|
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 - dirkr
Pages: 1 ... 9 10 11 12 13 [14] 15 16 17 18 19 ... 56
326
« on: May 04, 2015, 10:51 »
the last shoot i went to do for stock, hence totally on spec, the parking fee alone was $7.50 for a couple of hours, not to mention my time and equipment blah blah blah, it makes no sense to me to have to sell one photo from that shoot 20- 30 times just to pay for the parking.
I most businesses you are doing fine if you can break even in a couple of years.
Last year, I went in Canada, mainly for fun but also to attend a SS conference. Today, all my trip expenses are paid back (hotel, transport, parking, food) through all these microstock micro-sales. I'm making a profit for every photo taken back then and sold today for $0.38
Worried for $7.50? Why would people expect overnight payback from microstock more than in other businesses?
I think you might be missing the point here.
Only parking was $7.50 as an example that 20-30 sales on one site would break even on that one expense alone. Don't forget to add in your travel and shoot time lets say 3 hours @ $10 per hour = $30 (a silly low wage). Post production upload time 1 hour @ $10 per hour, 2 hours if you are uploading to multiple sites. Camera expense, computer expense, internet expense, software expense, electricity expense, rent expense, etc we can just call that around a ridiculously low minimum of $5,000, don't forget to add the gas expense, the car insurance etc.
So you need to make at least $5047 just to break even, but really need to make at least $6000 ++ before taxes, and you have not even eaten yet. even at the so called average RPD i keep hearing about at at SS of around 0.77 that is still 6500 downloads. even on my RPD on IS as exclusive of around $10 that is still 541 downloads from just that one shoot to break even.
if you can turn a profit in one year on a trip to canada which is not cheap and most certainly more expensive than my drive downtown, then perhaps you'd like to share your secret cause i really don't get your math at all.
So your intention is that one single shoot pays for all your expenses for equipment, internet, rent and so on? That certainly is a challenging goal....
327
« on: May 04, 2015, 07:51 »
Can you tell me how I can see the last images download with thumbnail as it was before and the most downloaded images ? with sales stats under the image. That was much better and easier to view than now. I don't like the new layout at all.
Try this: https://us.fotolia.com/Contributor?active_tab=contents
328
« on: April 30, 2015, 03:04 »
you do see that monthly packs (worst deal for contributors with 5% commission) are more prominently advertised!? As usual Fotolia screw us even more!
Not that I want to defend Fotolia, but didn't they change the payouts for the monthly packs to 20% (25% if you are opted in to DPC) instead of normal subs royalties? That's the reason why we're seeing subs sales with higher royalties than the normal subs rates...
329
« on: April 28, 2015, 17:47 »
I sent email to support for a rejection for, "Overuse--Image has excessive noise reduction and/or excessive sharpening effects applied."
I wrote them I used no effects or sharpening the picture was right from phone to SS using their app. Here is the answer.
Do you know what the software in your phone does to the image? Have you checked it at 100%? You have no control over the (automatic) image processing your phone does, that may well look like oversharpened (or excessive noise reduction) to a reviewer.
330
« on: April 28, 2015, 09:30 »
The new FTP server is up and running now. For the next little while we're only going to be submitting images on the weekends, but we have ample reviewing resources so we expect all files to be reviewed and online before the end of the week.
Hi Lee, is this an automated process, so everything uploaded gets submitted over the weekend? Because I have some files I uploaded on April 17 and they are still not visible in my portfolio, but I do see them in the "processing" folder when I connect my FTP client. thanks for looking into that...
331
« on: April 27, 2015, 11:33 »
Had the same happening to me today. Same file sold first in DT, then on SS. Both subs.
The image is online for about 5 years, second sale on DT, seventh on SS.
I'd say it is highly unlikely that this is just coincidence.
Maybe at a bigger customer with multiple subscriptions several people are looking for something specific in parallel - and they find the same picture in different agencies.
Just guessing...
332
« on: April 27, 2015, 07:40 »
333
« on: April 24, 2015, 17:25 »
I think all these theories are way too complicated.
The truth may be much simpler. For SS it's a pure numbers game. They are still accepting 400k+ images per week. They can be sure that there's a lot stuff in those 400k that's sellable and keeps the collection looking fresh enough for buyers.
And inspecting such amounts of images must be a huge cost item - if you want to do it absolutely correct, with clear guidelines, extensive trainings for reviewers, paying well to get good reviewers...
They are trying to keep costs down, spend as little as possible on the whole reviewing process from guidelines to actual reviewers - and consider what we see as inconsistency, as lost revenue opportunity, as unfair, ... - simply as collateral damage.
Yes, they may lose a few commercially valuable, technically flawless images - but does that matter when you get 400k others that you accept per week?
Yes, they may produce a few disgruntled contributors who may (or may not) lose interest and upload less in the future - but does that matter if hundreds if not thousands are waiting to get in?
To get to an "optimal" review process (one that rejects any image that is not commercially viable or not technically correct and accepts all others) they would need to invest. Into Trainings, technology, reviewer salaries...
The question they will ask is: What's the ROI on that investment?
Maybe they have figured out that they'll make more by investing that money in marketing or some other customer facing features...
334
« on: April 23, 2015, 13:49 »
Hi dirkr,
Thanks for your suggestion. Many of our users prefer to share higher-res images, so we provide the low-res option for those who don't. Duly noted about the watermarking 
Sorry, but what low-res option are you talking about? Do you mean the option where we should upload two different versions of the same photo, one for the community and one for licensing? That's not really an option, it's rather a pain... Or is there somewhere an option where I can choose that only a low-res version will be used for the community? Where do I find that?
335
« on: April 23, 2015, 10:23 »
Hi Plank. Thanks for your post. Definitely a topic were aware of. The best option to protect your images online (500px and elsewhere) is to use low res images. As you know, even with all the security in the world, a simple screenshot could be used to pirate photos. We do have more improvements coming (watermarks, etc.) but the low-res upload option will always be your best bet.
Were always open to requests and suggestions from our members; our product team reads these posts, and we're always considering ways in which we can improve for our users. Thanks!
When you acknowledge that showing high-res watermarked images is not a good idea, then why don't you simply downsize the uploaded images for the community instead of asking us to upload two different versions? It would be so easy (plus still add a watermark on those)...
336
« on: April 23, 2015, 10:13 »
Photographers will not find it useful since it does not support property/model releases.
Is this the only reason why it's not for photographers? Then I don't understand. Because Releases normally do not need to be shown to the end customer, they are there to protect the photographer. Agencies demand to see Releases because they do not trust photographers to have them done correctly. But when you are selling direct, there is no agency - hence no need to upload and manage releases anywhere (still the need to have them on file somewhere in your home or office, but that does not affect the website you're selling through). The only thing a customer will be interested in is to see whether MR / PR is available for a specific photo. A little check box when uploading a photo, a little text to show the customer. What am I missing?
337
« on: April 23, 2015, 07:12 »
But SS was never this slow. Well sometimes, but it will always pick up again. They have been adding 400k images a week for a while now. Last week my images were indexed within a few hours. So its not the amount of data, I am sure of that.
It's not (mainly) the number of newly accepted images that makes index building a heavy task, but even more so the amount of existing images (=existing entries in the database). It's the kind of problem that steadily grows with the growing collection... While I have no idea what's really the issue, the effort (and computation time needed) to maintain an ever-growing library must be a huge challenge.
338
« on: April 21, 2015, 07:17 »
I just answered as my totol microstock money. There doesn't seem to be anyway to change it.
Same here. And what do you really mean? Personal income? Family Income? Before Taxes or after?
339
« on: April 16, 2015, 16:30 »
That's what I see in Germany. Only the 350 / month option.
340
« on: April 15, 2015, 13:56 »
Does this mean the old waiting batches should have been reviewed by now? I have some that I uploaded a few months ago, and they still don't appear anywhere... Can you have a look Lee? Thanks!
They're coming through too.
Thanks, that was fast!
341
« on: April 15, 2015, 13:19 »
Does this mean the old waiting batches should have been reviewed by now? I have some that I uploaded a few months ago, and they still don't appear anywhere... Can you have a look Lee? Thanks!
342
« on: April 01, 2015, 09:30 »
I've had that the last two months, I assume the date as shown per sale is taken (converted to text according to the local time setting) at the local server time of Canva (Australia), but the timestamp in reality is UTC, and when you select a month in the dropdown it uses your local time.
343
« on: March 31, 2015, 07:29 »
A lot of conclusions, but when we can't see the portfolios on the every particular contributor who make this conclusions this mean nothing, or will not be objective. One thing is to say no ELs from portfolio 500 images and other thing is from portfolio 5-10K or 50K images.
Its about the print run allowed within the EL, not portfolio size. I didnt get much ELs but surely I will get even less now. Thats the whole point.
It will be interesting to see for the people who did get a lot of ELs if they maintain their EL volume or if it drops over time.
Agreed, I get between 10 - 15 a month and as stated previously I am expecting to see a drop of around $200 or 7 ELs a month. Nothing to base that on, just a gut feel. Portfolio size of nearly 10,000
But as stated above, if someone wanted a print run of 500,000, why wouldn't they just have downloaded two subs allowing them 250,000 prints each?
I'm no legal expert, but I don't think these numbers can be added up. A standard license gives you (gave you) a print run of up to 250.000. A second standard license doesn't change that, you still only have the rights to print up to 250.000 copies. That's how I understand those licenses.
344
« on: March 31, 2015, 06:20 »
1 EL per 270 downloads.
345
« on: March 30, 2015, 07:06 »
I haven't heard the theory of the database crash yet. Could be an explanation.
Or possibly they just did some drastic change to their search algorithm (or better: to the algorithm that determines the "relevance" order, which is the default sort order on FT).
When I look at the relevance search order for some specific search terms, my older images (from 2007 / 2008) seem to appear almost in the same place as in the order by date. And number of sales does not really make a difference.
My formerly best selling image is still number two on Fotolia (for it's main keyword, which is pretty specific and delivers only 155 search results) when ordered by number of downloads (it has over 100 downloads).
The same image is almost the last one (number 149 of 155) when ordered by date.
When ordered by relevance it is only marginally better (around number 120 of 155).
Same pattern can be seen for other images: for old images the number of downloads is almost irrelevant for their "relevance" search position, the biggest factor by far is age.
It looks to me that they increased the weighting of "newness" and decreased the weighting of past performance so that old files will be moved down no matter how much sales they had.
The file I mentioned above sold regularly until early 2011, after that only a handful of sales (only two in 2012, nothing since).
346
« on: March 19, 2015, 04:44 »
The real message of this blog post is for those guys left who believe that it's not ok to send microstock images to Alamy because of the different price points. That's now the official answer from Alamy: It's ok. They love microstock. 
347
« on: March 18, 2015, 15:13 »
How does this bode for the typical, not superstar contrib? Will their sales just decline furthrr?
If some people get a better match for enterprise users they will probably get more SOD sales so others would probably get less.
That assumes that the same number of sales just gets re-distributed in a different way. Which is one possible outcome. But if these additional services allow Shutterstock to attract new customers or increase spending of existing customers, it may lead to an overall increase in sales.
348
« on: March 18, 2015, 08:31 »
The open questions are is this really separate (or are the same images available via a normal Shutterstock customer account), how are images / contributors chosen, how is the pricing, how is the commission structure etc.
Nothing regarding these questions is really available.
If I had to guess I would say that those images will be available to everyone as well, the pricing will be the same, and royalties will be the same. You'll get a boost in search for enterprise customers.
That would be my guess as well.
349
« on: March 18, 2015, 08:25 »
I certainly hope they bring in a Vetta / Premier collection at SS. It did extremely well for me when iStock first brought it in at the $75 range. My earnings more than doubled with Vetta, it also motivated me to produce much
That would go against nearly all of their marketing. If you've looked recently it's all about one collection, every image the same price, no favoritism in the search, no signature required, etc.. They aren't going to make a higher priced collection in Shutterstock anytime soon, it would be very inconsistent with their marketing.
They already have a higher-priced Shutterstock collection for large enterprisesaccording to the blog post, they have for four years.
That's not how I understand the blog post. My understanding: Shutterstock Premier (existing since four years) is not a separate collection, but a separate service they provide to selected customers. They use the same collection (or maybe a part of the total collection, that isn't clear to me) but add on additional services like "custom license packages, additional indemnification, and help with researching the collection". And those additional services are the reason for the (significantly) higher prices. And they do pay us our share, that's where the SODs (or part of them) come from. The last part ("help with researching the collection") already sounds a bit like curation. And now they are testing "Premier Select". There's no details on what exactly that is, but to me this sounds like a separate collection (unlike the existing Shutterstock Premier). So maybe it's "only" taking the idea of presenting a curated collection to big customers a big further. The open questions are is this really separate (or are the same images available via a normal Shutterstock customer account), how are images / contributors chosen, how is the pricing, how is the commission structure etc. Nothing regarding these questions is really available.
350
« on: March 11, 2015, 06:16 »
They should make the bridge program (well, at least the equal payment part) standard for all Shutterstock contributors. It's a shame that they think paying a lower rate is ok.
But they obviously decided that the bridge is only for some selected contributors. That tells me that they don't really value the content of the non-bridge contributors.
If that's their opinion, than why upload any more? I stopped the moment they announced those rates. Once they agree to pay the same rates as on Shutterstock, I will upload again.
Pages: 1 ... 9 10 11 12 13 [14] 15 16 17 18 19 ... 56
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
