|
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 - Pauws99
Pages: 1 ... 9 10 11 12 13 [14] 15 16 17 18 19 ... 195
326
« on: November 02, 2019, 16:26 »
Do sometimes people connect low earnings to low quality submissions??
Personally, I always took in little consideration the points of people on the forum here, for my benefice... I think it's the best advice. Make your own experience.
Most people submit to a range of sites so whether their quality is high or low they can compare the relative earning power of sites. Individual experience does vary but it makes sense to check other peoples experiences before adding a site to upload to..there's dozens so its hard to try them all.
Not so evident since a top seller image can have more than a thousand downloads on one site, and absolutely no download on another from the same kind. Your portfolio can't even be compared to itself. Relativity here again... Too many parameters that we can't be aware of. But be sure, I have the same concern, finding the best way to sell 
The larger the portfolio the more it evens out the top sellers on each site will vary but it averages out. Its not an exact science of course and you do get a feel of the kind of stuff that will sell better on certain sites...I always think the images I personally like sell well on Dreamtimes for example.
327
« on: November 02, 2019, 14:44 »
Do sometimes people connect low earnings to low quality submissions??
Personally, I always took in little consideration the points of people on the forum here, for my benefice... I think it's the best advice. Make your own experience.
Most people submit to a range of sites so whether their quality is high or low they can compare the relative earning power of sites. Individual experience does vary but it makes sense to check other peoples experiences before adding a site to upload to..there's dozens so its hard to try them all.
328
« on: November 02, 2019, 06:26 »
Of the minnow agencies its the best earner for me......If I were to be starting from scratch though in today's market I don't think it would be worth my time.
329
« on: November 01, 2019, 03:49 »
Its a shame as not that long ago Canstock was one of the best of the smaller agencies with quick and fair reviews. At some point it all went horribly wrong. Not the first and won't be the last.
330
« on: October 31, 2019, 12:09 »
It seems that Grossinger has reached the $500 mark on SS. It took over 7000 photos and some videos to get there. Not an outstanding ratio between upload numbers and sales but it goes to show that he has persistance.
Seems to be he set out to prove one thing and his results show the opposite.
Reminds me of the entertaining Netflix flat earth documentary where they set out with some fairly advanced experiments to prove the earth was flat.
When every single experiment instead started showing the exact opposite, they kept their original hypothesis and started questioning the measurements and instruments used to obtain them instead...
Thats by no means uncommon even in quite respected scientific circles. Scientists are human too and become psychologically attached to their theories just like anyone else.
Mostly wrong people and pseudo-science types, psychics, communication with the dead, ghost hunters, Bermuda Triangle, Aliens visit in UFOs, crop circles are secret messages, animal mutation, Gods from outer space and aliens built the pyramids Etc. I wonder if they sit home laughing at all the people who think the shows and books are actually serious and not just a way to make money from mythology.
Real science sets out to prove a theory and if the evidence shows the opposite, that's actually a good thing, because it proved the opposite. The goal of true science isn't to stick with an imperfect theory or hypothesis, but to benefit from the study, research and evidence to better understand what was being studied. What I mean is, proving a theory is wrong, is not a failure, if there's a valid scientific study behind the results.
Flat Earthers are already disillusion, small wonder they can't accept the facts of their own tests. 
Santa Claus is real, I've seen him...
Yes of course but real science is practicsed by humans so is not infallible. It is also funded by humans which can also affect its "purity"...it usually gets there in the end though.
331
« on: October 31, 2019, 08:01 »
It seems that Grossinger has reached the $500 mark on SS. It took over 7000 photos and some videos to get there. Not an outstanding ratio between upload numbers and sales but it goes to show that he has persistance.
Seems to be he set out to prove one thing and his results show the opposite.
Reminds me of the entertaining Netflix flat earth documentary where they set out with some fairly advanced experiments to prove the earth was flat.
When every single experiment instead started showing the exact opposite, they kept their original hypothesis and started questioning the measurements and instruments used to obtain them instead...
Thats by no means uncommon even in quite respected scientific circles. Scientists are human too and become psychologically attached to their theories just like anyone else.
332
« on: October 29, 2019, 03:15 »
In shutterstock all contributors are equal but some are more equal than others...he probably has the golden "go straight past review" ticket.
333
« on: October 27, 2019, 02:27 »
I love Shutterstock. Is there anybody else who appreciate the service of SS? after reading all these hateful comments, I wonder.
SS is part of my daily bread, for me and my family.
I think most of the "hateful" comments are frustration that these days Shutterstock seem to be very poorly managed. They remain my best earner but I wish they could get back to getting the basics right so they can stay that way.
334
« on: October 25, 2019, 04:15 »
Because of the quickly review.
I've known BS to review images while I was uploading the batch a few years back. The other explanation is they have too many reviewers at that time so no queues.
335
« on: October 25, 2019, 03:57 »
I had some from BS rejected for noise SS were happy with them. Rejections from BS are not worth any time pursuing. I'm not sure why people think random rejections are likely "AI" random tends to be a human attribute.
336
« on: October 23, 2019, 16:05 »
When did they cut the commission 20% in the last few months. What did I miss?
I'm still getting 50% on exclusive and 40% on non-exclusive? I was getting 50% since about 2010 if I remember right? That's 10%
Personally I don't care about their charity or board, I'm only interested in what I make.
10 is 20% of 50.
So each indie file sold earns you 20% less that it would have had it been 50%
Oh that modern math again where a 10% cut is a 20% cut? The post should have said, 20% loss in potential earnings then, not 20% cut?
Changing commission from 50% to 40% is a 10% reduction in commission, no matter how anyone wants to slice it.
Blowing on about your charity generosity a few months after cutting commissions by 20% is not a good look.
Note, it uses the word commissions, not income or earnings?
And no I still don't care about their charity, I care about what they pay me! Selfish, aren't I?
Semantics aside*, you are still being paid 20% less on your non-exclusive files, and that's all you care about.
*and no matter how you look at it, it's still a 20% reduction in commission.
If they went from 100% to 90%, that would be a 10% cut.
50% > 40% is a 20% cut.
And what is it from 60% to 40%? I'm trying to grasp at a bold number like 20% but I suppose that's wrong.
33% say the image sold for $100 you used to get $60 you now get $40 which is 67% of $60 therefore your income is cut by 100%-67%= 33%. Your share is cut by 20% but you income by more.
337
« on: October 23, 2019, 07:45 »
P.s UK taxpayers are already paying part of their tax towards the UK's commitment towards overseas aid (which includes social programs in India) - 0.7% of GDP (source: https://www.theweek.co.uk/63394/foreign-aid-how-and-where-is-britain-s-budget-spent)
Wow, I hadn't realised it had sunk so low. Still, with all the money being wasted on Brexit I suppose I should be relieved it isn't lower.
Still, I'm not sure how naming and shaming the UK for its current poor Overseas Aid Programme is relevant to this thread - and other countries do worse - indeed the very article you quote says the UK is the only country which has met it's UN target, so not sure why you've singled us out at all.
I didn't read it as an attempt to shame....the opposite in fact.
338
« on: October 22, 2019, 16:01 »
Just checked some 2020 concepts and almost all images I checked were from contributors from Thailand, some Russia, not one from America or Europe.
Sorry but you got to be pretty naive, hmm let me rephrase pretty d.mn stupid to think there isn't something else at play here. So my suggestion to all is put Thailand, Russia, Croatia, India, etc... as your location in your profile et voila problem solved! 
Seriously why do we even bother anymore if they only push those people in search?
Do you have any data on the proportion of new images from those places?
339
« on: October 22, 2019, 07:13 »
I just had a small batch reviewed and the inspection seemed fair. One rejection for focus on a marginal image I put through as I liked the subject and thought I might get away with it and other for similar which I was not surprised about so not all doom nd gloom ;-).
340
« on: October 21, 2019, 10:13 »
Theres nothing wrong with the policies its their ability to implement it thats the problem. I think most of us would welcome a more demanding inspection regime if it was implemented consistently.
I hate to mention the old days, but IS and SS had the strictest reviews for quality, and even if reviews took longer, they were much more consistent. Alamy and AS are still holding up the standards for submissions. Inconsistent reviews are terribly frustrating, not that I'm personally having any problems, but here we are, and I'm hoping for a change.
The real idiots aren't the reviewers who are "only following orders"  the problem is the people who dictated the new standards and issued the directives.
Indeed though I have found Alamy have dropped their standards now...I put stuff through that I wouldn't of in the past. I think the problem lies in the link between those who set that standard and those wh implement it. Its rather like announcing a crack down on crime while at the same time reducing police numbers...a practice not unfamilar. If you have a policy you need to have a plan and resources to implement it. Im guessing all shutterstock did was issue reviewers with an email with no back up of training or supervision.
341
« on: October 21, 2019, 04:11 »
Yes of course you are entitled to your opinion but I think its fair to question it on a discussion board. I'm sure if Alamy were generating more income though this wouldn't be an "issue". The problem with Alamy is not what it does with its profit but not generating a good income for contributors in my view. The reason I sign up anywhere is the anticipation of making money if they deliver that short of moral issues such as using child labour I'm not too concerned with how they run their business.
342
« on: October 21, 2019, 03:29 »
Alamy, respect your contributors! Be charitable to us!
I signed up to contribute to a photo agency , not do charity. Charities should be kept completely separate.
I'm not sure that Alamy's profit margin is any different to the rest of the industry what difference would it make if they spent the profit on coke and lapdancers? When you signed up to them their business model was quite open.
343
« on: October 21, 2019, 00:48 »
Time and expense wise Alamy is not really worth it. However people are still prepared to waste tehir time doing it. Some weird sort of masochism IMO
For most people isn't that probably true of all but SS IS and Adobe these days? Alamy is no 4 for me so plenty much worse. At least they give hope of a really big sale. I carry on uploading to sites I shouldn't from a return on time spent perspective from a combination of irrational optimism, stubborness and habit.
344
« on: October 19, 2019, 15:18 »
I am seeing same thing and also am seeing revenue go down on Shutterstock. When sites put in place a new tough reviewing policy, less approvals and their revenue goes down.
Look at Canstock, which is the worst reviewing policy in the industry. Want a property release for the White House. My revenue has dropped like a rock, but so has their total revenue. Rumor is that they might go out of business soon.
So we will see. The microstock reviewing policy is the weakest link in their business model.
Theres nothing wrong with the policies its their ability to implement it thats the problem. I think most of us would welcome a more demanding inspection regime if it was implemented consistently.
345
« on: October 18, 2019, 01:28 »
Given the number of new images coming onto the market compared with slow growth in demand if sales for most contributors weren't going down that would be strong evidence that sales were controlled. Certainly some suffer more than others. Whether that is by design, random results of algorithm changes or changing customer demand is speculation unless you have a source in shutterstock or access to their data.
i think if i had a proof they are capping me so breaking the contract i signed where there was no mention of a cap...i would go to my advocate and they will be sued the second after i have the 100% confirmation...and i think many will do this..
You don't have proof though and where does it say in the ToS there isn't a cap? "Shutterstock shall have the right, but not the obligation, to license all Content through any of Shutterstocks brands and platforms to its customers for use in perpetuity in accordance with license agreements entered into by Shutterstock, including but not limited to Shutterstock, Inc. Terms of Service License Agreements (collectively, "Licenses").
346
« on: October 17, 2019, 10:54 »
Given the number of new images coming onto the market compared with slow growth in demand if sales for most contributors weren't going down that would be strong evidence that sales were controlled. Certainly some suffer more than others. Whether that is by design, random results of algorithm changes or changing customer demand is speculation unless you have a source in shutterstock or access to their data.
347
« on: October 17, 2019, 02:11 »
1) prospective contributors believe the hype and enter the market without doing any research
If I may comment on that, there are not actuall resources on failure and agency tactics. Just "how i earned {amount of money}" and referrals even to crappy agencies. And a total recycling of "news".
The actual research and evaluation perhaps is uploading and getting
rejected,
payed $1,37 per clip
etc etc.
You only really need to look at the total number of images on shutterstock and divide that by the total amount paid out to see the odds are against you. I'm sure though huge numbers do try it for a month or two and realise its not for them.
348
« on: October 16, 2019, 00:57 »
The more images that are added and the less that's paid out per contributor, the more it seems to attract people to the pot. Obviously nobody in the stock game has their own financial wellbeing in mind. Basically it's a good way to lose money fast but yet it seems to attract more and more lemmings.
Obviously people in the stock game think it will benefit them financially for many it doesn't of course I think there are two reasons 1) prospective contributors believe the hype and enter the market without doing any research 2) Some people believe they can beat the "odds" and some in fact do.
349
« on: October 14, 2019, 12:57 »
I wouldn't blame reviewers so much. Its an entirely predictable outcome from opening the floodgates by allowing anyone to be a contributor with only one accepted photo. You could have a monkey press the shutter and do that. I doubt SS invest more than a tiny amount in training and probably give reviewers seconds to review each image. Along with that either by design or lack of control we seem to have some contributors able to contribute anything without inspection. I am amazed that they still remain by far the most succesful agency. Their marketing to buyers must be absolutely world class.
350
« on: October 12, 2019, 03:07 »
It's hard to fathom how tone deaf you have to be - how little you understand your contributor community - to post here about how you're taking a portion of profits to donate to charities (all of which I'm sure are most worthy).
Not once, but twice you've pleaded the business needed a larger share of the gross as your reason for cutting royalty payments to contributors (in the time I've been with Alamy).
From my perspective, that's our money that you have decided to donate to charities on our behalf. Don't expect me, and I suspect many other contributors, to feel good about that.
It doesn't really make much difference to me what organisations or people do with their profits. All stock agencies aim to make a profit. If Alamy decided to spend their profit on luxury yachts what difference would it make?.
Pages: 1 ... 9 10 11 12 13 [14] 15 16 17 18 19 ... 195
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
