|
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 - tickstock
Pages: 1 ... 10 11 12 13 14 [15] 16 17 18 19 20 ... 151
351
« on: September 03, 2015, 15:01 »
LOL at Sean's link ^^^
Don't forget this guy. He's added even more!
http://www.shutterstock.com/portfolio/search.mhtml?gallery_landing=1&gallery_id=1256674&page=1&safesearch=1&sort_method=newest
Don't you guys realize!? Limited commercial value is reduced, when minor variations are produced times infinity.
BUSINESS
MARIJUANA
BUSINESS
and
SODA
montages are running rampant... but what does this stuff mean!?> Must be a lot of buyers for them, if they're making so many duplicates HAHAHAH
You could probably just make a script to put random words over all your pictures, automatically upload them, and double your portfolio every couple hours. Sounds like a project for Sean...
352
« on: September 03, 2015, 08:24 »
This is a great gesture from Adobe. I wish they'd hurry up with including video into Adobe Stock so us video producers could join the fun. 
Will you be saying that when they sell videos for $30 and offer them for sale for $15?
No why would I? 
I think you should expect prices to be lower than most everywhere else. My guess is in the 30-50 dollar range.
I haven't checked out Adobe Stock very well, are the prices for photos lower compared to Fotolia? I would have expected them to remain the same.
Depending on your level Adobe could be 1/3 the price maybe less.
353
« on: September 02, 2015, 23:15 »
I'm not angry at all. Normally when people ask about a piece of gear it's because they want to know if they should get it or about some aspect of it, if all you want to know is if anyone is using it that's fine too.
354
« on: September 02, 2015, 21:09 »
So what's the question here? It sounds like you made up your mind already.
355
« on: September 02, 2015, 13:38 »
I didn't have duplicates nor similars in my port.
Would you like me to post links?
356
« on: September 02, 2015, 13:28 »
From my Getty exclusivity experience, I know that I make more by spreading my eggs on different baskets.
This could be applicable to you, or not.
You put the worse versions of your images on Getty RF and the better versions on Shutterstock, it's no wonder your experience is that Shutterstock makes more. I could have told you what would happen with that strategy. Uploading your better versions as RM and not putting sisters onto microstock is probably a more sensible strategy.
Is it possible he meant to say Istock exclusivity rather than Getty exclusivity? Two very different things. I have many exclusive images with Getty as a House Contributor and I am also exclusive to Istock.
I really meant Getty exclusivity as an example of a bad exclusive deal. I don't know how you feel "on the other side" as an IS exclusive. My experience with exclusivity was convincing enough to abandon it. But this is just me and my experience.
I am happy with your belief in exclusivity and with Thickstock's attempts to find alternative explanations to justify this belief
I wouldn't exactly call Getty Moment RF images exclusive especially when you have almost identical images on SS.
This is "just your opinion" and I'm happy it justifies your belief.
I know for a fact, that the rest of my port (the one Getty was not interested in) brought me, as non-exclusive, 30% better revenue per image per year, than what Getty has curated from me.
I would say of course they would. Why would anyone pay more for the nearly exact same image on Getty than on Shutterstock? I would completely expect that to happen. I also wouldn't say that contributing to Getty moment RF is a great idea. I think you'll see I never advocated putting the same images on macro and micro and I never advocated using Getty Moment.
357
« on: September 02, 2015, 13:16 »
From my Getty exclusivity experience, I know that I make more by spreading my eggs on different baskets.
This could be applicable to you, or not.
You put the worse versions of your images on Getty RF and the better versions on Shutterstock, it's no wonder your experience is that Shutterstock makes more. I could have told you what would happen with that strategy. Uploading your better versions as RM and not putting sisters onto microstock is probably a more sensible strategy.
Is it possible he meant to say Istock exclusivity rather than Getty exclusivity? Two very different things. I have many exclusive images with Getty as a House Contributor and I am also exclusive to Istock.
I really meant Getty exclusivity as an example of a bad exclusive deal. I don't know how you feel "on the other side" as an IS exclusive. My experience with exclusivity was convincing enough to abandon it. But this is just me and my experience.
I am happy with your belief in exclusivity and with Thickstock's attempts to find alternative explanations to justify this belief
I wouldn't exactly call Getty Moment RF images exclusive especially when you have almost identical images on SS.
358
« on: September 02, 2015, 12:35 »
From my Getty exclusivity experience, I know that I make more by spreading my eggs on different baskets.
This could be applicable to you, or not.
You put the worse versions of your images on Getty RF and the better versions on Shutterstock, it's no wonder your experience is that Shutterstock makes more. I could have told you what would happen with that strategy. Uploading your better versions as RM and not putting sisters onto microstock is probably a more sensible strategy.
No, Getty has selected those images from my port, at that time. I had no say in what they preferred.
Moreover their lack of flexibility makes this strategy very difficult.
You cannot withdraw individual images from Getty. You can only delete the whole port and walk away.
Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk
You did submit similar if not nearly identical images to microstock.
359
« on: September 02, 2015, 12:21 »
From my Getty exclusivity experience, I know that I make more by spreading my eggs on different baskets.
This could be applicable to you, or not.
You put the worse versions of your images on Getty RF and the better versions on Shutterstock, it's no wonder your experience is that Shutterstock makes more. I could have told you what would happen with that strategy. Uploading your better versions as RM and not putting sisters onto microstock is probably a more sensible strategy.
360
« on: September 02, 2015, 11:26 »
I wanted to contribute other types of how-to-videos, but they weren't accepting them.
The fact that you can find how-to-videos on youtube for free makes the whole service a bit useless. Sure, the videos are inferior in quality, but it's free. Skillfeed didn't offer enough value for people to pay for them.
I wonder how they're doing with OffSet.
I'm not so sure youtube has killed the market, didn't Lynda.com just sell for 1.5 billion dollars?
361
« on: September 02, 2015, 07:25 »
https://www.skillfeed.com/shutdownWonder if this is because a lot of the content was about using Adobe software. I thought it was strange for them to teach how to work with competitors.
362
« on: September 01, 2015, 16:41 »
My trend is similar to the poll results on the right. Upload to one site, get more than all the sites combined (that have an earnings rating) and do a 10th of the work.
Based on my own personal results (which obviously is all any of us have to go by), the figure for iStock exclusive looks entirely bogus. Unfortunately there is no chart or table that shows historical data, but my memory is that the results shown now are actually higher than they were a year ago. That is so entirely different from my own results that I simply can't believe it.
The number is pretty low actually. 245 in the poll means that the average amount made was only $1225.
363
« on: September 01, 2015, 12:53 »
This is a great gesture from Adobe. I wish they'd hurry up with including video into Adobe Stock so us video producers could join the fun.
Will you be saying that when they sell videos for $30 and offer them for sale for $15?
No why would I?
I think you should expect prices to be lower than most everywhere else. My guess is in the 30-50 dollar range.
364
« on: September 01, 2015, 09:31 »
How do you use this info?
The same way you use it: you have a theory about how AS will destroy SS and cannibalize FT.
My facts show something different, at least for the time-being: it looks like it mostly affects IS.
And that's a good thing, giving their abysmal RPD. The more customers will migrate away from IS, the better.
RPD wouldn't tell you if customers were leaving, RPI is a much better indicator. As far as I know iStock hasn't changed pricing since Adobe launched so RPD probably hasn't been affected yet. I see you've had a month to month change at Shutterstock of 33% before, it seems your numbers are volatile to begin with.
365
« on: September 01, 2015, 09:07 »
This is a great gesture from Adobe. I wish they'd hurry up with including video into Adobe Stock so us video producers could join the fun.
Will you be saying that when they sell videos for $30 and offer them for sale for $15?
366
« on: September 01, 2015, 08:55 »
How do you use this info?
367
« on: September 01, 2015, 08:50 »
Now we wait for all the other sites to lower pricing as well. Wooyay!
368
« on: September 01, 2015, 08:44 »
Hehe, I guess you're right. My bad.
Give it a few more years and it will be pretty close to 0 though.
369
« on: September 01, 2015, 08:39 »
Every year my earnings drop from 20%-30% on Alamy. Yet another blaring instance of market saturation. I have about 75% of my portfolio uploaded there so far. It's probably not even worth my time for me to submit the rest, unless things pick up. It's more likely that I will grow a third nipple from accidentally eating a moldy piece of fruit.
That's around 6000 images out of almost 62 million... If my math is correct, that means I'm personally holding .000096 % of the market share, baby! Talk about domination. Anybody want to buy me out? LOL I crack myself up.   
So basically in 4 years you sales at alamy dropped to 0%
That's one way of doing math. Here's the correct way though, 30% drop every year (at 20% it would be $51): Year 1: $100 Year 2: $70 Year 3: $49 Year 4: $34.30
370
« on: August 31, 2015, 22:48 »
I think I've shown pretty convincingly that submitting there is no guarantee that you'll understand what you are getting paid.
I know exactaly what I'm getting paid. I click on earnings and it shows. All time 60c is my average RPD. I don't need to know every detail and pick apart everthing like you. I am a photographer on SS you aren't.
Good for you, you're one of the few on here then. If you don't want to know every detail of how and what you are getting paid you can ignore the details, that's completely your choice. Personally I like to know the details, they seem important to me.
You can't see what we make and what we see because you aren't a photo contributor. Why are you so concerned about my business, when you aren't a photo contributor?
I can see everything you can see, there is no secret hidden information. I'm not concerned about your business per se, I'm concerned when one of the big companies drops prices and royalty rates because in the end it will affect me but I posted this because no one else had and Shutterstock didn't see it as necessary to tell contributors that pricing and the earnings schedule were changed (they still haven't mentioned it as far as I know). I see Jim has written a blog post about it as well so I know some people care about what is happening at Shutterstock even if you're happy being ignorant of it. It does say a lot about you that you are so passionately arguing that you don't want to know about changes to your earnings.
372
« on: August 31, 2015, 13:09 »
Hi Everybody, two posts up ^^ I asked for a portfolio review for my Stocksy application. No feedback yet, so It occurred to me that this is not the appropriate thread, or it's a case of "if you can't say something nice don't say anything at all."
Either way, I want to improve and I'm fine with brutal criticism, shall I start an independent thread, maybe there's a different venue? Thanks Mark
Cut down what you're showing. People looking directly at the camera probably aren't good, as in this image https://www.flickr.com/photos/98445126@N02/20772995849/in/album-72157657468527289/ focus is missed too. Add a watermark. Some of your people shots (candid ones) are good but the VW toy, bridge with grass, metro station aren't so great. For me the best are business man in hotel, bouzouki player, and eggs.
373
« on: August 31, 2015, 10:22 »
I think I've shown pretty convincingly that submitting there is no guarantee that you'll understand what you are getting paid.
I know exactaly what I'm getting paid. I click on earnings and it shows. All time 60c is my average RPD. I don't need to know every detail and pick apart everthing like you. I am a photographer on SS you aren't.
Good for you, you're one of the few on here then. If you don't want to know every detail of how and what you are getting paid you can ignore the details, that's completely your choice. Personally I like to know the details, they seem important to me.
374
« on: August 28, 2015, 12:09 »
I still see the old pricing, so it's a test.
I don't but just like ending daily subscription limits was a test then so is this, that changed back and forth for a couple weeks before being permanent. They've changed the earnings schedule it's going to change for everyone soon. 5 image plans will also most likely change soon as well.
They'll test, and if it makes more money for them, they'll roll it out. At least they test first, instead of just haphazardly making sweeping changes that eventually result in a 30% drop in revenue.
I don't disagree that they are doing this because they think it will make them more. If buyers switch to Adobe then Shutterstock loses 100%, if they drop the price and royalty rate they lose less than that. If Adobe didn't price their Single Image On Demand sales that low I think it is safe to say Shutterstock wouldn't be "testing" this. I'm not saying Shutterstock is a bad company for dropping prices (although I think an unannounced royalty rate drop isn't the best policy but that too is expected since the pricing is the same as other ODs now, it probably should be paid at the same rate) these things happen when contributors support competition that undercuts pricing.
375
« on: August 28, 2015, 11:32 »
I still see the old pricing, so it's a test.
I don't but just like ending daily subscription limits was a test then so is this, that changed back and forth for a couple weeks before being permanent. They've changed the earnings schedule it's going to change for everyone soon. 5 image plans will also most likely change soon as well.
So?
Don't most sites constantly test and refine?
Are you saying no one should post when a site changes pricing and royalty rates?
Pages: 1 ... 10 11 12 13 14 [15] 16 17 18 19 20 ... 151
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
