|
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 - Jo Ann Snover
Pages: 1 ... 52 53 54 55 56 [57] 58 59 60 61 62 ... 291
1401
« on: January 15, 2019, 09:35 »
...To calculate download (D) and view (V) rank data only from Dreamstime and CanStockPhoto are used, because Shutterstock and Fotolia are not showing this information. Market of Dreamstime and CanStockPhoto are very small relative to Shutterstock, that is why ImStocker uses not absolute values but relative ones. ...
DT and CanStock are not just smaller, but arguably increasingly irrelevant in the marketplace and doing anything on the basis of their sales patterns has major risks. I just looked at my last 20 sales at DT and at SS to see if there was any overlap at all (and that has issues as a bad day at SS is now about the same as a good month at DT in terms of volume) and there wasn't any. Not one image. I went back to a day just before Christmas at SS to see if that helped line up a bit better with DT and that gave me one file in common to both lists. I left CanStock years ago (because of slow and increasingly low value sales) so I can't compare. I did a similar last 20 at AdobeStock and likewise, no overlap. Went back to December - one file overlap (and it's the same file as at SS). I understand you can't get the data you want from the agencies that are actually selling but that doesn't improve the relevance of the data you can get.
1402
« on: January 15, 2019, 08:45 »
...What use does weekly rank do for sales or help?
I want weekly & overall rank to move over to Adobe Stock although I doubt they'll do that. Weekly rank in particular is very useful - if you have a great week and your rank doesn't improve, then it means the site was having a great week and the rising tide floated all boats, or at least yours. If you have a lousy week and your weekly rank stays about the same, then the reverse - the site was down overall about as much as you were. And similar helpful guidance if your weekly rank tanks or skyrockets. Bottom line is that it helps you see the things you might need to do something about versus those that are site wide.
1403
« on: January 14, 2019, 23:08 »
...I have two questions related to it, first one is related to the website usage of images. I can use a full resolution picture as background of a wordpress template??
My second question is if the monthly subscription to SS: 750 images per month: 249$ per month (0.33 per image) are just one-month payment, or I must keep paying every month?
https://www.shutterstock.com/licenseIf you read the license agreement, you'll see that you need to buy an extended license to include a stock image in a digital template - so that's more expensive and you can't get that with a 750/month subscription https://www.shutterstock.com/license-comparisonThis page (and you should check for your country as the prices do vary around the world) shows you the EL prices - $199 for 2 is the cheapest: https://www.shutterstock.com/license-comparisonAnd yes, get in touch with SS support to verify that you're getting what you need
1404
« on: January 14, 2019, 15:43 »
I was intrigued to see what your tool did, so I tried some searches including keywords that I expected would show some of my popular images.
They did show up, but the keywords shown in purple for them - if I understand it correctly, those would be the best selling keywords for those files - aren't the keywords that Shutterstock shows me as the top selling ones (using the top performers list).
I obviously have no clue as to whether what SS shows me is accurate, but as you're apparently looking at SS, AS and CanStock (looking at the thumbnails that show up), how do you know?
Images are duplicated when they are on multiple agencies - it'd probably make more sense not to show the same image multiple times, or at least to somehow indicate it's a duplicate.
I tried the synonyms feature and it was utterly wrong - lots of truly useless suggestions (very funny though; dixie and southwest as synonyms for "New England" and trendy, fashion and accessory for "New Hampshire")
It is certainly important to include relevant keywords, but a keyword is either relevant or not, and how often it's searched for by buyers doesn't make it any more relevant to an image.
What is the thinking behind showing the "competitveness" of keywords? Spamming images with irrelevant keywords that are popular is already an issue; doesn't a tool like this just encourage more spamming?
1405
« on: January 10, 2019, 20:01 »
1406
« on: January 10, 2019, 17:26 »
I would imagine keywording issues are largely the same as for photos, but if this isn't true, then ignore everything I'm about to say.
You really shouldn't care about the total number, just that you got (a) all the critical ones for that subject, (b) regional variations in how something is described - such as a garden in British English versus a yard in US English; (c) careful use of multi-word keywords and their components - so "baby boomer" is fine, along with older, mature, etc. but don't use "baby" and "boomer" separately; same for "New England".
You want your work to be found, but not to show up in searches where buyers will wonder why on earth it's there. Simple subjects only require a few keywords, but multiple people in a particular town (with landmarks showing) could easily require more than 50, so you need to prioritize.
A useful tool on SS for images looking at your top performers list where you see the important keywords that led to a sale. Nag them and the other sites to include that info for videos (it's been saying "not for video" for eons) as it's important insight. For example, I always include both house and home, but house is way more frequently the buying keyword - even when home shows up in the list, it's less than half the percentage of house.
Mostly, learn to think like a buyer and don't worry about keyword numbers so much.
1407
« on: January 09, 2019, 20:07 »
...Your question is quite generic so the generic answer is that it all depends on your content.
It depends on content and keywording skills. Without seeing your portfolio no one can give you any useful information, and even then, good content in a competitive category can be harder that if you can find themes with relatively low supply but decent buyer demand. Perhaps you have access to locations and authentic models for some type of business or industry setting that will allow you to do really well, for example. Crap keywords will render good content invisible. And starting this year is harder than starting a year or two ago; or five years, or 10... Probably you should do some searches for yourself using keywords from some of your images to see what your competition is. You may be able to see for yourself
1408
« on: January 08, 2019, 14:39 »
...So I started working really hard on my portfolio, ... and started creating way more illustrations, hired people to help me, paid for keyworders etc. ...Any ideas are appreciated.
If you're honest with yourself, looking back on the decision you made to become a 3D map/satellite view factory (among other things), does it still make sense that this would really boost your income? I searched your port for the keyword Germany and there were 500+ results - a mind-numbing display of tiny variations. Satellite views with and without borderlines around the country. Slight color variations, etc. Perhaps less than 10 would have been fine to cover your bases. And not all countries are equally interesting to stock buyers - I got similar numbers of results for countries that I doubt generate many searches, let alone many purchases. In addition to a flood of similars, what you've done is so easy to copy if one or two should turn out to be really saleable. So you've invested time and money in mass producing things with limited market potential and low barriers to competitors. Sorry if this sounds harsh, but I think the issue is largely not a result of SS's problems - although if they'd rejected lots of your similars when you first started down this path they'd have been doing you a huge favor (IMO). I didn't look at your videos as I really have no expertise there regarding what sells or doesn't; this was just about the photo & 3D part of your portfolio.
1409
« on: January 08, 2019, 14:13 »
In all seriousness - the SS/FB deal was one of the deciding factors when I quit doing microstock....
Given the nature of the deal - one purpose use of a thumbnail size image - I thought it was very like a custom RM deal with limited use for a limited price. The FB ad buyer didn't get access to a full sized image and could not use the image for anything else. This wasn't anything like the uses of a standard RF sale with virtually no usage or time limits. We never got to see the license terms, but as I understand it, it was not the case that FB got to buy once for an unlimited number of ad buyers. The Getty-Google deal (and the lack of opt out for that) was a train wreck because there was unlimited access forever to any number of users for one tiny one-time payment to the contributor. That was why I all-but-left iStock (removed all but 100 images I can't license anywhere else) in 2013. I don't mind variations in license terms or prices as long as those take account of contributor interests as well as agency interests. I do think the total lack of transparency regarding terms - at SS, Adobe and other agencies that do partner deals and corporate deals - is a huge problem. At this point, given the history, an agency saying "just trust us" is not appealing.
1410
« on: January 08, 2019, 10:09 »
The Facebook deal was, I think, the first of that kind and all the 38 cent royalties for using a SS image in a Facebook ad (which the ad buyer didn't pay for) were reported as SOD. They've been around since at least the end of 2015.
The 38 cent SODs aren't a problem - it's the lack of $75, $90 and $120 SODs that's been noticable and one of the huge hits to income at SS. The other has been replacing the $2.85 OD income with all sorts of lower numbers, without any increase in volume - all those experiments with lower-priced packages they've introduced over the last year or so.
1411
« on: January 08, 2019, 10:00 »
I use it every now and then from my phone - because the app is more convenient than Safari - but 95% of the time I use my computer.
1412
« on: January 07, 2019, 18:24 »
1413
« on: January 07, 2019, 18:20 »
I have never received a notification about a "selected for" file being turned down, but I would assume Getty reserves the right for a final say on acceptance, regardless of what EyeEm thought.
1414
« on: January 07, 2019, 17:28 »
Getty works like a garden slug. It takes forever for them to ruin all the metadata you so carefully put into the title, description and keywords  It takes months (although it is variable). My last uploads were in September and they made it to Getty mid-December. You will get email from EyeEm when it's live: "Your Photo Is Live on Getty Images. We're happy to let you know that your photo is officially live on Getty Images, significantly increasing your chances of selling it. Congratulations!" You'll see the Selected for Partner change to "Partner Collection" on EyeEm. Selected for just means that EyeEm thinks it should go to Getty.
1415
« on: January 07, 2019, 16:21 »
How can you check your name in Getty if you only upload via EyeEm?
Because EyeEm tells you when your images are live on Getty and gives you a link, so you can then see that (and all others) with your credit. I keep a link to my EyeEm images on Getty as a bookmark as (a) it's a hassle to search and (b) Getty edits keywords, as well as mangling user names. Generally they remove most of the useful ones regarding location. Getty is completely useless and impervious to any sort of suggestions regarding improvements. They have a rather feudal approach to the photographer - they know and you don't and their system rules. I wouldn't worry about it as I doubt it will do you much harm - and correcting it probably wouldn't do your sales elsewhere much good either Most advertising uses don't include a credit anyway. If you have a blog, write a post about the name mix-up and that will at least associate both names with you and your portfolio in search engines. The key thing is for someone to find you if they're looking, misspelling or no...
1416
« on: January 07, 2019, 13:19 »
Glad i found this forum ! Recently i started with my stock career, i have 24 MP camera and i know that people that have 40+ MP downsize images for better quality, i am not sure if i should do the same, what are your thoughts on image sizes since i am limited to 24 MP. Thanks
If you have a good 24MP camera, decent lenses, light, and skills, there is no reason to downsize most images. If you have a very high-ISO image you need to downsize, you can, and you'll still find a large enough image to be useful. You can easily do a bus wrap with a 24MP image; there's very few uses that demand 40+ MP
1417
« on: January 05, 2019, 17:54 »
...So far no one has cheated me....
If that should happen, please don't bother asking anyone else for help. When you're of the mindset that you only are looking out for yourself and no one else, don't be surprised that others you have helped to screw - which is what you're doing by knowingly supporting an agency with nothing to offer except undercutting other agencies on price - aren't nowhere to be seen. You're right that you're free to think as short-term and me-first as you like, but you can't expect to be thanked by those trying to do something more sustainable and fair. OnePixel is a parasite - they've created nothing, built nothing new and are just looking to siphon off income from other agencies hard work. You want to get your share of their short term cash and just ignore everything else. Call things by their true names - and don't say you weren't warned about what you were getting into.
1418
« on: January 04, 2019, 11:41 »
In addition to Steve's suggestions - figuring out what the image would be saying to a designer trying to put something together - think about the space in the image. For stock, your image is often a part of something in the end, and if your image isn't usable in a design - cropped too tight is the most common problem - it won't be licensed. One example I noticed was your "Mind the Gap" image. You've cut off the letters on either side; a little bit of space either side would have made the image suitable for lots more uses. You have a beer stein, vertical only and cropped tight. If you'd also had something as a horizontal with some out of focus stuff (not distracting, but suitably blurred background) I think it would be more usable as stock. There are very few hard and fast rules, but horizontal images tend to work in many more cases than verticals, so trying to shoot both can be helpful. You have a Scottish fishing village with boats, vertical only. I'll bet there was also a great horizontal shot to be had there too. Once you have the camera and the other gear, shooting a few extra shots when you're taking some for yourself costs you next to nothing but your time, so perhaps just expand your shots a bit with some stock uses in mind. One for you, one for stock, so to speak
1419
« on: January 02, 2019, 12:58 »
...It's time to stop selling good quality content cheap.
Happy New Year
But there's the rub, for most of us here anyway. All those "premium" "exclusive" outlets are not accessible. Sort of back to the future when microstock grew with good content from people that Getty, Jupiter, Corbis and others wouldn't work with. iStock exclusivity was - until they and Getty ruined it - a really great setup. 40% royalties and high volume sales. A market for complex illustrations (that were priced by complexity versus the SS model of bargain basement prices across the board). Being exclusive now, not so much. The other problem with so-called premium outlets or collections is that in many cases the content is indistinguishable from the "regular" cheaper content. Not sure where we go from here, but I'm certainly not providing content the way I once did as it would be a waste of time.
1420
« on: December 31, 2018, 19:47 »
Glad the video royalty goosed the numbers a bit, but I agree with the overall picture - SS is not doing as well as it did (for me).
The last three months of the year have always been the peak earners for me, and taking a look at Oct - Dec at SS this year, compared to 2013 (the peak Q4 earnings for me at SS), earnings were down 65% and downloads down 72% from 2013
Q4 this year, AS/FT beat SS - a first for me.
Comparing SS Q4 this year to 2017, earnings were down 48% and downloads down 27%
I have to go back to 2011 (when I was still re-uploading my portfolio after switching back to independence after 3 years as an IS exclusive) to see lower Q4 earnings (although downloads this year are still down 22% on 2011 Q4!)
Bottom line is that SS is still a decent earner, but falling behind itself and AS. It's reminiscent of the switchover from IS being the top earner to SS as #1 many years back. The king is dead; long live the king (as it were)
1421
« on: December 30, 2018, 02:38 »
Very nice composite.
You can use the composite image you created from other people's work for your business, training or on your web site to advertise your training. All exactly the sort of the stock is intended for.
You are on very shaky ground if you start trying to sell prints without buying extended licenses for all of the components. If you are giving prints away as a marketing promotion, that would be OK, but if you are taking money for "printing for someone else" that's resale.
If I understand you correctly, almost everything is other people's photos. Saying that each one is a minor part of the whole is really skirting the point. You could take the approach Fotolia used to allow (not sure if Adobe does) where for each print you sell you have to purchase a new standard license on behalf of the buyer (and in your case that would be 15 licenses for each print). You don't say which (or how many) agencies you licensed work from.
You're really better off taking your own photos for composites you plan to sell prints of - there's lots of gray area here, especially if multiple agency license terms are at issue.
1422
« on: December 29, 2018, 19:23 »
Thanks for posting these. Small ports with great variety of subjects, styles and locations certainly has all the hallmarks of stolen work.
I didn't see anything of mine, but it'd be good if someone who is an owner can complain to SS so these scumbags can have their portfolios removed. I wish they'd let third party reports be considered (it'd be easy enough for them to check it out if they actually gave a toss...)
1423
« on: December 22, 2018, 01:57 »
...Alamy seems to have great sales 
Alamy seems tempting when you look at the occasional high value sale, but there are way too few sales overall and many are for modest amounts. Before I opted out of distributor sales, my highest gross there was $381, but the distributor got 40% of that and Alamy & I split the remaining 60%, so I made $114 net. Shutterstock or Adobe Stock makes more, individually, in one year than Alamy has made the entire time I've been there. The largest SS royalty was $120, smallest 20 cents; largest at AS was $94, smallest around 27 cents I think (I started at FT in 2005 but old sales records just say "1 credit" so I have no idea now what that paid me).
1424
« on: December 21, 2018, 16:57 »
...The interior is easily recogniseable, and I'd expect to need many releases for e.g. wallpaper, furnishings etc.
I have lots of pictures of homes & interiors in my portfolio, many of which are of my own house. I have never had to provide a release for furniture (but then I don't live high enough on the hog to have non-generic furniture or wallpaper!) but I have had to provide releases for my own photos hanging on walls, in addition to the release for the house. Anything that looks like "art" - and they don't judge the artistic merit of my photographs, just ask for the releases I have one picture of a friend's home with their cat in it - the agencies (so far) have been happy with just one release for the home and no need to get one for the cat I have had rejections where I forgot to attach a release, so I'm not just imagining the requirements for releases of home and interior.
1425
« on: December 21, 2018, 11:25 »
... The buildings I have shot aren't well known or "famous", I am not trespassing on the property itself (taken from the road) and these aren't people's private homes. There are no names on these buildings or trademarks....
If you shoot a city street with multiple buildings, or a skyline (no logos, no protected designs), you will very likely not need a property release. If it's one building (or a very small number), regardless of where you were when you photographed it, regardless of whether it's a home or business, you probably will need a release. Years ago agencies were less strict but now they don't permit a main subject to be unreleased property. For an interior - i.e. where a room is shown, versus just a flower vase or just a window frame - you'll almost always need a property release. For some agencies - SS, for example - you need to show that the property release is signed by the owner or someone with the proper authority to make a release. I had to update my release for my own house to indicate I was the homeowner (and even so they still sometimes complain). https://www.shutterstock.com/contributorsupport/articles/kbat02/000011069
Pages: 1 ... 52 53 54 55 56 [57] 58 59 60 61 62 ... 291
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
