|
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 - PaulieWalnuts
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... 120
76
« on: January 22, 2021, 11:05 »
My micro earnings used to be in the thousands of dollars per month. Now I earn enough for a family of four dinner at McDonalds. And I'm not talking the fancy stuff. Dollar menu.
Same here thousands per month and now peanuts. Unbelievable change!
To be fair, I cut my portfolio down to about a third in 2015 and moved the other two thirds out of micro. However, my return per image per month used to be about $2. That was consistent for years until it started dropping in 2012 and continued trending downward over the next few years. My micro RPIPM is now at about 15 cents and still trending down. So I'd need to have a 25,000 image portfolio just to break even with what I was earning almost ten years ago with 2,000 images. So I'm leaving my reduced port in micro but not adding anything new. Investing in adding new images would be a complete waste of time for me. Maybe other people aren't experiencing the downward trend.
77
« on: January 21, 2021, 22:33 »
My micro earnings used to be in the thousands of dollars per month. Now I earn enough for a family of four dinner at McDonalds. And I'm not talking the fancy stuff. Dollar menu.
78
« on: January 12, 2021, 07:31 »
Havent used it but wondering if pricing is adjustable or you're forced to accept their pricing. The pricing is very low which also usually means the earnings are very low.
79
« on: January 11, 2021, 23:50 »
So far 100K has been invested so we are planning on giving the big boys a run for their money.
100K doesn't sound overly big boy. I think Shutterstock spent something like $40 million a year in marketing to attract buyers. Why would buyers use your company over the dozens of others already out there? What's your plan for attracting buyers? Do you have some sort of innovative business model? Forgive me for being a bit punchy, but you sound just like the dozens of other people over the years whose plan is just to "build a stock site" and we never hear from them again.
80
« on: January 11, 2021, 23:34 »
No "exciting news" and "this will make us better" part to it all?
It's pass.
81
« on: January 11, 2021, 23:25 »
Level two should be reached in another week. 
I was at level 5 until December 31st not that it made any difference to the
piss poor royalties.
My new years resolution was to cease submitting to these ass hats I've even started to submit to Depositphotos once more because at least their royalties are better than scumstock
ROFL. depositphotos lowered commissions today. But okay, still better than sh-it-terstock
So this is the point micro has reached. "Hey we just got screwed. But it's so much better of a screwing than we got from the other company." These companies must study psychological warfare.
82
« on: January 10, 2021, 19:23 »
We understand that these changes have caused a lot of concern among Contributors but rest assured, the coming phase would be good news for Contributors.
OMG, bwahahahahaha they can't be serious. I can just imagine the execs sitting around the meeting table. "Okay so we need to reduce contributor commissions. Let's not tell them and when they eventually figure it out give them the old 'we have good news' line?" (everyone laughs)
Fast forward a couple months. "We're excited to announce we've launched some great changes that will benefit all contributors. We've adjusted (lowered) royalty percentages for contributors and have improved (raised the goal bar really high) contributor goal levels. This will benefit contributors (123rf) by encouraging you to contribute a higher quantity and quality work. You will make more (less) money through increased sales volumes (falling sales). We're proud to support our wonderful contributor community with these exciting changes.
FAQ
Q: How will this impact my income?
A: You will somehow miraculously against all mathematical theory make more money from reduced commissions and lower sales volume. Aren't you excited?
Q: Are my royalties being reduced?
A: Reduced is such a harsh word. We prefer to use the word "adjusted" which is much more pleasant and doesn't specify a reduction.
Q: How do I benefit from these changes?
A: There will be absolutely no benefit to you but we'll spin it so it sounds exciting like you'll somehow benefit.
Q: Can I opt out of these changes?
A: Absolutely. We believe in freedom of choice, fairness, and strong relationships with our contributors. You can request to close your account or if you prefer you can openly complain on the internet and we'll close it for you.
Humor aside, it will be interesting to see what the "good news" is.
Old response from three years ago but wanted to get an update. I made $0 last month. Was there any benefit to the good news?
83
« on: January 02, 2021, 08:07 »
I don't offer downloads through Etsy but I don't think limiting resale is a big deal. I don't offer resale on any of my images unless it's one-off arrangement. What's to stop people from buying your images and then just setting up another Etsy shop to resell them? From my experience, most of my Etsy buyers have been homemakers. Anytime someone asks for a digital download it's usually to create a wall art print, wedding invitation, or some craft as a gift. Digital downloads on Etsy sell at micro prices mostly between $1-$5. With all of Etsy's fees of at least 8%, plus the need to handhold buyers for customer service, I think someone would need to do really high volume to be worth the effort for low priced items.
84
« on: December 18, 2020, 14:34 »
Oh boy this idea have been on the carpet many many times. I think the first time was when Istock started to mess us around and thats about 10 years back if I remember correctly.
The idea is great if one whants to spend 90% administration this and that and 10% photography!....just a minor detail who is going to pay for it all? advertising etc and all that goes with it?
Yep and that's the other half of the equation. You need to have a solid business plan otherwise the technology is useless.
85
« on: December 18, 2020, 14:03 »
Just bumping this due to some news. Photodeck just announced new functionality that provides individuals with the ability to set up an instant agency or photographer collective. I use Photodeck for my photo business website and am pretty happy with them. For anyone who wants to start an agency or collective this may be a good alternative to building from scratch.
https://www.photodeck.com/blog/2020/12/creating-photo-agency/
This will be interesting. I think many have been asking for something like this, for a long time. Off to read.
Oh I get it. Nice
"host multi-photographer accounts on PhotoDeck, with access rights management."
Five members team plan $100 a month, but it tracks individuals earnings, which is very important to any team or group agency, that the people who make the sales, get the credit for the sales.
Start your own agency, and have 5 people join you.
I skimmed over the details. So looks like the plan includes up to five people but you can contact them to request more users. Beyond the technology is all the business stuff. Content strategy, marketing, how to handle customer service, how to split the costs, attract buyers, design configuration, and more admin related stuff.
86
« on: December 18, 2020, 00:17 »
Just bumping this due to some news. Photodeck just announced new functionality that provides individuals with the ability to set up an instant agency or photographer collective. I use Photodeck for my photo business website and am pretty happy with them. For anyone who wants to start an agency or collective this may be a good alternative to building from scratch.
https://www.photodeck.com/blog/2020/12/creating-photo-agency/
Thanks, Paulie W., for pointing that out.
I had an account and built a site at Photodeck long, long ago. A very early user. The guy running it was nice and very helpful as I got my feet wet in self-marketing.
So I can't remember why I didn't stay with it. Maybe because I went with iStock, Shitterstock, etc?? Who knows now or cares?
But I may go back and take another look, thanks to your recommendation. It might be an idea whose time has come (again) for me.
Photodeck has come a long way. I think I signed up with a basic account in 2010 and switched to a more advanced account around 2014. I've also communicated with the founder and their support team and they've been helpful overall.
87
« on: December 17, 2020, 12:36 »
Just bumping this due to some news. Photodeck just announced new functionality that provides individuals with the ability to set up an instant agency or photographer collective. I use Photodeck for my photo business website and am pretty happy with them. For anyone who wants to start an agency or collective this may be a good alternative to building from scratch. https://www.photodeck.com/blog/2020/12/creating-photo-agency/
88
« on: December 13, 2020, 07:34 »
First time I've looked here for months. I used to ba addicted to this forum. I think it just got too depressing. I miss the Lucky Oliver days 
Wow old school. Haven't heard Lucky Oliver brought up in a long time. Back when micro was still like the USA Wild West and entrepreneurs had the opportunity to experiment with new concepts. Lucky Oliver was fun.
89
« on: December 10, 2020, 17:49 »
Very sorry for your loss Martha.
90
« on: December 07, 2020, 15:58 »
I think once the "old" ranters and "troublemakers" either got banned or left any forum will slowly die out. They sort of keep the place alive. Some of the old ranters here was BIG contributors as well. As an example just look at the DPR forum!
I laughed and then I realized I may be one of these people
91
« on: December 03, 2020, 14:02 »
I think nature in general hasn't sold well in microstock. Low demand and a large quantity of images. You may want to consider a different route like art POD.
92
« on: November 30, 2020, 20:42 »
MSG used to be pretty active. Now there's a handful or less of new posts or replies daily.
93
« on: November 30, 2020, 17:05 »
In summary they're not getting enough brief content, or not enough of the right content, and are dangling a carrot. And the carrot is training?
Or maybe is the problem that contributors spend hundreds or thousands of dollars shooting for briefs and end up with pennies or dollars in return? I'm not feeling motivated by this program. May be just me.
94
« on: November 27, 2020, 09:44 »
Check out Photodeck. https://www.photodeck.comI'm using both PhotoShelter and Photodeck. They're similar in offering a turnkey website platform. Photodeck is more video friendly where you can actually upload videos. It also offers templates but has way more configuration options than PhotoShelter. I know Photoshelter has been making a lot of updates recently but they have a long way to go to catch up to current offerings.
95
« on: November 23, 2020, 10:52 »
I've stopped offering all personal use licensing on Alamy and everywhere else. On my own business site I set up lower priced personal use RM licensing hoping this would increase sales. While it did add some new sales, it was occasional and only $20 each. I then would need to contact the person to verify valid usage because I would see customer email addresses like [email protected]. Some were legit. Some were people would didn't understand licensing. Some just bought the lowest price option not caring about the terms. Too much policing and other effort needed for too little money so I recently removed it. At least with RM you are able to track usage. With RF it's a lost cause.
96
« on: October 28, 2020, 20:31 »
Yes massive devastating 50% drop. I was expecting $2 this month but it looks like I'm now on track for $1.
yep - with numbers as small as have been reported, it's expected there would be major swings up/down - my monthly sales charts for most agencies look like a picket fence - rolling avgs are much more predictive
Well the percentage drop part was supposed to be sarcastic humor. The earnings are accurate though. I have several hundred images there that have sold well elsewhere and I'm lucky to get a couple dollars a month.
97
« on: October 27, 2020, 05:10 »
Yes massive devastating 50% drop. I was expecting $2 this month but it looks like I'm now on track for $1.
98
« on: October 16, 2020, 07:05 »
So offering free content to compete against free content? Who will win the race to have the most and best free content? And what's the prize for the winner?
Unfortunately Adobe and other businesses are being put in this position by people like us. Creatives who think it's brave, honorable, charitable or some other noble cause to provide free content to free sites. No wonder why we're called starving artists. Hard to pay for food when you think it's a good idea to work for free.
The winner gets on month of free downloads on Shutterstock!
The only winners will be the people who download the free photos and the free photo sites. The free photos sites will still figure out some way to stuff their pockets full of money for swank offices and mansions while not paying contributors. They'll write some deceptive chivalrous grass-roots mission statement manipulating appealing to the naive charitable nature of creatives.
99
« on: October 16, 2020, 06:51 »
Actually, the photos are paid, with an agreement between the artist and AS. Free is for the customer. AS pays for images, whether they are downloaded or not. Logically, you will have the best of the best, they will not give away anything that is not extraordinary. At an agreed price, whether the image is downloaded or not.
If that was directed at me, that's not the point. Regardless if the people who own the free photos are paid, more free photos hurts the people like us who aren't being directly paid. Who remembers free ad-based internet from the late 1990s? You open the app to connect and while the 56K modem takes a minute to brrrr-weeee-bing-bong you get to stare at an advertisement. For a while a I didn't pay for internet. Why would I if free internet was available? Over time the free services would go out of business. So I kept finding new ones until there were no more free internet providers and I had no option but to pay. And that's what needs to happen with free photos. They need to go away because the more free options that are available the fewer people will buy photos. One of these filthy rich stock companies needs to buy out these free sites and shut them down. Or creatives need to come to their senses and realize they're hurting themselves and the entire industry by submitting content to free sites.
100
« on: October 15, 2020, 20:56 »
So offering free content to compete against free content? Who will win the race to have the most and best free content? And what's the prize for the winner?
Unfortunately Adobe and other businesses are being put in this position by people like us. Creatives who think it's brave, honorable, charitable or some other noble cause to provide free content to free sites. No wonder why we're called starving artists. Hard to pay for food when you think it's a good idea to work for free.
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... 120
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
