|
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 - spike
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 13 14 ... 26
202
« on: February 12, 2017, 14:48 »
Now the only thing we can argue is my mismanagement of time or assets - I could have invested that time in some other (new) concepts, and keep my RPI (relatively) high, but maybe I would have earned less in total. So it's difficult to say which would have been the better choice.
However, due to a full time job (not related to photos) and supplying higher end materials to macro agencies, I had nothing else to offer to micro. And, given the prices and royalties they offer to us contributors, I'm not sorry about that. You get what you pay for.
In 2017 I'll try with some new concepts (in conjunction with "similars" from these concepts) and see how it goes. Microstock is all about experimenting and feeling the market. And statistics are extremely important in order to analyze batches and optimize your strategy.
203
« on: February 12, 2017, 14:42 »
I appreciate the fun in estimates but at the end of the day, it's just completely useless. No one sells the exact same images with the same keywords and results will always be very, very different for each individual.
However, if you're making less than $3 per image per year, you're doing something seriously wrong and need to come up with some changes. That could be OK for ONE site, but in total $5 should absolutely be minimum if you're thinking about this stuff seriously.
I disagree. I earned less than $3 per image per year in 2016, but over 5$ in 2015. It's because I uploaded many similar images and my portfolio rose by more than 100%, and my earnings by around 10%. And my portfolio is in 5 digit numbers, so it's not a statistical fluke or a newb guy posting who increased his portfolio from 100 to 200 images. However, due to the fact that those are similars, the cost of producing them and uploading them is extremely small. So even though the RPI is lower, I don't care, I still make more money in total. The cost is negligible. Now, I understand that's not the case for everyone, just explaining why it doesn't work for me.
204
« on: February 11, 2017, 14:48 »
Fotolia has already become #1 for me
205
« on: February 11, 2017, 14:46 »
Can someone give a rough estimate regarding the percentage of total income earned by an image or batch in regards to time.
Let's say you upload 1000 images in a month and then stop uploading. How much time will need to pass before you earn 80% of all the total income those images will earn in their lifetime? Or how about 50%?
That'd be a useful metric.
206
« on: February 11, 2017, 14:34 »
I have always submitted there because it is easy. CS and DT usually have the highest variance in sales per month, and CS has been quite poor the past few months, with a lot of 25-35-cent subs rather than regular DLs. Lately regular DLs have been better, but I just checked out prices versus returns and am not sure I will continue - they seem to be paying the lowest commission rates in the industry.
Size Price Commission Percent
Small 3.00 0.50 16.7
Medium 6.00 0.75 12.5
Large 7.00 1.00 14.3
X-Large 8.00 1.25 15.6
XX-Large TIFF 12.00 2.50 20.8
These are based on actual sales during the past month and the posted prices on their site. With the commission for a Medium at only 12.5% they are really not treating contributors well - worse than iStock. Are they worth it? At those rates maybe not.
(If I've made any errors in those calculations please let me know)
 ?
What happened to:
50% of images sales (20% via fotosearch), subscription downloads $0.25 (fotosearch tiered starting at $0.30 per download. Nothing extra for exclusive images. Enhanced Licenses $22.00 per download
Wow, is it possible that this change flew under our radar? I was also under the impression that we get 50%! Well, not contributing there anymore. Edit: this is funny: (from http://www.canstockphoto.com/payout_schedule.php) Our contributors are paid some of the highest percentages in the industry. 12.5%-20.8%. Highest percentages. Isn't this false advertising, which is illegal? 
207
« on: February 09, 2017, 10:51 »
I edit RAW files but would really love to be able to use JPEGs. Wouldn't that save a lot of editing work?
208
« on: February 06, 2017, 19:17 »
Over 2500 sales in almost 3 years, 5 star rating - not good enough. Oh well.
Envato contributed to around 2% of my monthly earnings, so they won't be missed. Best of luck to them with the rebranding and new type of content.
209
« on: February 02, 2017, 15:34 »
I would say the market is ready for an Adobe take over!
I've been earning more with Adobe than with Shutterstock for a couple of months now. Shutterstock was once responsible for over 70% of my earnings, now it's barely 40%.
210
« on: January 31, 2017, 19:24 »
211
« on: January 31, 2017, 18:21 »
Doesn't work.
It'd be good if someone took a screenshot.
212
« on: January 25, 2017, 18:09 »
Bad
213
« on: January 02, 2017, 14:17 »
Lol.
You go ahead and do your thing then.
214
« on: January 02, 2017, 14:08 »
Good folder organization and a free FTP client. Anything more or anything less is suboptimal imho.
215
« on: December 23, 2016, 19:03 »
It's the default windows photo viewer for win7.
216
« on: December 22, 2016, 08:41 »
These are all just theories though... do you have any examples of this actually happening?
I'm shaking my head, but there are a lot of examples of agencies using each others' cut throat pricing & royalty tactics. Look them up on MSG. You must not have been in this business long.
The whole history of microstock is like that, with the only recent exception being fotolia/adobe stock. (on that note: just give them 6-12 months and watch the RPI drop) Agencies are trying to find the optimal balance in their finances. They strive for maximum efficiency. They want to keep paying the contributors as low as possible (without uproar/boycotts/anything that might damage them - this depends on the agency and their library needs) while trying to charge the customers as much as possible (without alienating them and making doing business with them unsustainable, which leads to the client choosing a cheaper agency). We're just one node in the workflow, which needs to be minimized. And if we get adjusted to 7$ for 4k content, why would they pay us 70$? I produce hyperlapses - they're a bitch to make, it takes a long time, and they don't sell because they're not generic enough. I price them at 150$ and upwards for 4k. Why? Because they'll sell once, maybe twice, maaaaybe more if I'm super lucky, and that's it. It doesn't make sense for me to offer content cheaper than that. It won't be bought more, the supply/demand theory holds here. There's limited demand. And it's not so shaken up by prices. If someone really wants a hyperlapse of a scene I did, and I'm the only contributor that has it, or I have the best looking one, they'll pay for it. There are no "random 7$ hyperlapse downloads", buyers specifically search for it and buy it. That's why I kind of see everything going downhill with producers selling their assets for 7$. I mean, ok, your choice. Hyperlapses will always be difficult to make and not a lot of people will be willing to put in the time and effort to make them, so I'll keep my prices high.
217
« on: December 22, 2016, 08:30 »
These are all just theories though... do you have any examples of this actually happening?
I just gave you an example with shutterstock.
218
« on: December 22, 2016, 07:19 »
How have iStock eroded the prices at other sites? Which sites, when, how much? A term called signaling exists. If you agree to sell your assets at one outlet for 7$ per download, why would any other stock agency feel bad if they have to reduce your commission from 25$ to 10$? Of course, they will have an explanation - it's the market*, we have to be competitive. And you'll still get more than that other agency which will give you 7$! Can't you put two and two together? *spoiler: it wouldn't have been "the market" if you refused to put your assets there and perpetuate price erosion
219
« on: December 22, 2016, 07:16 »
"Elinor Ostrom, and her colleagues looked at how real-world communities manage communal resources, such as fisheries, land irrigation systems, and farmlands, and they identified a number of factors conducive to successful resource management. One factor is the resource itself; resources with definable boundaries (e.g., land) can be preserved much more easily. A second factor is resource dependence; there must be a perceptible threat of resource depletion, and it must be difficult to find substitutes. The third is the presence of a community; small and stable populations with a thick social network and social norms promoting conservation do better.[4] A final condition is that there be appropriate community-based rules and procedures in place with built-in incentives for responsible use and punishments for overuse. When the commons is taken over by non-locals, those solutions can no longer be used."
Such factors don't exist in microstock. Hence what I said: you'll just continue uploading and, with that, eroding the prices (not personally, but as a part of the market).
As of now, there are no incentives for contributors to responsibly upload their assets. Nor there are punishments for those who contribute to overuse (in this context, selling assets under their price). Nothing will change. Video prices will be a lot lower in the coming years. Yes, new customers will come, but not enough in order to compensate for the lower price.
Just like with shutterstock's collection: RPI has risen in 2016 compared to 2015, but the library grew much more. Which means a lot less money per asset. There's your example, very fresh and relevant. You'll need to produce more and more just to keep the same absolute level of income (which will actually be lower because of inflation), and think "maybe if we didn't offer our assets at peanut prices, I'd still be making good money".
220
« on: December 22, 2016, 07:07 »
How have iStock eroded the prices at other sites? Which sites, when, how much?
And why would I sell my clips directly for 30 cents? Environment sell for $8, so if I wanted to undercut everyone else then it would make more sense to sell them at $7 or even $6, not 30 cents.
And yes, $100 a month isn't much, but that adds up over a lot of other sites. Thankfully I earn about $2100 to $3700 a month from all the stock sites combined, excluding iStock, but I'd rather have an extra $100 a month than not.
That's why I said you're the epitome of the tragedy of the commons. It's not that you have the "need", it's only greed. Short-term greed, leading to long-term poverty. "Robert Axelrod contends that even self-interested individuals will often find ways to cooperate, because collective restraint serves both the collective and individual interests." You don't have "restraint", you refuse to let go of the 100$ now (which mean nothing to you), and you'll suffer the consequences in a couple of years.
221
« on: December 22, 2016, 05:45 »
If you (and people like you) continue to erode the prices, then you won't be able to pay the rent no matter how many sites you contribute to. That's the long term outlook.
You said you've earned 1000$ with them. That's less than 100$ a month. Something you (and people like you) can survive without and pay rent, so it's not about that.
Edit: if you want examples, you don't need to look further than stock photos. Or, if you want to go to the extreme, Fiverr.
222
« on: December 22, 2016, 04:46 »
Agreed. But as it's pretty rare that a site as large as iStock doesn't have sufficient choice so that the buyer has to go elsewhere... so it's probably more likely that if a buyer didn't stumble across my items on iStock, then they would have just bought something else from iStock instead.
Yes, it's possible they would have visited a different site instead (one where the prices are higher and the commissions are better), but who's to say they would have found my items there (different search engines), and who's to say they wouldn't go to a site that I don't have any stuff on. My point is that if I make 100 sales a year on iStock and I shut down my account, it doesn't mean I'm going to automatically get an extra 100 sales a year spread across my other accounts elsewhere.
I've not been on there for that long, but I've made just over $1000. If what I'm saying above is accurate, then that's $1000 that I probably wouldn't have made if I didn't sell stuff there. My point is that if I make 100 sales a year on iStock and I shut down my account, it doesn't mean I'm going to automatically get an extra 100 sales a year spread across my other accounts elsewhere.
Buyers like certain sites, and I'm sure that there's a bunch of buyers out there who think that iStock is perfect for their needs. And if iStock wants to keep p***ing off contributors to the point that they leave, then I'm happy to meet the needs of those buyers.
You're the epitome of https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Tragedy_of_the_commonsAnd I'll say it more directly: you, and the likes of you, are the reason the profitability (and value) of videos will decrease faster than it needs to. You won't like what I said and you'll continue doing what you already are, so actually no point in me writing this, but hey, whatever.
223
« on: December 21, 2016, 20:25 »
I'm still a few weeks away, but I'll keep you guys updated. I probably won't know the results until months later. If there is a dip compared to current earnings, it's going to be pretty obvious. I hope it's not true.
The first month that I became emerald I actually experienced a bump in profits, even the second after the change. Then it dipped below my gold-level profits for 2 months and rebounded to the same profits I earned when I was gold.
224
« on: December 20, 2016, 03:25 »
I read her presentation and it gave me cancer.
She spent 30k$ on courses. Lol. Do people still fall for this?
Don't worry man, it's punishment enough for her that she's... well, her.
225
« on: December 19, 2016, 12:33 »
I have a backlog of over 3000 assets ready to be uploaded, so I'm not wasting any of my time by not uploading during the holidays.
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 13 14 ... 26
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
