|
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 - leaf
Pages: 1 ... 13 14 15 16 17 [18] 19 20 21 22 23 ... 390
426
« on: July 03, 2014, 08:39 »
Update is ready 
works perfect. thanks.
427
« on: July 03, 2014, 07:38 »
woah.. nothing like a blast from the past. Posts from 6 years ago 
428
« on: July 03, 2014, 03:32 »
Shutterstock changed authorization process.
I am working on update.
Thanks
429
« on: July 03, 2014, 01:32 »
Is it just me or are others having problems uploading to Shutterstock today with StockSubmitter
430
« on: July 03, 2014, 01:06 »
Since I was a kid I wanted to become a film director, I studied cinema and art at the university of Rome and had the luck to start to work in movies and learn everything from a famous first assistant director, I became a first assistant director really young at the age of 26 and became a Casting director at the age of 30, now that I am 43 years old after 17 years of working as a first assistant director and never been able to become a film director I found something that changed my life: Microstock photography and footage.
It was 2 years that I suffered a lot traveling all the time shooting movies being far away from my wife and children that I was looking for something on the internet that could make me work from home and I found Shutterstock, everything changed now me and my wife we both work together, we have a photography studio next to our house and we are trying to make this work, we are really still at the beginning: I have 1000 clips and 1000 photos my wife the half and for now we cover the expenses of the studio and make little more money but I can really tell you something: we do love what we do, we feel we are always able to do something artistic in every shoot, we mostly work with models and we have the energy and will to do always better, WE ARE TRULY OPTIMISTIC. I do hear a lot of complaining about how things are going and how the sales are down for a lot of people who are working in this business for a long time and I am truly sorry but I don't want to be worried and see the things in a negative way, I jumped in this business and I want to be optimistic and think that things are going to be great and I will have a fantastic future able to be with the people I love when I want. I wish to you all the same. By the way I read this forum since only a couple month and you are truly helpful thanks
great story I'm also positive about the industry and although it may not appear so, 49% of other contributors also feel positive about microstock. http://blog.microstockgroup.com/2013-microstock-industry-survey-first-look/
431
« on: July 03, 2014, 01:03 »
I took out the posts discussing one member's account/photos. Not because it turned particularly vile or nasty (it didn't) but because I don't want to have a culture of pointing figures at each other here or using people's portfolio to ridicule them.
432
« on: July 03, 2014, 00:46 »
Alamy has refunded a sale a few times in the past for me. It's almost always the big purchase that gets refunded. I had one refund last month for about $250 from a sale from more than a year ago. They just took money from my account without any explanation!
This is ridiculous!
I always thought that Alamy was more professional than other agencies, but it looks like all agencies are exactly the same.
Kone
How is this unprofessional?
So someone challenges you and give them a negative tick?
There were actually 5 votes. 3 down, 2 up and kone wasn't one of them.
433
« on: July 01, 2014, 02:14 »
No really a discussion topic - but just amazed at how fast Dreamstime manages to send payouts after requesting them. Usually it is within the first 48 hours, today was within 2 hours.
kudos to Dreamstime.
434
« on: July 01, 2014, 00:21 »
I'll do the same for you gbalex as I did for gostwyk Here is the start of your post I would never consider exclusivity with shutterstock, I now make more at DT & FT and even 123 is gaining on them.
So the behavior of the other agencies isn't even a consideration?
No I absolutely do look at the behavior of the other agencies. I no longer have a port at IS, I opted out of DPC and no longer upload to FT
That said lets talk about Shutterstocks behavior. They have not raised sub prices in many years and admit to doing this to gain market share.
I know that many are pinning their hopes for the future on shutterstock because they have been punished severely at other agencies. No one knows this better than Sean. However what many here would like to ignore is that shutterstock is treating a good number of the contributors who made it successful the same way IS and FT have. I know my own port has been punished in the searches and my income has dropped 60%.
It is difficult to see the reality of the situation at shutterstock when so many new comers are enjoying the new contributor bump. However it might be wise to examine just who is in control of your future if you pin your hopes on a company that is now controlled by the venture cap crowd.
I have no illusions that in the coming years they will treat new comers any differently; than they are currently treating many of the contributors who helped them become successful over the years.
At shutterstock the downward slide for many contributors started when Jon brought in outside venture capitol investors, prior to the IPO the first thing they did was make changes that would enable them to manipulate the search.
435
« on: June 30, 2014, 15:52 »
You are right, your one post did have some good things to say. I don't always feel like picking and pruning people's posts to take out the insults however. If there is nonesense in them then it's easier just to remove the entire post. If someone doesn't want their post removed they should leave out the insults. Things don't get deleted however, they get moved to a hidden area. Here is your post (without the jabs) if you'd like to copy and paste it as your own. Judging from the poll and my own earning, I think it would nearly instant kill other sites but would that be good for the industry in the long run?
It certainly could have some positive benefits for both us and SS themselves. SS have not raised subscription prices since 2008. That's largely because they are competing with DT, FT and others who all have the same images, essentially selling the same product. If SS had exclusive-only images then it might be able to increase prices for subscription packages and single-image sales ... and thereby increase royalties too.
As contributors the over-supply of content is our biggest current problem and also the biggest threat to our future incomes. If each agency had exclusive-only content then they would have to compete against each other for the work of the best contributors. That would be their worst nightmare (especially for the likes of FT) ... but it would almost certainly be better for contributors.
Exclusivity worked brilliantly for Istock (and their contributors) until the mothership simply became too greedy and screwed it all up.
436
« on: June 30, 2014, 15:27 »
A number of posts were removed from this thread. One off topic post and one insult and the posts that went along with them.
In regards to posting stock market data for Shutterstock. Yes it is interested and relevant but it is off topic in regards to exclusive / non-exclusive. It can be kept to a separate thread about investing or Shutterstock stocks.
437
« on: June 29, 2014, 16:00 »
Again, it reads like they don't understand the question.
I wish you were right, but their FAQ seems pretty clear...  With subscription plans, Buyers can download photos and vector images. If an image was purchased with any of our subscription plans, your royalty rate is fixed and depends upon your Contributor's Level: http://depositphotos.com/seller-price.html
438
« on: June 27, 2014, 06:43 »
OK so I did the math... and from this poll "we" control about 500,000 to 600,000 image.
According to 2013 poll 'we' control 2,045,428 images. 812 respondents * 2519 avg images.
439
« on: June 27, 2014, 06:40 »
There were 812 people who answered the survey last year. The average port size was 2519 which means a total of 2,045,428 images. You can't do a little survey like this thread and multiply it by the number of members registered. A large number of the accounts registered are just spam accounts that weren't able to post anything and thus haven't been detected as a spam account. I think the survey will give you much better data. Here is the 2013 results http://blog.microstockgroup.com/2013-microstock-industry-survey-first-look/
440
« on: June 25, 2014, 07:25 »
441
« on: June 24, 2014, 12:05 »
And yet you left up the posts insulting anonymous members. Which is what he was responding to in the first place. Sends a clear message does it not!
I expect the same posters who give me negative votes here, on every post I make, to follow in kind.
As they weren't directed at any one person in particular I felt they were discussing the subject of the thread as apposed to picking a fight or insulting someone specific.
442
« on: June 24, 2014, 05:42 »
Yep, just got a whole batch rejected. Gutted. Some images of the same shoot (one accepted some time ago) were rejected on the basis of copyright. Contradiction again !
Yeah, I've had various opinions on copyright before as well. Generally the stricter reviewer is correct though. There could have been a logo visible in one shot and not the other. Or, with something like a John Deere tractor - which is generally refused because the green color is trademarked - not all reviewers catch it. There gets to be a lot of products and locations that have copyright issues and its probably a challenge to keep track of them all.
443
« on: June 24, 2014, 02:38 »
What happened to Ethan?
I removed a post of his which I felt was insulting / attacking another member. I'm working hard at cleaning up the attitude on MSG, so I felt the post was unnecessary and not constructive to the conversation and just creates an environment of hostility. I notified him of the removed post, he didn't like it and it looks like he left.
444
« on: June 20, 2014, 13:08 »
Earnings without portfolio size doesn't really help. So showing an actual number is sort of misleading. I have seen over and over new contributors who mistakenly expect to make hundreds of dollars on Shutterstock just because that is what the poll shows. They don't realize that many people here have thousands of images. In reality this system works fine for what it shows (how one agency relates to another in terms of earning potential). Once you try to assign a $value to it the results break down. The same issue happens when trying to compare exclusives to non exclusives. Without a port size (not to mention port quality) you really can't compare the results.
well said. I wish I was as eloquent
445
« on: June 19, 2014, 23:54 »
Ask Leaf, but I agree with you, why not just show real numbers. They aren't exact, they are averages, they are limited to people who respond and the choices. But so what, why not just show it as Average Dollars, because that's what people vote?
Instead we have to use some multiplier that makes the same numbers. 
Why is not directly in average income, why multiplicator?
because if there was number people would try and make them mean something concrete.. saying that if the number was $500 then people are earning $500 on average at site X. Since the top is capped off at $2000/month all the high votes are going to get missed. I capped it to limit the 'power' of the spam votes. It should be seen simply as a ranking with the spread between agencies somewhat representative of the spread in earnings potential.
446
« on: June 18, 2014, 13:47 »
447
« on: June 18, 2014, 13:41 »
I see your point ethan but agree that we should keep this on topic. Obviously if Scott is here (or on the SS boards) and there is a review thread he can respond if he pleases. I'm sure he is aware of them. I'm also guessing Shutterstock has a notification set up so they see (and are alerted) when new threads are started in the Shutterstock area of MicrostockGroup. Scott or others may not be responding to the review threads (just guessing here..) because they have already given their response many times in numerous threads already and don't have anything more to add. ...
448
« on: June 18, 2014, 13:35 »
I can't even bear to click on the video to hear what Klein has to say. Ugh.
for some reason my hearts are not showing so i can't +1 you. but here is a +1
It's because you need 10 posts before you can give hearts
449
« on: June 17, 2014, 00:29 »
Yes, SS and all the others also consider market share when they decide on pricing - which is a moot point to most contributors because they sell most everywhere.
Jon has stated that he doesn't see a point in image exclusivity but it would sure make things interesting if they started with it - it would also give more power to the photographer as we could more easily boycott other sites and still retain our income (if the exclusive deal made sense). It could make the agencies start to compete for the artists attention - wouldn't that be nice!
450
« on: June 17, 2014, 00:17 »
Hi All,
Our IT team has rectified and fixed the issue mentioned.
Please PM me if the same thing reoccurs!
Have a pleasant day!
Cheers,
Anglee
thanks for the update
Pages: 1 ... 13 14 15 16 17 [18] 19 20 21 22 23 ... 390
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
How long do we sell images after closing account? How can I check what's sold?
