Here is the result of a recent poll clarifying the American voter's priorities.

Failing to acknowledge the reality, endorsing far-left extremist positions disconnected from these priorities will only alienate voters, opening the path for stupid politicians to gain (or return to) power.

It's a left wing issue because the planet is the supreme "community".
Putting the interests of the community above the interests of the  individuals has always been the core of the (neo)marxist policies.

PS. I saw that report. I will rather trust the data reported by the WHO, against a study published by a random professor from some random university.
I am skeptical of a study that's suddenly claiming a number 33 times bigger than the common wisdom.

Be careful. PR money floats from multiple directions. 

Quote from: Zero Talent on July 21, 2022, 17:54

No, I never said the problem is fictional. Global warming is real.
I'm only saying that it has a lower priority than many other urgent matters, TODAY.

People unnecessarily dying TODAY is an undeniable reality, people dying in the distant future is a probability.

Certainty beats probability.

If politicians will continue to neglect clear and present dangers, happening under their eyes, in favor of future problems that may or may not happen as we think today, they will only lose elections against global warming deniers, and we will end up being ruled by stupid people.

And that's the reality many idealists fail to acknowledge.

Climate change linked to to 5 million deaths in 2021 alone...

EDIT: I am not prepared to go to bat over this exact figure as I have only been able to find the headlines and not the original study (which may be behind a paywall). My point is climate change is causing many deaths today. There will always be another �more pressing� event to take the spotlight. More wars will even be happening because of climate change. Fighting over water, need for more liveable or farm-able land as areas become uninhabitable. We need to walk and chew bubble gum on this one.

You are not ready to back up that number, but you are still throwing it in the discussion. Not a good practice.

Anyway, here is what the WHO is saying:

The World Health Organization (WHO) reports that climate change is responsible for at least 150,000 deaths per year, a number that is expected to double by 2030

That's an order of magnitude less than your number.

In the US, there are claims of between 600 to 1300 deaths/year "linked to climate change". While these deaths are unfortunate, their relatively low number, can't justify climate change as a top priority.

You are proving my point. This type of exaggeration is impacting the credibility of those who make the climate change argument.
In fact, there are studies showing that due to technological progress, fewer people are dying from natural disasters today compared with a century ago.

Politicians who make such exaggerated claims are chasing their voters away, making room for climate change deniers.

Quote from: Zero Talent on July 21, 2022, 08:19

All this discussion is OK, but there are other matters of much higher importance going on these days.
The global warming debate should not divert our attention from the abomination that is the invasion of Ukraine, for example, or from other reasons causing unnecessary deaths TODAY.
These urgent matters should be on the front page today, not problems that may happen 30 years from now.

This is a problem indeed, but a luxury problem.

Let's get our priorities straight.

The most common reason for wars is disputes over access to important resources. If the climate issue continues to develop in this way, water will be the raw material that causes more wars than oil, gas and coal combined. And that won't just become a problem in 30 years.

The second most common reason is power. I fear that soon, near Ukraine, the Syrian conflict will be reignited. When you fear losing power (i.e. an election), you shift your domestic problems to the outside. The fire in Syria could be doused with gasoline once again by Erdogan in a very short time. He must show strength and divert attention from inflation and his country's economic problems. And he doesn't want to be talked into it by Putin and Raisi (Khamenei). Just as little, as China in relation to Taiwan. Or Hong Kong.

The first issue, Zero Talent, seems far away and the second so close. But we must not deceive ourselves there, because the first theme only seems more fictional and therefore not so important. But this is a fallacy.

No, I never said the problem is fictional. Global warming is real.
I'm only saying that it has a lower priority than many other urgent matters, TODAY.

People unnecessarily dying TODAY is an undeniable reality, people dying in the distant future is a probability.

Certainty beats probability.

If politicians will continue to neglect clear and present dangers, happening under their eyes, in favor of future problems that may or may not happen as we think today, they will only lose elections against global warming deniers, and we will end up being ruled by stupid people.

And that's the reality many idealists fail to acknowledge.

Quote from: Zero Talent on July 21, 2022, 08:19

All this discussion is OK, but there are other matters of much higher importance going on these days.
The global warming debate should not divert our attention from the abomination that is the invasion of Ukraine, for example, or from other reasons causing unnecessary deaths TODAY.
These urgent matters should be on the front page today, not problems that may happen 30 years from now.

This is a problem indeed, but a luxury problem.

Let's get our priorities straight.

The war in the Ukraine may be more urgent now, but that does not mean that we can afford to ignore the climate change:

1. It is already happening. The average temperatures have already increased significantly.

2. We cannot decarbonize our economies in a few years. If we want to have near zero CO2 emissions in 30 years, we have to start in earnest now. And even then it will not be easy to manage it in this time frame.

3. There will always be some other crisis that seems more urgent at the moment. Now it is the war in the Ukraine, before it was Corona and next it may be about Taiwan or some other thing. We have to be able to handle the current crisies and still  proceed with the energy transition.

Let me be clear: global warming is real! I'm not saying that it should be ignored.

I'm saying that it shouldn't be on the front page or the main priority on our politician's agenda.

Urgent matters like the ones you described should always require our immediate attention and the prioritization of our scarce resources.

Innocent people being unnecessarily killed TODAY because of the madness of a paranoid dictator, by some deadly virus, by starvation, etc, should always be our main priority, ahead of threats that may (or may not) reach similar levels of destruction many, many years from now.

As I said, it's a rich-man problem. Luxury may come only after fulfilling basic necessities.

I just got a couple of sales both sold for more than I asked for:

1st one, 4K: asked for $100, listed for $102, sold for $161,6
2nd one, HD: asked for $50, listed for $50, sold for $58,33

Now, I'm going to raise the asked prices for both.

In my case, I see discounts of up to 30%. See below.


Besides these NLR discounts, I can also see that the listed prices are adjusted down most of the time e.g ($120 -> $102), but in some cases, they are also higher than what I asked for ($100 -> $119).

Of course, you know better, but aren't your listed prices a bit low, Annie ($26 for HD)? Is there a strategy there?

So you're saying poor stock footage is easier to create than high quality stock footage? What a novel concept, I wonder why nobody has discovered that before. If you're using that qualifier then of course, but you didn't. And without it, vertical stock footage is no different than horizontal stock footage. Bad footage is different to good footage, yes, but just because footage is vertical, doesn't automatically mean it's bad. I'm sure there's plenty of good vertical footage that is considerably better than bad horizontal footage... and all you need to shoot that bad horizontal footage, is a mobile phone and minimal skills.

That's a truism.

I don't see too many video creators flipping their expensive gear, shooting in D-Log or raw, spending time editing vertical videos, when they could use those skills and gear to shoot quality horizontal videos that may sell for much more than $2.

Vertical video is meant to be shot and seen on a mobile phone.

The quality and the skills needed for this use are minimal. Anyone can do it. Minimal efforts and investments are needed and anyone can compete.

That's not the case for videos intended for movies, TV, etc where the expectations are much higher than from a cheap Facebook ad.

Vertical video are mostly useful for social media, and someone, posting a video on twitter will not pay big money for it. And then people will complain, when they get $2 for video.

Correct, moreover vertical videos need only a phone and minimal skills. Anyone can make them.
So $2 might be ok.

...

Oh, ok, so they are very selective, didn�t realize that. Thank you for the info.

Yeah, they don't want just files with low sales, they want files with potential.

I only submitted files with low total sales across all agencies, with no potential in my opinion. No surprise that only 2 were selected.

Allowing more to be given away for free, is like sawing off the branch you are sitting on.

There is no free $5 lunch!

I just want to add with regard to, you can't prove that buyers shop around. But with all due respect, you can't disprove that either.

I often see on DT searches containing full titles copied from other sites. That's maybe because the buyers already found what they need through a global search, and then they switch to DT, because they already have a subscription, or because they have a better deal.

The question that's harder to answer is about the magnitude of this behavior and if it's significant enough to make a dent.