|
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
Pages: 1 ... 14 15 16 17 18 [19] 20 21 22 23 24 ... 195
451
« on: July 17, 2019, 03:04 »
Yes looking at trends upcoming news technology the next big thing looking through magazines newspapers all that stuff. If images are specialist/niche the directly approaching publishers etc. For arty type stuff maybe selling in your local store even art galleries etc etc. Also try and work out what sells by looking at site stats. I even sold a canvas hanging on my wall to a visitor. ;-). I only do this for fun. If I was looking to earn a full living I would look on myself as an "image creator" I think these days "stock photographer" is too narrow a focus to make a living for most.
" Cause even though in general it doesn't seem like a good or healthy idea to let oneself be measured by one's income". Its not the only measure but if you are in this as a business its essential otherwise its a hobby which it is for me. As I said though costs are vital too...I rarely see anyone talk here about this. For example I stopped shooting models in studios as although they did sell they didn't make a decent return.
452
« on: July 16, 2019, 18:28 »
Marketing is about more than selling and publicising. In particular for contributors its about market research and placing your product where it will generate most income. Producing fantastic images if there is no demand for them or you are trying to sell them in the wrong place is pointless. From the wider business perspective one of the key things is understanding and controlling costs.
453
« on: July 15, 2019, 13:47 »
@Clair Voyant: But in a way, this is still valid today, no? Though it's not the platforms anymore who reject producers with low quality products but the customers themselves. By just not buying the products. Unless they (the products) are good and relevant and as Uncle Pete put it, have a clear message. The problem I see (as a Newbie with hardly no experience, whoopsie) seems rather to become visible with good stuff in this flood of images and footage. So even if one puts hard work into it, it doesn't mean (anymore?) that it pays off. Cause it won't be seen, literally.
To make money at Microstock now you still have to be very good...the difference being the skills needed are in marketing and business being an excellent photographer not so much.
454
« on: July 15, 2019, 07:38 »
I think you can be concerned. But in the end you need to decide if you can change, it accept it or look at other ways of earning a crust. To bang on about the injustice for years doesn't really help.
In the UK the successful farmers have diversified into direct retail (farm shops), using their land for fishing, shooting etc. If a were a professional doing this for a living I would be looking elsewhere. For example, in the UK and I guess many other wealthy countries people are prepared to pay what I consider silly amounts to be taught how to use a simple camera. Stock photography started as a back up for the lean times when more valuable commissioned work couldn't be found. The last 15 years were the anomaly.
455
« on: July 15, 2019, 03:40 »
we have reached this level of poor image quality in ss?
why?
how?
can somebody explain?
https://forums.submit.shutterstock.com/topic/97747-my-quest-for-10000-images-before-the-end-of-2019/
first this puppet who believe to be a master of photography while he doesn't have a clue what is talking abut...7000 of snapshots repetition technically applying images...asomebody who earn probably 20 dollar month and claim to be a super expert...
Grossinger's port is improving and have to admire his work-ethic. He'll realise soon that quality beats quantity any-day...but he's on a mission so there's no stopping this guy!
I doubt he will realise anything as hes made his mind up already.
456
« on: July 14, 2019, 00:28 »
Why is Shutterstock accepting everything?
My first guess is that boasting the largest library is a good way to acquire new customers and keep existing ones. It seems to work for them, we just have to look at the monthly Microstock Poll to see that Shutterstock is the biggest earner for most contributors here, unless you are iStock exclusive.
My second guess is that even the crappiest photos will 'sometimes' find a buyer, not many buyers, but since the cost of photo storage is close to zero, why not accept the photo and get that sale. If we each look into our own portfolios, my guess is that we all have some crap photos from our early days that have sold a few times. Some people call this 'the long tail'.
My third guess is that the ultimate way to determine if an image will sell is by doing A/B testing. The search engine will constantly rotate new images into the front page of search results to see if attracts clicks and sales. If it does, it stays for a while. If it doesn't, it gets pushed down the rankings. This method removes the subjectivity and error prone opinions of human inspectors.
My fourth guess might be that it might actually be cheaper for Shutterstock to accept almost everything. Taking the time to analyze million of new submissions and decided if they fit some pre-determined standards can be costly on human time, thus labor costs. To accept almost everything, sort of cost almost nothing in human labor. Also Shutterstock no doubt knows that in the past some contributors will resubmit rejected images, because likely a different inspector will look at it and approve it second time around. So the net effect is that those files have cost Shutterstock twice as much labor cost to review.
I think that a good analysis of Shutterstock's thinking. The reasons. I think they are wrong is the cost of providing support to a huge number of contributors who generate little or no sales is huge which is why the are forced into outsourcing the service and crucially the belief that AI/search technology will ensure the buyers will have a good experience and not have to wade through the poor quality irrelevant images is mistaken. I also believe that Shutterstock don't see their "bottom end" microstock business as where the growth is coming from. They see this in the large corporates who often pay a big premium not to have to wade through the site. Things like "offset" have a rigorous inspection/membership regime and a price to match. Oringer is considerably richer than me...perhaps they are right but a few years back I thought SS had a great business now I see one full of holes and failing to deliver its growth targets.
457
« on: July 13, 2019, 08:34 »
The only explanation as far as I can see is they want to boast the largest portfolio and number of contributors. I think their strategy is wrong but I don't own shares and am a mere supplier and supply other agencies.
I actually feel sorry for those people desperate to earn money who are lured into submitting under the impression they will earn big money for their snaps.
458
« on: July 11, 2019, 11:11 »
What I'm a bit confused about is.......
From a programming standpoint - it is NOT that hard to create this type of site!!!!!! It of course requires a SMART
programmer - but if you have that - then its not that hard!
The only cost is programmers, which I am assuming they were - so they could have written the code themselves.
Sure - they may have been working for "free" for 6 months while they did the coding - but NO cost to them!
Running a host - to get "started" & test out the market - is dirt cheap! Like $100-$200! So... if they couldn't afford that...
So it really makes no sense...
At this point 90% at least of Microstock for agencies is marketing and thats not cheap.
459
« on: July 11, 2019, 08:30 »
Honestly, I think that guys deserved the chance to try.
For me it's better to support different approach instead of stay here saying how bad are agencies, and how fast race to the bottom is going.
Sorry for wemark but it was an interesting attempt IMHO
Yes but their attempt was fatally flawed as they never gave any reason for buyers to use their site. I did load some images and it would have been good to see an alternative on the market. But they fell well short of ever having a credible offer IMHO.
460
« on: July 08, 2019, 03:37 »
Commonsense can always be supplemented by useful tools....thats how we got out of caves.
462
« on: July 08, 2019, 01:38 »
I've got a few pictures sitting there as an experiment. Not had a sale or heard a squeak for months. I don't think they are going knock shutterstock off their perch just yet.
463
« on: July 07, 2019, 04:43 »
Unless you do happen to know the model, which in this case you do, you will have no idea whether they are still alive the day after you did the shoot. If you do know them its an entirely personal decision. But I don't see a general "moral" issue here.
464
« on: July 04, 2019, 04:49 »
Seems they may be doing a bit of an IT cleanup...or else are on hols.
No sales reported since yesterday afternoon (possible there are none....but fairly unlikely...I hope) and no mages sent up appearing on the site for submission.....
July the 4th so don't expect much action.
465
« on: July 04, 2019, 02:24 »
The biggest threat to Shutterstock is not the competition but itself. I suspect there is a very high risk of a catastrophic IT failure. All their boasts about their IT are laughable when they can't even get a standard email right. I also had added to it some nonsense about content being removed which was done years ago.
466
« on: July 03, 2019, 06:53 »
467
« on: July 02, 2019, 03:37 »
June ended up a BME due to strong video sales.
Exactly the same for me. BME in 5 years
I strongly believe that they have altered the algorithm, June was worst for me and day one of July super bad, but congratulations to you guys.
Waiting for the fortune loop to come over again.
I think they are pretty much constantly tinkering with the Algorithm sometimes it hits hard on some.
468
« on: July 02, 2019, 01:39 »
We have a saying in the UK at least "live by the sword die by the sword"
469
« on: June 30, 2019, 15:02 »
You do have to fill in a Tax form at SS which has to be approved to get any payment. I have to enter my Tax Id number given by the UK govt...whether they validate this I can't say. I suspect like many things SS do it gets them off the hook should there be an issue.
470
« on: June 30, 2019, 03:34 »
The thread is about Dreamstime! Your payment is from Deposit where the limit is $50.
Sorry wrong closing.  I'll have to search a different computer, further back in the past.
Just saying, they did pay me 2009 or 2010, below threshold maybe $20 total, and I think it took over 60 days to happen, because they wanted all sales to clear.
DT also has that percentage deletion rule and they had my photos for months, after my account closed. I was able to rejoin in 2018 and I have about 100 files there, kind of, just in case place.
i've been trying for months to get them to pay me, that whole ID thing is ridiculous. I wasn't going to close my account but I think I will after I get my money.
Didn't SS and IS (or the rest) require a photo ID to create an account? What kind of extra ID is DT asking for that's upsetting people. I don't get it? I'm pretty sure that the IRS requires accountability, but what's the issue?
Yes Did...Shutterstock no longer do it as part of their "strategy"of allowing anyone to join with the minimum of vetting or quality control.....no wonder its flooded with poor quality work and stolen images.
471
« on: June 29, 2019, 15:37 »
Sometimes I get them sometimes I don't....
472
« on: June 26, 2019, 01:54 »
Best month ever for me. They must have been playing with the search engine.
I believe they are, I am seeing a very bad month here.
Congrats to you.
Really seems like it, today it seems back to normal again (my best sellers selling), while during the poor period of the month I was getting some sales of images that mostly never sold, like someone was digging them up from their pit.
I either seem to sell my "old reliables" or 5 year old stuff that's never sold my new content almost never sells. Looking like a mediocre though not disastrous month.
473
« on: June 23, 2019, 01:41 »
In this thread, are we talking about any one particular agency, or is it just a generic, run-of-the-mill, garden-variety stock photography agency?
Curious minds want to know.
As its posted in the Alamy section I got the impression they were talking about Alamy and their discoverability bar which to be honest is a stupid red herring and often throws up questions about it i.e. how do you get it to go green and so on.
I don't know why Alamy bothered introducing it
It seems simply to require unnecessary keywords to get your count upto 50. Pointless.
474
« on: June 18, 2019, 05:49 »
I've never quite known the difference between the subs, credits and Getty Images sales when it comes to earnings for footage... but up until a few months ago I was getting mainly a split between subs and credits with the occasional Getty sale. Since February I've had 46 Getty sales on just the one clip... plus my usual amount for credits and subs. Not sure if it's been featured or something, as I couldn't find it on Getty. It's a pretty generic clip... not usually one of my best sellers. Can't complain though!
If you do work it out let Getty know......
475
« on: June 16, 2019, 08:18 »
Still not fixed?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I'm pretty sure as soon as it is it will shortly after fall over due to the "unexpected" volume of submissions.
Pages: 1 ... 14 15 16 17 18 [19] 20 21 22 23 24 ... 195
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
