|
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 - LDV81
51
« on: March 19, 2017, 18:15 »
All I can think is that somehow a contributor and reviewer know each other, and somehow the contributor can submit hundreds of identical icons to this "friend," who then gets paid for "reviewing" 500 images in two seconds. There's got to be a reason for it, because lots of contributors from certain countries are doing this on a regular basis.
Or a reviewer is getting in touch with friends in his geographic review area and telling them to submit so they can split the profits.
Why do you assume that all reviewers are human?Have you seen a starling swarm? They're fascinating and there's a good reason why some birds fly in swarms. Now, if successful contributors decided to flood the agencies with similars, there must be a reason behind it. And I think this is the final stage of microstock. The "old school" approach was that submitting too many similars dilutes your sales, because you compete with yourself, and your files cannot advance in the most popular ranking. Now, it looks like flooding the search results with a swarm of images yields better results than producing high quality images. By flooding, some images will earn crumbs, but at least you're getting something. If you produce unique, high quality images there is a high chance that they will sink and you won't earn anything. 0. If you take into account production costs, you make a loss. It's sad, but if it has come to this, there is no future in microstock. You may penalize some contributors for doing that, but it doesn't matter. You can't change the overall climate. I don't think that the flooding strategy is the real problem. It is a diagnosis.I don't care anymore. I don't invest in MS anymore. I am moving on to something else.
52
« on: March 18, 2017, 19:28 »
.
53
« on: March 17, 2017, 13:05 »
As far as I am concerned everybody should delete 60-80% of their weakest images! It will improve my sales.
Whether it will improve your sales? There are too many variables involved to predict anything.
Correlation is not causation.
On the other hand, if I get up from the bed with my right leg and the day name doesn't contain any "U" or "R", it seems to increase my sales on that day quite significantly!
Correlation or causation?
54
« on: March 16, 2017, 11:24 »
Greek debt is 113% of GDP...so what?
Actually, it is much more than that. But the point is that debt cannot grow forever, and there is a point when a straw breaks the camel's back and the system collapses.
Greece almost or practically collapsed. What is the last straw for each country, you never know, until you get there.
Maybe but I don't understand the relevance to Brexit?
Nevermind.
55
« on: March 16, 2017, 11:15 »
Greek debt is 113% of GDP...so what?
Actually, it is much more than that. But the point is that debt cannot grow forever, and there is a point when a straw breaks the camel's back and the system collapses. Greece almost or practically collapsed. What is the last straw for each country, you never know, until you get there.
56
« on: March 16, 2017, 11:01 »
We buy more goods from Europe than any other country. We have the biggest European market for German cars, Food, Wine, Furniture. The list goes on and on. Europe needs us more than we need it.
Yeah, and what exactly do you export to the EU? Except financial services, which may be moved to other locations. "The biggest European market for German cars, food, wine" - yeah, this is one way of looking at it. But the reality is that you simply have a huge trade deficit. You spend more than you earn. Nothing to boast. And you also have the most wealthy football league, but somehow your teams win hardly anything in Europe.  and I don't even want to mention the word "Iceland" UK's national debt is 90% of GDP and it grows at grows at a rate of 5,170 per second: http://www.nationaldebtclock.co.uk/What on earth is Scotland thinking?
Perhaps simply that it sucks to be outvoted by the English on important issues.
57
« on: March 16, 2017, 10:07 »
For what it's worth, I sympathise with Scottish Independence!
58
« on: March 14, 2017, 16:38 »
Not surprised... really. I wonder if all the Exclusive even have a tiny clue what kinda company they are supporting. Almost the same as if you would support slavery and been proud of it.
Please stop the slavery analogies bad as Getty might be its offensive to compare it with slavery in my opinion.
Yes, in my opinion "mafia" would be a better analogy.
59
« on: March 12, 2017, 05:50 »
Microstock prices have gone up a lot over the years I have been doing this. People seem to forget that istock started as a free images site. I'm making a lot more per sale with SS than when I first started. There's a lot more competition and that's led to lower sales for a lot of us but it isn't because prices have gone down. I still think microstock is worth it but only if you don't supply what's already been done to death.
The prices might have gone up, but from the point of view of contributors, it doesn't matter much because the ocean of images has grown exponentially. Nowadays, it is much more difficult to earn $1000 with a new image than it was in 2012 or 2011. The expected revenue from a new image has decreased dramatically, therefore the value of imagery is lower than in the past. And the trend is clear. Oversaturation, much worse than in the oil market. I think I'll buy a few hundred images and use them in content types that might be more lucrative and sustainable.
60
« on: March 11, 2017, 19:39 »
For all steady "NO" people. Have you considered looking for another source of income or money earning hobby (in this case it's still understandable though)?
Yes, as a matter of fact I will soon start buying photos. It's obvious that the whole thing has become a buyers' market, so I reckon it should be more lucrative to buy photos and try to monetize the work of other photographers, rather than to spend money on producing my own photos. I will become a buyer. I never thought it would come to this, but the trend is very clear. The value of images will continue to decrease, no matter how good you are and what you shoot. It's maths and basic rules of economy. Unless, you're like Andreas Gursky. But then you most likely don't read MSG.
61
« on: March 10, 2017, 14:13 »
No way
62
« on: March 09, 2017, 10:03 »
Yes, your instagram feed is pretty good.
As for microstock, the main problem is that you came too late, at least for this kind of photography. Perhaps 10 years too late.
In good old days, SS was able to sell at least once practically everything that I threw at them, even within minutes or hours after the image went live.
63
« on: March 07, 2017, 20:27 »
Do people photos do okay on POD sites like FAA, or is it mostly just landscapes, flowers, travel, animals, etc?
Well, I can't imagine myself hanging a Yuri Arcurs kind of photo on my wall. Even if they paid me to do so. Well, maybe if they paid me a thousand bucks. Then I would hang it in the basement. Landscapes rule.
64
« on: February 25, 2017, 15:23 »
Maybe one day they'll figure out if they want images accurate for Western buyers, they need to pay royalties appropriate for Western contributors.
Well, if they do decide to pay better royalties, it would attract even more people to become/remain active contributors. Our images would sink even faster and deeper than now. In the end, I doubt we would earn more. Maybe for a short time. We're damned if they do and damned if they don't increase the royalties. But they won't anyway. The entrance barrier in this field is simply too low, and that is the problem.
65
« on: February 22, 2017, 20:50 »
Josephine, I wish you all the best and if you're happy doing what you're doing, then it is great.
Personally, last year, I reduced significantly the amount of money spent creating new photos and clips.
This year so far, the income drop seems to have accelerated, so I decided not to spend any meaningful money on new images. I will focus on recycling my existing work and finding new ways of monetizing it, outside of microstock and stock in general.
The trend is very clear to me and the writing is on the wall, in fact it's been there all the time. I only hoped that this moment would come a few years later. But it has come now, at the worst possible time for me.
Enjoy it while you can, Josephine, I hope it will continue to work for you for a long time. My only advice is: don't make big future plans relying on (micro)stock.
66
« on: February 21, 2017, 05:28 »
Well said SSF.
The most important attribute you can have working in almost any industry is the ability to accept and adapt to change, and open your eyes to the world around you.
[...]
If you don't adapt you will be the last guy selling physical CDs for $19.99...
I am adapting. I am working on an exit strategy from stock.
67
« on: February 09, 2017, 14:56 »
So you're suggesting we shouldn't be optimistic? That's quite pessimistic.
Between Optimism and Pessimism there is Realism, and this is where I try to be.
68
« on: February 09, 2017, 04:20 »
But even if someone stayed completely positive, was committed to constant learning and improvement, happily accepted changes to processes and payment terms... in other words, did everything right with a happy smile... this gleeful contributor will still watch earnings slide year after year.
That's my only real complaint against microstock. It's a business model that chews up and spits out contributors. The agencies make more and more money (bigger pie), while recruiting more and more contributors (smaller slice for everyone).
Should I just stop complaining and quit microstock? It may come to that. But I think there's value in telling people who are just starting out that you shouldn't count on making a lot of money at this. You may think that with 100 images I'm making 100 bucks a month... that means when I have 1000 images I'll be making 1000 bucks a month. Nope, because while you're striving to get from 100 to 1000 images, your competition ramps up even faster, and you may still be making 100 bucks a month -- or even 50 -- with 1000 images in your port.
It's all a numbers game you just can't win. Even if you stop complaining.
All newbies and all "optimists" should print these words, frame them and hang them above their desk or bed. AFAIR, Stockmarketer used to be an "optimist", too. BTW, Stockmarketer do you have an exit strategy or a lifeboat? I am trying to build a lifeboat myself, but it is very difficult.
69
« on: February 08, 2017, 15:11 »
.
70
« on: February 07, 2017, 22:53 »
I think they have massive problems with the tax authorities.
No... They have just run out of space on their HDD... 
71
« on: February 07, 2017, 19:48 »
Our updated quality and commercial demand guidelines are more detailed than before, so it's clear what we're evaluating and, based on our data, what we believe customers are looking to buy.
Dear Mr. Giroux, Several years your company was very actively looking for contributing photographers and it was then that I performed extensive research about your agency. After a very thorough analysis of the gathered data and available information, I came to the conclusion that your firm did not meet my quality standards and that adding it to the roster of agencies that were allowed to display and to sell my masterpieces would not be appropriate. I have observed your agency for several years, but there has been no event that would invalidate the results of my initial research. The recent developments confirm that the findings of my research were correct and that your firm may not be considered a serious agent. In the past, I warned the members of this forum on several occasions, but most of them chose not to listen. While I sympathize with individual contributors who have been dumped, on the whole I must admit that the current situation is hilarious. Your perception of yourselves is very amusing! Cheers!
72
« on: February 04, 2017, 16:01 »
In my experience, however, I find that pricing just above average for clips that are regularly usable results in the biggest revenue. That communicates quality while not scaring away buyers.
This is a good point. A very low price may imply inferior quality. For some reason, I am afraid and reluctant to buy the cheapest wine that is available in the store. (I don't go for the most expensive bottle, either.)
73
« on: February 03, 2017, 10:38 »
This person has a similar approach: https://www.pond5.com/artist/patuwe97Over 22,000 clips, HD at $299 or $300. A few hundred photos at $429. I discovered their portfolio a few years ago and it was much smaller back then and the pricing was similar as now. If they have motivation to grow their port like this, I assume that this approach must be working, at least to some extent. Definitely food for thought for all the people who think that a Peanut Vending Machine like Videohive/Envato is the pinnacle of stock video industry.
74
« on: January 26, 2017, 19:27 »
It's ok if they are the armpit, just let other less arrogant people work with it.
Following this logic, the least arrogant people work with unsplash or pixabay.
75
« on: January 23, 2017, 08:54 »
You're on the wrong page in the wrong book, dude 
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
