www.stocksy.com/448365https://www.stocksy.com/389491https://www.stocksy.com/645142https://www.stocksy.com/834501https://www.stocksy.com/202468https://www.stocksy.com/202466https://www.stocksy.com/467883https://www.stocksy.com/921360https://www.stocksy.com/857927https://www.stocksy.com/921357https://www.stocksy.com/921339https://www.stocksy.com/821716https://www.stocksy.com/850736https://www.stocksy.com/815276https://www.stocksy.com/824023https://www.stocksy.com/621207"The editor's are looking for photographers who fit a niche/style not otherwise filled by current members" "they are looking for something different" Anyone looking through their collection can determine in about 10 seconds that this is nonsense. FYI, I know Stocksy defenders will call me jealous, butthurt about some rejection of a submission I never made. But honestly, I don't care to apply at Stocksy, don't really care about those who do. On top of that, I specialize in video. But from the outside looking in, the elitist hipster arrogance is a little overwhelming. Tone a down a bit guys, and maybe you'll get less hate. Maybe lay out some HONEST expectations for the people that actually want to subject themselves to your narrow scrutiny. Just a a suggestion.
136
« on: February 19, 2016, 12:41 »
Every day more and more sales on Fotolia.
&
Excellent support from Mat and agency support team, as well.
TNX Mat.
Realy refreshing !
Nice weekend to all 
ecited, thank you, impressive... 
Yes they make PR (you call it support) in this forum. WOW!
They give us 33% commission and make millions.
Suggestion: Stop the "support" and pay a fair trade commission of 50%. 
For what should i say thank you?
No wonder that the agencies can make what they want with us...
Baby-steps in the right direction are still steps. Fotolia scores some brownie points with their communication. Expecting leading agencies to suddenly start paying a fair 50% is unrealistic, considering those of us that could have helped prevent that trend years ago, failed miserably at doing so. Only way to send a message is to sacrifice the worst of the leading agencies. Easy choice. iStock. If enough contributors severed ties with those scumbags demanding they lower the 85% commissions they rape from your content or pull their ports. Shutterstock, etc. would eventually notice and things might start to change. Or else "they could be next". But no, here come the sad excuses. Change takes sacrifice boys and girls, personal and financial. But the result in the end would be well worth it. Can't take the hit all at once? Drop exclusivity, stop uploading, speak out more, take a few down at a time. Do something or admit defeat. Every single one of you that still contribute to and defend iStock are responsible for extending the state we are in now. Every time the idea of a "union" or some kind of collaborative effort gets shot down by frightened, uneducated, voices that dismiss the idea before it begins, we ensure our future stays as is. Even a small yet vocal, organized, focused group represented by a handful of trusted big time contributors would change the game for us. The naysayers overlook the power of a vocal minority and the fact that the "big corporate, faceless" overlords are scared to death of negative public sentiments and will placate to preserve reputation. Consider politicians, television networks, etc. We don't need more than a measurable enough percentage of content represented, with a loud, consolidated voice to start developing momentum to push back with. Many are underestimating the power we'd yield with a simple coalition, and over-estimating the disadvantage of the lack of total participation and the quality of the new content that deliver those ridiculous high stats that scare you so much. Simple communication and clear, honest goals would keep the recruitment healthy. Or just keep complaining to thin air while bending over repeating, "yes sir, may I have another"...
137
« on: December 14, 2015, 09:48 »
I wonder what their corporate offices look like when the site goes down? I imagine sirens, flashing red lights and people running around manning the battle stations. I would guess there are very few people in the NY office right now, though.
I picture it more like ping pong paddles being dropped and video games paused, segways and hoverboards swirling through the halls to converge on a conference room with a Starbucks popup barista and company masseuse calming nerves. Hopefully someone logs off Facebook and emails the tech team in India between vape hits, so us suppliers can get back to making our 30%.
138
« on: July 30, 2015, 10:01 »
Recently applied and was enthusiastically approved as a video contributor to Dissolve. Haven't signed the non-exclusive contract quite yet, and now I won't be unless this is sorted out. Selling at $50 is a fine choice for certain clips when the contributor portion is 50% or greater. Unless they can guarantee our clips will sell for no less that $80 or Dissolve increases contributor portions to 50%, they won't be getting clip one from us.
So while you guys continue scheming new ways to rip off your contributors, we'll be busy uploading to your competitors.
139
« on: July 12, 2015, 18:22 »
Now Shutterstock reviews are taking 4+ days and the rejections even worse. These incompetent reviewers are wasting way too much of everyone's time and I just can't wrap my head around why SS management thinks it cost effective and efficient to make us submit over and over and contact them and resubmit again and again. Completely mind boggling and incredibly disrespectful to those of us making them their money. Going to start contributing to more of their competitors if for no other reason than to spite them and contribute to weakening their virtual monopoly, they're getting cocky.
140
« on: June 28, 2015, 16:25 »
Horrendous, and obviously under-experienced reviewing by SS lately. Batch completely rejected at SS, a batch with 100% approval at FT & P5, both notorious for excessive nonsense rejections.
SS clearly doesn't mind having useless reviewers that waste their time and money, as well as ours. Now I'll be messaging support and resubmitting, again. Done this so many times now, almost always getting the rejection reversed and many of those turning out to be top sellers and dominating the popular search results in their respective categories.
Unbelievable.
141
« on: April 18, 2015, 10:35 »
"Why oh why do you guys beat yourself up for 0.25 - 0.38 per download? it makes no sense to me at all."
It's not a matter of "beating myself up" or whining about their policy. I've understood how much money I make on a sale in microstock since I began 5 years ago, but thanks for the reminder. Seems like a bizarre thing to point out as a negative on MICROSTOCK forum, considering that's how this whole thing works, the relevant prefix there being MICRO. So back on topic...
There is time, money and effort involved with production of these images. I hold myself to a high standard from equipment, subject/location choice, editing quality and keywording. When a weak link in the chain (reviewer) at the most dominant market for selling my work drops the ball, my choice is to accept that and move on, losing all the aforementioned time and money. Or speaking up in an attempt to get the issue addressed, and getting as many of my images up for sale as I can. The other contributors speaking up are no slackers either, and if SS decides to ignore us, that's their choice. But laying down and letting things fall further apart quietly is not a smart option. You're welcome, considering we're on the same side.
142
« on: April 18, 2015, 09:09 »
Reviewer claims a rejection reason was "Trademark", which (I can only guess) is a tiny hint of a logo between tree branches way off from the subject. Tiny, but the image is clearly so tack sharp they found this as an issue. Oh yeah, it was also rejected for focus.
No where to put notes anymore, so have to add notes within the description, which will probably get the next batch rejected. Or send message to support, wait, get a defensive half-assed response claiming that whether the review was right or wrong, they can't control what these rogue reviewers do, and waste more time.
I'd think it's just about time that whoever is in charge of these (possibly legally blind) reviewers removes their head from their rectum and take control of the situation. Maybe getting the reviews right is better than getting them done fast.
143
« on: March 12, 2015, 13:43 »
Last week U have 12 images uploaded and 100% rejected. Landscapes shooten with wide angle f/8 - f/10 so the focus is sharp in all areas. Rejection reason out of focus. I have controlled all pictures with 200% zoom.  I see this often, when I upload pictures on weekend. Maybe the automatic algorithm is working on weekend. What is your experiance when you upload rejected Images again? Ive never tried.
I used to have a folder called "shutterstock rejections" that I'd build up over a month or so, then submit as a batch. Would get about the same acceptance rate as any other batch, around 80% and up. Once I got cocky and immediately resubmitted the few rejects from one of those batches, and quickly received a nasty little message warning against the practice. Now I'm much more selective. If their rejection reason is anywhere near the realms of possibility, I let it go. Their loss.
144
« on: March 12, 2015, 13:17 »
I just noticed that some of my tracks, which have been licensed thru Audiomicro also had my publishing company changed by Audiomicro, to an " IMAGECOLLECT PUBLISHING". I placed a call to them, and I am awaiting a response.
(FYI-Daryl, When a track is licensed usually for air, TV or film, a cue sheet must be sent to the publisher, writer, and/ASCAP for royalty payments every time it plays on air., or on performances, etc.)
That's exactly what I thought, so if they sent a cue sheet with their own publishing information in the place of yours or mine, they would get all those theoretic ASCAP royalties. Pure thievery. I'm curious about their demeanor on the phone. If it's anything like their email support, it's belittling and antagonistic. I have since removed my music collection from Audiomicro as well as my SFX. They are a very shady company. I would highly recommended anyone submitting there to be cautious.
145
« on: March 12, 2015, 12:56 »
Multiple bs rejections. Overly defensive and useless responses from support. Resubmitted without changes to 100% acceptance. Multiple sales on many of those images within days.
I don't understand why they have such a blatant lack of respect for our time and effort, and why they refuse to acknowledge the obvious problems within their review staff. It just makes the whole company appear lazy and unprofessional. A representative acknowledging they have issues with some bad seeds and are in the process of addressing it would go a long way to maintaining some respectability.
146
« on: October 26, 2014, 09:25 »
I just checked the:
http://mystockphoto.com/photo and was amazed how many stolen images they have online.
They have many images still showing shutterstock name and original image number.
A quick search did find some of my images, but clicking on them brought me to MY Shutterstock image page with just a referral link added to the address. Not stolen, just someone racking up referral income. Might even argue they're directing more customers to our shots. A bit different than someone uploading stolen images in their own name. But good find none-the-less, keep smoking out the thieves!
147
« on: October 26, 2014, 09:03 »
1. Are you asking how to find stock video of waves and frozen rivers? Search relevant terms at any stock video agency and be prepared to discover 100,000's of options.
2. You're interested in buying and using a stock video, but not clear how to make a color video black and white?
3. You're interested in buying and using a stock video, but not clear how to resize it?
I would suggest hiring a professional to do whatever job you're thinking about doing.
148
« on: October 26, 2014, 08:38 »
For a company that is open for business during the weekend, it's incredibly irresponsible that there's no one there to ensure things are running correctly. Sure it's not life and death, and not curating new uploads during the weekend is one thing. But when there is clear fraud happening and the whole crew is off sipping martinis while many of their contributors are getting their intellectual property stolen, that's pretty irresponsible management. Especially knowing all they'll probably do is close the criminal's account and he and Alamy will end up pocketing the profits. The only losers are the artists whose work has been stolen who won't see a penny from the sales made during their inaction, and Alamy clearly couldn't care less.
Add it to the list of reasons why Alamy proves to be the laziest stock agency out there.
149
« on: October 04, 2014, 18:48 »
If you personally believe every time you press the movie button out comes a 40 dollar file, you are entirely welcome to do that. I have no problem with it and dont judge you or anyone badly for it. Even if I see many files in video that are worse than even my test shots. But its a free market.
To be honest, most of what any of us are doing in photo and video is just pointing a piece of glass attached to plastic and pressing a button. Some people like to pretend they're performing magic, a few even kinda can, but the simplicity of how the shot came to you or me is irrelevant. If I spend $1000+ on a set, models, and the whole crew to pull off an elaborate shoot, and that final product looks like 200,000 other shots out there, that clip might only be "worth" $30. If I point my camera at a bridge in the middle of nowhere and record 10 static, motionless seconds during the worst part of the day, and that clip is the ONLY shot of that bridge, that might be a $100+ shot. If a customer is looking for a video of THAT bridge 8 months from now and mine is the only one, or among very few, they most likely will not scoff at a higher price. I don't think garbage should be uploaded in the first place, and I believe all video clips should carry a base value that's fair and sustainable to those who produce them for a living. Just because the stock photo boom and those who should have been ensuring it's sustainability failed, and destroyed the perception of an images' value, stock video should not be forced down the same road.
150
« on: October 04, 2014, 18:24 »
The thing I find interesting is that I emulated some of my best still shots into video. They do sell so I can reasonable conclude that in-demand stills will also have, to a degree, in-demand videos. I'll admit that not all of my videos that replicate the subject of still have sold, but most of my sales are from similar still themes from my most popular.
I am really enjoying this particular thread. It's what I like about forums, exchanging ideas, theories and ideas. One of the things that Cobalt targets is pricing. If a video is listed on P5 at $30 and it sells on SS for $90, isn't it wise to go into P5 and change your pricing to somewhere in that range? What I am trying to avoid is as video gains popularity (and I hope this is the case) that my files are priced consistently across micros if shoppers are shopping on price. I do agree with Tror in that customers don't seem as price sensitive when purchasing video. It's really a game of content price, subject, messaging....and key wording. I am enjoying video, honestly, more that photos....except for my underwater work 
I like to price Pond5 below Shutterstock if for nothing else but to encourage customers to buy there, in some small way. I'm much happier selling a clip for $50 on Pond5 and making $25, than a $79.99 clip on SS and making $23.70 (at most, with the exception of those random $90+ sub sales). I always make sure my clips on Pond5 are less, and if I decide to price above $80 on P5, I don't sell that clip on SS (with the exception of 4K, of course). When Revostock mattered, at 45% to us, I priced just above P5 but below SS. For me, the $30-$40 range is purely for over-saturated content, the ship has sailed on some themes that already have an abundance of $10-$20 bottom feeding priced clips. I just can't personally stomach selling lower. I sell those $30-$40 clips a lot, but my most common selling price is $50.
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
