|
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 - tickstock
Pages: 1 ... 15 16 17 18 19 [20] 21 22 23 24 25 ... 151
476
« on: July 28, 2015, 20:37 »
I still sell more licenses before noon on Shutterstock than I do on Fotolia for the whole week. So I'm not sure where this big threat is coming from. It hasn't panned out.
It's only been a few weeks, many subscribers have year long agreements so even if 50% of Shutterstock buyers were going to leave you probably wouldn't notice for a couple more months.
477
« on: July 28, 2015, 19:01 »
See the graph below with my RPD expressed in $cents.
As you can see is more than 40c
No matter how you look at it, IS is the worst agency. By far.
(I removed 123 and DT from the graph since they often break the ceiling with RPDs around 150c or more)
Just out of interest how do your Getty sales compare to your iStock income, percentage wise.
Funny, my subs at iStock are what I think of as the floor and still they're higher than your broken ceiling.
So your work is not worth $1, but $2. And you claim you don't sell yourself cheap. Lol.
Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk
There is quite a difference between $6 RPD and less than $1 RPD, not that it's great but it's much better. People wooyaying for 76 cents RPD is why all the sites RPD is going down. Next will be SS when they try to compete with Adobe.
Just out of interest how do you Getty sales compare to your iStock income?
Percentage wise how much does Getty sales top up.
Getty is 25-33% most months. This has moved a bit off topic so I'll try to move it back. Expect SS sales to decrease now because of summer and in the coming months because of Adobe.
478
« on: July 28, 2015, 18:20 »
See the graph below with my RPD expressed in $cents.
As you can see is more than 40c
No matter how you look at it, IS is the worst agency. By far.
(I removed 123 and DT from the graph since they often break the ceiling with RPDs around 150c or more)
Funny, my subs at iStock are what I think of as the floor and still they're higher than your broken ceiling.
So your work is not worth $1, but $2. And you claim you don't sell yourself cheap. Lol.
Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk
There is quite a difference between $6 RPD and less than $1 RPD, not that it's great but it's much better. People wooyaying for 76 cents RPD is why all the sites RPD is going down. Next will be SS when they try to compete with Adobe.
Nope. You sell yourself cheaply, since you accept selling subs for ~$2 or less.
Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk
It is cheap but sub sites are so popular with contributors that it's the new reality. My sub sales are still higher on average than your subs, ELs, credits sales, etc... I think it won't be long before you see your RPD going down at Shutterstock along with sales when buyers switch to the even cheaper Adobe. At some point you'll see what's happening, but being a hobbyist maybe you won't mind.
479
« on: July 28, 2015, 17:56 »
See the graph below with my RPD expressed in $cents.
As you can see is more than 40c
No matter how you look at it, IS is the worst agency. By far.
(I removed 123 and DT from the graph since they often break the ceiling with RPDs around 150c or more)
Funny, my subs at iStock are what I think of as the floor and still they're higher than your broken ceiling.
So your work is not worth $1, but $2. And you claim you don't sell yourself cheap. Lol.
Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk
There is quite a difference between $6 RPD and less than $1 RPD, not that it's great but it's much better. People wooyaying for 76 cents RPD is why all the sites RPD is going down. Next will be SS when they try to compete with Adobe.
480
« on: July 28, 2015, 17:46 »
See the graph below with my RPD expressed in $cents.
As you can see is more than 40c
No matter how you look at it, IS is the worst agency. By far.
(I removed 123 and DT from the graph since they often break the ceiling with RPDs around 150c or more)
Funny, my subs at iStock are what I think of as the floor and still they're higher than your broken ceiling.
481
« on: July 28, 2015, 16:51 »
Shutterstock still sales 10 times the volume of Istock, so you make more there regardless. Also, I don't remember Istock ever paying me $75-$150 for a single license like Shutterstock does on a regular basis. I also get way more EL sales on Shutterstock than Istock or any other site.
If you don't like what you get from Shutterstock, don't contribute there. No point in insulting others who do, especially when you don't seem to get it. It isn't about a single sale. It's about thousands of sales every month that no other site delivers like Shutterstock does.
Maybe I missed it but I don't see anything insulting on here, all I can see is someone saying our work is worth more than 40 cents per license sold.
482
« on: July 28, 2015, 15:12 »
For exclusives I presume?
Yep, I think Rose Tinted Glasses is exclusive.
483
« on: July 28, 2015, 15:05 »
Fair enough, but I could never afford to sell my work for 0.25c on up to 0.38c
But you do just that on Istock don't you or have I misunderstood?
Subs average $1.50 on iStock.
484
« on: July 27, 2015, 19:18 »
485
« on: July 27, 2015, 14:47 »
Is 76 cents per download supposed to be a good thing?
486
« on: July 27, 2015, 12:23 »
Today is a Monday like Sunday on SS. 
So the real question is: are people seing an upturn in Fotolia sales?
The real question should be: Why does one sell their valued work for a royalty of 0.25 - 0.40? Ooops sorry that 0.40c was for the new Adobe site, I keep forgetting that Shutterstock only pays you 0.38c. My Bad.
Surely one's work is certainly worth more than this. I certainly can't afford to sell my work for this price.
You only get 40 cents once you get 1,000,000 sales. It's less than 38 cents for the first 999,999 sales.
487
« on: July 17, 2015, 10:20 »
By reading this forum you would think no one actually uses Adobe products. Maybe I'm the only photoshop and premier user here.
just walk through any normal office or business. How many doctors, plumbers, accountants,physiotherapist,restaurants etc...have adobe products installed?
Obviously the people here all use adobe as does the design, media crowd. But the majority of the worlds business are not designers.
And how many of those places spend $2400 per year on image subscriptions? The lower volume sales are cheaper at Adobe than SS too.
488
« on: July 17, 2015, 10:18 »
Just because a photo buyer uses Adobe software does not mean they'll find much/enough benefit in buying their stock images from Adobe. I know Adobe is hoping that integration will help them capture market share, but my guess is that what they have won't make a material difference to current image buyers.
If you have assets of multiple types from multiple sources, you probably have some sort of asset management and workflow now. Adobe's is currently somewhat limited, especially to types of media they manage. Why switch?
No idea where they got that 55% will switch number from - if anyone finds the survey details, it'd be interesting to read.
It's not just integration that Adobe offers, they also charge less for everything except subs (subs are priced the same as SS). They also pay less per sub dl so if they aren't getting the growth they want they can lower prices and still be as profitable as SS.
489
« on: July 17, 2015, 09:24 »
It's difficult for me to imagine an advertising agency not using photo editing software.
An advertising agency. But millions of customers are not agencies. They are normal business users, that just download files into their documents reports, or into their template for the website.
That is why creating images with text in different languages keeps selling, if people find something finished and ready for use, that is what they take.
How many buyers spend $2,400 per year on photos for those uses and not using photo editing software? I bet it's not too high a percentage. If you are spending that much money you most likely doing it to make money, read the license that's what people are buying the images for.
You mean all those "Your text here images" ready to use, just drop it in your website, no editing necessary.
When I find my images used on the internet, I very, very, seldom see them processed. Of course, there are other usages than blogs or company websites, and you can be right. Even if so, I personally don't have the facts to confirm it. Or maybe it is just my type of stock.
I agree a lot of images on the internet won't be processed (many are cropped though), especially the ones that are easy to find. If your image is used as a background for an ad it won't show up in a google image search for the original, it won't be credited with your name, it might only be a small part of the final product so you might even miss it if you don't look closely.
490
« on: July 17, 2015, 09:21 »
It's difficult for me to imagine an advertising agency not using photo editing software.
An advertising agency. But millions of customers are not agencies. They are normal business users, that just download files into their documents reports, or into their template for the website.
That is why creating images with text in different languages keeps selling, if people find something finished and ready for use, that is what they take.
How many buyers spend $2,400 per year on photos for those uses and not using photo editing software? I bet it's not too high a percentage. If you are spending that much money you most likely doing it to make money, read the license that's what people are buying the images for.
You mean all those "Your text here images" ready to use, just drop it in your website, no editing necessary.
By far most of my found in-uses are 'as is', often not even resized, as clicking on the image reveals (contrary to iS's T&C).
By reading this forum you would think no one actually uses Adobe products. Maybe I'm the only photoshop and premier user here.
491
« on: July 17, 2015, 09:10 »
It's difficult for me to imagine an advertising agency not using photo editing software.
An advertising agency. But millions of customers are not agencies. They are normal business users, that just download files into their documents reports, or into their template for the website.
That is why creating images with text in different languages keeps selling, if people find something finished and ready for use, that is what they take.
How many buyers spend $2,400 per year on photos for those uses and not using photo editing software? I bet it's not too high a percentage. If you are spending that much money you most likely doing it to make money, read the license that's what people are buying the images for. You mean all those "Your text here images" ready to use, just drop it in your website, no editing necessary.
492
« on: July 17, 2015, 09:05 »
Ok, so most buyers of subscriptions (spending thousands of dollars on photos a year) don't crop, add text, color correct, resize or do any editing at all to images ever?
Not sure if that looks so much different for most editorial users.
Spot the difference. I know your view is always limited to what you want to see but this should be an easy one.
I'm not sure what you were trying to say with that? You weren't really arguing that most SS customers don't use Adobe, you were just pointing out that some editorial users might not? If that's all you were saying then fine, I guess it's possible that a few editorial users are spending $2400 per year on photos but have no editing software. They say 15% of stock buyers don't use Adobe products.
493
« on: July 16, 2015, 16:02 »
Keep at it, once you get 250,000 sales at fotolia you'll be up to .37. But by then I guess you'll have reached .38 at Shutterstock so you might just have to wait till you hit 1,000,000 sales but then you'll be making 2 cents more per sale from Fotolia.
494
« on: July 16, 2015, 15:33 »
It's back.
495
« on: July 16, 2015, 12:47 »
If you are going to spend $2400 for a photo subscription, $120 to crop, edit, downsize etc.. doesn't seem like much cost. Sure you could do most things without it but it's a relatively small cost to get the industry standard photo editor. Do you really believe a large percentage of people spending thousands of dollars a year on images don't use photoshop?
It's not about saving money, it's about time. The buyers I talked about are the ones who directly download images into their WordPress installation or content management system. They don't crop, the don't resize from what I see. Why would you bother storing an image on your desktop, open it in a software to resize, upload it to a web service if you can save this time and have no advantage from it? They mostly have the download integrated into their platform, so the image most likely never reaches the user's hard drive.
I can't say what percentage of users work that way. I don't believe all the things I read in marketing material, I just make observations and try to come up with my own explanations. Not necessarily accurate ones but also not necessarily worse than quoting from press releases.
Ok, so most buyers of subscriptions (spending thousands of dollars on photos a year) don't crop, add text, color correct, resize or do any editing at all to images ever? I find that hard to believe and apparently from the 20% drop in stock price since Adobe Stock was introduced many investors don't believe it either. I think you are looking at outliers rather than the norm. It's difficult for me to imagine an advertising agency not using photo editing software.
496
« on: July 16, 2015, 11:53 »
It costs $2400 per year for a SS subscription, I would bet almost all of the yearly subscribers are using Adobe ($600 per month for complete and only $120 for PS).
I know a couple of big blogs that use Shutterstock for their 5-20 articles they publish each and every day. I wouldn't know why they would need any Adobe product as they use the images just the way they get them from Shutterstock. Not sure if that looks so much different for most editorial users.
If you are going to spend $2400 for a photo subscription, $120 to crop, edit, downsize etc.. doesn't seem like much cost. Sure you could do most things without it but it's a relatively small cost to get the industry standard photo editor. Do you really believe a large percentage of people spending thousands of dollars a year on images don't use photoshop? Eighty-five percent of customers who purchase stock images use Adobe creative tools." http://www.adobe.com/news-room/pressreleases/201506/061615AdobeStockLaunchesWorldwide.htmlI would guess that number is higher for buyers spending more than $2,000 per year on stock images, I can see people who buy one or two images per year not using photoshop but not too many who spend thousands.
497
« on: July 16, 2015, 09:45 »
The drop in sales is going to come from buyers switching but the more people who contribute to fotolia will make that transition more likely. "55% of Shutterstock users indicated they would shift usage from Shutterstock to Adobe Stock if features were offered in the Adobe Creative Cloud that made importing images easier." http://blogs.barrons.com/techtraderdaily/2015/07/14/morgan-stanley-highlights-seven-e-commerce-and-media-stocks/About fotolia's "higher" rate, subs don't go by a percentage they are lower than SS's rate until you get 1,000,000 sales, yep one million. The other sales at Adobe are priced much lower than SS so even if the rate is a tiny bit higher earnings per sale are substantially lower. Fotolia's growth is not going to come from the Fotolia website, that will probably shrink or even disappear in time, the growth will come from the Adobe site with it's lower pricing.
498
« on: July 15, 2015, 12:07 »
Perhaps if the description weren't removed, this wouldn't have happened: http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/07/donald-trump-campaign-ad-nazi-soldiers
I thought the same thing when I read the article. At the same time though we should be putting better titles on images, the title could easily have been "Group of German World War II reenactors", that would have been better even with the description in place.
499
« on: July 14, 2015, 14:05 »
Surprised to see this:
"55% of Shutterstock users indicated they would shift usage from Shutterstock to Adobe Stock if features were offered in the Adobe Creative Cloud that made importing images easier"
http://blogs.barrons.com/techtraderdaily/2015/07/14/morgan-stanley-highlights-seven-e-commerce-and-media-stocks/
That seems to imply that 55% of all users would switch but more likely it was 55% of the polled group of Creative Cloud users that would switch.
It costs $2400 per year for a SS subscription, I would bet almost all of the yearly subscribers are using Adobe ($600 per month for complete and only $120 for PS).
500
« on: July 14, 2015, 13:48 »
Could have something to do with SS users switching to Adobe, seems a bit fast for that to happen.
http://blogs.barrons.com/techtraderdaily/2015/07/14/morgan-stanley-highlights-seven-e-commerce-and-media-stocks/
"55% of Shutterstock users indicated they would shift usage from Shutterstock to Adobe Stock if features were offered in the Adobe Creative Cloud that made importing images easier."
I don't see an uptake on FT sales to justify your theory.
Like I said, it seems a bit fast for buyers to have switched over. We should know a little more about it in a few weeks but going forward I think it should be expected that buyers will move to Adobe, 55% of them? That seems like a lot.
Pages: 1 ... 15 16 17 18 19 [20] 21 22 23 24 25 ... 151
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
