|
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 - SpaceStockFootage
Pages: 1 ... 10 11 12 13 14 [15] 16 17 18 19 20 ... 98
351
« on: March 06, 2021, 06:34 »
Yeah, you can't really refute what somebody is saying by providing examples of incorrect things that somebody didn't say. That's not how it works! He said they're not in trouble... he didn't say they were doing brilliantly and shareholders are over the moon. And he didn't say, hint at or even insinuate that SS is 'famous for treating contributors with respect and even increasing their royalty payments'.
Their growth rates may have been slowing of late (like pretty much any agency who has been around for a while... or contributor for that matter), but they were still making a lot of money. And with the change to the royalty structures, they're now making more money than before. So while the shareholders may not be over the moon, they're probably pretty happy with how things are going, and SS definitely aren't 'in trouble'.
How long that lasts for remains to be seen.
352
« on: March 05, 2021, 04:45 »
Is someone starting stock in 2013 classed as a 'veteran'? I started in 2009 and still feel that I don't quite qualify just yet!
353
« on: March 03, 2021, 05:03 »
I just gave my honest opinion on his portfolio.
People need to stop justifiying being rude and insulting by saying "I just gave my opinion!!!".
There are a lot of forum rules on Shutterstock, one is "be polite" another "Provide honest, constructive feedback without being disrespectful or mean" How is saying someone's profile "sucks" constructive? Next rule says "Refrain from using the forum to call out other contributors work in a negative light", which is exactly what you did. Jon Oringer certainly did not come to the forum to ask for your opinion on his (test) portfolio. You made a thread specifically for calling out his work in a negative light. And then there is a rule saying "Refrain from making defamatory remarks about Shutterstock, our contributors, our customers, or our competitor", which you have broken in many of the 446564 threads you post daily.
I don't like Oringer any more than anyone else here does, but you broke several rules, you got a well deserved warning, stop whining.
Surprised he's not got a temporary ban or at least a warning for: "You should work on your photo skill rather than wasting your time posting craps you stupid redneck MFer". Maybe he got a warning, you never know. Seems a bit of a step up from an 'opinion'.
355
« on: March 02, 2021, 10:30 »
...all the sales you make on unlimited subs sites are sales that you lose somewhereelse...
I don't think that's true. It will be to an extent, but I don't think it's anywhere near enough to make a significant difference. It's not like somebody who gets all the videos they need a month for $30 is going to pay $79 for each of them if Storyblocks disappears. I mean, if everyone who downloaded my content from the subscription sites paid $79 at Pond5 instead, I'd be making enough to buy a Ferrari every month. It's like Game of Thrones... average of 20 million viewers and 60 million illegal downloads. Get rid of the illegal downloads and it doesn't mean 60 million people will sign up to HBO the very next day. Some might, but probably not that many. Most will find an alternative solution or just not bother. The way I see it, it seems like subscription sites are here to stay, and people are going to subscribe to those sites whether you submit there or you don't... and whether I submit there or I don't. So while it's possible that a sale on unlimited subs sites is a sale that I lose somewhere else... for you, a sale on an unlimited subs site is a sale that you lose not just somewhere else, but also on the unlimited sub site. Sure, you don't want to get paid cents per download, but cents add up to real money. Principles don't.
356
« on: March 02, 2021, 08:25 »
OK. Don't know what decent money really means...
I suppose each one of us as its own value for that. please let me know if you buy a Ferrari with that. 
Wish you well with that "system".
About $2K a month from the subscription sites, give or take. No, that's not enough to buy a Ferrari, but I don't think anyone making even considerably more than a 'decent amount' would be making enough of buy a ferrari, whether they submit to subscription sites or not. Unless they save up for quite some time and get a second hand one. Accounts for about 50% of my monthly earnings... the rest from more 'traditional' agencies.
357
« on: March 02, 2021, 06:04 »
Getting unlimited videos gives buyers an attractive product which makes me a decent amount of money every month as a result. As I produce content with the intention of making money, I'd say that's getting me somewhere.
358
« on: March 02, 2021, 02:22 »
If they're subscribed to Storyblocks or are thinking about it, I think its pretty unlikely that me adding or removing my content from them is going to have a massive influence on that. The way I see it, although I may be wrong, is that your Pond5s and your Adobe's are for films, TV shows and advertising agencies who don't mind paying $79 a clip as the client is paying for it. Your Storyblocks and the like are more for Youtubers who want 100 clips for a video but can't afford afford $7900 for a video that's unlikely to generate that much from views.
While some who were paying $79 might now be taking advantage of the unlimited subscriptions which impacts our revenue, I feel there's just as big a market thats growing at a crazy rate who need affordable content.
From what I can see, sales at these subscription sites are in addition to sales at the regular sites... not at the cost of sales at the regular sites. It will affect it somewhat, but the growing market of content creators that have never shopped at the regular sites more than makes up for it.
If that makes sense? Cobbling this together on my phone while taking a smoke break from failing miserably at putting together an electric standing desk... so I apologise if its just a rambling wall of text.
359
« on: March 01, 2021, 09:08 »
What was the original word you put in Google translate?
360
« on: March 01, 2021, 08:05 »
I make an average of about $1 per clip, per month.
361
« on: February 28, 2021, 07:17 »
Just curious why you always whip these up before the end of the month? Sure, it's not going to make a massive difference, but there is almost always a full day to go when you do them, at least in US time.
362
« on: February 23, 2021, 17:41 »
If you still had content on SS then you would be making more money than you are currently... even if only one dollar more. Do you have any evidence to dispute that?
Another thing is that P5 sell for same price same clip if available somewhere else. Which means 1$.
They do do that for some site, but not SS. And even if they did, it would be $25 for HD and $50 for 4K... not $1. Kind of makes it hard to trust what you're saying when you don't even know the pricing minimums that P5 use.
Pond5 has a system in place where if a client sees the same identical clip for a lower price elsewhere, P5 will equalize that price. Meaning if you have clips on both SS and P5, and someone sees that on P5 they can ask for the same pricing which is a massive discount.
So a clip worth 35 bucks on P5 suddently becomes worth $1. There was a lot said on this topic already btw.
However that also means that you're throwing random accusations without having any solid information which makes it hard to trust you  but hey if you like selling for peanuts and bringing peanuts to the table, I can't stop you mate, but I can only wish you well.
Here's the solid information that I apparently don't have... https://help.pond5.com/hc/en-us/articles/360029928151You'll see it states that the price guarantee won't apply to any prices under their minimum of $25 for HD and $50 for 4K... which is what I said.
363
« on: February 22, 2021, 13:51 »
You might want to do a bit of research if you think the poor, downtrodden, impoverished stock creators should be included under the umbrella of social justice. Spoiler alert... we're not on Amnesty International's radar either.
364
« on: February 22, 2021, 13:26 »
If you still had content on SS then you would be making more money than you are currently... even if only one dollar more. Do you have any evidence to dispute that? Another thing is that P5 sell for same price same clip if available somewhere else. Which means 1$.
They do do that for some site, but not SS. And even if they did, it would be $25 for HD and $50 for 4K... not $1. Kind of makes it hard to trust what you're saying when you don't even know the pricing minimums that P5 use.
365
« on: February 21, 2021, 14:23 »
You're missing the point. You may be selling 100 clips a month at Adobe, or 50 clips at Pond5, or $500 at iStock, or $75 per download at 123RF... but my point is... if you make $0.01 at SS per month, then you make more contributing to SS than if you don't.
Principles don't pay the bills. And while you can dispute that until the cows come home by saying 'my principles made me X dollars last month'... my principles made me X dollars last month... plus my SS earnings on top.
366
« on: February 21, 2021, 14:16 »
....
This will also drastically reduce the demand since fewer customers will be able to afford the new prices....
this is as wrong as Sean is wrong in naming the user H2O by the wrong name.
web design companies have no problem with photo prices at all nor do they insist on cheaper ones. they charge it most often from the customer's design anyway. nor does anyone go bankrupt because of the high prices of photos on the internet.
but I see that you are accustomed to this wild west and the real question is whether you should be paid more at all when you think you are worth less.
I 'did the math' and even for every contributor at SS to just earn minimum wage (and SS to earn the same as they are now), then SS would either have to increase their customer base by 100 times, or keep their customer numbers the same and increase their revenue per customer by 100 times. I.E. their $1,999 per year subscription would then become their $199,900 a year subscription. Do you really think these web design companies would have no problem at all with such prices? Bottom line... Sean is right.
367
« on: February 20, 2021, 17:57 »
368
« on: February 20, 2021, 17:53 »
it's all about content, not resolution or equipment...
...unless you only have a camera that shoots in 720p.
369
« on: February 20, 2021, 03:27 »
Naughty boy. Bit of a cheek adding the CC0 description to them when they're clearly not. If I'm not mistaken, one of them is the top selling clip of all time at Pond5 (shallow depth of field, slow motion long shot of a crowded sidewalk)
370
« on: February 16, 2021, 17:46 »
When people are saying it's expired in January, I'm pretty sure they're saying that it's expired at midnight on the 31st of December.
371
« on: February 15, 2021, 05:43 »
I've been through this so many times and always the same silly arguments.
Well your answers usually leave something to be desired, so I'm not surprised people still have questions. For example... Then search fiat and see what it's backed by - i'll give you a hint. F'all
So just like cryptocurrencies then? Crypto's value is in it's tech and speed and by the basis of it's finite and not infinite like fiat.
It's value may be in that, but that doesn't mean it's backed by anything. Search on how technology is speeding up and yet the payments industry is still using 1970's tech
If it aint broke, don't fix it. While I agree there may be benefits to cryptos, there's a long way to go before it's as convenient as Paypal and card payments. Search on the internet of things and how our tech will communicate with us easily. ie fridges knowing when you're running low on milk and ordering it for you - paying instantly.
The Internet of Things was around long before cryptos. Cryptos don't rely on IoT and IoT doesn't rely on cryptos... your fridge could just as easily instantly order milk using Paypal or Visa... and as the majority of retailers don't accept cryptos, you're more likely to find a fridge that can order you stuff using Paypal or your card than you are cryptos. And faster. Crypto is being made super easy to use. Some wallets out there even my 94 year old gran could use.
A human having the ability to use something that's pretty much integral to life as we know it (having the ability to purchase things) should be the minimum bar and go without saying, not be something to shout about! And even if this gives agencies the ability to pay us instantly for people licensing our stock... I'd be highly surprised if they did. You'd probably still get it two to six weeks later. Then you've got the downsides... cost of implementation, five minutes for verification of your transaction (vs 5 seconds or so for Visa/Paypal), lack of any recourse if you get hacked, wallet addresses and passwords that are impossible to remember, volatility of price, uncertainty with regards to future legislation, skyrocketing power usage when it comes to mining etc etc.
372
« on: February 14, 2021, 22:57 »
Banned 🙋♂️. No reason given, violation of TOS but that can be anything. Cancel Culture at its best, they probably didnt like my public dissatisfaction and posts about their thievery so I got the boot 🥾 #shutterstockcontributor #shutterstockboycott #sstk #shutterstock #boycottshutterstock shutterstocknow
If you were posting about 'their thievery' then that would be the reason. However much you or I disagree with the change to their royalty structure, they have every right to legally make such changes, and if you accuse them of being thieves then that would be defamation.
Can I call them "bloodsucker"?
Probably. A reasonable person would generally assume that they don't actually suck your blood, so it's unlikely to qualify as defamation!
373
« on: February 14, 2021, 11:15 »
Banned 🙋♂️. No reason given, violation of TOS but that can be anything. Cancel Culture at its best, they probably didnt like my public dissatisfaction and posts about their thievery so I got the boot 🥾 #shutterstockcontributor #shutterstockboycott #sstk #shutterstock #boycottshutterstock shutterstocknow
If you were posting about 'their thievery' then that would be the reason. However much you or I disagree with the change to their royalty structure, they have every right to legally make such changes, and if you accuse them of being thieves then that would be defamation.
374
« on: February 12, 2021, 00:16 »
And what's the benefit to buyers and agencies that we get paid per download instantly at very little to no cost at all?
375
« on: February 11, 2021, 16:22 »
What's the benefit to buyers and agencies hough? Paypal and credit cards are instant already so I'm not seeing why anyone would be on to a winner.
Pages: 1 ... 10 11 12 13 14 [15] 16 17 18 19 20 ... 98
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
