|
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 - KB
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 ... 57
151
« on: August 26, 2015, 18:41 »
Support the 'good' guys: Shutterstock and Pond5 !
Since SS owns BigStockPhoto and are the ones responsible for initiating their "as low as 33c per video" sub plans, I have to consider them as 'neutral' guys at best.
152
« on: August 25, 2015, 23:36 »
basically dead for me. Nothing in Aug and I think I had one in July.
Same here, except I had 2 sales in July (1 in June, though).
YAY I had one show up today!!
Ha! Congrats! I love it when complaining (not that you were) pays off. 
153
« on: August 25, 2015, 10:42 »
basically dead for me. Nothing in Aug and I think I had one in July.
Same here, except I had 2 sales in July (1 in June, though).
154
« on: August 23, 2015, 23:08 »
That's not exactly what's happening.
That is exactly what is happening, at least to my files. If it's not happening to your files then good for you but I and many others have complained about this in the iStock forums and we just get stone walled, being told it doesn't happen and everything is rosy in the garden and working as it should.
I got so fed up with this a while back that I raised a support ticket and was told that the popularity of keywords can affect the display order, which is absolutely crazy because you can put your four least relevant keywords last and have them immediately sent to the front because they happen to be popular in the searches, ruining the similars and best match relevancy.
The whole keywording system is so fundamentally flawed it's as if iStock are deliberately trying to lose sales.
Keywords move up as your file is downloaded, buyers should be determining the relevancy not an algorithm or some editor.
In my experience what SHOULD be happening and what IS happening at Istock are two very different things.
That is how it works. When there is no data (sales or views) you get a boost in your first keywords set by the contributor. Nothing is determined by an editor's subjective thoughts or an algorithm that guesses what the subject is.
Are you sure you don't work for iStock/Getty? I've read conspiracy posts from others who have suggested that, and always mentally belittled the idea. But now I am confronted with posts from you that seem 100% as if they were written by iStock staffers: Totally ignoring both the evidence that is clear to everyone else, as well as posts made by ShadySue, crispy, and hatman12 that clearly state what we all (but you) have seen. I'm sorry, you can reiterate the company line ad infinitum (whether you are or are not staff is irrelevant), but that will not make the facts of what is actually happening any less true.
155
« on: August 20, 2015, 17:41 »
Here is a sample of some of the stock stuff I have done with a drone in the past 2 years. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hceIbMYDtXE all the aerial shots are done with a phantom 2, gopro and gimbal.
This is great stuff. One of my most favorite places in the universe; thanks for refreshing some wonderful memories. And so well done. I have to add, though, that I really, really hated one clip: The one with someone touching a turtle.  Perhaps it's useful stock to show what should never, ever be done, but I doubt it's likely to be used that way. Instead it's far more likely to end up encouraging people ("oh, that looks so neat").
156
« on: August 14, 2015, 16:06 »
I think for most US contributors, this would be the applicable information:
If you are on the cash method of accounting and are not paid for your services, too bad. Unfortunately, you cant take a tax deduction for your lost time and effect.
I totally understand your frustration and anger over RS. I think the worst part is the lack of response to emails, but my guess is that he (Craig) is so overwhelmed he's unfortunately letting that happen. RS isn't a one-person operation, but my understanding is, Craig has very little help. Still, it would be so much better if he could just have someone reply to emails, to slightly help ease the frustrations.
It's the US legal system that has played a large part in this happening, so I'm sad that you think legal action is the best course of action. However if I were in your position, I'm not sure I wouldn't do much the same thing. Good luck.
157
« on: August 07, 2015, 16:08 »
We've been down a similar path before, but .... My opinion is if sales are stagnant (and they surely are for me), then the primary cause is most likely the increase in supply, not any decrease in demand (due to PD clips or anything else).
158
« on: August 01, 2015, 10:35 »
Not here, either. I haven't had a P5 sale since the 15th, which is one of the longest stretches of time I've gone without a sale there in years.
Then again, I had my worst month on SS since the start of 2012, so looks like my port is dead everywhere. No surprise. Just as with photos, there's simply too much competition for my simple skills.
159
« on: July 31, 2015, 12:00 »
I have about 25% of my port there, and haven't had a single sale since January 2014. I haven't bothered uploading there this year at all, but I see no reason (yet) to go and delete what I have uploaded.
160
« on: July 23, 2015, 17:14 »
161
« on: July 22, 2015, 22:45 »
Oh yeah and did you read the entire announcement? Your markup is cut in half, to feed these new "partners". Take it or leave it. I left it.
And I noticed that if you don't do anything, you're taking it, as the default for this particular option is set to "Yes".
I didn't read down that far; but yeah, I'm pretty sure the default is always to accept what they're suggesting.
The email didn't say the default was on. The email implied (to me, anyway) that it required action in order to participate in the sales (when apparently the exact opposite is true).
162
« on: July 22, 2015, 16:45 »
Oh yeah and did you read the entire announcement? Your markup is cut in half, to feed these new "partners". Take it or leave it. I left it.
And I noticed that if you don't do anything, you're taking it, as the default for this particular option is set to "Yes".
163
« on: July 17, 2015, 10:46 »
$10 for 1920x1080?
Sorry, I'm not going to help you sell more.
164
« on: July 17, 2015, 10:43 »
165
« on: July 10, 2015, 11:22 »
I think it's actually good if all the major video contributors upload their footages to VideoBlocks because that'll attract more buyers to become members there and buy there instead of other lower commission paying sites. You just think differently than I do because I don't think it's "diluting" contents. You are correct, but only up to a point. That point has been exceeded on SS and P5. Because VB has a smaller buyer base, it will take less time for that point to be reached there. But up until it happens, the more clips they have, the more they may help attract new buyers. However, it's even MORE true for their other library (the subscription one). The more clips they have there, the more that will attract new buyers. However, the more they have there, the less they would need to purchase from our clips. It's a delicate balance.
166
« on: July 09, 2015, 19:50 »
There has not been any change to the commission structure at iStock since the abominable change that lowered HD commissions to ridiculously low levels for indies. (I had only one sale before pulling all my videos, and it was an HD for well under $9 -- $6.54, to be exact.)
I know everyone has to do what they feel is best for them. But IMO (which I will freely express, since I can't now get 10 negative votes ), any indie contributor who sells videos on iStock is a selfish idiot. (I do apologize to anyone who does so and is offended by my harsh words. It's nothing personal, just as your selling HD videos for such a low commission that hurts others isn't, either.)
If indie contributors on Istock are idiots,what are contributors on Videohive! Super idiots? Selling HD videos for 7$ and getting 3.5$ in the best case? By the way there're 4k files on P5 for 20-30$. Are they idio...
Am not saying just just asking!
Yes, I like that ("super idiots"). Perhaps they are mostly contributors living in places with very low costs of living, so they figure they can undercut others and still make a living wage. In which case, maybe it's unfair of me to call them idiots. (Though they might make more by only supporting higher paying sites, and by not having such low prices on P5.)
167
« on: July 09, 2015, 17:20 »
There has not been any change to the commission structure at iStock since the abominable change that lowered HD commissions to ridiculously low levels for indies. (I had only one sale before pulling all my videos, and it was an HD for well under $9 -- $6.54, to be exact.) I know everyone has to do what they feel is best for them. But IMO (which I will freely express, since I can't now get 10 negative votes ), any indie contributor who sells videos on iStock is a selfish idiot. (I do apologize to anyone who does so and is offended by my harsh words. It's nothing personal, just as your selling HD videos for such a low commission that hurts others isn't, either.)
168
« on: July 09, 2015, 17:13 »
It's odd how different contributors have different experiences.
I read these rah-rah posts by helloitsme (and admittedly don't understand why he or she so strongly wants to encourage competitors to join them, thereby diluting their sales) and wonder what I'm doing wrong. VB remains a distant #3 for me, well behind SS & P5. Also, while others report P5 sales drying up, mine have remained quite steady. (Well, until this month, which admittedly is below average so far.)
I don't mean to imply that anyone isn't reporting exactly what they are experiencing. Just that many of us do seem to have quite opposing experiences.
169
« on: July 07, 2015, 23:24 »
According to the poll iStock sales for nonexclusives are up over 50% since last year.
Shocking! That does not go with my experience at all! The reverse is true for me and the others I read and talk to. 
According to the Wayback Machine's snapshot of MSG on 3 Jul 2014, istock indies were at 31.6, vs 48.1 now. That is indeed up over 50%, and very difficult to understand. Similarly, exclusives were at 154.9, vs 217.9 now. Not as large a percentage increase, but equally difficult to understand. My June 2015 was down over 50% from June 2014. That's the only number that's relevant to me, I guess. 
170
« on: July 06, 2015, 10:57 »
What the...?  (I don't mean that as a reaction to your post, but to the weirdly retitled image in that thread)
You mean this one: Buttyfull garden in the midel of the deserts and the otherObviously, Getty has hired experts who are adept at creating titles that will greatly increase that file's SEO rank. I don't see the problem. 
171
« on: July 03, 2015, 23:36 »
My June was down over 50% in DLs and earnings as compared with 2014 (credit sales only, obviously). It was my WME. So you know my answer to this question.
172
« on: July 02, 2015, 23:42 »
173
« on: July 02, 2015, 19:37 »
174
« on: July 02, 2015, 13:11 »
Not me. But at least I did have a sale there last month.
175
« on: June 25, 2015, 23:49 »
Shutterstock's (SSTK) CEO Jonathan Oringer on Q1 2015 Results - Earnings Call Transcript
Snip
Now shifting to the cost side of the business, total operating expenses were up 35% excluding stock-based compensation with the primary driver being higher contributor royalties associated with growing revenue. Contributor royalties represent approximately 28% of our revenue relatively consistent over many quarters.
http://seekingalpha.com/article/3154256-shutterstocks-sstk-ceo-jonathan-oringer-on-q1-2015-results-earnings-call-transcript
But that's obviously a mix of all media types and sales types. Some are above 28%, some below, and it averages to 28%. I forget whether they've said that footage sub sales get 30% of the price paid or not, but I know they definitely said that about footage cart sales. I don't believe they'd state that and not do it. At least, I certainly hope not.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 ... 57
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
