|
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 - Zero Talent
Pages: 1 ... 73 74 75 76 77 [78] 79 80 81 82 83 ... 94
1926
« on: January 27, 2016, 18:39 »
Its called competition I'm afraid you might have to get used to it.....just like the old pros who used macrostock 
Competition is good and improves our work. I have no problem with the merit system as long as the search cards are not stacked against you. That was the case before shutterstock introduced its post IPO search to increase stock prices.
Great for Jon and friends but crap for the rest of us. The new tiered EL's allow to SS to manipulate maximize profit further.
Having reread what you said I think I was being unfair although wouldn't be simpler for SS to simply pay a flat rate to everyone rather than create sophisticated algorithms and risk alienating customers. I don't have the evidence but couldn't it just be that the tide of new images is flooding you like everyone else?
If that was the case it would not have happened overnight in one day. The drop would have been gradual and dynamic according to the new content we upload.
Have you ever considered that the "old way" might have been the "wrong way"? Maybe your photos were over-ranked by the early version of the search algorithm, making difficult for new and fresh content to penetrate the top pages. This might have been an issue for customers who were constantly offered the same "old" stuff. Good for you, but bad for them. The new and improved search algorithm is more dynamic, allowing fresh content to climb the ranks faster. See the observation made by Minscer: "it can take as little as 3 downloads to get to the first page". I concur with his observation. So most probably you benefited from a privilege which got taken away from you, while making the competition fair for both newcomers and veterans. I fully understand your frustration.
1927
« on: January 27, 2016, 18:31 »
Its called competition I'm afraid you might have to get used to it.....just like the old pros who used macrostock
One middleman ending up in control of a market isn't 'competition', it's the opposite.
I don't think this is the case according to the poll on the right they have about 30% of the market which is too high but hardly "control"
They aren't quite there yet but the handwriting is on the wall. They don't need 100%; they're already big enough that they control price and no new competitors can come in. The remaining ones are being steadily squeezed out or sold off. And don't pin your hopes on Adobe; they're just acquiring stock archives to wring more money out of Photoshop.
Last time I checked Fotolia were accepting new images while I agree there is a danger its a much more open market than in the days of macro sites when a small cabal of suppliers held sway and of course Getty still take full advantage of their near monopoly of historic pics
Yes that's true; I think Adobe probably doesn't really have a plan, this was just some exec's hot idea and who knows where it will end up.
The internet created new opportunities for photographers: anyone could get into the game and sell photos. But the downside was that a handful of middlemen were able to gain control of the online photo market, keep buyers and producers from ever coming into contact, and totally exploit the situation despite adding little value to the product. What's needed now is what economists call 'disntermediation' and we call 'cutting out the middleman'.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disintermediation
You can do this anytime, even today, by deleting your port from all agencies and fly solo. Do your own marketing, your own sales calls, etc. What stops you?
1928
« on: January 27, 2016, 17:04 »
As a buyer, my most common habit is to download the best image I find on the first page. There are other scenarios though.
- Occasionally, I would switch between the Popular & Relevant tab to see what's available.
- For a game, I download about 200 images. I've dug as much as 20 pages deep to find what I need. I needed specific type of landscapes, houses, objects and collage parts.
- For a food app, I downloaded over 300 images, most of it from the first page of the Popular tab.
- For work, I dug between 1-10 pages deep before I give up and download the best image.
As a contributor, I know that it doesn't matter how good my image is, it's my job to get it to the first page. From what I've seen, it can take as little as 3 downloads to get to the first page in some categories. For it to stay on there, the image must be as good, if not better than the competition on the first page, otherwise it'll start falling.
Weird! There are people on this forum I 100% agree with! 
1929
« on: January 27, 2016, 14:32 »
Maybe some customers like to play roulette and jump to page 213, but it must be only an insignificant minority.
When all else fails, insult. 
Oh, I sincerely apologize if you feel insulted. It was not my intention. You said "randomly", I said "roulette" which is a metaphor for random. Sorry again! 
1930
« on: January 27, 2016, 14:13 »
Nobody settles for good enough. Do you?
Depends on the budget. If I am looking for an image, and the client has x amount of dollars to spend on the job, I can't afford to wade through 20,000 images for hours and hours to be sure I got the best one. In that instance, yes, I settle for good enough. High budget clients who don't care what it costs and want the best, no, I don't settle for good enough.
EXACTLY! Time = money, so the logical and economical thing for most buyers is to go with the first image that meets their needs and is adequate quality. Nobody is going to search thru thousands more pictures after they find one that they are satisfied with, just to see if they can find one marginally better. Its looking for a needle in a haystack.
Definitely! Exactly! This is why most of the customers will only search for the first few pages of the popular/relevant/new, and sometimes the undiscovered hierarchies. Maybe some customers like to play roulette and jump to page 213, but it must be only an insignificant minority. Producing the same quality or better than seen on those top pages will definitely maximise your chances to break into those top pages and better sell your stuff. This is not rocket science, really! I'm afraid that "good enough" photos will never make it to the top, where the "big bucks" (relatively speaking) are. The top pages must be your goal. I know it is mine.
1931
« on: January 27, 2016, 13:53 »
Its called competition I'm afraid you might have to get used to it.....just like the old pros who used macrostock
Exactly! Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk
1932
« on: January 27, 2016, 13:13 »
I'm not twisting anything, you fail to produce a consistent conspiracy theory. On one hand, you say that the age of a file matters in the search algorithm: I think older files are relegated to the lower rungs .... and SS can and does dynamically change that age. I see old files come to life for weeks at a time. They just do not stay there long no matter how good those files are or how much the customers like them.
If this is true, then nothing stops you from producing new, competitive files, and successfully continue to play the game. On the other hand, you now switch to the "tier based theory". You are beyond naive if you think the search has not been design to take advantage of serving a shifting % of good enough images at the lower pay tiers.
... which concludes that top tier contributors are penalised in the search algorithm. This is definitely NOT the same thing and you must realise the difference. I also tried to explain that tricking customers with inferior quality, for the sake of an easy profit, is very easy to be exploited by competitors. Maybe SS is foolish enough to do that, but I don't see it happening to me, and I'm not the only one. This is why I strongly doubt your "certainty" and "expertise" on this matter, even when you use words like "naive", "arrogant", etc, even if your "theory" is music to some of this forum ears. Anyway, feel free to continue with your personal attacks, instead of debating with arguments and facts. Frankly, I'm not impressed.
1933
« on: January 27, 2016, 12:23 »
Denial is a luxury and can be costly, in fact it has gotten us where we are today!
Those who regularly produce advertising & promotional material have very little time to find images and deliver projects. They have bosses and clients breathing down their back asking them to deliver.
Good enough is the order of the day. They do not have time to wade through pages of images to find a perfect fit.
You are free to produce "good enough" photos, if you believe it works for you. My goal is to produce the quality able to push my photos as high as possible on the top popular/relevant pages, because these are, strangely enough  , my best sellers. Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk
1934
« on: January 27, 2016, 10:30 »
Nobody settles for good enough. Do you?
Depends on the budget. If I am looking for an image, and the client has x amount of dollars to spend on the job, I can't afford to wade through 20,000 images for hours and hours to be sure I got the best one. In that instance, yes, I settle for good enough. High budget clients who don't care what it costs and want the best, no, I don't settle for good enough.
You will settle for what is on the first pages of your relevant/popular/new tabs. These photos are already filtered for you, out of that ocean of garbage. You will not randomly go to the 213th page, close your eyes and pick a good enough photo. Short of time, you will still pick it out of what the crowd considers "the best" You will trust the "popular vote". The same goes for the majority of customers, because these customers are the ones deciding what's popular/relevant and what not. Everyone's goal is to produce the quality able to push photos up on the first few pages of the popular/relevant hierarchies for specific keywords. Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk
1935
« on: January 27, 2016, 08:31 »
zero talent, tell me, how do you determine if you have the best image without checking all, lets say, 38,000 results for diversity in the office? are you going to check all 38,000 results?
It's called crowdsourcing. The crowd "votes" for the most popular photos. Sometimes the popular vote doesn't match yours, but most of the time it is an indication of what the public (read customer) wants. You can't have success if you fail to acknowledge this basic fact. Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk
1936
« on: January 27, 2016, 07:46 »
out of 70 million images they will never know if they got the best image or not. if they search and get 200 pages of images and they wont know if the first 10 pages are newbiew photos or not. they will pick the photo they like best on those 10 pages, i doubt they will look further than 2000 images.
Yes and how can a search engine define "best" anyway its subjective and in the eye of the buyer. Its not really about best its about "good enough for what I want" most stock is for images that will be glanced at for seconds not to be hung on the wall to be admired for years to come 
Nobody settles for good enough. Do you? When you have the choice to get a better camera for the same amount of money, you will go for it. You will not settle for an inferior product, even if it looks good enough. When I search for keywords specific to my speciality, sometimes I find my photos on the 1st page (popularity or relevant), but most of the time, I find photos I would love to have on my port, because those photos are definitely better. And clearly much better than what can be found on, let's say, the 3rd page and beyond. Customers don't behave differently. FYI I'm not uploading tomatoes on white, handshakes or skies with fluffy clouds. That would be foolish, indeed. Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk
1937
« on: January 26, 2016, 15:29 »
I think older files are relegated to the lower rungs, if you have a newer port you will not be impacted much after reaching the top tier. I have watched many claim it is not impacting them only to see them come back and claim 30% drops when their files hit the threshold age. And SS can and does dynamically change that age. I see old files come to life for weeks at a time. They just do not stay there long no matter how good those files are or how much the customers like them.
Shutterstock is happy to sell good enough files at a lower price for increased profits in bursts. The one thing you can not do is keep your port from aging.
This is a theory like any other, or an opinion like any other. We will never know for sure.
In my opinion, the popularity algorithm, designed to promote trends dynamically, independent from long term file performance, is the reason for the old file surge, you mentioned.
But if by some unlikely remote possibility, your theory about file age is true, then it has nothing to do with the tiered revenue structure. You can very well be stuck on the first tier with old files. What you say is that ports and contributors are not penalised, once they reached the top tier, despite what some conspirationists like to believe.
So from this point of view, we agree.
When it happens to your port you will understand that it is not a theory. The over night drop drives the point home nicely and when it happens every year on the clock it becomes undeniable.
An "undeniable", warm and convenient "truth", indeed. It is much easier to blame external factors, instead of keeping your port competitive. But I'm happy we agree there is neither port nor contributor penalty once the top tier is reached.
1938
« on: January 26, 2016, 15:06 »
I think older files are relegated to the lower rungs, if you have a newer port you will not be impacted much after reaching the top tier. I have watched many claim it is not impacting them only to see them come back and claim 30% drops when their files hit the threshold age. And SS can and does dynamically change that age. I see old files come to life for weeks at a time. They just do not stay there long no matter how good those files are or how much the customers like them.
Shutterstock is happy to sell good enough files at a lower price for increased profits in bursts. The one thing you can not do is keep your port from aging.
This is a theory like any other, or an opinion like any other. We will never know for sure. In my opinion, the popularity algorithm, designed to promote trends dynamically, independently from long term file performance, is the reason for the old file surge, you mentioned. But if by some unlikely remote possibility, your theory about file age is true, then it has nothing to do with the tiered revenue structure. You can very well be stuck on the first tier with old files. What you say is that ports and contributors are not penalised, once they reached the top tier, despite what some conspirationists like to believe. So from this point of view, we agree.
1939
« on: January 26, 2016, 13:11 »
The answer is in this topic: http://www.microstockgroup.com/shutterstock-com/low-comissions/It seems like the lower payment is due to the fact that your clip is downloaded by non-US source. When the clip is downloaded from a non-US source, the sales conversion to US dollar may cause a lower payment due to the the exchange rate from the origin of sale. Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk
1940
« on: January 26, 2016, 09:42 »
This option available to everyone:
1941
« on: January 26, 2016, 09:00 »
Their interest is to keep the customers happy by presenting them the best photos available.
If they start playing games, as you suggest, customers will notice and leave, going to agencies with better search algorithms, able to offer a better product.
Their foremost incentive is to keep their customers loyal and happy.
Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk
Actually I thnk you are right up to a point though many customers don't want the best they want something fit for purpose so if two pictures meet that need then it may be that the supplier would want to promote the most profitable to them whether they are sophisticated enough to do this I'm not sure.
The search algorithm is one of the most important differentiators in this competition. And its primary goal is to make the best photos float above an ocean of garbage. Fit for purpose is mandatory, of course, but there is always a hierarchy of photos, once fit for purpose is satisfied. Customers would always look for the best photos fitting their purpose. I believe a company like SS is smart enough to realise that if they stop offering customers their best, they set themselves on a slippery slope. It is easy to imagine a competitor, let's say FT, going after SS customers and running comparative search tests. FT could easily convince SS customers to switch, if they can prove that SS is tricking them, for the sake of an easy profit, with underpar photos made by first tier contributors (and I'm not saying that beginners make underpar photos) Personally, long after I reached the top tier, I have yet to see a decline. On the contrary, I see growth year over year. But again, I'm also aware that "una hirundo non facit ver" If I would be SS, I would offer an easy way to make the believers in this "theory" happy: if you believe that your sales are affected by a promotion, you should be allowed refuse the promotion! Make the promotion optional. Maybe you can even ask SS, right now, to demote you to the first tier! But, I'm rather certain that you will see a massive drop in your revenue, and no change in your sales numbers.
1942
« on: January 26, 2016, 06:11 »
no one said or insinuated that
Well Shutterstock and other sites seem to think so?
Surely it's not about being old-timers, it's about having a track record of producing stuff people want to buy. One person might have 100 images sitting there from 2004 and still be on the bottom earnings tier while another who started uploading six months ago could already have reached the top tier if he or she is really, really good.
Thanks I can see the Logic of that as a kind of incentive for producing marketable work but does create a perverse logic that it is in the interests of the supplier to encourage customers to go to lower tier supplier's images.
Their interrest is to keep the customers happy by presenting them the best photos available. If they start playing games, as you suggest, customers will notice and leave, going to agencies with better search algorithms, able to offer a better product. Their foremost incentive is to keep their customers loyal and happy. Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk
1943
« on: January 25, 2016, 15:07 »
And it also looks like they dropped the price of EL to $89 from $99 for standard rates (or maybe it's been like this for a while)
I'm US based and I can still see the "old" rates (see attached). Can you mention your location? I have had 2 EL today, each $28 so no change yet. I am 30% tier.
As you can see below these prices, ELs can be downloaded "within 1 year of purchase". Maybe your ELs are part of an already paid pack, only partially downloaded, and the old rate still applies. If this is the case, we might see some residual $28 ELs, for a while.
1944
« on: January 25, 2016, 13:37 »
They are not too dark.
Maybe just a little flat, see the attached histogram: blacks can be darker, and it is OK to burn the specular highlights.
But, why editorial? You can easily delete all signs, ads etc, and enlarge your image potential by making it acceptable for commercial usage.
1945
« on: January 25, 2016, 07:41 »
Yes, C and its similars can only be licensed through GI and you will have to keep them with GI for the duration of your contract.
Otherwise, you are a free man and you can work with other agencies to license non-similars.
Anyway, maybe it helps to repeat: my personal experience showed that spreading the same photos over multiple agencies produces ~30% more than what GI can do.
Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk
1946
« on: January 24, 2016, 09:12 »
"Jon Oringer
January 11 at 10:27am New York, NY
Financial incentives only work well for mechanical non-cognitive tasks....?"
Yeah, well, it's hardly news: we're Artistes: "money isn't what makes us happy".
C'mon SS, you want to diss contributors? At least think up your own shtick, don't plagiarise.
The video is totally irrelevant to us. It is about employees being given artificial financial incentives for tasks. When you are in our business your sales are a direct indicator of how good you are at your job. We are self employed
It is relevant when it comes to the army of hobbyists ready to work for free only to see their name mentioned on a magazine or their work liked on social media. SS acknowledged their potential, constantly making efforts to bring them on board.
1947
« on: January 22, 2016, 20:41 »
I honestly don't see the point of announcing such a big change, and then not giving the details immediately. Like it's some no-name company with two and a half employees.
Unless they want to see how the community reacts to adjust the percentages depending on the reaction. Shutterstock does a lot of A/B testing, trying out different things, so it's unlikely, but also I wouldn't be surprised.
In any case, if the change is negative for me (top tier), I will deactivate enhanced licences (it's very easy to do - account settings - Enhanced License -> Opt Out)
This is the most appropriate and logical response, for those dissaproving the deal. Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk
1948
« on: January 22, 2016, 19:09 »
Yes, you can share your photos and get comments and favs but there is also a marketplace which SELLS the files ...
You don't need a HUGE preview image if you are just looking to share some photos...
While a better preview management would be something nice to have, it is far from being a deal breaker, when you get 70%, up to $175 comission! 500px is on the rise and they deserve encouragements since they drive the market in the right direction. Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk
1949
« on: January 22, 2016, 14:52 »
How much credits do you get for EL?
$25, in my case
1950
« on: January 22, 2016, 14:18 »
Anyway, my method is definitely healthier and more peaceful.
Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk
It is very clear from the exchanges on this and every other thread you participate in that nothing abou you or your methods are peaceful. You are the most argumentative and aggressive person who currently posts here. But please don't feel special. You are just the latest in a long line of unpleasant types who are the reason this site has lost so many members, and others no longer post.
Obviously you're going off topic with this personal attack. Don't blame me for responding to it, OK? May I remind you that what appears unpleasant to you is the fact that I didn't sing the same sad song, so popular on this forum. I disagreed with your "poor sales caused by shenanigans" theory. It just happens that I have a different opinion and I tried to provide the necessary arguments to support it. Instead of addressing the arguments, you use, again, the easy solution of blaming the person making the arguments. This is no different than blanket blaming agencies and their "shenanigans" for "poor sales". Every thread, your say? Really? Maybe some people are leaving because they are tired of listening, over and over again, to all these "low sales" depressing comments. Positive news and experiences appear to be rather unpopular among a small but vocal, know-it-all, circle of seasoned contributors.
Pages: 1 ... 73 74 75 76 77 [78] 79 80 81 82 83 ... 94
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
