|
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 - Roscoe
Pages: 1 ... 12 13 14 15 16 [17] 18
401
« on: June 03, 2020, 05:37 »
Just a little remark - on the positive side, this time:
In our German speaking forums, someone's started jotting down the total amount of images available on Shutterstock at a given time. (You get the data in real time, if you use the search box without entering a keyword.)
Between yesterday in the morning (MET) and now (1:52 am) - so, a little more than 12 hours - almost 140,000 images have been deleted or disabled. Not (yet) enough to hurt them, but sure for a clear signal in their direction. 
And you can add that on a normal day it should be rising by about 200.000. Let's say, by 100.000 in half a day.
It has been a around 170.000 images that have been deactivated or deleted between yesterday and today, if my math is correctly, but despite people deleting/deactivating images, there are still more images added daily than deleted.
I seriously doubt that Shutterstock cares. The number has been growing way too fast anyways and you could tell from the yearly sales reports that it has no real influence on SS's income and contributors' earnings. More images in the database simply does not mean more customers/sales. Customers still buy the images they need and whether they have a selection of 1000 images of sunflowers or 10.000 images to pick from makes no difference to them. They'll find one suitable among 1000 already, they don't need a selection of 10.000.
That's why I feel like, as long as the overall number of images is still going up, SS will not really care. They might even welcome the slower growth. The recent changes in the similar image rules and, at least what I hear from other contributors, overall more stricter reviews, make it seem like gaining as many new images as possible is not their prefered strategy anymore.
From what I see, Sutterstock's image database schrunk with roughly 300.000 images since end of May, which is peanuts by the way. I think you are right with your assumption on Shutterstock betting that their existing database, which is highly competitive in nearly every segment, is fine as it is to cover existing demand. The rejection issues that many contributors experienced over the last past months, and the passive attitude from Shutterstock on that matter really says a lot. They don't want that massive growth anymore. We all gave them a big fat cow and they decided it's time to milk it very aggressively. For newer content and coverage of new trends, I think they will rely on selected top contributors by offering them different and more rewarding deals.
402
« on: June 02, 2020, 07:11 »
Of course, most buyers dont think of or care about contributors. They just want the right image at lowest possible price so its hard.
Can't really blame the customers. Everyone would buy the best quality at the lowest possible price. Up to contributors to make sure that those "right" images are not available on agencies that treat their contributors as trash. Also very hard, because meanwhile SS's database has 325 million images, covering different varieties of any commercially relevant topic. They can survive on this for the next coming months In addition, there will always be contributors willing to sell out for 10$c, or even for free (looking at Unsplash for instance) and SS will make sure that newer trends are covered by image mills offering them different deals or incentives. So yeah, it's hard. Up to us to adjust, because SS is determined and as I said before: don't think they didn't think this through and didn't calculate the risk. There's still a market for certain niches, editorials and content that studio image mills or mass production contributors are not able to create. Don't give it to SS, but put them on agencies that treat you fair. Customers who really need the image will follow.
403
« on: June 02, 2020, 06:37 »
It felt already nanostock before. Getty kicked it off and subs on SS are the vast majority of SS sales. And regarding the volumes: competition made it very difficult to get a momentum nowadays and bank on images selling hundreds or thousands of licenses.
404
« on: June 02, 2020, 01:30 »
Sure, the royalty cuts boost revenue, but as we all know, long term that is a dead end. SS, be bold!
The only thing they care about is the next quarterly result, and they will be able to present a significant cost cut on their contributors and probably an increase in profit. How it plays out on the long term is probably to be fixed by the next CEO.
405
« on: May 31, 2020, 14:53 »
Maybe someone with better legalese translation abilities than myself can decipher Shutterstock's terms & conditions and determine if this retaining and selling of deactivated or deleted content is in any way a violation of their own contract or if something about that practice violates any laws. Something real that the dirtbags at Shutterstock can be called out on, with actual legal repercussions.
This is written in their TOS: Shutterstock shall use reasonable efforts to cause Content removed from or opted out from Shutterstock Websites to be removed from the websites of any Shutterstock affiliates or partners (including co-branded websites) within ninety (90) days of the removal of the subject Content from the Shutterstock Websites.They allow themselves 90 days and a reasonable effort to remove your content on their websites and affiliates. Reasonable efforts. I don't even know what that is. They probably don't have much control over their affiliate partners. Guess you'll have to prove in court their negligence and nobody's gonna go to court for this. If you want your portfolio gone, best thing you can do from my point of view is delete your images, but keep your account active. Any income from images still lingering around on or SS or affiliate sites will probably still be redirected to your account.
406
« on: May 30, 2020, 08:07 »
Nobody really cares about BigStock. They can do with it whatever they want as far as I'm concerned. It's a very low earning agency, impact will be minimal.
407
« on: May 30, 2020, 08:01 »
People keep saying (hoping) that customers will go to Adobe. They will go to Istock and Getty, unfortunately. There is bigger possibility for that, it's a bigger stock company.
Right. Most of the contributors take their desires for a reality...
I know different people who went from Shutterstock to iStock, not Adobe.
Buyers go where they think it's more convenient for them, and frankly they don't give a dаmn about our "little problems" as contributors!
And again what makes you think all agencies offer the same quality/concept/style or buyers don't care? []
So, if we are speaking about microstock:
- Maybe the fact that most of the contributors have their images on at least 5 different platforms?
- Maybe the fact that no one is irreplaceable?
You know I have worked for decades for magazines and advertising agencies, as Art director, and when we couldn't find what we were looking for somewhere, we'd look for it somewhere else, and we'd (almost) always find it... it's as simple as that.
In cases where it was impossible to find a specific image, a photographer or illustrator was hired to do it.
When you get into the microstock business as a contributor, the first thing you have to do is stop thinking that you're the center of the world...
Right. No one in this scene is irreplaceable. How I see it: customers are trying to find an image (or video) that helps them tell their story which is very seldom one very specific image. Shutterstock's database is meanwhile loaded with plenty of similar images about nearly every topic that's commercially relevant. They can take that hit. In fact, as someone mentioned before, a cleaner and less saturated database might actually be a good thing for as well customers (less floundering through similar images), remaining contributors (less competition, higher download volumes) and Shutterstock itself (more customer satisfaction, less operational costs in forms of storage and reviewing capacity). That said, we'll have to wait and see how it turns out in the long term, because newer trends might suffer from less uploading to Shutterstock. I'm wondering how iStock/Getty database is really impacted by this. Crafted Shutter's channel ( https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwoU327B927MD49NNf16gxw/videos) mentioned this briefly in one of his video's, by claiming that newer trends are underrepresented on iStock/Getty compared to other agencies.
408
« on: May 29, 2020, 16:03 »
Dreamstime announces a rise in royalities? Does seem a bit like an attempt to gain some publicity and customers and attrackt as many contributors who are possibly leaving
Can you remember any agency announcing a raise in royalties recently? Because I don't. Dreamstime is a small fish in a rough ocean, but at least one that's swimming against the stream, and actually showing some appreciation for their contributors. Let it be an inspiration for others agencies. I wish them a steady influx of high quality contributors and even more important, more market share with customers wanting to support sustainable business models.
409
« on: May 29, 2020, 15:32 »
A lot of sympathy for Dreamstime here. My favorite underdog agency.
However sales are really slow compared to the bigger ones, at least they give you a respectable RPD with lots of 2$ or more commissions.
I hope they can survive and increase their market share.
410
« on: May 29, 2020, 05:11 »
5000 contributors disabling a port of 5000 images on average is still only 7 or 8 % of the database, which is extremely competitive and loaded with similar images of the same subject anyhow. We can discuss how many contributors will leave and how big or small their portfolio's are, but don't think Shutterstock didn't do the math and didn't calculate the risk or effect. Plenty of people left who don't disable, and prefer earning less instead of getting nothing at all (some really need the money), and of course plenty of people left willing to sell out for 10$c commissions.
That said, gotta stay true to yourself, and for the sake of giving a message and easy my mind by little acts of protest, mine goes down on 1st of June.
Maybe you missed a crucial point here.
It's not 5000 contributors who will deactivate their portfolio, but 5000 of the most prominent contributors, because in the end those are the ones who have the most to lose, especially those who produce quality videos.
When Shutterstock has lost this quality content then the deal could change.
Do you think that top contributors will leave on 1st of June, or stop uploading, considering they are already in the higher earning tiers meaning the price cut hurts them less significantly? I don't think so. I think they will wait and see. They make business decisions based on facts and not on emotions, and disabling their ports will lead to an immediate and very significant loss in their income stream. Would be a foolish decision. I'm not a top contributor, but if I was one, I would not pull out. I would try to adapt by finding an alternative without compromising my income stream more than necessary. Additionally, as a top contributor, I would think I have a bit more leverage than many others and I would have the guts to contact their account management and try to make a better deal for myself. I can hardly imagine that top contributors (which are companies themselves) are not already having a different agreement or receive special treatments. I agree with you on the risk of SS losing quality content in the long term, but long term thinking is not what stock market listed companies care about. Their only concern is the next quarterly result. EDIT: of course, I hope I'm wrong, and some top contributors stand up and call SS out on their crap by hurting them where they feel it the most: loss in content, loss in customers, loss in earnings and a horrible reputation as cherry on the sour cake.
411
« on: May 29, 2020, 01:46 »
What is the point? SS is junk and we really don't need them.
I beg to differ. For many of us Shutterstock brings in the biggest earnings compared to others, and if not, still a very significant piece of the cake.
412
« on: May 29, 2020, 01:40 »
As I'm not on SS, I've just been watching these threads very casually (but with sympathy), but just in case this hasn't been noted, on the SS ToS:
8.3 There is a minimum payout rate per accounting period of: Thirty Five US Dollars (USD 35.00) (the "Payout Minimum"). If during an accounting period, you haven't reached the Payout Minimum or provided Shutterstock a valid electronic payment account, your compensation will be rolled over into the next accounting period. If you cancel your account prior to accrued earnings in your royalty account reaching the applicable Payout Minimum, you thereby forfeit such royalties. For clarity, you shall have no right to any earnings accrued following the disabling of your contributor account or until such time as the applicable Payout Minimum threshold is reached.
I realise that the principle matters more than the $34.99 to many people, but I just didn't want people unknowingly to lose the money.
This. Everything is in place to avoid a sudden hit on their database. Some will pull their port immediately, some will pull on 1st of June, some will pull after their payout the next month or coming months, and some will wait and see and pull on January 1st because it's unclear how much the contributors will have to give in on their earnings and they still want to profit from higher earning tiers for another 6 months. Meanwhile, many will not pull their port at all but just stop uploading, others will take the hit and continue uploading and there's an influx of new contributors. As I mentioned earlier. Don't think Shutterstock didn't think this over and didn't do the math. They are better at it than we are, as they have all the date, and we have to rely on our assumptions and emotions. Small risk vs. significant earnings increase potential. Contributors are not organized, and some of them pulling their portfolio's spread out over several months is compensated by contributors who keep uploading and new contributors who have no clue about what's going on and just dump their content. If you want to hit them, you'll need the big guns. Image mills or aggregator sites like Wirestock or Blackbox. They will not pull either, as however they are in the same boat, they're also, more than the contributor community here, each other's competitors. They will reach higher tiers after the reset in no time anyhow, so for them the cut in earnings is considerable less.
413
« on: May 29, 2020, 01:14 »
Despite all the protest and people pulling their portfolio's, Shutterstock database gained roughly 100.000 images yesterday.
414
« on: May 27, 2020, 11:19 »
that part may not be needed for Shutterstock, disabling is really easy
I wonder how long that's gonna last before disabling is not an option anymore, and removing your assets becomes a bureaucratic nightmare.
415
« on: May 27, 2020, 04:52 »
5000 contributors disabling a port of 5000 images on average is still only 7 or 8 % of the database, which is extremely competitive and loaded with similar images of the same subject anyhow. We can discuss how many contributors will leave and how big or small their portfolio's are, but don't think Shutterstock didn't do the math and didn't calculate the risk or effect. Plenty of people left who don't disable, and prefer earning less instead of getting nothing at all (some really need the money), and of course plenty of people left willing to sell out for 10$c commissions.
That said, gotta stay true to yourself, and for the sake of giving a message and easy my mind by little acts of protest, mine goes down on 1st of June.
416
« on: May 21, 2020, 02:07 »
Oh, but I've just remembered there can be quite a delay in reporting the sale to you, particularly if the image was sold via Getty, even indie pics can be sold via the Getty Connect scheme. So there's supposed to be a time which has to lapse before you take out a ticket. I'm looking for that info, but haven't found it yet.
Nobody really seems to know what Connect is allabout. As far as I understood, it's a pay-per-view system, and you need thousands of views in order to reach the 2$c payout threshold. So if your image ends up on let's say Pinterest, getting a few hunderd views per month, you'll get nothing and Getty gets just a little bit next to nothing? For contributors - at least this is how I understood it - the counters are reset per month per image, for Getty/iStock, they keep on rolling for all of the images across the years? In many cases, the pennies are for Getty, and the contributor gets zero. If your image is on a roll somewhere, but gets a reset due to the end of the month, you still might get nothing, or less than you should have gotten. There's also no detailed reporting, at least not for 2020, they just report your income, and for 2019 you get a gibberish text file with also barely any info. No matter how you look at it, it feels like a true ripoff, and there's no way to opt-out. That said, I do see income from Connect, although it's not much, and probably less than I would have gotten if I uploaded the image to e.g. pixabay and rely on donations.
417
« on: May 20, 2020, 00:21 »
not great, not terrible
418
« on: May 19, 2020, 03:35 »
iStock reports sales with roughly one month delay. Meaning: sales report of April will be available on the 20th of May.
So in the app or DeepMeta, only sales from March or previous months will be reported, and for April only views will be reported until the sales report is also available.
Chances are high that a portion of your views converted into sales.
419
« on: May 12, 2020, 04:14 »
I think there is a "time sensitive" support email notification option for those cases? At least P5 seems to accept those.
I cannot understand why we all shoot SS on everything. Normal rejections, one to two days image curation.
Title rejections when I stuff keywords leading to a non-human logically readable title.
AS in contrast is (same small batches of less than 50 images) double or more rejections and today counting 12th day pending content.
The only truly "time sensitive" content I see are newsworthy editorials covering a very specific event, and this is not the main focus of the editorial section of microstock sites we are uploading to. For SS for instance, you'll have to apply https://www.shutterstock.com/editorial/contributor-application
420
« on: May 12, 2020, 01:24 »
Can someone explain the process of having keywords in the meta of jpgs as Jo Ann described? I've seen other mention this but still not quite getting it. Are you doing a batch of keywords for the image, saving in meta, then copying and pasting for each image on the various stock sites? Do you just separate by a comma?
Several ways to do this. You can add your keywords directly in Lightroom for instance. Many people use StockSubmitter for keywording and uploading. Personally, I personally use XPiks for editing my titles, descriptions and keywords because it's barebone, simple and it works. Uploading to iStock/Getty via Deepmeta is a bit more time consuming, as they have predefined keywording system, but it can also help you with suggesting keywords for other sites. And keep in mind that for AS the order of your keywords matters (first 10 have more importance in their search algorithm) Hope this helps.
421
« on: May 12, 2020, 01:13 »
Review times vary over time across agencies. The nearly instant reviews at SS seem to have dissapeared, and went back to the regular one or two days. IS indeed seems to take forever, weeks for video, up to more than a week for commercial stills, while Editorials are often reviewed the same day. AS is pretty slow too, taking up to a few days and DS is fast, mostly within a few hours.
All of this doesn't matter that much, unless you are covering a newsworthy item or trying to play a fast developing trend.
422
« on: May 11, 2020, 12:35 »
Had more or less the same issue last weekend. Couldn't log in, and I was 100% sure about the password.
The password reset did work for me though, so problem solved, but I have no idea why the previous all of a sudden didn't work.
423
« on: May 08, 2020, 08:37 »
The people who are getting a bad deal here are of course, the people who offered these pictures and videos for free. Because while they made zero money, there are people making a ton of money off that content.
As I understood it, contributors to sites as pixabay or unsplash strongly believe in creative commons and the free of charge sharing concept. Now a company steps up and is making money of pictures that were uploaded to be distributed for free. I wonder how those contributors feel about that. Even if JumpStory claims that the fee is only covering the advanced search engine, which - again they claim - is superior compared to competition... why aren't they building an interface to other stock agencies, and getting a commission for every license obtained via JumpStory? That would be - in my opinion - a more sustainable business model and also a more fairer one. Or... if it is just about the search engine, why bother building a dedicated stock site around it and not sell your technology to others?
424
« on: April 27, 2020, 01:37 »
Don't do "best selling" or what sells or what everyone else does, that's already been done and over done. If anyone can find anything that's different, a unique viewpoint, or unusual, which still fits the stock needs of many customers, that's a hit.
In addition to this: start with shooting what you're already good at and what you like. Chances are some of your area's are already some kind of niche, and if not, your images will at least have quality to battle competition. Explore further from there, as you learn what does well and what not.
425
« on: April 21, 2020, 01:12 »
Recovered pretty well after a very bad February for me. Decent amount of sales, average RPD. Not as good as the last months of 2019 and January 2020, but coming close.
Pages: 1 ... 12 13 14 15 16 [17] 18
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
