|
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 - obj owl
Pages: 1 ... 14 15 16 17 18 [19] 20 21 22 23 24 25
451
« on: October 04, 2017, 10:32 »
Better quality control costs that's why if a search engine can do it it would be a huge financial edge. The agencies aren't going to pay for QC unless customers pay a premium which is why the more exclusive agencies have a niche.
Shutterstock is neither exclusive or niche, yet they have no problem in attracting premium buyers. Their enterprise customers contribute to almost a third of Shutterstock's turnover, a colossal amount, and if they cannot find what they want the enterprise team will find it for them even delving down to where our images are found, that's where your SODs come from. I guess that the more difficult it was to search on Shutterstock the easier it was to convert buyers to their enterprise platform, and hence the situation we have now. If quality contol was counter productive for Shutterstock there will surely come a point when that ceases to be the case and a new method of searching will be required. Searches dependant on keywords, tittles and descriptions alone will never be good enough on a site like Shutterstock, too much corupted data, but if you combine it with image recognition you can eliminate many inappropriately keyworded images in the search. Eventually, image recognition will become the dominant factor in searches and keywords will become secondary.
452
« on: October 04, 2017, 08:52 »
Excellent! Keep adding more links. Let's keep helping the freebie sites! 
Since SS took action to stop xxxdowner, I have removed the link.
They haven't stopped xdownder they just shut down their domain name site. As far as I know their facebook page is still giving out instructions on how to download images for free, I can't check because someone removed the link. You can also download from their blog or use the extention in chrome.
453
« on: October 03, 2017, 11:34 »
There was a thread on SS contributor forum "Stealing SS images big time", but can't find it any more. What's happened, have they removed it?
Eradicated from all threads that even mentioned it. "Sorry, we can't show this content because you do not have permission to see it."
454
« on: October 01, 2017, 15:33 »
I Keep getting " This page isn't working" for glstock.com
They have been working on optomising their website for a good while now, perhaps they are preparing to get ready for the new beginning, or it maybe it's the logical optimisation of a site that cannot sell.
455
« on: September 30, 2017, 12:32 »
This is the first time ever that I won't make the $35.00 min Payout for this month of September--2017. I am sadden.
 ? Is this a new policy, did I miss something
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
No, I think it has been Shutterstock's policy to sadden contributors for a good while now.
456
« on: September 29, 2017, 12:47 »
Nay, if they have a brand on them you can't sell them, you can't even talk about them in relation to the brief. If they don't have a brand on them it may become contentious, but I would think, in most cases, you would be OK to sell them elsewhere. It is difficult to envisage all posible scenarios with these things, so it might be wise to take it case by case.
457
« on: September 27, 2017, 20:44 »
The issue is the points not terms for a set of images.
You seem to think it's worth working on these underpaid assignments to rack up points to get the big assignments. Suppose you do this and either they double the number of points required at a later time, or scrap the points system entirely in favor of flat fees. You will have been counting points as part of your compensation only to have the value of them cut or eliminated.
You cannot count on the future value of the points - and if that doesn't matter to you, then go ahead, but unless I misunderstood your earlier post, I thought you suggested getting assignments now to get points for more lucrative assignments down the road.
You seem to think you know what I think and perhaps I have mislead you or you may have misread me, no matter. What I was trying to say regarding the game that is Shutterstock Custom is that turning down underpaid assignments at the inception of the game just because they are underpaid would not be a wise move because at this stage of the game it is about points, you need a fast start in accumulating points. This is because those who amass a lot of points at the begining get the better assignments, which would lead to more points. Turning down assignments will lead to poorer assignments and the likelyhood that they too will be turned down until one comes around that you fancy enough to get of your arse, by that time the game will be lost, everybody else will have more points than you. If many people play the game in relation to the number of assignments the harder it will be for late starters. This advice does not endorse the game, I think the game is diablolical, a cynical way to incentivise people, but for the people here who signed up and want to play the game I think it is valid advice. As you say down the line the rules of the game may change, but in any game like this most players will lose eventually, it dosen't mean they can't enjoy it. I always lose at Monopoly, but I never refuse a game and I don't think it's real money.
458
« on: September 27, 2017, 19:12 »
Yeah, the "there will be bigger jobs in the future" line seems to never pan out whenever I've heard it.
That's because it only happens to one in a thousand, the optimistic, glass half full hard workers who get off their arses and collect points.
I'm guessing that somewhere in the contributor agreement it will say that any terms and conditions can be changed at any time without notice. You're more than an optimist if you expect that the terms they promote now to entice you to participate will remain the same over time.
We have many, many examples from stock agencies of reneging on favorable terms once it suited them.
If you don't mind working for what you're being paid now, then go ahead. But hoping for future returns (without any sort of binding contracts) is just flying in the face of the last decade of stock agency track records.
From what I've seen you would be hard pressed to find any favourable Terms and Conditions regarding Shutterstock Custom and they won't change over time for passed briefs because unlike RF once they have your images that's it, gone, and unlike everyone else I do mind working for what Shutterstock is paying now.
459
« on: September 27, 2017, 17:50 »
Absolutely. They'll break into a new market, break that market, and rake in the bucks. They'll pay you guys peanuts and put better-paid photographers out of business. If it works.
Yes they will do to assignment photography what they did to stock, but they won't be paying me peanuts, I turned off my port until the climate for contributors becomes more favourable, could be a long, long wait.
460
« on: September 27, 2017, 17:45 »
I actually have no idea how it will all turn out. It may very well work out just fine for some people. I was just teasing because that is one of those classic pitches you get from clients trying to get a big discount.
Overall, I'm not sure about their offering. It seems to have potential, but selling off rights to a middle man without a lot of guarantees of future earnings seems a big leap of faith. They seem to want a stable of reliable artists without putting much investment into those artists. Call me old fashioned, but I like to be wined and dined a bit.
They know that talented people will work for peanuts and how to exploit them, why do you think exposure is offered as a reward so often instead of remuneration, it works. Many just like their ego stroked and are just happy that someone is willing to pay for their images, even if it is for less than a dollar. Here is a article that shows how little artist work for https://www.dacs.org.uk/latest-news/artist-salary-research?category=For+Artists&title=N no wonder that the likes of Shutterstock tap into this resource.
461
« on: September 27, 2017, 17:26 »
What's to stop a client from requesting cheaper photographers copy the breakthrough photographers' work?
Look, if these corporations were willing to pay good bucks for shots they'd just be having their ad agencies handle a shoot with a top photographer, and they could go to the shoot themselves and give feedback on the spot to be sure they got what they wanted.
The only reason to do this is to get talented photographers to work for peanuts instead.
SSTK is up 2.61%.
That's true for the majority of contributors and has been for years in microstock, they treat us like the suckers we are. What makes this different is that they can offer their enterprise customers something they said they would never do, offer exclusivity. I think for Shutterstock they see this as game changer and they see an opportunity to break into a new market.
462
« on: September 27, 2017, 16:31 »
Yeah, the "there will be bigger jobs in the future" line seems to never pan out whenever I've heard it.
That's because it only happens to one in a thousand, the optimistic, glass half full hard workers who get off their arses and collect points.
Is there somewhere I can redeem those "I got scammed" points or is it like a karma thing? 
I conceed that in most cases you will be able to tell me "I told you so" time and time again in thread after thread. I have no doubt the vast majority of people will be disapointed with this scheme, but carrots work and some kid could well become the next big thing chasing them. I think any decent microstocker could take some of these assignments make them their own and submit the images and videos to half a dozen sites and make a lot more than they are offering, but if the Enterprise Team do their work a few very good ambitious photographers will break through and make a lot of money.
463
« on: September 27, 2017, 15:58 »
Yeah, the "there will be bigger jobs in the future" line seems to never pan out whenever I've heard it.
That's because it only happens to one in a thousand, the optimistic, glass half full hard workers who get off their arses and collect points.
464
« on: September 27, 2017, 15:54 »
I'm not pretending anything. I just believe it is rather safe to assume that there are not too many photographers ready to travel and shoot in that area, if any.
So counting on the full amount could make sense. But I repeat: not even this full advertised amount is sufficient to make me move my ass, let alone if, after the first assignment, I would find-out that I wasted my time.
It is definitely not about your "robber barons" myth. We have the choice to say no!
If all photographers from my area will do the same, they will quickly learn that what they are ready to pay is below the market price. Subsequently, they will adjust their rates accordingly, until their offer will make me, and the others like me, move our asses.
If somebody else is already free-willingly accepting this assignment, it means they got it right. It means this is the market price for that type of work.
As simple as that.
You need to get with the program and rack up your points quick, these people now have the Enterprise Team behind them and will grow exponentially and pretty soon they will have $40,000 commissions for the favoured few. It's not about $680 at this time it's all about points, get off your arse before you get left behind.
Thanks! I appreciate your advice, but I'll pass!
I don't trust "points" as currency.
At least you had the option, unlike when the top earners got inducted into Premier Select and the top erners who just missed out got their earnings ripped in half. You need the enterprise team on your side. because they will be encouraging all the big spenders to switch their budgets to Custom.
465
« on: September 27, 2017, 15:37 »
I'm not pretending anything. I just believe it is rather safe to assume that there are not too many photographers ready to travel and shoot in that area, if any.
So counting on the full amount could make sense. But I repeat: not even this full advertised amount is sufficient to make me move my ass, let alone if, after the first assignment, I would find-out that I wasted my time.
It is definitely not about your "robber barons" myth. We have the choice to say no!
If all photographers from my area will do the same, they will quickly learn that what they are ready to pay is below the market price. Subsequently, they will adjust their rates accordingly, until their offer will make me, and the others like me, move our asses.
If somebody else is already free-willingly accepting this assignment, it means they got it right. It means this is the market price for that type of work.
As simple as that.
You need to get with the program and rack up your points quick, these people now have the Enterprise Team behind them and will grow exponentially and pretty soon they will have $40,000 commissions for the favoured few. It's not about $680 at this time it's all about points, get off your arse before you get left behind.
466
« on: September 27, 2017, 15:05 »
Let me remind you that I rejected the offer.
These potential $680 + expenses are not tempting enough for me.
But I can imagine others having no problems with it. Some people I know are ready to shoot a whole wedding for similar amounts.
but the only way to get the big money assignments is to collect points on the lesser assignments to increase your Shutterstock Custom Score.
467
« on: September 26, 2017, 16:46 »
I work with another websites that sorta does this. While not the same, the concept may be similar, where they match designers with clients for custom work.
They basically play matchmaker and allow the designer to set the price and the website take a 5% cut. SS may take up to 10% since they're more established. I don't think SS will set a price for custom work since every job is different. The photographer will have to do the negotiating and set their own prices. If you can't come to an agreement, the client will contact another photographer.
I think SS will keep track of the initial matchmaking, but they won't be able to control any contact beyond the original matchmaking. It means you can possibly continue to work with the client without SS involved. I would look at this as an opportunity.
You couldn't be more wrong, but I have the advantage of you, I read the thread.
468
« on: September 25, 2017, 17:18 »
This is an extremely interesting topic, probably the most interesting to be discussed in a microstock forum, because if you understand how the algorithms work, you can organise your activity to maximise your efforts.
Strangely many people in this forum dismiss these discussions as conspiracies, as if agencies where totally neutral in the way they present their catalogs to customers.
By far the most important factor in the success of an agencies is how they propose their images to customers, in fact SS has a very sophisticated algorithm and is by far the best seller in microstock.
Personally I have detected some very evident patterns of behavior (especially in SS). Their priorities seem to be:
- Do not present to customers the same items over time (that is why SS switches between two different modes two-three times per month)
- Try to make as many contributors happy as possible
- Punish contributors that stop uploading
- Punish contributor that spam. I believe that the ratio files in portfolio/sales is extremely important, so people who upload tonnes of repeated material are lowered in rankings
That is very emotive and would be out of character for most businesses let alone algorithms.
We see patterns in everything a strange human trait and how we try to make sense in the world.
The shutterstock search engine is in contant flux with numerous tests local and global going on tweaking parameters in conjunction with other parameters until it comes up with one which produces more sales, when it will be incorporated in to the main search.
It is also a self learning beast with no emotions, it is neither happy or sad and cares less if the contributors are. Why would it try to make a contributor happy if he is uploading crap?
The word punish may be substituted by reward as in if you are contributing more you would improve your search position, but, although I have heard Fotolia may have done this at one time, it is surely a consequence of several parameters like sales over time and new making someone who is uploading rise in the search and someone who isn't go down. There is no need for a separate parameter for the number of uploads.
If they wanted to punish spam they wouldn't accept them in the first place. I do agree with your last sentence, but it is not about punishing spam, but a consequence of a normal algorithm.
Try looking at with less emotion and more logic, I'm sure you will come up with something extremely interesting.
I think that Brightontl uses the term "punish" as an example of a factor that reduce popularity of an image, not literally.
Part of SS success is the big number of contributors which guarantee fresh content; so MS business is not just sell and sell without thinking in contributors, if a few of them monopolize first places at searches then there is no motivation for new ones, and this is not happends now, so an algorithm based in a balance between selling and maintaining the adherence of contributors is the most convenient in the long term.
The big number of contributors is due to Shutterstock opening up entry to anyone who can produce one good image out of the 10 best images they can muster, no algorithm involved. New images have always been weighted highly in the algorithm, though some would have it not as much as it used to be, but if profit has been weighted in conjuction with new then that would satisfy your assertion and confirm the conspiracy theory that 25cents an image is a lot more profitable than paying 38cents, but that in itself would not be a long term strategy, the exponential growth in content must slow eventually.
469
« on: September 25, 2017, 15:53 »
This is an extremely interesting topic, probably the most interesting to be discussed in a microstock forum, because if you understand how the algorithms work, you can organise your activity to maximise your efforts.
Strangely many people in this forum dismiss these discussions as conspiracies, as if agencies where totally neutral in the way they present their catalogs to customers.
By far the most important factor in the success of an agencies is how they propose their images to customers, in fact SS has a very sophisticated algorithm and is by far the best seller in microstock.
Personally I have detected some very evident patterns of behavior (especially in SS). Their priorities seem to be:
- Do not present to customers the same items over time (that is why SS switches between two different modes two-three times per month)
- Try to make as many contributors happy as possible
- Punish contributors that stop uploading
- Punish contributor that spam. I believe that the ratio files in portfolio/sales is extremely important, so people who upload tonnes of repeated material are lowered in rankings
That is very emotive and would be out of character for most businesses let alone algorithms. We see patterns in everything a strange human trait and how we try to make sense in the world. The shutterstock search engine is in contant flux with numerous tests local and global going on tweaking parameters in conjunction with other parameters until it comes up with one which produces more sales, when it will be incorporated in to the main search. It is also a self learning beast with no emotions, it is neither happy or sad and cares less if the contributors are. Why would it try to make a contributor happy if he is uploading crap? The word punish may be substituted by reward as in if you are contributing more you would improve your search position, but, although I have heard Fotolia may have done this at one time, it is surely a consequence of several parameters like sales over time and new making someone who is uploading rise in the search and someone who isn't go down. There is no need for a separate parameter for the number of uploads. If they wanted to punish spam they wouldn't accept them in the first place. I do agree with your last sentence, but it is not about punishing spam, but a consequence of a normal algorithm. Try looking at with less emotion and more logic, I'm sure you will come up with something extremely interesting.
470
« on: September 25, 2017, 11:51 »
Hmmm....when they were Flashstock typically $50 for 4 photos.
Any chance in Europe? All seen as one country - no expenses paid for briefs from Barcelona to Vladivostok! Jolly dee.
Hmmm....that price of $300 for 20 images came from a Flashstock thread and I wouldn't say that the price is that far out as to say it was untypical $12.5 each against $15 each.
471
« on: September 25, 2017, 10:24 »
When you create custom content, commissions, briefs for lets say an AD, art-buyer, designer etc, etc. The dayrate is often start at around $ 1200 and thats a dayrate not on specs!
This stinks like imagebrief all over.
I don't think the real world need worry just yet and neither should the microstock world if they are offering $300 for 20 images. If I were to produce 20 decent images I think I would take my chances with half a dozen microstock sites against selling my copyright for twice that. It only takes one of them to take off and you would make more than what they are paying for 20.
472
« on: September 25, 2017, 09:29 »
At Shutterstock anything above 500,000 copies needs an Extended License, but if they can't get it there you have them at your advantage. If you are unlikely to do buseiness with them again you can charge a priemium on what Shutterstock charge, if they might want more give them a discount, $100 would be in the middle. It dosen't matter what license you give them as you are unlikely to be able to enforce it, once you let it go they could do anything with it, so I would go the premium route.
473
« on: September 24, 2017, 06:03 »
474
« on: September 23, 2017, 18:45 »
sorry but what a bruttaly idiotical title for an author with only $ in his eyes. 
Don't judge a book by its cover
His comment reads like he's judging the cover by the book. Anyway, I look forward to your update now that you are accepted? I hear payments are tiered like ELs and in the smallprint it says that they keep the copyright, would newbies sell their content for 20% or veterans for 30%? I guess that would be a deal breaker for many, if true.
475
« on: September 22, 2017, 16:51 »
Etsy's FAQ - Terms of Use seems to exclude the use of "stock photos". Seems this could apply even if an extended license was bought.
"You are using your own photographs -- not stock photos, artistic renderings, or photos used by other sellers or sites. Read more about using appropriate photographs in this Help article."
https://www.etsy.com/legal/sellers/#allowed?ref=us_sell
"Using commercial stock images or others images of items similar to your own is not permitted. Etsy defines stock images as any image produced by individuals who are not involved in your shop for items they have made. We also restrict the use of digitally produced, mocked-up, or rendered images that arent of the finished product."
https://www.etsy.com/help/article/6128
That simply relates to how items are displayed in a shop in that the images representing the items for sale must be of the actual items for sale and not photos or drawings of something similar.
Pages: 1 ... 14 15 16 17 18 [19] 20 21 22 23 24 25
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
