|
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
3851
« on: February 28, 2016, 11:24 »
I think that you are right, as gross income = total revenue cost of goods sold the thread title should have been "How much total revenue did you earn doing stock in 2015?"
Well, technically as a stock photographer I would say our "cost of goods sold" is by definition 0. Because all efforts we make are investments to future sales but not directly related to the sale itself. The only ones among us who actually have "cost of goods sold" are the ones who sell directly and pay transaction fees or have customer support related efforts. 
Nope "The cost of sales is the accumulated total of all costs used to create a product or service, which has been sold." so its the cost to create the product.....help this is turning to an accountancy forum 
3852
« on: February 28, 2016, 05:36 »
I don't actually think it is junk. Isn't it just the kind of thing some people might need and only want to pay a small fee for.
3853
« on: February 28, 2016, 04:36 »
Yes seems I may have been wrong......it sometimes happens.....though there are different definitions on the web ;-). Though its still not hard to calculate.......Gross Revenue is better I think as diffeerent people may well take into account different cost elements.
3854
« on: February 28, 2016, 03:53 »
http://seekingalpha.com/article/3925086-shutterstock-sstk-jonathan-oringer-q4-2015-results-earnings-call-transcript?part=single
Basically it looks like business as usual .....the apocalypse is postponed but the growth in images vs incomes means we will have to pedal faster to stay in the same place......or work smarter
Wright... And as he said on page two: "And despite the significant quantity of submissions we receive daily, we still review every single piece of the content to ensure it meets the rigorous quality standards we have implemented." I really don't agree with that. A lot of junk is added every day, I mean if you just make a regular search, you'll know what I mean exactly.
For them it is maybe a good sales increase, but for us, the contributors, is a total loss, because we are not any more visible in search, as we were before year 2015. And I am not talking about quality, I am sure we all are getting better, but about quantity...
I agree the inspection process is flawed but it doesn't mean they are not inspected.....
3855
« on: February 28, 2016, 03:51 »
no one knows their gross income
I would have thought its about the easiest thing to know? Whats your interpretation of the term? "total revenue received before any deductions or allowances, as for rent, cost of goods sold, taxes, etc. Also called gross revenue."
3856
« on: February 27, 2016, 04:01 »
"You do things your way and let other people do things their way without putting them down." Absolutely the topic of how much we should be paid has been done to death....the guy asked a simple question which was answered...watching people ride their hobbyhorses is getting tedious on this site and people wonder why less people are visiting it.
3857
« on: February 26, 2016, 17:10 »
Only 15% for me......
3858
« on: February 26, 2016, 16:58 »
"i think you are both correct in this suspicion of what others will call unlevel field favourism.
because last summer at a motorsport event i remember talking with some of the credential photogs
there who also told me they are like special stringers for photo agency.
they got invited to sign some special arrangement and they submit all without review, all go straight into their portfolio instantly. "
Interesting as I believe in the last Teleconference it was stated that every image was inspected by SS .....misleading shareholders is taken quite seriously.......
" Overall, we now have over 100,000 contributors submitting content, almost 1 million pieces of content per week. And despite the significant quantity of submissions we receive daily, we still review every single piece of the content to ensure it meets the rigorous quality standards we have implemented."
3859
« on: February 26, 2016, 02:44 »
wrong post
3860
« on: February 26, 2016, 02:02 »
Getting a bit better for me but never really was "on fire" solid no2 but closing in on SS which has become more inconsistent for me
3861
« on: February 26, 2016, 01:59 »
"But I dont quite understand what their goals are in working with artists."
I don't really think they see their goal as working WITH anyone in any sense of partnership maybe that's why many feel disillusioned - they offer somewhere to sell your pictures thats all if you can make a profit from it thats good if the model doesn't work for some or all your pics then realistically the only strategies are to find another channel or shoot something different. SS results mean that they aren't going to change for the next couple of years and I don't think anyone can see further than that.
3862
« on: February 25, 2016, 17:35 »
I feel at this point shutterstock has become an artist scam site....nothing more. Make.... shutterstock bigger so they can say they are growing so ...in theory their market stock goes up. It is my opinion the only place shutterstock can take more money is from artist commissions. I'll let my old work ride until shutterstock in gone....but I'll never post a new item on shutterstock.
The evidence would suggest otherwise..... they are increasing revenue by growing their market share and increasing revenue per download. Their total revenue has grown by 30% that has NOTHING to do with reducing their costs ie commissions. You may not like what they give you but that's another issue.
3863
« on: February 25, 2016, 17:23 »
Im sure this is clever and may be useful for spies and the like but for most practical purposes won't pretty much all pics be geo tagged in the near future? Even if they could work out the location of my tomato on white background would it matter?
3864
« on: February 25, 2016, 11:09 »
Just got this er no I don't.......can't remember my last picture sale
Hi Paul,
as I am sure you are aware, vector graphics are an important element in contemporary web design.
During a review of our vector graphics offering we found that in a number of cases only the JPG-File is currently available to our clients.
You have illustrations online with us and I would be very grateful, if you could double check if the EPS files were always uploaded with those illustrations that are vector graphics.
These new EPS-file uploads will be batch processed and released online quickly as they relate to previously accepted images.
In order for this process to run smoothly please use the image code that you see online as the file name for each illustration and then upload the so named EPS-File(s) via FTP. In the event that a filename does not match the image code as seen online at panthermedia.net, the file can unfortunately not be included in the batch process.
We ask for your support of this initiative as vector files have good revenue potential which is in our joint interest.
Thank you very much for your help in this matter!
Best wishes,
Tomas Speight
Chief Executive Officer
3865
« on: February 25, 2016, 09:31 »
Bring on the noobs. I don't see any reason to be too concerned about them if you know what you're doing. Majority of them are inexperienced and have no idea what they're doing.
If they're good, so be it. We'll just have to be better.
Yes that's reality.....and some of the less than newbies aren't as good as they think they are Darwin called it natural selection
3866
« on: February 25, 2016, 05:31 »
I do wonder with the relentless negativity on here whether it puts people off.....you are probably right though and have more knowledge of that community than me. Thing is from the agencies point of view they are getting ever more numbers so they don't care.....unless customers start complaining about quality (or more importantly start going elsewhere)
3867
« on: February 25, 2016, 02:55 »
[
The number of full time stock artists seems to be going down anyway, so why cater to a dying breed.
[/quote]
As usual you offer a thoughtful and good analysis....I just wonder if there is any evidence for you last statement?
3868
« on: February 24, 2016, 17:23 »
Who offers download all you want for $15? I believe Yay might but that was a disaster.......I'm not sure the analogy works.
I don't think microstock is unsustainable but trying to sell Cordon Bleu food at KFC is.
3869
« on: February 24, 2016, 13:55 »
Isn't microstock really meant to be about cheap and cheerful images as reflected in the price? The model of selling thousands of images to recoup huge outlay was never going to be sustainable.
That's what I always thought the intention was. If an ad agency or other company wanted excellent, high-dollar shots, they could go to the macro agencies. I thought microstock was to fulfill the low end of the market, the small to medium sized companies who couldn't afford $100-$200 per image and were ok with a little less quality. The original business model didn't change just because pro photographers thought it should compensate them for high-dollar shoots.
With that being said, as an early contributor to istock, then other agencies, I always thought that our earnings would increase as the years went by, not go down. 
I think maybe what wasn't anticipated was the decreasing cost of High quality cameras generating suppliers faster than customers ......a basic example of supply and demand.
3870
« on: February 24, 2016, 13:51 »
They may be greedy grasping etc but I really don't think Shutterstock is clueless.....I think what tends to be overlooked is the marketing element you can have the best content in the world but if no one knows you've got it its worthless and I suspect if customers of SS start telling them they haven't got the right content they would act
Only if it would make the stock jump.
Well of course why would you think they would do anything otherwise?
3872
« on: February 24, 2016, 13:42 »
Easier yes but pretty useless as a stat for comparison. Of some use for looking at your own performance over time. (Actually it wouldn't be hard to record your own time...I don't do this as a business....but if I did this would be an essential for me
)
3873
« on: February 24, 2016, 12:39 »
The important question is not earning per photo per year, but Earning per hour of work...
I mean, you can get a great photo/illustration and sell a lot, but this means more time of work, or you can just spend the same time generation 10-20 simple photos/illustrations selling of course less per image...
Some people here make 1 dollar per image, other more that 50 dollars... but who works more? and who really earn more?
Yes thats correct but need to take off any costs too
3874
« on: February 24, 2016, 11:57 »
They may be greedy grasping etc but I really don't think Shutterstock is clueless.....I think what tends to be overlooked is the marketing element you can have the best content in the world but if no one knows you've got it its worthless and I suspect if customers of SS start telling them they haven't got the right content they would act
3875
« on: February 24, 2016, 11:18 »
I had a download on January 25th for $21, but I didn't see anything from yesterday, unless it disappears completely from the records.
I had a image removal with a reduction in red type and a new sale by the correct amount this morning. So the original "sale" is shown
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
