|
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 - Shelma1
2626
« on: February 24, 2014, 12:06 »
No, they're for current employees of established ad agencies with active, real email addresses at the agency they work for, and the agency/employee has to be accepted by/have a prior agreement with the stock house. I don't know all the details because I'm a writer, not an art director. So I've never had that access. Only certain employees (art directors, studio managers, art buyers) do.
2627
« on: February 24, 2014, 11:42 »
The reason ad agencies don't get stock subscriptions is because they don't pay for the images themselves...their clients do. The cost of licensing the image is included in the budget for the work being produced. Smaller graphic design shops may buy subscriptions, but the large agencies who negotiate the big extended licenses for their clients do not.
Ad agencies will simply go back to Getty and Corbis if you charge them for comp use or try to force them into a subscription. They can get access to images there for free.
2628
« on: February 23, 2014, 13:08 »
I'd just like to point out that several people on the boards here work in marketing and advertising.  Now I'm off to make people feel guilty about not conforming while convincing them to buy mass-market clothes in order to express their individuality....mwa ha ha ha haaaaaa. 
2629
« on: February 23, 2014, 06:22 »
I've worked in large ad agencies my entire career. Art directors there have had access to large unwatermarked "previews" from Getty, for example, for a long time. Though there's potential for abuse, I haven't seen it happen. (I'm not saying it never happens, just that i personally haven't seen it.)
Most of the art directors I've worked with avoided iStock and Shutterstock because they couldn't present work to clients with small watermarked images. This new policy gives Shutterstock the opportunity to compete with the large RM agencies and also gives our work the opportunity to be seen and licensed by companies that would never have considered it before.
I guess I feel comfortable with it because it's the "normal" way of interacting with stock houses for those of us in the ad industry, and because I see huge potential for us to make much more money from a single sale.
2630
« on: February 14, 2014, 18:37 »
Why not share who you are? It can't be that difficult, surely.
2631
« on: February 14, 2014, 17:14 »
I discovered if you hit the refresh button after uploading the image shows up. Give it a try.  Amazing they did this on purpose. Absolutely amazing.
2632
« on: February 10, 2014, 17:38 »
I opted in to the real-time Wordfence thingy and it sends me an email every morning warning me it's found "problems" on my site, and then tries to sell me on the pro version. Needing an upgrade is apparently a "serious problem." "Wordfence found the following new issues on "vector999.com royalty-free fair trade illustration direct". NOTE: Upgrading to the paid version of Wordfence gives you two factor authentication (sign-in via cellphone) and country blocking which are both effective methods to block attacks. You can also schedule when your scans occur with Wordfence Premium. Click here to sign-up for the Premium version of Wordfence now. https://www.wordfence.com/wordfence-signup/ Alert generated at Thursday 6th of February 2014 at 10:30:28 AM Critical Problems: * The Theme "SYMBIOSTOCK" needs an upgrade."
2633
« on: February 10, 2014, 16:12 »
2634
« on: February 10, 2014, 15:27 »
Those are pretty large unwatermarked images they're giving away in that slideshow. Wonder if the photographers who took them know?
2635
« on: February 10, 2014, 15:17 »
Who was the email from? I'm a little skeptical because I haven't received an email, though I'm on WordPress and I use Wordfence. It could just be an attempt to sell the pro version of WordFence, or it could be a scam (or it could be true). I wouldn't click on any link in that email.
2636
« on: February 10, 2014, 13:53 »
As a few people have commented on the Times' website, it's nice to see she's concentrating on the really big issues. 
2637
« on: February 09, 2014, 09:44 »
Just wanted to add that I had no part in the ruckus on the SY forum, so clearly there are others who must think and feel the same way. It apparently has disappeared, so no one will be able to read and verify for themselves. Well played.
No, I don't think anyone thinks and feels exactly the same way you do. A few of us (including me) had a disagreement about one small aspect of Symbiostock. We all still have Symbiostock sites. I'm still promoting all of us on Facebook. Stop by and give us a like. https://www.facebook.com/SymbiostockPage
2638
« on: February 09, 2014, 09:06 »
I can see a little of both sides.
On the one hand, the linking SEO aspects of Symbiostock have been oversold a bit. So if you built a website using the Symbiostock theme and linked to a few people and expected sales to start cascading into your lap, you were probably disappointed. (In one case, incredibly, bitterly disappointed.)
On the other, I'll bet Cathy isn't on a board somewhere ripping apart the creator of her new WP theme, which I doubt has brought her any sales either.
A few people have been successful on Symbiostock. Those people have a few things in commonbut the main thing is that they all worked hard at getting traffic to their sites. They all went beyond building a site and uploading images and linking to ten people.
When I asked Leo what he did, he responded with a long list of all the work he'd done. Then he invited Dennis to share what he did to get traffic, which was different but also took serious work.
So Symbiostock is a great theme, it's a great way to build a site, you'll get some SEO benefits from linking. But you have to do more work than that if you want a decent number of sales. That's just reality.
2639
« on: February 05, 2014, 12:58 »
Funny, I just deactivated a file today and had to look up the thread where I asked for instructions. They make it very difficult to figure out.
2640
« on: February 04, 2014, 14:40 »
And here is the crux. How would a 38 image receive sales much more often than a 25 file? When in actual buyer search experience the 25 files and new lower cost files are favored in the search. My best selling images no longer show up in the search AT ALL. They have no way of competing for sales, nor will they ever be seen by buyers unless they visit the end 1/2 of my port sorted by most popular.
They need to give all uploaded images an equal chance at first. If you look at "most recent" files, there's no favoritism yet. It simply goes by date uploaded. If a file starts selling, they probably track how many sales in a set period of time. But that's all guesswork on my part.
2641
« on: February 04, 2014, 13:31 »
I think it's great that Scott has taken the time to drop in here and explain things to us.
As someone with a tiny portfolio who has some images that frequently show up on page one, I can't fault their efforts. February was my worst month last year and this year I even had multiple sales over Superbowl weekend, so I'm cautiously optimistic about the latest shuffle. I'm in the .33 tier so not a .25 newbie and I don't think they are favoring the .25 cent folks. I think they are tweaking things to license as many images as possible and of course this is focused on the site as a whole and not targeted to any one contributor's portfolio. Given SS's track record, I really can't imagine that their efforts would deliberately target long-time .38 contributors to harm the value of their portfolios.
Obviously there has to be a way to get new photos seen or they would never sell, and any advantage given to new photos is going to mean that new photos by the .25 and .38 cent crowds are going to get equal billing, so more established portfolios won't completely dominate the searches.
I would guess they continually test algorithms that bring them the most moolah. I'm sure they favor 25 images over 38 images *unless* the 38 images are downloaded so much more often they simply bring in more money overall, despite the difference in profit per download. They also have to factor in how often an image brings in EDs, ODDs, etc. In advertising we test stuff all the time. If a product is more expensive and gets fewer sales, but in the end brings in more profit than when it's priced lower, clients will go with the higher price.
2642
« on: February 04, 2014, 11:34 »
The issue is the "popular" search. Not who is who. Thats a TV program. Anyhow Les is right. The popular, is not even remotely close to files being popular and how do they asses popular anyway? by downloads or views?
The Popular as implemented now has nothing to do with views or downloads. Well, maybe a little bit if these are new files.
If they are old files even with thousands of downloads, SS tries to push them out of sight. Maybe they are well meaning, but totally misguided and dishonest with their buyers. The designation as popular is misleading and deceptive. And very sad that they can't even find a proper name for it.
I can understand they they are trying to force the new files to the surface, but that order should never be called popular.
Popular means most downloaded.
I have to agree with that. I can see how they add views to that equation, but most popular shouldnt be based on how quickly a file gets their first downloads or whatever fancy algorithm they come up with. My ultimate best seller is no longer my ultimate best selling image. Its dying, and SS killed it. Scott said, tests that generate the most downloads are pushed live, meaning more royalties, but that in my opinion is a partial fallacy. Yes it means more royalties, overall, not in my pocket. Unfortunately my bottom line is not important to SS test results. The SS RPD is though.
All they need to do is rename the tab most popular to Currently Hot and add another tab called Downloads, next to the existing Relevant and New tabs and its all sorted.
Well, now that I'm part of their test audience, I get to see their algorithm machinations in action. It's weird. On my laptop if I search a certain category where a couple of my images are on the rise, they appear near the top of the first page in results. On my iPad they appear on page 2 (which isn't really a second page any more, just a thin line separating it from "page 1"). Of course, I like the first algorithm better, but the folks with the "old" most popular files undoubtedly would prefer the second. Shutterstock prefers whichever one brings them the most sales.
2643
« on: February 02, 2014, 19:10 »
My #1 seller is a file I almost didn't upload because I didn't think it was worth the time. You never know.
2644
« on: February 01, 2014, 21:42 »
I know. But I usually upload to a few sites at a time, so I can't remember what image I uploaded since the thumbnail doesn't show up. Sent an email to support, no response.
2645
« on: February 01, 2014, 11:04 »
Yup, if you reach your payout amount Shutterstock pays you automatically. I don't recall ever getting an email about it, but I could be wrong.
If you go to your contributor page and click on "earnings" at the upper left, you can see payments, earnings summary, tax center, etc.
2646
« on: January 31, 2014, 10:43 »
I care. I'm waiting for them to make it possible to upload fewer than 1,000 vectors at a time.
2647
« on: January 31, 2014, 09:08 »
Hi all,
A quick note on how we do things: at any given time, we're running a number of tests. Those tests are typically targeted at a small percentage of the overall population. If a test wins (for example, if it drives more downloads and customers are more successful in finding what they're looking for), then it is released to the broader audience and the performance is monitored.
Tests can include changes to the user experience or the relevancy of search results. If you're seeing changes, it's possible that you're seeing a test that is targeted at a small audience, or that you're seeing the results of a test that won. These tests are thoughtfully conducted and changes are never rolled out broadly without careful analysis. For contributors, this might seem confusing in isolation, but it ultimately results in more successful customers, who then generate more downloads and more royalties.
Best,
Scott
VP of Content
Shutterstock
Cool. I'm part of the test audience. That's a switch for me.
2648
« on: January 31, 2014, 07:20 »
They have an entirely new search result on mobile, at least. On my iPad I now see many more images, smaller and closer together, with continual scrolling and pages separated by a thin line. Looks more like google results. And things do seen reshuffled a bit. Plus, to switch from most popular (the default) you have to click on the small word "options" over to the top right.
Also, strongly vertical images are favored in the size they show up.
They must have been conducting a lot of behavioral research to make such a big change.
2649
« on: January 30, 2014, 18:16 »
It's a good day to be a vector artist.
Sean produces vectors and various other media.
Darn!
2650
« on: January 30, 2014, 17:59 »
It's a good day to be a vector artist.
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
