|
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 - Wilm
Pages: 1 ... 13 14 15 16 17 [18] 19 20 21 22 23 ... 35
426
« on: September 01, 2022, 15:32 »
Not sure that you can draw many conclusions from my experience - small portfolio (2,251 right now), no video, but year to date Adobe Stock is up almost 12% over 2021 (in revenue) and 2021 was up 20% over 2020.
There's some possibility that no longer being at Shutterstock (after June 2020) caused some increase (it certainly wasn't heading for Dreamstime!).
August was up 10.5% over August 2021 (at Adobe Stock)
Compared to mine your portfolio isnt small, Jo Ann. Thank you for your insights anyways!
427
« on: September 01, 2022, 09:06 »
Best August Ever, pulled-up by a strong month on SS.
Congrats! And all this without any talent!  
429
« on: September 01, 2022, 02:40 »
I am very sure that AS changed the algorithm on August 1. Since that day my downloads have decreased abruptly. So much so that it has become the worst month at AS since December 2010. In August I had well over 100 downloads less than the average of January to July.
430
« on: August 30, 2022, 14:03 »
My sales are getting lower each month.
4000+ on average per month during 2020 and 2021
but now in 2022:
JAN 4200
FEB 4417
MAR 4133
PRA 3481
MAY 3723
JUN 3587
JULY 3211
AUG 3017
It's going down and really fast for me.
I also have noticed that new images don't sell like old ones. I have almost no sales for images I uploaded after March 31, 2021. Most of my sales are images uploaded prior to that date.
These are nevertheless impressive figures! I haven't even come close to having that many downloads - not even in the better times. It was just under four figures for me - I'm a long way from that. May I ask how big your portfolio is?
431
« on: August 26, 2022, 10:00 »
But they pay very quickly. This morning I requested a payout and this afternoon the money was already there. Wow!
432
« on: August 26, 2022, 05:23 »
Not really! $15 so far this month there - half of it vectors...
433
« on: August 25, 2022, 09:25 »
Great! 
434
« on: August 25, 2022, 03:53 »
Time machine for Mac with different external USB hard disks in daily change.
435
« on: August 24, 2022, 02:17 »
Juli was the worst month of this year concerning downloads, but the second best in terms of revenue.
RPD istock = $0,82
RPD shutter = $0,45
436
« on: August 23, 2022, 12:36 »
any one get payout ?
Yes, this afternoon.
437
« on: August 21, 2022, 15:04 »
I see it like SVH. Is there a link to your portfolio at shutterstock or at another agency where it is still online so that one can look at where the problem might be, Findura. Without this information it is not possible to judge the issue.
438
« on: August 17, 2022, 16:57 »
Occasional high-priced sale made today:
Nice! Congrats!
439
« on: August 16, 2022, 16:12 »
There is no need to put the word "transparent" in your title or keywords if that is what you mean.
No, that's not what I mean. It's not me. It's Adobe that automatically puts the word "transparent" into the keywords when uploading a png. Sure, I could remove the keyword again, but apparently Adobe seems to think it should be there and since - once the feature is actually launched - I want people to actually find my pngs I don't see why I should remove this relevant keyword after Adobe added it. But as of now that means that Adobe automatically adds the keyword "transparent" to images that, at least for now, are not transparent. And that's very misleading to customers.
I've submitted a couple of batches but I think I'll hold off on any more until they're actually ready to go live. My concern is now I've submitted a batch of PNG's that look like jpgs I've already submitted and are successful. The PNG's will drop down the ranking as they may not compete against the established files over the next two months... or, they have a detrimental effect on the jpgs that are selling well. The same way too many similars do.
I think it would be better if they allow us to submit the PNG's and for Adobe to hold off releasing them until they're ready to start the service. That way we can submit the files and customers aren't presented with confusing titles, keywords and files that look the same as existing ones. It should be easy enough for Adobe to hide these from customers based on the png file extension until they're ready to release the service.
Yes, I agree!
440
« on: August 16, 2022, 16:00 »
I'd like to be paid better and fairly, but the market creates the pricing. Supply and demand creates the value of what we do. SS is not leading, they are following.
The way I look at it: Shutterstock followed the market opportunities that their suppliers (contributors) created. They did not slash contributor earnings because they needed to lower customer prices in order to stay competitive. Customer prices stayed the same? Shutterstock just saw an opportunity to take a bigger chunk of the pie for themselves because supply by contributors vastly exceeds demand by customers, and they could afford to lose some angry contributors.
Two years further down the road, we are rapidly creating another lower market, the one of flat fee/unlimited downloads or even totally free content, which makes Shutterstock anything but a bottom of the barrel agency nowadays. Not in terms of total earnings. Distribute a thousand decent quality stock images to the well known agencies, and you will notice that Shutterstock still is a top tier agency in terms of monthly earnings (considered you can get your images approved  ).
So whether the OP should start again with providing content to Shutterstock is mainly an emotional decision to take from my point of view. Are you willing to take the insult of selling the majority of your content in the 10 - 20 cents range? From a business perspective it's an easier decision: your monthly microstock earnings will increase significantly by including Shutterstock.
True, but make a note, that iStock slashed prices and values far before SS joined the depressing 10 cent route. Remember unsustainable and everyone makes 15%, no levels, no bonus, no nothing.
It may be that istock started this crap. It is probably also true that there are no levels there. Nevertheless, my RPD there is higher than that of shutterstock with level 5. istock started with the crap and shutterstock optimized it for itself and perverted it with flowery marketing phrases.
441
« on: August 16, 2022, 15:51 »
Mat, something just occured to me - I submitted some png files and today one of them was sold. But if these images are now not sold as transparent pngs, but jpgs to the customers, isn't it highly misleading to them, when they have "transparent" in title and keywors? At least the keyword "transparent" is automatically filled in by adobe when submitting a png file. Wouldn't it be better to hide them from customers alltogether, till Adobe is ready to launch them as pngs instead of selling them as jpgs while claiming they were transparent?
That's exactly how it is with me, Firn. I have uploaded a few png files - online since two days. The same images are also available in my portfolio as jpg with white background. And now the first of the png images has been sold.
I too see the danger that buyers might feel fooled when they realize that the images are not clipped at all.
Mat, what do the buyers actually get? A jpg or a png?
For now, these files are only available as JPG on the customer facing site. Once the feature is launched, they can download PNG files.
Thank you for the feedback,
Mat
But why are they advertised as transparent to customers?
I'm not sure what you mean. This feature is not launched for customers yet. There is no need to put the word "transparent" in your title or keywords if that is what you mean. PNG files with transparent backgrounds will be automatically identified by us and will surface in the correct, filtered searches.
-Mat Hayward
Sorry, Mat, but you wrote this on the first page of this thread: I would add "transparent" as a keyword. No need to add the file type. This will be in a filter customers can use. Thanks for the question, Mat
442
« on: August 16, 2022, 10:30 »
Mat, something just occured to me - I submitted some png files and today one of them was sold. But if these images are now not sold as transparent pngs, but jpgs to the customers, isn't it highly misleading to them, when they have "transparent" in title and keywors? At least the keyword "transparent" is automatically filled in by adobe when submitting a png file. Wouldn't it be better to hide them from customers alltogether, till Adobe is ready to launch them as pngs instead of selling them as jpgs while claiming they were transparent?
That's exactly how it is with me, Firn. I have uploaded a few png files - online since two days. The same images are also available in my portfolio as jpg with white background. And now the first of the png images has been sold. I too see the danger that buyers might feel fooled when they realize that the images are not clipped at all. Mat, what do the buyers actually get? A jpg or a png?
443
« on: August 15, 2022, 15:50 »
I haven't uploaded anything to shutterstock in a long time. At the moment I only deliver to Adobe Stock. It's also going badly there at the moment. But with shutterstock, even the few minutes that the upload takes are no longer worth it. My personal opinion.
I will not delete my portfolio at shutterstock because it still brings a few thousand dollars a year. But I won't spend new time for a few cents there anymore.
444
« on: August 12, 2022, 04:48 »
I don't offer videos, so I can only say something about the larger revenue for images. I'll define those as more than $20.
In 2022, the highest so far was $78.39.
What's striking in 2022 is that I've only had one Enhanced so far, but I don't include it in my stats because it was $19.25, below my $20 definition. Compared to the same period in 2021, I am down 53% in higher SODs and Enhanced.
In 2021 (Jan 01-Aug 11), there were 6 Enhanced above $20. The highest SODs were each just below $80 (several).
There used to be an average of 12-15 Enhanced during the same period for me. I wonder if the need for Enhanced has declined so much, or if buyers are just not licensing correctly lately.
445
« on: August 11, 2022, 05:55 »
Yes. I see numbers.
And where is the vote?
You'll see them with mouseover the names of the agencies.
446
« on: August 11, 2022, 04:54 »
Just curious -- when (if ever) do you choose to vote in the poll provided on this site?
What poll? I have read about it a few times in some threads, but I have never seen this poll.
The poll on the right, Findura.
447
« on: August 10, 2022, 03:34 »
Since 2012, there have been studies that conclude that it is not just the issue of water that is a problem with fracking, but the release of methane. There are studies that conclude that fracking gas could have a worse climate footprint than coal, for example. https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/article/fracking-boom-tied-to-methane-spike-in-earths-atmosphereWhether this is true or influenced by some vested interests, I don't know either, of course. Here in Europe, there are other problems with energy supply. Norway wants to supply less green power to the EU. The green power there is largely generated from hydropower. Since there is severe drought, there is now very little water in the dams and reservoirs. In France, Spain, Portugal, Italy, Germany and other countries, the rivers are now at extremely low water levels and are beginning to dry up. The remaining water is heating up due to the heat waves. This leads to cooling problems of the power plants (nuclear power plants, coal-fired power plants). The output has to be reduced or the power plants shut down. Gas-fired power plants are affected to a lesser extent because they require less cooling water.
448
« on: August 08, 2022, 16:49 »
But if everyone would live like most Africans and not like you, then we would not have endless problems.
So everybody poor and starving. That is your solution?
these people exploited by all of us do not have the right to multiply
I did not say that, that is your political correct storted thinking. But it is a fact that while Western Nations are not growing and even shrinking they are growing enormously. So you cry about what we are doing and not even considering to say,"hey guys maybe it's not so wise to multilpy this much". There is no activism whatsoever to stop this huge problem but it is really a problem for the world community as a whole. You have to speak up to everyone in this world and not the mere 1 billion people in the West to overcome things, it will not be enough. You can live by your guilt, as a German, and you should actually, messing up two times in recent history, but it will not help to stay in this politcally correct posture. Even Africans and Middle East people are just normal people, like you and I. There is no wrong doing in telling them to back off a bit with this people breeding. You however, still think they are pittyful and that is actually very, and very, racist, because you don't respect them at all or give them absolutely any worth, because after all you think they are all poor fools, who are nothing and can do nothing, right?
And then you get mad at me? While you are whining that stock companies don't pay you right.
?? I read in your post but maybe it's time to shout at Africa and the Middle-East to stop f**ing like bunny's.
449
« on: August 08, 2022, 14:40 »
You guys just don't get it. When my parents were born there were 2.3 billion people on this planet. When I was born there were 3.8 billion people. Now there are 7.9 billion people on the planet. And we wish everyone a good life. So what does this do to our consumption and climate then?
You can do all the little things you do and want but maybe it's time to shout at Africa and the Middle-East to stop f**ing like bunny's. Because they are exploding with putting more people on this planet day by day, with their needs and thus their CO2 footprint if you will.
The will need food, water, electricity and leisure as cars, holidays etc.... You do the sum.
Growing number of people is the problem not the people perse.
This statement that we have far too many people for this small planet with its limited resources is correct at first. But if everyone would live like most Africans and not like you, then we would not have endless problems. It is incredibly arrogant to make such a statement as a child of a western industrialized country - if you have grown up in all the resource-consuming prosperity, like you. First, you can be quite sure that everyone reading along here is fully aware of the problem of overpopulation and does not need your incredible wisdom ("You just don't get it) and insight. Secondly, I find - and I have really never written anything like this here before - absolutely unacceptable when a child who grew up in Western prosperity - and this prosperity was based on the merciless exploitation of the countries which are still poor today - says that these people exploited by all of us do not have the right to multiply! This is really underground!!! This thought system might originate so or similarly still from the times of the slavery where the "supermen" were of the opinion to be allowed to tell the "submen" what they are allowed to do or should do in their life. You should think once about it whether it would not be better if there would not be you instead of 10 new people in the countries of which you write. Example: If all humans would live in such a way, like the US Americans, we would need for our consumption over 5 earths, for me as a German 3 earths. If everyone would live like the Afghans, we would need only 0.4 earths. Now you come and write that these people from Africa and the Middle East want to live like us in the future. That is their right. Meanwhile, we will celebrate a family party in space for our pleasure, wasting vast amounts of resources. Maybe you should question if maybe you are the person who doesn't get it.
450
« on: August 08, 2022, 11:38 »
Last week we were in the water tower in Lneburg. There is a permanent exhibition there that deals with the topic of water consumption.
I photographed a few facts about water consumption there.
This is how much water is needed for the production and delivery of a product including the virtual* water consumption:
1 sheet of paper = 10 liters
1 cup of tea = 30 liters
1 roll = 80 liters
500 grams of strawberries = 140 liters
1 cup of coffee = 140 liters
30 grams of cheese = 150 liters
1 glass of orange juice = 170 liters
1 kilogram of tomatoes = 184 liters
1 glass of apple juice = 190 liters
1 egg = 200 liters
1 liter of beer = 300 liters
1 half liter milk = 500 liters
100 grams of cotton = 1100 liters
1 kilogram sugar = 1500 liters
1 bar of chocolate = 1700 liters
1 cotton T-shirt = 2500 liters
1 blue jeans = 11000 liters
1 kilogram of beef = 15450 liters
1 personal computer = 20000 liters
Some examples on water consumption per capita per day of individual countries in 2018, source statista.com:
- Estonia = 3717 liters
- USA = 3306 liters
- Greece = 2635 liters
- Australia = 1926 liters
- Spain = 1836 liters
- China = 1150 liters
- France = 1142 liters
- Germany = 814 liters
* The actual water consumption looks different, because not only the direct water consumption is calculated, but also the water used for production, cleaning, disposal etc. of the products - also of the products which are produced for a country abroad. Examples from the exhibit for total water consumption per capita per day in liters:
- USA = 6800 liters
- Spain = 6365 liters
- Germany = 4230 liters
- India = 2680 liters
- China = 1920 liters
Pages: 1 ... 13 14 15 16 17 [18] 19 20 21 22 23 ... 35
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
