|
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 - Noedelhap
Pages: 1 ... 11 12 13 14 15 [16] 17 18 19 20 21 ... 90
376
« on: July 26, 2020, 17:26 »
Works again, I think Canstock is a trustworthy site, never had any problems with them. Low sales but nice RPD and their payments are always on time.
377
« on: July 25, 2020, 07:44 »
Same here, Firefox can't reach it, no exception possible.
378
« on: July 24, 2020, 11:36 »
Is SS going to follow iStock in its footsteps as the next big stock business slowly sinking under the weight of its own size and mismanagement? I'd like to think SS is fundamentally different from iStock/Getty, but maybe it's the same kind of corporate/technical mess after all.
I called it, 3 years ago! As did justanotherphotographer: IStock compounded incompetence with unique pressure on finances thanks to their role as a debt vehicle for financiers. This led them to continually squeeze contributors to the degree that many people left or stopped uploading. Shutterstock aren't there yet, fingers crossed they aren't about to cut our royalties, that would be the indicator that they are stuck in the downward spiral.
379
« on: July 24, 2020, 07:39 »
Have fun!
380
« on: July 21, 2020, 18:04 »
I received an email from Yay today: Hello again!
A brief update about where we are at with our video contributor technology.
We have recently launched video pricing tiers. This means you can price all of your videos or just one individual video at another price point.
Existing high quality contributors are grandfathered into the "Premium" tier.
New contributors will start at the "Regular" tier. After uploading 100 approved videos, you can apply for the "Premium" tier.
Here's how the new pricing works:
"Budget" (HD - $5, no 4K)
"Regular" (HD - $24.99, 4K - $59)
"Premium" (HD - $59, 4K - $149)
Some videos, like a time-lapse or a less offered content drone shot or a video shot with a DSLR at 4K higher bitrate has different value than a GoPro video for example.
To solve this problem, you can now reprice existing approved videos by clicking the checkbox next to the desired video, in the "Videos" navigation tab.
Regular is priced way too low, in my opinion. So I've applied for Premium tier. hopefully this will be applied without any hassles. I've uploaded my entire vector and video portfolio last week, let's see if that brings me any sales.
381
« on: July 21, 2020, 10:04 »
These are perfectly acceptable keywords in my book. I think they're considered different keywords, although some agencies may have 'smarter' search engines that automatically take corresponding adjectives into account.
I know that Shutterstock considers 'laugh' and 'laughing' as the same (in other words, the second one would be redundant), but most agencies accept both versions.
382
« on: July 20, 2020, 10:24 »
They are a business. They do what makes the most money for them. Most businesses do. Maybe you arent cut out for microstock. Maybe you are better suited for journalism.
we are also businesses. Microstock is also business, it's not like only agencies are businesses here.
True, however not every contributor is a business. Some are hobbyists doing it for the attention and exposure. Then you have the contributors who are a "business" on paper but don't treat it as such and continuously undercut themselves by uploading to bottom-tier agencies.
383
« on: July 20, 2020, 07:22 »
I can never quite understand why exclusive contributors like him never criticize their own agency. He mentions the subscription model introduction in 2014 and subsequently a large revenue drop, but then explains he had to change the way he ran his business.
Also no mention of how iStock lost their market leader position to Shutterstock and Adobe, or how the latest changes at Shutterstock are going to destroy the market.
384
« on: July 20, 2020, 06:23 »
I think Adobe is doing okay in terms of adding new features and fulfilling contributors requests. Surely not everything we want or within a good timespan, but still.
The problem with corporations is getting approval from those higher up on the chain. The CEO and board/top management are always detached from the contributor base, which is partly understandable; they always have to think of the bigger picture, the major numbers, market response, etc. "Small" details like custom thumbnails or a search feature for contributors are very minor compared to that. And it's always difficult and time-consuming to run and maintain a website like this, let alone testing and implementing new features.
The bigger the company, the more rigid they become. That's why you always see the same patterns whenever a new agency is founded. The CEO/founder will happily engage with contributors on the forums in the early stages of building their company, but sooner or later, things grow bigger and priorities change. From then on everything is delegated to spokespeople and customer service departments.
385
« on: July 15, 2020, 06:14 »
They did you a favor.
why u say this?
Because they pay $7 for a 4K video, some of the lowest commissions I have ever seen for non-subscription. Their valuation of 4K video is a joke. In general, 15% commission for videographers, slow and opaque royalty reporting, what you sell on the 1st of the month, will be paid out the 25th of the FOLLOWING month...It's laughable, and by supporting Getty/Istock, you're facilitating the abysmal treatment of contributors. And I won't even get started about the commissions for photos, which can go as low as 1 ct. After their commission cuts, I decided to delete my videos there, and this month I closed my Istock account for good after 10+ years.
386
« on: July 14, 2020, 09:02 »
I also had a SYM and I also suffered it, although now it seems to have more options/improvements.
However, on the one hand, there is a millionaire business and on the other, we who receive alms.
Can't we do anything to improve it? really?
If you can't figure out the answer yourself, don't even bother trying to start a new agency. We all would like some magical contributor-run agency loaded with clients, but that's a pipe dream. You clearly lack market insight, business skills and experience to properly set up and run an agency successfully. You won't make it on a 3k/year marketing budget. That alone makes this a futile endeavor.
387
« on: July 14, 2020, 08:53 »
They did you a favor.
388
« on: July 13, 2020, 09:45 »
Zero sales in 7 years, then again, I only uploaded a couple of videos. But it's bottom tier AFAIK.
389
« on: July 13, 2020, 08:14 »
Dead: GlStock, StockFresh, Bigstock
New ones that are worthy: none right now.
391
« on: July 13, 2020, 07:34 »
Image for free
I have activated my SS account to delete my last images and I have discovered that SS gives my images for free
https://luisafumi.com/img-for-free.jpg
I disabled my account again.
Happens this to you too?
I put the direct link here, as all my remaining images are still there even if disabled
https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/seasonal-beer-garden-closed-autumn-fallen-1469010212
I don't have a "Download for free" button (only you can see that button), I just see a normal Download button. And when I click it, it says "There was an issue with your request. Please try again, or Contact us if you need further assistance" so that means it's still disabled.
392
« on: July 13, 2020, 04:24 »
How can one be disappointed if there are no expectations? 
393
« on: July 13, 2020, 03:56 »
The rule is : old sketches, paintings and other works become public domain 70 years after the creator's death.
This rule may be different considering the country of the author and/or the editor.
In fact the copyrights length can be very different from a country to another
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries%27_copyright_lengths
Correct, but in most cases it's 50-70 years after the author's death (for anything created after 1978, if I'm not mistaken).
394
« on: July 11, 2020, 13:55 »
Im surprised this is allowed and not copyrighted to scan old paintings and sketches?
Every picture I take with just a small sculpture or grafitti somewhere in the background is rejected for not having a release (even editorial - just had a pic rejected with a wooden sculpture sawn from a dead tree trunk just at the side of a view over a valley and it was rejected three minutes ago as having no release).
And this kind of sketches and paintings needs no relaese??
Im astonished.
The rule is : old sketches, paintings and other works become public domain 70 years after the creator's death. So they are no longer copyrighted. Whether it's moral to scan these and earn some money on something that is public domain is a whole different discussion, but it's not illegal or copyright infringement.
395
« on: July 11, 2020, 06:01 »
Does it happen to you too?
I changed my link in my SS profile and I discovered that SS is tampering with it, redirecting the URL at a dull website of home improvement.
Have a look at my ss profile https://www.shutterstock.com/g/gameover/about
Maybe it is just me, but... childish, uh?
https://twitter.com/acrogame/status/1281899115518078976
The link is missing the ":" after https (the URL shows a ":" but the actual URL in the bottom left corner is without a ":"), thats why the browser thinks it's "www.https.com" instead, which just happens to be a home improvement website. I don't think there is anything malicious going on here, must be a coding error?
thank you! I put my complete Url with https:// because they have only http://
Poor SS, I was thinking very badly of them
No problem. I edited my post before I saw your reply. But you're right, they only have http://
396
« on: July 11, 2020, 05:53 »
Does it happen to you too?
I changed my link in my SS profile and I discovered that SS is tampering with it, redirecting the URL at a dull website of home improvement.
Have a look at my ss profile https://www.shutterstock.com/g/gameover/about
Maybe it is just me, but... childish, uh?
https://twitter.com/acrogame/status/1281899115518078976
The link is missing the ":" after https (the URL shows a ":" but the actual URL in the bottom left corner is without a ":"), thats why the browser thinks it's " www.https.com" instead, which just happens to be a home improvement website. I don't think there is anything malicious going on here. Edit: When entering your website URL on your profile page, don't add https as a prefix, because it's already added by SS.
397
« on: July 10, 2020, 04:52 »
We are focusing on the sellers for now because I believe that only when we provide an ideal platform for the contributors we can then gather a decent number of contributors. The buyers would naturally follow. So gathering buyers and actively promoting our site would be a later step. I mean, what use is the site with buyers when there isnt anything to buy? So I am trying to balance things out here. As others have said, this is the wrong approach. Look at iStock (pre ESP) for example: for years it had a crappy upload system, tedious Controlled Vocabulary keywording, categorizing your submissions manually, yet they were market leader for years because they brought in the customers. They had the money to spend and the added benefit of starting when the microstock market was still young and unsaturated. You can't expect buyers to follow naturally. Deliver us the buyers/sales and contributors will follow naturally. Even if your uploading system is slow and tedious. But of course, figuring out how to get the buyers is the hard part. Even if you succeed in getting the first couple of buyers and a steady database, it will be very hard to break into the market and compete with the big agencies. You not only need to manage a delicate balance between quality content and plenty of buyers, you also have to keep your content fresh and high quality, spend your revenue on marketing to attract even more buyers and in the end make a profit too. But to answer your question. I upload to (smaller) agencies when: a) the royalty % and prices are decent b) uploading is easy c) when they have a new and effective way of distributing content (e.g. Canva) d) they can tap into markets that are relatively new.
398
« on: July 09, 2020, 17:22 »
So they saw the angry contributors disabling their ports, got scared and instructed their IT department to put up this banner to demoralize contributors.
In other words, Shutterstock is now employing scare tactics like the evil empire it is, because apparently, what we're doing hurts them.
399
« on: July 09, 2020, 06:11 »
The 10 free images plan is simply to entice customers into paying for a subscription after the free month expires. You may not agree (neither do I), but most agencies have offers like that, nothing special. SS is complicit in destroying the industry, but unfortunately they will not die first. They're too big. The smaller agencies who can't compete in this price war, will die first. They are taking money from you and giving it to anybody who applies for the 10 free images.
No, the money taken from us is going directly to shareholders and upper management.
400
« on: July 08, 2020, 09:34 »
I've sent an email to Alamy with this question, what their reasoning behind the discrepancy is. Unfortunately due to COVID-19 they're understaffed so I don't expect a reply soon.
Pages: 1 ... 11 12 13 14 15 [16] 17 18 19 20 21 ... 90
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
