|
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 - Jo Ann Snover
3501
« on: April 04, 2014, 10:45 »
Jesus... will anyone buy the Signature sub with that price difference?? This will probably be the death of all exclusives. We're not gonna get any sub downloads and less and less credit downloads. 
iStock is really overestimating the quality of the exclusive collections. There are lots of files in the Main collection and at the competitor agencys with the same quality.
If you do some searches and then turn on first signature collection, then essentials, it's hard to see a visual difference. When you go to stock.xchng (didn't realize it's now http://www.freeimages.com/) or dreamstime's free site, there's a really clear idea of why the paid photos cost something - look at the comparisons in this search, for example (and ignore the odd difference in the numbers of images in the top paid section vs. the bottom - weird) http://www.stockfreeimages.com/p1/balloons.htmlI'd expect to see some sort of obvious difference given how much more Signature is - but I don't. On top of which Vetta's excluded (I'm guessing that won't last long) so you can't even get everything on the site. And then there's the Thinkstock vs. iStock subs and some of the same content in both but some differs, pricing and download rules differ, both by Getty Images, but why can't I just have one subscription place? I just don't know what they could have been thinking... As a friend of mine said to an executive at a software company "I like money isn't a product strategy" 
3502
« on: April 04, 2014, 10:20 »
what other forum?
And What Proof?
Who, other than a Shutterstock employee, could give you anything beyond wild speculation? Changing best match placement is something I'd expect and for it to be nearly continual. Targeting individual photographers seems preposterous. Fotolia apparently targeted those with higher royalty rates - moving them back in search results - which was reported by enough Emeralds and up to seem credible. People want to know the unknowable. Waste of time.
3503
« on: April 04, 2014, 00:38 »
I'm not a newbie either, but I don't think comparisons will help you much. Yuri was new once, and he took off pretty quickly - much faster than most of us You'll need to figure out what works at each agency - you can see the rough sales heft of the agencies from the poll results, so you know to pay more attention to feeding Shutterstock than Dreamstime. You need to figure out what you can shoot - access, skill, interest - and what there's a market for. Some things are great to look at but not all that useful as stock; some are great sellers but in such bountiful supply that you'll have a hard time getting any traction given that you're new and the competition has great search position. If you do anything seasonal, remember that you'll want to have those available 3 months or so prior to the event (and my Christmas images sell year round, but just not in the volume they do in the fall). You'll then need to build a portfolio of a decent size to get an idea if you're on the right track or not. Good luck!
3504
« on: April 04, 2014, 00:28 »
I've been thinking about taking the top 10 popular pictures (of models isolated on white background) from SS and either creating a transparent png or a clipping path for these. Is anyone seeing any increase in sales doing a strategy like this? On Yuri's site, he offers transparent png...
http://peopleimages.com/image/new-custom-retouching-transparent-png-file-ready-for-download-denmark-serbia-czech-republic
I saw a few posts about clipping path by Jo Ann, but not sure if she thought sales had increased because of them.
I put clipping paths into certain images where it seems to make sense - for example for an image of someone at a desk with something on the monitor, I include a clipping path so they can easily slip in their own screen image if needed. I have no clue if it helps with sales and I'm not sure how you'd ever really track that down. I think everyone who has been selling a while will have a puzzle of one or two images from a series are much more popular than the others, not always for any reason we can fathom. So even if you had some with and without for similar images, I don't know you could be sure about the influence of the clipping path vs. the image itself. Given the time involved in making the paths, I'm guessing you wouldn't see as much return as working on more images. For a photo, a 24 bit PNG is much larger than the equivalent JPEG. I just saved a recent 21 MP image ( this one) which was 8.8 MB as a JPEG (Maximum quality 12 in Photoshop) and it was 23 MB as a PNG - about 3x the size. Given that you were planning to take a top 10 to work on-selling well without a clipping path- did you have any reason to believe you'd sell even more? Had a designer contacted you to ask about PNG?
3505
« on: April 03, 2014, 18:43 »
I'd contact SS support and ask. A while back (years, as I recall) a bunch of us got retroactive extended licenses when SS went after a calendar maker who didn't get the right license. Let them say whether your case is like that one.
I got one of those - I was an IS exclusive at the time, but SS contacted me and got me my $28! I didn't know it was for a calendar, just that someone didn't buy the EL that they should have.
3506
« on: April 03, 2014, 17:52 »
Looking at section 2b http://www.shutterstock.com/licensing.mhtml?type=standard&hsb=1"In print media, digital media, product packaging and software including magazines, newspapers, books (including print-on-demand books), e-books, advertising collateral, letterhead, business cards, product labels, CD and DVD cover art, applications (including mobile "apps"), and opt-in e-mail marketing, provided that no Image is reproduced more than two hundred fifty thousand (250,000) times in the aggregate, and that the Images cannot be readily unincorporated from such digital media or software" I think you could reasonably make the case that a calendar with multiple pages was a sort of book - not like a poster or framed print where there is nothing else added and an EL is required. The EL would lift the print run restriction but would still require "... provided that such merchandise: a) combines the Image with words and/or other graphics of images; or b) the Image is not the primary factor driving the sale of such merchandise." I think the way they describe the type of merchandise - that it's combined with words or other graphics - would include a calendar. So if the print run is under 250K they should be good with a standard license IMO (but I'm not a lawyer...)
3507
« on: April 03, 2014, 16:58 »
... RIP. Now iS is just another cheap subs company.
Except that they're not cheap. You get a whole lot less than Shutterstock for $199 and there are cheap plans at BigStock and CanStock if you're really stuck for cash that are effectively a price match. For the higher price to include everything I'd have to really like a lot of the higher priced stuff to pay so much more than SS - and I don't even get Vetta for that. So if I go with Thinkstock I get iStock main + some Getty and StockXpert (Hemera) stuff. If I go with iStock subs I drop the Getty stuff and pick up two of the three exclusive collections. Why wouldn't I go to Thinkstock and pay $299 vs. $499 - won't a lot of the stuff that migrated from iStock to Getty find it's way to Thinkstock that way? It all seems way too complicated, IMO. Complicated makes getting the high volumes of sales you need as a contributor to make this work much harder.
3508
« on: April 03, 2014, 16:13 »
Did you notice that it's a monthly download limit, not daily? Makes it much harder for the agency to make it work financially that way.
I guess we'll have to see how much buyers value the higher priced stuff - $499 a month is a pretty big premium on top of Shutterstock's $249...
I did a search for balloons and then looked at the signature vs. the peasantry. They need to clean up all the isolated plain vanilla stuff from the premium price section if they stand a chance of making this make sense to a buyer
3509
« on: April 02, 2014, 23:14 »
There's a ton of stuff there. I had a quick browse, but it'd take forever to look over the lot. They do have a policy on removal for copyright violation http://www.upresentation.com/copyright-mattersThe text makes it sound as if they have contract designers doing the work. Some sites sell an EL that permits use in templates, so you'd have to be sure no one purchased such a license before taking steps for removal. Did you send them a takedown notice?
3510
« on: April 02, 2014, 16:14 »
I tweeted a reply to this too. It is easier given the toxic drivel she's delivering, but even with better politics it'd still be wrong.
Has anyone tracked down the artist?
3511
« on: April 02, 2014, 15:32 »
But it's April 2nd now - put them back in the nether regions
3512
« on: April 02, 2014, 10:34 »
I can't figure how I'd want to sell images on Fiverr. ...Besides, it's not like Fiverr has exactly redeemed themselves here. They made some progress with taking down the gigs that used "Shutterstock" in the descriptions...But then the blatant Thinkstock gig is still up, as are some other stock image gigs that are a little more vague but still identifiable as selling images they don't have the right to sell. ...
For me, that's the clear indicator that they just don't care about the legitimacy of what's being sold as long as they get their $1 per sale. This gig - which I reported - is still up. I gave them links to several of those images in the collage - from different artists - pointing out that even if they weren't selling those images it was fraud (showing them as if that was the product) and violating their terms of service that the seller own the copyrights to their gallery photo. http://www.fiverr.com/stockimage/send-you-our-holiday-stock-photo-packI'm working on the blog packs for my own site and I'll keep an eye on Fiverr to see if they clean up their act in the future. My hope is that they clean up or shut down, but I'm not spending any more time doing the agencies work for them unless one of my own images gets into a Fiverr bundle.
3513
« on: April 02, 2014, 09:47 »
Shutterstock had a wonderful month - 27% up over Feb and 45% up on March 2013. RPD was 92 cents - not the highest it's been but it'd be nice to see that hit $1 on a regular basis. Subs were 36% of the total DT volume was flat with March 2013 but $$ down 18%. IMO they have driven more people to subs with their overpriced high level files - I do see some non-sub sales for the level 4 and 5 images, but not enough compared to the sub sales. It's nice to see the $2 subs in the mix, but overall DT (for me anyway) doesn't seem to have the pricing model right. 123rf keeps earning even though I don't upload there any more (because of their royalty cut from 50% to 45%) - sales were up 5% over March 2013 (although down on Mar 2012). PhotoDune was up 45% over March 2013 (58% up on Feb 14 but that had seen an odd dip) Veer fluctuates wildly between $200 a month and $25 a month depending on ELs so monthly or annual comparisons make little sense. Given the small chunk of files there (only 800) that's not terrible, but I'm wrapping up there (they've "started the process" which could take 90 days apparently) because I'm sick of their partner deals and leaving is the only opt out I have. Alamy had a couple of sales but neither that big and nothing cleared. GL Stock manages a few a month but seems to be headed nowhere. Others - Squashed Tree Frog
I love this
3514
« on: April 02, 2014, 09:24 »
Naturally, I'd like to be paid more but the FB deal has generated $75 per month for me on average. This is a fresh and growing revenue stream from newly acquired market share. Good business.
How do you know that $75 is all $.38 SOD ? Is there a way to list your SODs for a day, or are you just checking the contributor app for $.38 licenses?
You can download a CSV file with daily earnings and it is broken down by category. So there's a column for SODs although you'd have to go look at specific days with the web interface to see the breakdown - given the very wide range of price points in that category I don't think there's any way to automate a breakdown.
3515
« on: April 01, 2014, 16:19 »
...My main goal would be NOT just to sell my images BUT, by phrasing my offer accordingly, to inform buyers about the shady deal they get from those shutterstock "resellers", promote the fair trade aspect of buying directly from the artist and to drive traffic to my Symbiostock site. ..
The only links they permit off site are to YouTube or to Flickr, so you'd have to indirectly guide buyers to your own site via either of those. Fiverr's goal (explicitly stated in one of the FAQs for sellers) is to have all links inbound to Fiverr - so you can promote your gig on your own site but not direct the gig buyer elsewhere. And they say they will terminate the account for not following the rules. The private label deals, which I think are legit, are 100 images for $5 and the contributor who's openly selling his own portfolio at 79 for $5 or 107 for $5 makes it really hard to consider what I had in mind - a package of blog sized images at a discount
3516
« on: April 01, 2014, 13:47 »
Another month, another error.
I have contacted 123rf support because April sales are being reported at the minimum royalty instead of our correct rates. It's really pathetic that they can't automate this...
To be fair (yeah, I know: why bother?), they do claim the process is automated. It's just slow, as they run a process that calculates the right number of credits over the last 12 months for each supplier in turn. Given how long it takes iStock to credit us with PP earnings once the process starts, I'm not surprised that 123RF takes a while to do a similar amount of work.
So they have one new month to calculate and one old one to drop off the back end. And that can't happen within a matter of minutes or hours? If they have partners that are delaying reports to them, then they should run one month in arrears on the calcuations. Or, they could pay us at last month's rate until they get to the new one - then I wouldn't see a huge drop and send them a ticket.
3517
« on: April 01, 2014, 10:38 »
Another month, another error.
I have contacted 123rf support because April sales are being reported at the minimum royalty instead of our correct rates. It's really pathetic that they can't automate this...
3518
« on: April 01, 2014, 10:18 »
Fiverr did mention to me that they are interested getting more stock image gigs direct from artists, maybe even set up a separate category/section. If anyone wants to sell at Fiverr, definitely reach out to them with any questions. They do seem receptive to getting some legit photo gigs going.
I've been toying with the idea of offering packages of blog sized images there (and probably on my own site). Picking things I think would make sense for bloggers and others looking to do things on the cheap and packaging them so they're an attractive deal but not a giveaway. I don't think I need any help from them to set it up though - I was looking through my pile of stuff to see what might make sense and think how to bundle.
All communications and deliveries take place through their system, so I guess I'd have to make a zip file with the license and the JPEGs, but I don't know how that part works. Given their attitudes towards IP, I'm a bit gun shy about working with them. Has the taste of Deposit Photos a bit...
Really? Perhaps I'm missing some implied message, but if not:
No site is perfect, but fiverr hardly seems a company anyone who respects copyrights would want to be associated with.
I don't think you were missing anything - at least I didn't have any unspoken message in mind I am still thinking over the idea of packages of blog sized images, but for my own site only at this point. I don't want to rule out new marketplaces too quickly - don't want to be the 2014 equivalent of the traditional agencies pooh-poohing microstock - but the response (or mostly lack thereof) from Fiverr to the complaints of obvious abuse has been unsatisfactory so far.
3520
« on: March 31, 2014, 11:40 »
The gig with the graphic of the Shutterstock home page and an invitation to submit image IDs is apparently now no longer available. I guess that's a small step in the right direction.
As far as a sting getting someone to buy your own images, (a) given the information already provided, if either Shutterstock or Fiverr were going to act, they have enough to do so and (b) you wouldn't want to get yourself in trouble with Shutterstock in any way by appearing to game their system by buying your own images.
3521
« on: March 31, 2014, 10:55 »
First, I don't believe them. They've extended this more than once already, and they'll keep extending the deal because there's a chunk of folks who won't bite at their subscription model. They could offer it at 1 cent a month and I wouldn't buy it because once you're on that hamster wheel they have you and the price will then go up.
I have CS6 for Photoshop and Illustrator and Lightroom 5 (all perpetual licenses) so I'm good for a long time. I have seen nothing in the new features for CC that's in the least bit interesting.
3522
« on: March 31, 2014, 10:51 »
I'm really depressed! I reported two bogus gigs to Fiverr support. Both are still up and the response was that they'd forward to the editors and would not let me know the outcome for "privacy" reasons. I was searching gigs and came upon a Shutterstock contributor who is offering his own Fiverr gig - 79 images for $5!! What on earth would make someone do that? Even just as 38 cent subs he would make $30 for those sales on SS... http://www.fiverr.com/andreipop/deliver-79-royalty-free-stock-photos-copyright-free-stock-imageshttp://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-490780p1.htmlThen I found some images in gigs that offered 100 stock photos for $5 but couldn't find the photos on a stock site and found this bizarro universe where they're flogging Private Label Resale packages. You can buy for $5.99 from here http://www.theplrstore.com/100-plr-people-images-graphics-p-3411.htmand then resell on Fiverr as many times as you like. Google image searches for a couple of the images turned up many, many websites using these http://www.fiverr.com/savagequest/send-you-100-awesome-royalty-free-business-stock-photosThe same images get offered as a bonus if you sign up for a service that seems to be about making web sites to make money http://www.super-resell.com/templates-amp-graphics/101-transperant-biz-imageshttp://resellrightsplus.com/101-transparent-biz-images/It's likely this 100 image pack is legally sold and resold, but at those prices it makes complaints about a race to the bottom with agencies seem almost funny. There were some gigs offering the sellers own images - not all that good, admitedly - with 79 waterfalls and beaches, or 107 nature scenes for $5. That's more like the free stock sites in that there's a clear quality/style difference, but in a way it's worse because they're charging. If you wanted to offer a legitimate gig you're competing with that sort of pricing, even if the images are not very good. Here are the two gigs I reported to Fiverr support (with no apparent effect): http://www.fiverr.com/stockimage/send-you-our-holiday-stock-photo-packAt a minimum, the above gig is violating their TOS by using images the seller doesn't own in the gallery I give Fiverr support links to one, two, http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-141719401/stock-photo-group-of-friends-celebrating-st-patrick-s-day-at-a-pub.html]three[/url] of the images. If they're not actually selling SS images, then it's fraud. http://www.fiverr.com/vlad56/sent-you-20-stock-photos-you-pick-at-stock-photos-website
3523
« on: March 29, 2014, 13:30 »
Fiverr did mention to me that they are interested getting more stock image gigs direct from artists, maybe even set up a separate category/section. If anyone wants to sell at Fiverr, definitely reach out to them with any questions. They do seem receptive to getting some legit photo gigs going.
I've been toying with the idea of offering packages of blog sized images there (and probably on my own site). Picking things I think would make sense for bloggers and others looking to do things on the cheap and packaging them so they're an attractive deal but not a giveaway. I don't think I need any help from them to set it up though - I was looking through my pile of stuff to see what might make sense and think how to bundle. All communications and deliveries take place through their system, so I guess I'd have to make a zip file with the license and the JPEGs, but I don't know how that part works. Given their attitudes towards IP, I'm a bit gun shy about working with them. Has the taste of Deposit Photos a bit...
3524
« on: March 29, 2014, 11:01 »
I would have guessed not from the response they gave Mike, but this is from their seller FAQ. So possibly certain categories get flagged?
3525
« on: March 28, 2014, 19:55 »
Among the many odd things about Fiverr as a marketplace is the set of rules about anonymity - and I guess I already broke that in my choice of user name when I signed up, although I didn't read the terms until after I signed up... You're not allowed to post any links to other sites; not allowed to communicate with a buyer anywhere else (no e-mail, only site mail); "To protect our users' privacy, user identities must be kept anonymous. Requesting or providing Email addresses, Skype/IM usernames, telephone numbers or any other personal contact details ( other than your name) to communicate outside of the Fiverr network is not permitted." In the age of Google, if anyone has an online presence already, if you have their name you can find out how to contact them with a simple search. Plus, if you were selling stock - legitimately - through their site (a) google images would tell you in a minute who was the owner of the photos; (b) I might want to know who I'm dealing with, not some "knock three times and ask for Fred" setup where I don't know if the copyright holder and the Gig seller were one and the same. Now in the gigs I've looked at thus far with professional stock photos, they have had multiple portfolios represented, so I know they're bogus. But I gave a moments thought to putting together a collection of blog size images as a bundle and offering those for $5 (the fake-o folks are offering full size; I'd be offering blog sizes). The whole stay anonymous thing seems to me to be a bit of a problem though, on top of the residual worry about the way the marketplace is set up. In particular, I'd never offer full size images though them and I'd love to be able to have anyone who wanted something larger to do that elsewhere (my site or an agency). As it was I couldn't post a link to my blog with the seller tips - although fortunately I could add the text to google after the link was removed - jo ann snover blog digital bristles finds it. One user (who had previously gotten into trouble for reselling images) asked if I could put the blog text in the forum. I replied that the blog had links to lots of useful information and no off site links are allowed, so it wouldn't work.
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
