|
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 - YadaYadaYada
Pages: 1 ... 15 16 17 18 19 [20] 21 22 23 24 25 ... 64
476
« on: October 31, 2017, 11:30 »
Share price increase by around 14% today and forecast... "Shutterstock expects full-year revenue in the range of $535 million to $545 million."
Shutterstock, Inc. (SSTK)
39.23+4.98 (+14.54%)
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/shutterstock-tops-street-3q-forecasts-111923608.html
I see, the earnings are down, the site is full of spam images, and the price of the stock went up. This explains why I'm in stock and not the stock market. I can't understand why people would push the price up and buy shares, when the company growth is slowing. Oh the hype is there's a still untapped market for more sales. I say, there is a limit to the glut, worse is, we're the ones who suffer with less sales.
477
« on: October 31, 2017, 09:38 »
JHopefully a site that's not run by people that are only interested in increasing profits for their
Obviously we need government-run stock agencies.
So you think everything has to either be owned by a few wealthy people that usually have nothing to do with the business or the government? There's lots of better options. Have you seen what Stocksy are doing for example
"Our co-op approach
We are an artist-owned cooperative founded on the principles of equality, respect, and fair distribution of profits. Our contributing artists receive 50% of a Standard License Purchase and 75% of an Extended License Purchase and every single co-op member receives a share of the company." https://www.stocksy.com/service/about/
I see, so every member of the co-op is a stockholder. Aren't those the people you say ruin it? Of course in the real world, stockholders enable growth, expansion, advertising, and loan money at their own risk, hoping there will be more profits. If the stockholders of agencies make the same grow and more profitable, then aren't we more profitable because our sales will also grow? Stocksy co-op, where do I sign up?  Oh that's right, it's a private club. I'd say the answer is start your own co-op which I'd be glad to see and join. Now about expenses, hosting, promotions, IT, accounting and management?
478
« on: October 30, 2017, 14:35 »
I still have income from them, cannot bite the hand that feeds me. They are way worse agencies out there which are producing nothing.
That's fine if you are the type who wants to have an ongoing relationship with someone who's abusing you. The rest of us know enough to escape and get away from a destructive, abusive relationship. Go ahead keep defending Getty for raping us, we asked for it?
479
« on: October 30, 2017, 14:06 »
ADOBE:
MD5SUM
SHA1SUM
YOUR WELCOME
What is this gobbledygook?
Ask Leonard Whistler he'd probably get it in a flash.
480
« on: October 27, 2017, 11:18 »
And you're a third party?
Why? Third party can not claim copyright!
It happened to me and I am sure it happened to most of us, and it's always happening to beboy. I dropped him a message as well
No, in my past experience, unless you are the copyright holder, the site will do nothing about it. How can they know who the thief is without verifying copyright? You as the third party can't verify it, you can only guess. And no, a third party can't claim copyright. It's good that you were reporting theft, but unfortunately these sites don't really care much, even if you were the copyright holder. Contacting beboy was the right thing to do. It's up to them to complain.
Thank you for your post, I know beboy is the creator he uploaded them 10 Years ago and yes hopefully beboy will do something about it. Until then Adobe / Seller enjoys free money
Only if they collect. First they would need enough sales before FT discovers the theft and closes their account. All it takes is one person who finds their own work to report them. The real author needs to report this. Nice work.
481
« on: October 25, 2017, 14:29 »
If I am earning $20 with 200 images on Shutterstock, Ill earn $200 with 2000 images. Anyone experienced that?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
No and don't expect that anyone ever will. The person with the best grasp and records, who kept ahead of this for a couple years is Stockmarketer. Maybe he'll come through and explain his results, but he was on top for a good time and eventually hit the earnings wall. The only way I have maintained my earnings is adding new niche images, not by numbers alone. It's like some who say if you have more images you make more sales. No relationship to competition or what are the photos? If you have ten keywords and make 10 sales, will 30 keywords get you 30 sales? Some people think so, but I don't. Quality not quantity.
482
« on: October 24, 2017, 17:16 »
Shutterstock answered me:
"Thank you for reaching out too us. Thank you for bringing this to our attention.
Our Contributors are in charge of what they upload to our website. There is no restriction for uploading similar images, as they may have some difference that we may not be able to view right away.
As i stated we will take your comment into consideration. Thank you."
I'm getting a bit confused with that answer because the search "Christmas basket with red apples and pomegranates decorated with fir branches" now only shows two images.
So, it seems that what was written in that reply is not true after all.
Click on one of them and then show similar https://www.shutterstock.com/search/similar/514912189 Hard to tell if something small moved, or if the crop is minutely different. All these identical images don't make for better sales, they drive customers away.
484
« on: October 23, 2017, 10:47 »
I'll jump in with the facts before the conspiracy team arrives:
If you delete photos, your sales will be capped and/or lowered by Shutterstock.
If you don't delete photos, your sales will be capped and/or lowered by Shutterstock.
If you add photos, your sales will be capped and/or lowered by Shutterstock.
You forgot time zone blackouts, favoring low earners and new files don't sell, alternate version, old files don't sell. I can say for certain that SS is watching you and your search rank will probably drop because you posted that information. 
485
« on: October 17, 2017, 11:19 »
The worst photo?
Hmm if only you could see my portfolio 
I'll have to mention mine. One of my earliest pics uploaded to SS in the summer of 2012. Surprised it got through when QC standards were a lot higher than they are now.
I am reuploading many photos that were rejected 5 years ago for some (obscur) reasons
All are being accepted.
And you know what? They also sell!!!
No you're wrong, it's mine.  I feel like I have some value in my collection and I've resisted the urge to submit rejected images to SS. Maybe you are right, especially if they sell. I just don't care to pollute my portfolio with questionable work. I doubt that buyers notice or look, it's just my personal opinion. Some that passed are just as questionable.
486
« on: October 16, 2017, 15:24 »
This will be interesting. Looks like a good idea, but so did starting in Microstock. https://tinyurl.com/y9rs965rYou will only see your creative stills ESP submissions in the app. We dont show existing ESP Editorial, illustration or video submissions because the app doesnt support that content yet.
487
« on: October 16, 2017, 15:00 »
I have some suspicions: Shutterstock accept anything to get "the number" (150, 200, 500 million images).
In this way the average contributors are happy because their images are accepted and the shareholders are also as they see the number of images increase. Customers also feel like they have many more choices.
But who can tell us that internally Shutterstock does not tag as rejected the images that once would have been rejected, so that they do not appear in the search results, but they appear in the total images count?
Good points, maybe the answer is the target of 200 million, who cares if they are ever going to sell? Sure happy contributors with all kinds of good feelings and no sales. Shareholders are really that one dimensional. Profits mean more than assets or biggest collection claims. Customers might care about more choices, but if they are anything like the forum, we see that spam is of no value. If they are hiding files, then we would see our own as missing, and we don't. Nice conspiracy theory, but it's a fail. Just like they hide better images, because SS makes more selling cheap new contributors work. Of course I'd say, they shouldn't accept anything that's not up to standards, which shows integrity and we'd all like better. Not happening is it? So your making a big number like 200 million, seems the best answer.
488
« on: October 16, 2017, 14:52 »
Sounds like the same AI and smart search that they announced before. That one went for shapes, colors and little on words. A log on a river would come up the same as a dog on a river, brown on blue, if they were similar compositions. I'm not sold yet, on either of these. Press release garbage. Oh, looks like the same search, just enhanced and current news. https://venturebeat.com/2016/03/12/shutterstock-shows-machine-learning-smarts-with-reverse-image-search-for-stock-photos/ March 2016 version. Similarly, Shutterstock developed its own convolutional neural network for its reverse image technology, something thats also being used to improve its similar image option, which is available at the bottom of each image result.
489
« on: October 16, 2017, 14:48 »
"That is unless an underlying and unforeseeable flaw in the tech is found, in which case bye bye bitcoin." You can bet there's some very clever people looking for just that.....
Plus the usual fraud people who will sell something or Bitcoin that they don't own or doesn't exist. Sorry anything named Biblepay scares me from any consideration. People who use religion as a way of playing like they are legit are thick as thieves. Did someone answer? Who or what backs Bitcoin and the confidence in it's value? Unlike a government, it's somewhat mysterious and anonymous. The guy who created bitcoin hasn't been heard from since 2011? I'm not sold on it yet, but I'll give it a chance, so I'm not saying it's wrong either. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2013/11/19/12-questions-you-were-too-embarrassed-to-ask-about-bitcoin/?utm_term=.2a4a06e40df9Looked at Biblepay, might be something good, 10% tithe goes to charity and 75% efficiency for that distribution. Better than some anonymous crypto currency.
490
« on: October 16, 2017, 14:40 »
"Sales Solution Manager" who has left wasn't positive. (emphasis mine):
"For some reason they keep bringing on new sales agents, which is taking away the only "quality" leads they have from the other agents. I can go on and on."
This sounds familiar. What exactly do they mean by product? Is that their sales packages, website or the images themselves?
Tech stack is the site and it's antiquated software that fails in many areas. We all knew that. The product could be viewed as a service of providing images. Or the product could be the images, but I think the comment was about the company itself and what it offers to buyers, not specific image files. McDonald's sells fast food of consistent standard quality, that's the product. Not hamburgers. Nothing new, crazy companies with big boos who doesn't know what direction or gets new idea, that change what was last week, neurotic management that makes employees crazy. With IS the management was defined by lack of motivation, yes men, don't be creative. The shut up, do not and you keep your job kind of system. Thus it was directed from high above by people who were disconnected from the real situation. In either case, big boss who doesn't know what direction he's going or disconnected investment who are only interested in earnings, both are wrong.
491
« on: October 16, 2017, 14:27 »
I've sent some again and they vanished when the system cleared itself, no duplicates or problems. I think they know.
493
« on: October 13, 2017, 10:21 »
I'm not counting my chickens. All I have so far is a small loss from the cost of electricity. Nice to dream of making enough to buy Getty and put Sean in charge though
There's some positive thinking. I like that.
494
« on: October 12, 2017, 09:51 »
....and in the end the only true statistic that counts will be the end of the year results. I had a mediocre September. Today, for whatever reasons, I'm God's gift to photography/videography and enjoyed my best sales day ever by a country mile. How that plays out in the overall statistics at the end of the year will be interesting.
If we all deal with lower sales at the end of the year - the business has a problem. Month to month doesn't really assert anything other than some people did well while others didn't.
Good point, year to year is a more stable statistic to look at. I know people here who start doing day to day and week to week, which borders on insanity. Long term is most sensible. But since the question is month, rpd is up, number of downloads is down, income down slightly. That's 2017 / 2016. And 2014, 2015 income are about the same as 2016 within under $10 difference for the month of September, past years. Going up or down $10 a year is insignificant. Yes I add new files every month over the year.
495
« on: October 12, 2017, 09:32 »
Shutterstock Custom: it's best not to get involved.
That's the way I feel about it too.
496
« on: October 12, 2017, 09:31 »
At some point exponential growth will come to a halt often spectacularly as investors have often found. I think we are seeing the first signs of this.
I believe 50% annual exponential growth will continue for the next five years. In 2022 top agencies will have a billion plus images. Best to adjust business plans and expectations accordingly.
Its a matter of opinion of course but currently 157m images 1,145,643 new images added this week. To achieve 50% growth they would need more like 1.5m images this week (and more next and so on) Thats quite a gap.
My math was: 157 million images x1.5 x1.5 x1.5 x1.5 x1.5 = 1192 million images in 2022. I hope the billion plus images agency totals do not happen but I think it will.
Correct maths but I don't think x1.5 will be achieved more like 1.3x1.3x1.2x1.2x1.1 would be my guess.
None of the above. Just like we found out that there isn't a one to one relationship for our uploads, meaning we could double or triple our collections in a year, and income stayed pretty much stable, or slight growth. The prediction of endless submissions to SS is flawed. Artists are going to become dissatisfied, stop producing, some will leave. New people who think this is a good way to make extra money are finding it's too much work especially considering the raised levels of competition now. Just like we hit the wall, so will new submissions. It could be at 1.5 million new images a week. We can keep watching, but it's not exponential, the growth is a curve and will eventually go flat. Much like most of us have found for earnings. Watch all the people complaining about last year, past year and this year. I don't happen to be one who's dropping, just leveling at this point. If I upload 200 new files this week, I don't know that it will make a small increase or any difference at all? The more people see that their are treading water and financially sinking, the less new material that will be produced and submitted. I'm only talking about SS and library growth, since that was the subject. I really think the limits for new files are being pushed right now. Wait 6 months and lets see. End of March will there be 2 million files a week added or 1.5 million or the 1.2 million we see now? That will tell.
497
« on: October 12, 2017, 09:05 »
Bitcoins are risky and could have a drop much more than money from a government which is backed by gold or silver. Contrary to what some people claim, the governments don't just print money as they need it.
http://www.finra.org/investors/alerts/bitcoin-more-bit-risky
"A growing number of physical establishments and exchanges allow customers to buy and sell bitcoins using cash, credit cards, money orders and other methods." If bitcoin is the currency why do they need to buy them with other methods?
Sorry but there isn't much gold or silver to back up the dollar. I think there was only about 5% when Nixon scrapped it? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nixon_shock
How do you buy any currency? I've yet to find the one that grows on trees
You'll like this "Bitcoin smashed through the $5,000 barrier for the first time ever on Thursday, jumping as much as 7 percent to chalk up its biggest daily rise in over two weeks. Bitcoin, the original and still the biggest cryptocurrency, has been on a tear recently, rallying nearly 75 percent in barely a month. It has chalked up a more than fivefold increase in price since the start of the year." Remember the stock market, big gains and high excitement as people saw fortunes. The Dow is now at a record high. Could that be the same as the Bitcoin, are they related as investments? Higher bids and selling prices, a perception that the stock/bitcoin was increasing in value. What happens next? Any significant drop will trigger a selling spree based on fear, which leads to more fear and more selling and a crash. Here's what backs money of the world currently, the dollar, euro, yen, and every other major currency, is backed directly by the stability of the society that issues it. Not gold or silver and the US was the last country to back their money with metals. Fort Knox holds around $300 billion dollars in precious metals. That's just a sign for stability, since the US money isn't backed by that gold. The US mint makes about $600 million dollars a year, producing coins. That means the cost of the production is less than the value and people buy the coins for the face value. Who produces the Bitcoin and do they make a profit from the trading and futures? Who regulates and monitors the issuance, mining and trading?
498
« on: October 11, 2017, 09:05 »
Zero Talent is right, its to appeal to the US market and FT is very weak in the US. I would say 90% of everything bought is either Getty/IS or SS. Simple as that! very difficult. I also question the Adobe partnership, if that was the right merger??
Think about it, Adobe is a powerful brand BUT they are exclusivly known and involved in softwares, programs for the professional market NOT stock! the Adobe-stock on its own was nothing! a complete nothing! and now they have tons of people paying monthly subs for their programs etc, etc, all over the world.
So far I havent experienced any benefits what so ever with the Adobe merger and I dont know of anybody that has either.  I hope I am wrong but......
It's not a merger! Adobe bought Fotolia for $800 million dollars. This is to make the use of their creative cloud easier. They aren't just about software and you keep saying. Before this they bought Behance. The purchase of Fotolia was to enhance Creative Cloud where there's money to be made on the subscription, at the same time, selling stock photos from the library of 34 million images that they purchased. My sales are up and I don't care if they come from Adobe or Fotolia site. Bigger market, more buyers, I make more.
499
« on: October 11, 2017, 08:53 »
Bitcoins are risky and could have a drop much more than money from a government which is backed by gold or silver. Contrary to what some people claim, the governments don't just print money as they need it. http://www.finra.org/investors/alerts/bitcoin-more-bit-risky"A growing number of physical establishments and exchanges allow customers to buy and sell bitcoins using cash, credit cards, money orders and other methods." If bitcoin is the currency why do they need to buy them with other methods?
500
« on: October 07, 2017, 11:44 »
Thanks for the suggestions.
Pages: 1 ... 15 16 17 18 19 [20] 21 22 23 24 25 ... 64
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
