|
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 - Brasilnut
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 ... 65
126
« on: September 21, 2023, 07:03 »
@Brasilnut:
Thanks for the update.
I think the most worrying find of your experiment was the amount of potential thieves trying to re-sell your free images.
This does directly hut your own sales at the stock agencies, as it shifts the sales to more people and away from your images.
On a small scale maybe, but nevertheless...
Yes, the thieves was a predictable yet depressing development. It's been two weeks of many emails back and forth and I've only just finally been able to remove my images from Pixabay (even if I deleted my account they were still active). Worst business model ever, hope it's a cautionary tale to anybody considering uploading in there for whatever reason.
127
« on: September 20, 2023, 03:11 »
Interesting, thanks for sharing... now - over what period were those best sellers? I noticed you mentioned one of your pics was from 2014... does that mean these are your 'all time' best sellers since you've been doing stock?
You're welcome. These are my best-sellers for those times I was either doing client work on in formal employment...since around 2013, pretty much when I started to take stock seriously. As for all time-best sellers, the Rotterdam towers are my 4th best-selling series.
129
« on: September 07, 2023, 06:37 »
I must admit Im surprised not even one person donated. Not even one?! Im not one to upload to the free sites, but seriously!
Maybe after a million downloads I would earn my first $1 in donations! 
130
« on: September 06, 2023, 07:48 »
131
« on: September 04, 2023, 06:16 »
Had some pretty large sales on SS this year...some life still left in this business.
134
« on: August 18, 2023, 09:50 »
How do 34 different ports (full of stolen images) have the same goddamn image of an elephant?
Professional negligence by SS.
https://www.shutterstock.com/search/similar/2279987071
I'll be called a conspiracy theorist, but I'll say this anyway: I don't believe this is professional negligence. It's, like I said, by design, most likely. Those images are what's known as SEO spam; SS might be allowing it because having so many images of that one elephant helps gain visibility in Google and Bing Images.
Another thing: the copycats could very well be SS itself hiring people to rip contributors off. Other platforms have been caught red-handed doing this type of thing. For example, Amazon invited designers to sell their original products on the platform. The next thing they knew, their products were ripped off and being resold for cheap by Amazon. As it turned out, Amazon was using in-house staff to rip these designs off and produce its own line of products.
Ditto, Etsy. Etsy invited all of these original designers to sell, then turned around and invited third party Chinese sellers to make rips of their products.
So, those "34 ports" could be managed by SS itself. Who knows?
I think that all creatives--be it artists, photogs and even writers--should try to restart a movement back to print and other analog forms of selling. Digital selling has become disastrous. There's no transparency at all as to how and why your work gets ripped off on a platform, and it seems as if there are no longer any protections.
Interesting theory, I don't know what to make of that but what I do know is that I have been in direct contact with some thieves and they had nothing to do with working at SS...some were deliberately stealing, while most were just plain ignorant (either "Oh I purchased a license so thought i could re-sell or I got the image from one of the free sites so thought it was mine"). I had one guy that I reported that was shut down actually plead directly with me to try to have his account re-instated. Like I could do anything.
136
« on: August 05, 2023, 06:50 »
Its good for the image thieves who can get their money faster before their account gets closed.
Apparently, there is a wait period for contributors from "high-fraud" risk countries.
137
« on: August 04, 2023, 15:31 »
I speculate that Shutterstock has observed a trend where the new contributors are quickly losing their enthusiasm while waiting for $35 and disappearing
Soon they'll reduce the threshold to $10 and make payments weekly to please the newbs! Joke agency.
138
« on: August 04, 2023, 11:59 »
Fed up with that group. Half the people posting there have stolen images and have no shame. It's a reflection of SS's collection atm.
139
« on: August 03, 2023, 12:14 »
I was once a strong cheerleader of WS, even when they were still sorting out their poor keywording issues.
But I feel like they've sold out, big time. It was probably pressure from shareholders / investors but it's a poor excuse nevertheless. Startups want to revolutionize the industry and sometimes they seem like they can in the beginning but in the end up they end up just like the worst of the market. Another example is Pic(un)fair.
They're a small team and couldn't handle the amount of generally poor/mediocre images they were receiving. So in a way, they were victims of their own success.
Another startup agency that I promoted a year ago, Gallerist, struggled and has temporarily shut down. Seems that opening up a microstock agency nowadays is a recipe for disaster, this market is far too mature and almost impossible to compete with the likes of SS / AS / Getty. Perhaps as an Ai-only agency it may work if contributors / buyers have sufficient guarantee of legal indemnity.
I like their team and wish them the best of luck, hope they can one day change their business model to once again be more contributor-friendly.
140
« on: July 27, 2023, 06:16 »
I'll probably reach it on December 31st
141
« on: July 18, 2023, 05:26 »
There is an (big) error in your logic. Plus, the headline is EXTREMELY click-baity in this case.
The BIG answer is NO.
a) Wirestock/pic fair are not "agencies", nor does TWO website constitute a "trend".
b) For ACTUAL agencies, you "pay" for the hosting via the commission the agencies take. In some cases extreme (i.e., shitterstock 0.25 cent downloads for videos).
c) Cost of storage/download/etc is VERY small. ESPECIALLY for images. Videos, also extremely low.
d) Using the royal "we" in the article is very misleading. Not everyone is experiencing "diminishing returns". "Inflation" is manufactured by the govts through MASSIVE money printing, and totally unrelated to "microstock".
So, no. It's not a "trend".
Usually your articles are interesting - this one - didn't like the clickbait article.
Did read it anyways, a couple key things you are missing:
a) SUPER easy to get rid of "thieving" accounts. Some agencies (i.e., shitterstock) just choose not do, or pretend they are dumb. While there actually is a different agenda with the "upload your id" (massive push for digital id/survellience state, NOT for your "protection" nor your "safety") - you don't actually even need 'ids' to 'verify' accounts (its just lazy companies choosing not to do some simple code checks for duplicate content - literally in some cases 5 lines of code). So no - the "agencies" that allow that are just lazy/pushing a certain agenda. It's easy to prevent.
b) If there is (perceived) "easy" money to be made - no - won't get rid of "amateurish" accounts. After all - you even published an article where you gave some of your stuff to a free site (forget which one) - just to see if you could make 'easy' money. Some of your stuff is good - but - you did want to go the 'easy' way there, and many are like that.
c) The "algorithms" already push "high selling" content, and "discard" junk.
d) "AI" is what the media has been pushing the for 2023 to "scare" people. It has already been possible to do a lot of what "AI" tools are doing now for the last 30 years, it is just a lot faster. You've ALWAYS had to deal with that kind of thing.
e) I suppose if you did do they $10/month thing - would get rid of the massive # of eastindian swipe & upload accounts. But unlikely shitterstock would do that.
EXTREMELY clickbaity article.
Most of your articles have been interesting, please continue to write interesting ones in the future. Thanks.
Hi SuperPhoto, I give brutally honest so it's only normal that I should take some  I'll reply with each of the points with my thoughts: A) Clients can purchase licenses directly from both WS and PF, although sure they make more money from distributing. Anyway, most agencies distribute as it reaches more potential buyers. B) Agreed C) Agreed, but it doesn't stop companies from charging, for instance Outlook and Gmail now charge for "premium" storage even if they're still earning from the free account by other means. The basic package is quite basic and an average user should quickly find their storage capacity limited. D) True, not everybody is experiencing diminishing returns, although I'd say that on average it's the case. You're right that I shouldn't generalise. As for inflation, I would say that it's directly related to microstock since our earnings have less spending power once it reaches into our bank account/paypal. In other words, our microstock earnings have not been corrected for inflation (it's actually dropped, on average). This is a global business so inflation vastly depends on where you live, but the latest data is easy to find on any legitimate source. From the second part: A) Agreed. Much more can and should be done. They're professionally negligent imo. B) My argument and I think it's a sound one, is that if an agency "forced" contributors to pay a $10 fee (I thought the logical use of words would be for storage but can be framed as any sort of administration fee), most amateur accounts wouldn't bother...plus most don't even earn $10 a month anyway so in theory they would be working for free. The free-give away experiment is unrelated imo...small update: so far 78,000 downloads and $0 earned from a combined 182 images and 4 videos on Pixabay and Pexels. The experiment is set to expire in January and I'm looking forward to deleting my accounts on there unless something magical happens. C) Agreed. Don't know for sure whether the junk makes it more difficult for buyers to find what they want. It certainly diminishes the overall quality of a collection. D) I'm by no means an Ai expert on the matter. Some of the tools available now seem like real game-changers. Not just the text-prompt from Dalle2 and Midjourney but the the generative fill in Adobe Firefly...and we're still in the early days. E) That would be great to eliminate those thieving accounts or at least make them pay. As for it being a click-baity article, fair enough it's your opinion. It's a question that is posed instead of a statement enticing readers to find out more...and the fact that you clicked on it and read it thoroughly means it achieved its aims, even if you don't agree with most of what was written I don't have ads up on the blog so I don't earn for more views...sure, I promote some courses and products but that's normal in return for the content. I'll keep writing interesting ones, no doubt! This industry fascinates/frustrates me more and more each day! All the best - Alex
142
« on: July 17, 2023, 11:21 »
All the reasons you wrote seem to benefit serious contributors: less competition, discouraging theft, etc.
But what advantages over other agencies will an agency get from doing that? I think having less images is not it unless it is an exclusive agency. But even then, what advantages over other exclusive agencies will it get?
One advantage would be to immediately improve their cash-flow. Even a modest sum of $10/month times let's say 200,000 opted-in contributors (is that how many SS have, I'm estimating now) is $2million per month. They would be wise to remove this fee from the earnings every month so it hurts less. Perhaps those earning less than $10/month can be excluded until they do earn enough. So many ways to spin this.
Do you really think 200,000 contributors would opt in? I mean, let's take a poll on how many people pay wirestock for their premium service here. I think you might get the answer. Not many.
The agencies know this and so would never do something like this. Anyway, the game has moved on to getting as many images as possible in the database for the AI to learn and getting that many images for data use would be impossible if they begin charging contributors for uploading.
Most of the 200,000 (?) would not opt-in, but what choice would they have if the agency in an "Exciting News" kind of way gives notice that it's either pay up or deleted. I also think it's unlikely (although not impossible) that the major players (SS, AS, iStock and Alamy) would do this but I can see if happening with the smaller outfits. Yes, Ai is a game-changer and lots of data training going on behind the scenes, while the contributors get breadcrumbs.
143
« on: July 16, 2023, 07:56 »
All the reasons you wrote seem to benefit serious contributors: less competition, discouraging theft, etc.
But what advantages over other agencies will an agency get from doing that? I think having less images is not it unless it is an exclusive agency. But even then, what advantages over other exclusive agencies will it get?
One advantage would be to immediately improve their cash-flow. Even a modest sum of $10/month times let's say 200,000 opted-in contributors (is that how many SS have, I'm estimating now) is $2million per month. They would be wise to remove this fee from the earnings every month so it hurts less. Perhaps those earning less than $10/month can be excluded until they do earn enough. So many ways to spin this.
144
« on: July 14, 2023, 06:50 »
Interesting discussion.
Here are the results of the poll so far.
145
« on: July 13, 2023, 11:07 »
Dear colleagues, I've just published this blog post on a trend that I potentially see occurring soon (hope I'm not giving these agency decision-makers any ideas): During the past six months, most notably, Wirestock and Picfair have dropped their respective statuses as free to upload stock agencies in what is a potentially significant trend for contributors. In this blog post Ill discuss whether this business model will become more commonplace and if it may present itself as a threat to contributors income in a time when were already experiencing diminishing returns coupled with rising inflation. Or perhaps, this fee will be an opportunity! https://brutallyhonestmicrostock.com/2023/07/13/will-contributors-soon-have-to-pay-microstock-agencies-to-host-their-content/Alex
146
« on: July 09, 2023, 04:59 »
There's nothing fair about PicFair, flushed those turds down the toilet long ago with no regrets.
They had a weird views counter that reached something like 200,000 views in my portfolio of 4,000 images even though sales were pitiful. Weird agency.
147
« on: July 05, 2023, 07:24 »
Anyway, happy to report that today I had my best-ever sale at micros which coincidentally was at SS and not Alamy or Robert Harding.
Probably just got lucky here but there appears to be some life left in this industry.
148
« on: July 02, 2023, 19:00 »
149
« on: June 29, 2023, 07:05 »
I interviewed Doug Jensen, veteran stock footage contributor, with a portfolio of 9,187. Question: In terms of sales volumes and revenue, have you experienced a decrease in the past two years since our last interview? Answer: "If you define sales volume as being the total number of clips that are sold, then that number has remained fairly consistent since we last spoke. Unfortunately, my revenue, which is ultimately the metric that matters most, has dropped by more than 50% during that same time period. I attribute this to two things: First, Shutterstock made a lot of changes to their commission structure that have hurt contributors. And second, Shutterstock is really pushing customers towards a subscription-based sales model which results in overall lower pricing per clip thus lower revenue for the contributors who created those clips. Heres how I see it: If a customer pays an agency $50, does it really matter to the agency whether that $50 covers a single download or a hundred downloads? $50 is $50 of income to the agency no matter how you slice it. But the agency didnt put any effort whatsoever into shooting, editing, uploading, or creating the metadata, so they dont really care whether that $50 covers one download or a hundred downloads. Its still $50 of income (minus the commission) to their bottom line. But to the average contributor, it is devastating because we only get a very small slice of that $50 if the customer is downloading multiple files. The way the subscription model works, the more clips a customer downloads, the less money any individual contributor will get for their slice of the pie. The bottom line is that when you have agencies that are offering customers unlimited 4K and HD downloads for as little as $50 per month, who do you think loses? The contributor." Link to full interview: https://brutallyhonestmicrostock.com/2023/06/28/interview-with-doug-jensen-stock-footage-expert-fresh-insight-after-2-years/
150
« on: June 16, 2023, 07:11 »
The most frustrating part is that should you spot one of your images and send in a DCMA notice their legal team will remove those images and keep the remaining thieving port intact. Pointless.
Further to my depressing Pixabay / Pexels free-download experiment, I've spotted some of my pics pathetically trying to be licensed by thieves. Too bored to send in the notices for the reasons stated above.
It is indeed out of control.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 ... 65
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
