|
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 - Firn
Pages: 1 ... 19 20 21 22 23 [24] 25 26
576
« on: August 28, 2020, 00:47 »
I got rejected by them too, but I have a hard time figuring out whether it was the topic of photos or the quality they did not like or something else entirely?
I don't shoot people, so I had no modern-style hipster photos to offer, but before I sent my sample images, I browsed their gallery and looked up what they had to offer with keywords of things I do shoot. My dogs are my bestsellers on most agencies, so I selected lots of these. Then I picked photos where I thought I had better or at least as good photos of the similar subject to offer than what I saw on Stocksy.
Maybe I have a hard time judging my own photos objectively and maybe I am wrong, but I thought my photos were not worse than many of the ones they had on Stocksy. (Of some I didn't even think they were very good, many seemed extremely dark, but maybe that's part of the deliberate editing for Stocksy?)
So, anyone has any tips what I did wrong or should try next time I apply? I don't feel like trying to apply again if I have no clue what to improve on.
577
« on: August 25, 2020, 11:06 »
1 to 4 sales a week is marginally different to 0 sales a week. In other words it's so easy to drop from 4 to 0 for whatever reason and main one being more competing images. If you had say 50 sales a week and dropped to 0 that would be an indicator that something is really wrong.
My sales dropped by around 150, still not sure that leades to the conclusion that there was anything wrong with Adobe as others say they are doing fine.
578
« on: August 25, 2020, 06:38 »
Adobe is on a persistan downwards spiral for me. Since the beginning of July basically every week is worse than the one before.
This month so far I don't even have half the sale numbers of July and July was already worse than June with an rpd of half of June's. Low download numbers and unfortunately also almost only low $-sales.
I am not sure where the problem is, since Mat Hayward claimed that they are having more customers than ever - yet my overall position is also staying the same, so at least everyone who was in a better position than me must be doing equally poorly. Mat also said that in order for images to sell, we should add a "Corona filter" to our images, but I mostly do dog, objects, plants and flatlays, so there is not much possibilities to portrait these things in times of Corona (though I did photograph dogs with face masks - did fairly well on other agencies, but not on Adobe. So I am out of ideas.)
To be fair, August doesn't seem to be a good month for me on all agencies, but on no other agency the change is so drastic. While on iStock and SS my earnings are down by around 20-25% compared to previous months, on Adobe it's by over 70%.
579
« on: August 23, 2020, 00:32 »
It seems that one impact from reduced uploading is that SS got slacker in policing stolen images and now they leave entire portfolios of image thieves online. That's one way to inflate the total image counts.
Unfortunately that's not new. From what I have been reading in the Shutterstock forum, at least for the past 2 years, that has alwas been their normal approach with stolen images. A contributor is found to have stolen imags in his port? Delete the stolen image but "believe" that the rest of the images must certainly be his own and leave the port online. Of course Shutterstock knows very well how unlikely the chance is and that they should terminate the whole account for breach of their policy, but they don't care, simply because they make money from stolen images just as well, and probably more from them than from other photos, as people usually steal good photos instead of crappy ones.
580
« on: August 18, 2020, 11:35 »
Many thanks for the reply.
But where did they get my image with a relatively high resolution without watermark?
Why is the author or source of a license not mentioned?
It all smells like fraud ... doesn't it? 
I don't know, but I found Shutterstock mentioned here: https://oboitd.ru/info/oboi_dlya_sten_na_zakaz/izobrazhenie_dlya_fotooboevAccording to google translator, they tell people that they can search images in the Shutterstock database and then just have to enter the image ID in the serach bar to get the option to buy a wallpaper with the image. So, unless they purchased the whole database, it's as I suspected and they buy the licence for the image after someone orders a wallpaper. Another possibility would be that they are one of the many partners of Shutterstock, though Shutterstock is not very transparent when it comes to their partnerships and what these deals mean for contributors or who these partners even are.
581
« on: August 18, 2020, 05:21 »
Hi,
My redeemed code expire 21. August When we get new codes?
February 2021.
582
« on: August 18, 2020, 03:14 »
A lot of my images can be found in such wallpaper shops. I don't think they buy the licences before someone actually orders a wallpaper with said image.
583
« on: August 16, 2020, 04:08 »
I don't see the similarity here.
Fortnite sues Apple and Google because their product was removed because Apple/Google did not allow them to offer their products on other platforms for less money than what they were sold for on Google/Apple. Yes, the reason why Fortnite tried this in the first place was because they did not agree with the 30% share Apple and Google takes, but that is not what the laswsuit is about.
That's as if Shutterstock removed our images/videos because we offered them on our own website for a cheaper price but with bigger earnigs for us as we don't have to share our commission. Shutterstock does not care what you sell your images for on other site.
584
« on: August 10, 2020, 14:54 »
It won't make a difference, because the 0.10$, 0.12,$ 0.14$ and so on sales are all from people who have a yearly Shutterstock subscription. If you delete your file from Shutterstock, they will not go to a different agency and make a second yearly subscription to purchase your file. They will simply buy someone else's photo/video/illustration on Shutterstock, because there are enough to pick from.
Maybe, in the long run, if not enough new good quality content can be found on Shutterstock anymore, some customers might not renew their yearly subscriptions and look into other agencies. But that's just a vague possibility for the future and personally I think it is unlikely.
585
« on: July 23, 2020, 04:22 »
How self-centered do you have to be to really think a WORLDWIDE pandemic or the news-coverage of it has anything to do with your lousy US election ?
You know, the rest of the world is suffering from the pandemic as well, it's all that is in the news all day here in Europe and we have no upcoming election and could not really care much about your US election. So, you think Europe, Africa, Australia and Asia (you know, these huge pieces of land across the ocean?) will stop covering Covid in the daily media too once your election is over? Do you think all the restrictions that are put upon us in our daily lives in Europe will be lifted once your US election is over? Do you think all microstock content is sold to the US market only? because I can guarantee you that it is not. You do realize that the US is only making up 4.23% of the world population? And you think the remaining 95,77% of the world populaton will stop experiencing, suffering from, and covering Covid in the medie once your election is over?! Seriosuly? Like, SERIOUSLY?!
Good grief take a pill. All that worrying and stress over a virus that most recover from is going to give you a heart attack.
I am not sure where you get the idea from that I was worried or stressed about the virus? I am not living in a country with 70.000+ new infections each day and almost 150.000 deaths. Our government takes the issue seriously and has been able to keep cases and deaths to a minimum. You seem to suffer from some distortion of perception. All I am is shocked about how a person can seriously think she and the remaining 4.23% of the world population living in the US are the center of the world and everything revolves around them so much that the news media in the whole wide world will stop reporting about the virus once you have your precious new (or old) president. So, please take a reality pill. You are not as important as you seem to think.
586
« on: July 22, 2020, 12:31 »
#plandemic
The scaremongering will last until the US elections in Nov., then it will magically disappear, like all the other media/social media fads. Yes, there will still be a virus, just like there always was. Just like there is one EVERY year that kills tens of thousands of people.
How self-centered do you have to be to really think a WORLDWIDE pandemic or the news-coverage of it has anything to do with your lousy US election ? You know, the rest of the world is suffering from the pandemic as well, it's all that is in the news all day here in Europe and we have no upcoming election and could not really care much about your US election. So, you think Europe, Africa, Australia and Asia (you know, these huge pieces of land across the ocean?) will stop covering Covid in the daily media too once your election is over? Do you think all the restrictions that are put upon us in our daily lives in Europe will be lifted once your US election is over? Do you think all microstock content is sold to the US market only? because I can guarantee you that it is not. You do realize that the US is only making up 4.23% of the world population? And you think the remaining 95,77% of the world populaton will stop experiencing, suffering from, and covering Covid in the medie once your election is over?! Seriosuly? Like, SERIOUSLY?!
587
« on: July 18, 2020, 02:12 »
I really can't suggest Alamy, it's doing extremely poorly for me and the fact that you have to run after your money to actually get paid isn't helping. I also have never figured out what kind of images sell there. Some people say it's mostly newsworthy-content, but for me it's all over the place and extremely unpredictable. My biggest sale (around $300) I ever had there was an image of a cupcake....
What's the point in complaining about Getty with it's 0.02$ sales, if Getty earns me in 2 weeks what Alamy earns me in a year? Then Getty clearly wins.
Even though it hasn't done so well this month, I am still suggesting Adobe.
588
« on: July 18, 2020, 01:48 »
Sale seems to be frozen for now at AS. No sale since 25 June 2020 so far. July is absolutely dry so far. Not sure, if it is general trend now or just I am experiencing it.
I think it's a general trend. My sales are not frozen, but extremely low the whole week, actually I am having the worst month I had on Adobe the whole year so far. My earings are only 30% of what they were last month around this time - but despite this my overall position still keeps rising. So, I think if my position is still rising despite only having few and low $-sales, that must mean that the majority of Adobe contributors are having poor sales as well, otherwise, if it was just me, my position should fall, or at least stay the same?
589
« on: July 17, 2020, 03:31 »
Mine is also quite good.
RPD is almost double as high as on SS in the same month. (So I never understand why people say "How can you complain about the 0.10$ sales on SS, but submit to getty where you get 0.02$ for some images!" That's why - on average they still pay me double as much per image than SS, because on Getty the 0.02$ sales make up a minority of my sales, while on SS the 0.10$ sales make up the majority.)
590
« on: July 16, 2020, 10:20 »
I had no enhanced licence sale since SS introduced the new payment structure, but before that I already had an EL for as low as 9,51$ in 2019, so at least that's nothing new.
591
« on: July 16, 2020, 02:07 »
No, download numbers on SS are as usualy for me, just the eraning has changed.
For me it's Adobe that's "taking a nap" this week. It's all an individual experience.
592
« on: July 16, 2020, 02:04 »
This week the weekly amount of images uploaded have a dramatic reduction from almost 900k to 578,128
That's sadly because they had a bug where new approved images would not show up starting Saturday or even Friday and the problem was fixed yesterday, on Tuesday, so new images were added to the database for 4-5 days, even though new images were submitted. So obviously not having new images in the database for more than half a week is having an impact on the number. It's not because of less images having been submitted.
593
« on: July 15, 2020, 15:12 »
I don't really see much of a difference in my sales stament regarding the average sale prices no matter whether one of my image was sold through getty or istock. Prices are similar. I've always regarded them as kind of the same thing.
All the ridiculous sales that are for a few cents only show up under neither of then, but under "Partner Portal".
594
« on: July 15, 2020, 02:00 »
but I've experienced this problem about every 3-4 montsh ever since I joined Shutterstock.
There's a big difference between your experience and frozen base. Yes, it's still frozen now. I do track some things and I see the same vectors in Newest since yesterday. Not a single image added. Publishing lag can affect portfolios, but something new will appear all the time anyway. Now they are just freeze for a 4 days.
Nope. As I have said. What is happening now is exactly what I have experienced in the past. It's a technical error Shutterstock keeps fighting with every few months.
595
« on: July 14, 2020, 02:34 »
It's not the first time this is happening. I don't know how they keep "breaking" this all the time and surely having no new content showing up for days is not good for them (looks bad for customers who get the same images when looking at fresh content for days and think no new content is being added, is bad for contributors, because once the images finally get added they will be days old and be burried on later pages from the start), but I've exeperienced this problem about every 3-4 montsh ever since I joined Shutterstock. I am sure you can even find many older threads about it. It's a repeating pattern and usually, once the issue is fixed, nothing changes, so I would not interpret too much into this.
596
« on: July 11, 2020, 10:18 »
I think opening another stock agency is an undertaking with little chance of success in general - there are already too many big players in the game.
Adobe is having success with it because they overtool Fotolia and because they already had a food in the door with customers and contributors due to their products. But starting completely from scratch?
I am not even sure that there is really a point in it. How many of you contributors have ever though "Geese, there really aren't many agencies out there. I wish there were more agencies I could submit my images to where they will never be bought. The 40+ agencies we have now just aren't enough."
597
« on: July 10, 2020, 03:05 »
We are focusing on the sellers for now because I believe that only when we provide an ideal platform for the contributors we can then gather a decent number of contributors. The buyers would naturally follow.
There you are completely wrong. Buyers won't just follow and there is nothing happening naturally here - It's a highly competitive market where you need a good business strategy. We already have plenty of stock agencies with good interfaces for contributors and millions (high quality) images, illustrations and videos in the database - but without buyers. We don't need even more of these. Many of us already don't submit to many of the agencies that already exist, not because the contributor interface wasn't good enough, but because these sites don't have enough buyers and don't generate enough sales for it to be worth our time. Look at the poll on the right: 43 stock agencies listed. To how many of these do most contributors submit to? I submit to a total of 4 and I have tried out more, but they did not generate enough sales and I gave up on them again. You are focusing on the wrong end. You don't just create a stock site, have hopefull contributors join and submit their images and then magically expct buyers to flood in. You want to know what contributors care the most about in a stock agency? The question is answered easily: Many sales and good payment. I can deal with the most gruesome interface, if my income is good. I will not bother with the most awesome interface in the world if the site is not generating sales for me.
598
« on: July 03, 2020, 02:21 »
KEEP AWAY FROM ALAMY GANG!!!
Looks like a bunch of gangsters took over Alamy in 2020.
I had cleared amount of 81$ back in february and then it somehow 1 day before the end of month became uncleared, and it was lowered to 32$ without any reason.
Look at your sales history, not just the recent, but the whole year. Most likey a customer requested a refund for an image he bought from you a long time ago. I had that happening to me too (and I know it is a common practice with Alamy) and ended up with a negative balance. After a quick search I found the image used on a website - all with proper credits to Alamy and it had only sold once on Alamy, so I knew that someone had purchased my image from them, actually used it, and then still requested a refund which Alamy grants their customers apparently without any problems and even months after the sale. I find that business practice very unfair, it has extreme potential for abuse and and it's nothing short of a scam to their contributors. I was first told by their customer support that they would look into it, then that that the customer had purchased a wrong licence (which he noticed months later?) and I would be re-billed and I would see the money "by the end of the week". Waited for 2 weeks, but nothing, contacted them again, was told I would get the money "soon", 2 months (!) later still nothing, contacted them again, the sale was finally re-billed for a much lower amount, but until today the payment was not cleared. So I never got the money and the image is still being used on that website and has been up there for about 9 months without me being paid for it. It's one of the multiple reasons why I am not really fond of Alamy as an agency. Yes, refunds should be possile, especially with Alamy's non-existing quality control, but not months after the sale and especially not once the image has actually been used. That's like requesting a refund for a cake I already ate. I can't even really be happy about sales on Alamy, because I never know whether than money might not be taken away from me again in half a year.
599
« on: July 01, 2020, 01:13 »
Does anyone had a similar experience:
I started uploading to Alamy about 3 weeks ago. So far, so good, very smooth, all accepted.
Now I received a message, that 1 image failed QC. Fair enough, I thought.
Then I checked my Account just to see that ALL remaining 22 batches with more than 900 images, have been rejected without being assessed just because 1 image failed QC. 22 batches uploaded over a period of 4 days, not related to each other, different topics, different shooting dates, all accepted at other agencies.
I contacted support, we'll see what they say. If they expect me to upload the whole lot again, the relationship will be over before it actually started. 
Yes, that's how Alamy reviews images. They don't look at all of your images, but just make a sample test and look at only one of your images from a batch. If that one gets approved, all of the images in the batch gets approved, if it gets rejected, all images get rejected. It's how they do things and all you can do is re-upload the images again.
600
« on: June 30, 2020, 06:16 »
It's also not working for me on Firefox.
I get a completely blank page, no error message.
edit: Same on my phone, also Firefox.
Pages: 1 ... 19 20 21 22 23 [24] 25 26
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
