|
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
3876
« on: February 24, 2016, 11:16 »
its obviously an error to receive those amounts. doesnt entitle anyone for compensation either.
When you find e.g money on the street and return them to the owner, you are entitled to receive 10% of the lost property.
And the relevance is?
3877
« on: February 24, 2016, 10:51 »
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.
3878
« on: February 24, 2016, 10:21 »
When micro started, it was mostly 'amateurs' who were submitting, it's not a 'now' thing. In fact, iS started as a sharing site, with no money changing hands.
You are right and people like Yuri Acurs spotted a business opportunity and turned it into a full time business .......it may be the last few years are an anomaly unfortunately.
3879
« on: February 24, 2016, 07:54 »
Just had my more modest $17 taken back very poor....... perhaps they forgot to take their "cut" off. An apology would be nice but not holding my breath.
3880
« on: February 24, 2016, 03:09 »
I had one for $17 but $520!!!!!?  Wow
3881
« on: February 24, 2016, 02:22 »
I'd count it as $5 but without another poll we'll never know what everyone did 
3882
« on: February 23, 2016, 18:10 »
I read it as per photo no matter how many sites its on......but it may be others interpret it differently....ah the perils of stats. And really it should be per submitted photo as they cost just as much to produce........
3883
« on: February 23, 2016, 17:21 »
Yes it doesn't seem a lot but what I'm trying to say is that without knowing the time and expense that goes in we don't know if it is actually profitable. Of course its better if the return is higher but the reason I don't like this stat is that the easiest way to improve it is to remove your low sellers. I would be looking at looking at my annual income taking out any expenses estimating how many hours I spend then calculating my hourly rate. I would then look at how to improve it by producing more commercial images, producing more images in the same time, improving quality of images and reducing costs.
3884
« on: February 23, 2016, 17:11 »
It does seem odd to keep it there doesn't seem anything distinctive about it for buyers other than price perhaps. I suppose if it makes a profit then business strategists would say keep it but just don't spend any money on it which seems to be what they are doing.
3885
« on: February 23, 2016, 16:57 »
You really don't seem to get it ....yes you can spend hours on a single pic and get a high return and you can spend minutes and get a lower return for high volume both are valid if they produce a profit.
Think I will stop now............
sorry, but I think all of people on this topic can see that I am not the one who don't know difference between earnings and profit.
Don't seem to remember you mentioning Costs? Sorry if I've misunderstood
3886
« on: February 23, 2016, 16:56 »
[quote author=Pauws99 link=topic=26844.msg446092#msg446092
If we take too many examples we can also said that landscape means travel expenses (not in case if someone only take snapshot 20 km away from his home) that can go much higher then 3 hours model shooting or even more if photographer is model him/herself (some do that too).
The landscape photo might be where the tog was going anyway, so cost is only time taken. It would hardly be worthwhile nowadays to make a trip specially for microstock.
Some times I just can't walk away..........It seems some people consider it worthwhile no doubt they've crunched the numbers personally my stuff is local or when I go on holiday and I try to get it right in camera to minimise PP to spend more than a few minutes processing it would have to be something pretty amazing .....but really my point is without second guessing what the he person does we aren't in a position to judge.
3887
« on: February 23, 2016, 16:42 »
You really don't seem to get it ....yes you can spend hours on a single pic and get a high return and you can spend minutes and get a lower return for high volume both are valid if they produce a profit.
Think I will stop now............
3888
« on: February 23, 2016, 14:33 »
So those of you that have used this? Any first thoughts? it does look nice but I'm never an early adopter
3889
« on: February 23, 2016, 13:42 »
Its only one stat you need more to make a judgement. For example person a spends 5 mins producing each picture and does landscapes. He gets a dollar per pic His Net income is $2,000 per annum for 167 hrs work so $12 per hour.
person b spends an hour on each picture and shoots models spending $1000 per annuum. He makes $5 per picture.
His income is $10,000 less $1,000 expenses $9,000 for 2000 hours work making $4.50 per hour.
Over time person b would catch up if the two portfolios remained "current" so you would need to factor in the lifespan of pictures. It MAY be that landscapes actually last longer.
These may be extreme for illustrative purposes but to understand a business model you need more that one stat.
3890
« on: February 23, 2016, 12:38 »
And I say no its not it depends..........the person earning can decide without you telling them ;-)
3891
« on: February 23, 2016, 12:08 »
from results it looks like some people really earn less then a dollar per photo per year?
so someone has 2000 images, across 5 or more agencies and earn less then 2000 dollars per year?
and still do microstock?
wow, looks like they need to change their style or IDK... profession?
On the same time, $2000/year can be more than the average income in some countries.
it's about 166 dollars monthly with about 2k images
ok for hobby, but with 2000 images/vectors and those earnings... i don't know. very few countries in the world have such small income.
@Justanotherphotographer agree with that... if someone stop producing, it can slowly drop in a few years.
@Pauws99 i talk about approved images already online.
Who says they do it full time if its 2000 images you already have and just need to keyword them it might be a nice sideline....you make too many assumptions.
3892
« on: February 23, 2016, 11:11 »
from results it looks like some people really earn less then a dollar per photo per year?
so someone has 2000 images, across 5 or more agencies and earn less then 2000 dollars per year?
and still do microstock?
wow, looks like they need to change their style or IDK... profession?
Shelf life of images is quite short. If someone stopped or slowed uploading 2 or 3 years ago their return will have ground to a near haul.
My experience doesn't reflect that some of my images of 5 years ago still sell well and perhaps more surprisingly some of my old images come from nowhere and start selling for the first time. I do suspect though if you stopped uploading you would sink rapidly
3893
« on: February 23, 2016, 10:58 »
from results it looks like some people really earn less then a dollar per photo per year?
so someone has 2000 images, across 5 or more agencies and earn less then 2000 dollars per year?
and still do microstock?
wow, looks like they need to change their style or IDK... profession?
Depends on how long they spent processing the images and spent on producing them.
3894
« on: February 23, 2016, 09:07 »
Someones deluding themselves they make $70-80 average per photo a year
It's possible if someone keeps best selling photo and delete all others 
exactly which is why this is not a helpful stat we could all improve our earnings per images by deleting low sellers - but it wouldn't increase our earnings
3895
« on: February 22, 2016, 16:20 »
That e-mail, coupled with the fact that they explain their Q4 2015 performance to investors on Wednesday (Feb 24th), immediately led me to assume there's some bad news for contributors about to be announced. I thought I was being cranky and cynical...
Then I come here and see that apparently similar thoughts occurred to a number of us 
Unfortunately its a rational state of mind given the way "news" is spun by the various sites. Friday's results might prove interesting I think
3896
« on: February 22, 2016, 15:55 »
Exciting and improvement are words I used to like before I got involved in Mstock.... now I fear them. Lets hope this works out.........
3897
« on: February 21, 2016, 17:49 »
I've got the D7000....works well for me and from what I've heard the D7200 is a big step forward. I think if you are not pushing things like High ISO or wide apertures you don't really need top of the range cameras for most stock....though they are nice to have of course .
3898
« on: February 21, 2016, 05:59 »
those guys know how to sell, it is still valid even 120 days after this thread was posted.
THIS THREAD IS MORE THAN 6 YEARS OLD!
The question is: Are Shutterstock contributors happy today?
Well here you will find the same old whimperers, but the others?
I suspect 20% of people on here would NEVER be happy 10% think they are wonderful 20% yo yo between ecstasy and depression with every sale and the other 50% are "content"
3899
« on: February 20, 2016, 13:49 »
THe trouble for me is the way that S Stock like it (and everyone else) seems to be often rejected by I stock and its not worth my time to fathom it out.............
3900
« on: February 20, 2016, 13:46 »
How do you calculate that?
If thats the sum of earnings from all agencies in 1 year, divided by numbers of files, then I got ~4.
If not, then I don't know.
Its complicated isn't it? - my number of images increases over the year and not all sites accept all my images so I don't bother.....my key stat is whether my earnings are increasing and how much time I'm spending/ I can't do anything on others results so I try and focus on improving my own. I used to work a lot with stats and I didn't start doing microstock to carry on.....
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
