|
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 - increasingdifficulty
Pages: 1 ... 49 50 51 52 53 [54] 55 56 57 58 59 ... 74
1326
« on: February 23, 2017, 04:08 »
Just got my first sale of the month. Happy days. Hopefully I'll get another nine in the six remaining days of the month! Won't hold my breath though.
Judging by previous sales behavior it's not entirely unlikely!
1327
« on: February 22, 2017, 02:42 »
From my perspective
You need to realize that telling someone they don't value their work can be a condescending insult when the bottom line answers are right there. For a one-time gig, where you need to spend a week doing actual work, a high price means you value your time. For digital goods that you can sell 1 million times over once they're created, without additional work or cost, the value is NOT the price, but the collected revenue over a time period. That is a BIG difference. That's why John Lennon's personal tape master of Imagine may cost $1 million while the digital copy is $0.99. I'm sure you understand the difference but just want to be difficult. The price YOU set on your digital goods does not equal value. If it's something absolutely unique that you expect might sell once or twice in 20 years - set a high price. If it's something that can be used a hundred thousand times by buyers with more limited budgets, set a lower price. --- Again, let's take an example from outside the footage world. A top-selling website theme sells for $60. Wow! Only $60 for something that took 6 months to develop. They must not value their work at all... It makes $370,000 per month and has made $12.5 million to date. I would say the value is pretty high, even though someone might come around and say you should charge at least $3,000 for a website that good.
1328
« on: February 22, 2017, 02:32 »
Don't confuse broadcasting with capturing.
1329
« on: February 21, 2017, 13:34 »
It's raining sales today after a long period of silence.
I also think they're holding sales since unrelated clips always seem to sell on the same day followed by longer periods of nothing.
1330
« on: February 21, 2017, 09:46 »
I value my work based on how much money it brings in over a period of time, say one year, or five. Not how much any single license costs.
0 licenses sold at $3,000 vs 50 at $25 seems like the latter in fact means a higher value. That's kind of the beauty of digital, non-exclusive content. You can sell it more than once.
Some software companies now seem to get this too, while the old dinosaurs die out.
---
The value of something is what people are willing to pay for it over a time period (not the number the owner puts on it). The value is zero if no one buys it.
In the case of digital goods "people" means not just one person, but all combined sales over the course of that time period.
---
I have sold single licenses for $1,000, but over the course of 5 years, multiple cheap licenses have beaten that. It's more long-term than you think.
1331
« on: February 21, 2017, 09:34 »
I can't control what other people do,
You certainly seem to have a need to tell them they don't value their work though, and that they should stop contributing, even though they might make more money than you. I think we're finished here, yes. I'm sure this discussion will come up again soon enough. --- Again, a last example from the music business: The business isn't ruined at all (only for people stuck in the 90s), and there are plenty of ways to make a very nice living from your bedroom or expensive studio. I know because I do, and I'm not even a little bit famous. Those ways are just not the same as they were 10-20 years ago. People want more music than ever, and people sell more music than ever. Just like footage.
1332
« on: February 21, 2017, 09:18 »
"150 sales from a cheaper site is nicer if that means more $."
And this is where people like you and people like me can never seem to agree. It's short-term thinking for a life-long business.
"Again, it comes down to YOUR clips. Which is completely natural, you should do what you want with YOUR clips. Just like ANYONE should do what THEY want with THEIR clips."
I can only control where I put my clips. You can do what you want. I choose to keep the value up, you choose to drive the value down. Never said you can't. Just pointing out why undercutting is flawed logic.
I respect anyone's personal choices. Just not double morals and telling others where and where not to sell... Why on earth should prices for something remain the same for all eternity when the cost of producing is a fraction of what it used to be and the limited budget market demand is 100,000 times higher than it used to be? Just to satisfy one's ego with single pricing? Why do the world's biggest artists sell tracks for $0.99? Don't they value their work? They do, and they sell lots of those tracks. I know I just look for the best ratio between buyers/supply as that's where I stand the best chance of selling the most.
1333
« on: February 21, 2017, 09:07 »
Ok, since you want to make this VH discussion about VB, I'll bite. The whole industry has flaws. No where is perfect. We choose degrees of acceptable or unacceptable situations. We can discuss SS's imperfections too, FT, P5, they all have them. But this was a VH topic, and you chose to pivot to VB. Alrighty.
If a customer goes to VB to buy one of my clips, it won't be through the sub program because I don't and wouldn't participate in that program. So they will pay $50. I know, you're saying that since VB offers a sub program that practically gives away other people's clips, that I'm being inconsistent by selling there. But since I don't participate in that program, I'm not. The value of my clip remains $50, regardless of whether a different clip sells for less. I'm personally being true to keeping video's value reasonable. Not sure if I can make that any clearer.
No, I wanted to make this discussion about "saving the business" and VB seemed like a good example of a company that supposedly brings down the value of stock footage even more than VH. That's why it's a relevant comparison. You clearly stated that the "business" was your concern, making it seem strange that you use one company, but not another. Why do you think VB sells your clips at all? It's their way of BUYING MARKETING MATERIAL for the membership program. Basically, you just don't like Envato, and that's perfectly fine. And you like VB more or less, which is fine too. I like them both much more than SS or Fotolia, and sell more at both. I know which one brings me the most $ though.
1334
« on: February 21, 2017, 08:51 »
Again, it comes down to YOUR clips. Which is completely natural, you should do what you want with YOUR clips. Just like ANYONE should do what THEY want with THEIR clips.
I look at my bottom line. I see the numbers I get from each agency and then I decide what works or not.
If I make 8 sales from VB in a month that's nice, but 150 sales from a cheaper site is nicer if that means more $.
1335
« on: February 21, 2017, 08:41 »
I repeat, again:
You were concerned about the business as a whole. You said Envato undercuts with their prices. Videoblocks is a cheaper site with the membership program, thereby hurting the business more (according to your logic).
So, if the BUSINESS was your concern, why support a company that hurts the business? It's a simple question. The $49 clips at VB is pure marketing material for them to get people to sign up for the membership. By uploading, you create membership customers.
---
If the business as a whole is not your concern, but rather your own personal income, why not let people who want sell for $8? Videoblocks is still cheaper.
1336
« on: February 21, 2017, 08:35 »
Not exactly sure what the relevance is there, I don't participate in the subscription program at Videoblocks. I make $47.16 a sale, and don't compete against myself by accepting $2.88 elsewhere instead.
It's extremely relevant since you were concerned about hurting the business as a whole. Uploading to VB means you support them and help them in their marketing to get membership customers who download thousands of clips for next to nothing. Much cheaper than VH.
1337
« on: February 21, 2017, 08:28 »
Very few companies are close to ideal. I choose to have some standards. There's a massive difference between $8/36% and $50/100%. Specifically, the difference in making $47.16 a sale, or $2.88.
But, I thought your main concern was companies hurting the business. Videoblocks hurts the business more than Videohive. Why do you support them? --- One might be led to believe you just care about your own bottom line. By uploading to VB you're supporting their business model by getting customers to sign up, download 1,000 clips for the membership fee and maybe 1 or 2 from you.
1338
« on: February 21, 2017, 08:14 »
How come you support a company like Videoblocks? Now there's a company that has ACTUALLY stirred up the footage licensing business.
---
By the way, according to your logic the iPhone 7 (being the most expensive phone) is put together by Americans with a nice fair wage. We all know that is not the case, just like Ralph Lauren isn't sewing his own clothes...
1339
« on: February 21, 2017, 08:01 »
Has been a slower month, but have had a reasonable amount of sales on VB. Then again, I'm not competing against myself, undercutting a $50/100% royalty rate company with an $8/36% company. Of course customers will spend as little as you give them the option to. If I could buy a car for $200 instead of $20,000, I would too. But then the car manufacturing industry would collapse...
Isn't it strange that you support a company that offers a subscription service with unlimited downloads?
1340
« on: February 21, 2017, 07:49 »
Love the theory that since there are youtubers who want to make their millennial videos and don't have the budget or the understanding of the value of video clips, that it's called "adaptation" to cater to them and practically give them your content. Let them create their own content if they can't afford to buy quality. I don't care how big the budget of the customer is, MY CLIP has value, to me. So I charge a fair price. So go ahead and keep making it rain with pennies. I'll prefer to keep making dollars as long as I can.
It's not a theory... It's what the market looks like. And it's a relatively new market. And it's absolutely enormous. Let's take stock music for example. 10-20 years ago it cost you $500-20,000 to license a track. Why? Because: 1. Not that many could afford to have a home studio -> supply was not that big. 2. Mostly big productions like movies and commercials needed to license music. Today, millions of tracks are licensed for YouTube, for a cheaper price. The good producers who "give away" their music make $30,000 a month doing so. You can count on very few hands and feet how many producers of stock music there are who command $5,000 per license. There are a select few, with a name and established relationships in the business. But they are very few, and you can be sure they're not selling 50 licenses per day... Today anyone with musical talent can make professionally sounding music at home for the cost of a laptop and time. No need to rent a studio, mixing engineer and a mastering engineer. 60 hours of video is uploaded to YouTube every hour. A lot of that needs licensed music (and footage + AE templates). Like SSF said, there is room in the world for all business models. If you are established with good relationships in the business you can continue selling only for high prices, and skip the YouTube market altogether. That's your choice. Just like it's anyone's choice to provide content for the (enormous) YouTube market. If you are afraid of the business getting ruined by Videohive then you're not good enough. People still buy jeans for $200 when you can buy jeans for $10.
1341
« on: February 21, 2017, 05:45 »
I am adapting. I am working on an exit strategy from stock.
If you have something that brings you more fun and better income that is the right choice.
1342
« on: February 21, 2017, 03:07 »
Well said SSF.
The most important attribute you can have working in almost any industry is the ability to accept and adapt to change, and open your eyes to the world around you.
I'm willing to bet most "old pros" know and care little about the biggest market in the world for stock music, footage, and AE templates: it's called YouTube. And the buyers are independent creators. That's 19-year-old Adam who wants to do things legally but under no circumstance can pay $790 for 10 stock clips to use in his YouTube video. There are thousands (tens of thousands) of Adams for each company happy to pay $199 for a 4k clip.
If you don't adapt you will be the last guy selling physical CDs for $19.99 wondering why everyone is listening to music through tiny white earbuds.
Shouldn't you be more mad that you're getting $24 for a clip from Shutterstock used in Doctor Strange with a budget of $165 million?
1343
« on: February 20, 2017, 11:31 »
mantis, dont put any weight on comments from people working for an agency, they wont be critical of their employer, regardless if the work is voluntary or not
any agency rep is going to give a positive spin on whatever crap the agency comes out with
I think it has more to do with liking agencies that give you $$$ to buy cameras and travel all year...
1344
« on: February 20, 2017, 10:28 »
Artists non participating have been squeezed out by P5, as they have pushed participating ones to the top of the search engine, so it is impossible to get any sales or even any views.
You really refuse to let this go... They DO NOT, and HAVE NOT changed the search placement in relation to being part of the membership program or not.
1345
« on: February 20, 2017, 03:00 »
Quality is quite subjective.
No one is going to buy your perfect picture of a kingfisher breaking the surface in the beautiful morning light if they need a picture of a broken train in rainy weather.
1346
« on: February 19, 2017, 13:29 »
Right now, from $1.5-2 per clip per month across all sites.
Fell like wasting my time...  What is the average online life of those clips?
1-2 years.
1347
« on: February 19, 2017, 10:53 »
I really don't think you should include AE templates here. That's a different world. Let's stick to footage or renders. AE templates are not really related products.
Otherwise I might include music and websites and things would look VERY different...
1348
« on: February 19, 2017, 05:24 »
Right now, from $1.5-2 per clip per month across all sites.
1349
« on: February 19, 2017, 03:11 »
Impossible to know what the average is without getting official numbers from Shutterstock, but you're doing OK. Personally, I'm not satisfied with anything under $8-10 per image/year.
I would say the overall average is much, much lower with thousands making $0 per image/month. Some will of course make much more.
1350
« on: February 18, 2017, 18:54 »
I would however recommend using After Effects if you're aiming to do stock footage as more than a small part-time hobby.
Pages: 1 ... 49 50 51 52 53 [54] 55 56 57 58 59 ... 74
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
