|
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 - derek
Pages: 1 ... 26 27 28 29 30 [31] 32 33 34 35 36
751
« on: April 17, 2017, 09:18 »
Honestly I don't find SS very good in terms of video they seem to sell very little and as far as Adobe sales are almost non existant Safest bet for somebody producing good and commercial footage is to completely get out of stock-filming and go with a solid prod-company with automatic buying and promotion since the groundwork have already been done.
What, like getting a job?! I think I just did a little bit of sick in my mouth.
Hahaha! no not getting a job sod that. Working through a Production-company as freelance! and that way you get hired for commercial filming etc able to supply really high class stuff. not getting a JOB! F that!
752
« on: April 17, 2017, 02:52 »
Honestly I don't find SS very good in terms of video they seem to sell very little and as far as Adobe sales are almost non existant Safest bet for somebody producing good and commercial footage is to completely get out of stock-filming and go with a solid prod-company with automatic buying and promotion since the groundwork have already been done.
753
« on: April 16, 2017, 03:07 »
DT! was once one of the premiere agencies with great credit sales good editing and so on. Sadly the competition is beginning to kill them off. I don't know whats happened there really they keep swapping search as often as SS nowadays and it dont seem to lead anywhere except annoying lots of their exclusives to the point where they quit exclusivity.
I thought DT were always the kings of image search switching certainly they were always the most inconsistent site for me. I always found their reviews pretty fair and liked the "style" sadly though the sales are not there which is what really matters.
Well I am going back some years actually! but around 4/5 years back they were really good and always one of the main four.
754
« on: April 16, 2017, 01:52 »
DT! was once one of the premiere agencies with great credit sales good editing and so on. Sadly the competition is beginning to kill them off. I don't know whats happened there really they keep swapping search as often as SS nowadays and it dont seem to lead anywhere except annoying lots of their exclusives to the point where they quit exclusivity.
755
« on: April 15, 2017, 02:37 »
I first heard about microstock (in particular iStockphoto) several years ago. I was considering joining up back then but didn't take the plunge. I just let things slide. And I really regret that now. I keep hearing how things were so much better back then from a selling point of view.
Istock many years back was the Rolls Royce of microstock and there is little doubt had Bruce not sold it to Getty and still been in charge the micro-stock climate would be very different today. Oringer at SS would never have gotten the chance to his fame and fortune. Sure SS would have been big but basically it was the screw-up and mistreatment of IS done by Getty that paved the way for Shutterstock. Its a shame really because the dominance of SS dont really benefit anybody but SS themselves in the long run that is.
756
« on: April 14, 2017, 07:32 »
probably on the way of reducing commission and dropping prices on stills as well. I mean really its just getting beyond belief now and its obvious we are being taken for fools! bugs and glitches everywhere and strangled incomes because of their constant tinkering with the algorithm! people leaving and an obvious lack of buyers and now this "superb" footage news. Why dont they just come clean and tell us to go bugger ourselves? Seriously though I am now fully convinced that before the end of the year we are staring at a deja vu Istockphoto. 
757
« on: April 14, 2017, 03:29 »
Some good, some bad. The bulk buy option sounds like the kind of garbage fotolia offers with regards to how much we will make.
Email from shutterstock:
"While high resolution footage is increasingly popular with our customers, they often choose entry-level clips because of the lower price. To encourage bulk high resolution downloads, we've narrowed the pricing gap across all our video packs. By raising the price for entry-level clips and lowering the prices for higher resolution packs, we've made this higher-quality content an easier choice for our customers. These pricing changes will vary globally.
We're introducing a new high-volume footage package.
Recently there's been a demand for a large number of downloads from a specific set of customers from large companies. To suit their needs we will soon introduce a high-volume footage package. This package gives your work an opportunity to reach a broader audience that could result in even more downloads.
We will only be offering this package to large business customers who are guaranteeing bulk purchases of footage. It wont be shown on our public website. With this package, clients will be given the opportunity to download a large volume of footage clips at a negotiated price per clip. As with our other footage products, your earnings under this high-volume footage package will be a percentage of the purchase price of each download, with payouts between $3 and $6 per clip."
If you could target for that market; the volume might make it worthwhile. Sure is a low pay-out, though
Is there an opt out? These fkrs use the "higher volume" every mf time and only the sheep dont care. Sick of this sh!t.
Spot on! just another high-volume scam! very similar to the Getty crap!
758
« on: April 13, 2017, 12:42 »
I still get surges of credit sales, without them things would be a bit dire.
Paul! how do you do it? haha! you always seem to get sales and now credit sales when everyone else is starving alive. DT is right now pushing subs like nobody's business and a changed algorithm that seems to benefit nobody.
Good luck to you! you seam to score where everyone else fail.
How do I do it? By having a portfolio that spans 13 years so it doesn't matter much what age files are selling, by having 5,000 images on DT and a record of sales that may (possibly) give me a personal boost in the search, by having some niche stuff - Qatar - that isn't availalble to most people, and maybe by being easily kept happy since I won't starve even if I never sell another photo, and by trying to regard the glass as being half full rather than half empty.
I was surprised to see that nothing I've uploaded in the last two years has sold - I haven't uploaded much, only a couple of hundred pics in all, but there are a couple of stunning Qatar cityscapes that are doing well over on SS and ought to be selling on DT too.
As I said earlier, my income on DT is down to a third of what it was ten years ago, so it's not all rosy. But this month I've had half-a-dozen so far that are either $2 subscription sales or credit sales for up to $10.
Good one! but Im not far behind you with some 10 years in micro and 19 years in the RM sector and thats where I score. Yore right though your pics never ages and thats possibly one of the reasons could also. Before their searc change I had about the same many credit sales per day and some around the $9 mark but this time around the search slammed a door on that.
759
« on: April 13, 2017, 06:40 »
I still get surges of credit sales, without them things would be a bit dire.
Paul! how do you do it? haha! you always seem to get sales and now credit sales when everyone else is starving alive. DT is right now pushing subs like nobody's business and a changed algorithm that seems to benefit nobody. Good luck to you! you seam to score where everyone else fail.
760
« on: April 13, 2017, 06:36 »
Yes they changed it from "most relevant" and it really shows. Disaster everywhere even all their exclusives are complaing bitterly.
761
« on: April 12, 2017, 13:34 »
Has anyone else's sales tanked along with the stats not updating?
Yes!! everything has tanked completely. like a sinking boat! haha!
762
« on: April 12, 2017, 08:42 »
Lack of buyers and very little trafic. Even their exclusives threaten to leave exclusivity. Something isnt right?
763
« on: April 11, 2017, 04:34 »
my highest was $.191. those were the days, all gone I'm afraid!
derek, please don't put a period (full stop) symbol between $ and 191 because it's the same as $0.191 which I suppose is not what you meant.
No bad feelings just want to help avoiding misunderstandings like in some other threads.
Ooops! sorry! typo thing! haha!. this bloody keyboard its a new mac one is the most sensitive keyboard I've ever had all I have to do is blow on the damned thing and it types. Cheers mate! I know the other threads you mean!
764
« on: April 11, 2017, 04:27 »
Lets face it the site is being run by how can I say without seeming rude
idiots 
That's not how this should be worded in corporate speak. I'll attempt to rephrase.
It is run by people whose interests are not well aligned with the interests of contributors.
I don't have much against SS, let's just say lately it's performance was less than stellar. But I have no problem, other stocks are picking up, so it all evens out for me. Maybe it's just me, or maybe the interests of those who run SS no longer align with the interests of buyers either. Needless to say, I have only sympathy for front line workers.
Actually given some of the rather odd happenings of late I would say SS may not actually be "run" by the people who think they run it 
hahaha! spot on! you dont even know how spot on you are! tell you this much it was a long time ago since Jon and Co ran the place and boy dont we just notice the difference. As far as contributor and money wise well its hard to compete no matter how many files in a port when approx 80% ends up with the same 10-15% of members. 
765
« on: April 11, 2017, 04:13 »
Looking at the stats of random Dreamstime contributors on their forums, I note that some people have done exceptionally well there. Their number of sales far exceeds their number of uploads. And in some cases, it's over 20,000 sales. Though I'm guessing that a lot of these impressive figures occurred in the distant past when things were supposedly 'better' - the glory days so to speak?
Oh absolutely I have over 20K sales there but 90% of those before 2015 after that its just turned very sour.
766
« on: April 11, 2017, 03:01 »
Over 2000 images online. I would classify them as HCV files having releases and in very commercial categories. DT is actually one of the very few agencies that some time back acknowledged the fact that they are letting everyone have a bite at the cherry. Fair play so to speak. I dont know what it entails but some months are Ok other months just terrible. This nonsense of fair is in my books completely crazy and derogatory in the long run since established members simply dont upload.
I personally think they have also lost tons of buyers and cant keep up with the main four.
767
« on: April 10, 2017, 14:35 »
I know some people working with Offset and according to them sales are very bad! about premiere I think our files automatically go in there?
768
« on: April 10, 2017, 10:05 »
Got a $275,00 sale at SS last December. So big sales are still possible
Spot on! exactly the same here and last year. Those were the days all gone now I'm afraid!
769
« on: April 10, 2017, 09:35 »
my highest was $.191. those were the days, all gone I'm afraid!
770
« on: April 07, 2017, 08:14 »
I don't see that the BBC has any holding on this company yes they use them but it's an independent limited company
I guess I'm mistaken, I read that somewhere a while back.
No youre quite right once they did own it but today its an independent agency. They do buy a lot from them though.
771
« on: April 07, 2017, 04:02 »
"I shouldnt really say this but if a place like SS closed down they would probably do the entire stock-market the world of good turning it into a healthier environment and a sort of new start. haha!" You can see why I might find this a somewhat mixed message
Thats a big fact Paws! they started it allselling 0.25 together with Bruce at Istock and would you believeit nowadys years later Bruce actually admits it! it was good while the going was good but dreadful in reallity.
This is actually a veruy intersting point you are bringing up. Before micro you could easily get paid. $. 1000 for just a cloud formation well thats history.
You have to admit its pretty nasty photographing and perhaps with overheads studio this and that considering micro prices. However its a quantity factor really.
I do stand by my words 1000% if stock-photography went back to the way it was ( digital of course so much more predictable then film) yes most people would experience a completely different world.
Haha thats not a crusade man thats just a wish thats all. Never mind I have little if any time. 
Of course you are right about that for professional photographers but the advent of digital and the internet have turned this and many other industries upside down. Good for some but bad for others its happened many times in the past with technology changes....like canal vs railways etc etc
Well in a sense youre right but dont forget we used to Drum-scan large format trannies as long back as the 80s and many of the large photo-agencies back then actually wanted digital trannies rather then the trannies themselves. Of course now if you look at the owners of most micros they are x-computer geeks software people etc so it only stand to reason they were the ones inventing micro-stock. I know everyone hates IS but to be really honest Bruce had far more knowledge ( without having to buy expertise) and know-how then Oringer. Bruces problem was getting intoxicated and ultimately selling to Getty. Biggest most epic mistake ever and look what happened.
772
« on: April 07, 2017, 03:37 »
"I shouldnt really say this but if a place like SS closed down they would probably do the entire stock-market the world of good turning it into a healthier environment and a sort of new start. haha!" You can see why I might find this a somewhat mixed message
Thats a big fact Paws! they started it allselling 0.25 together with Bruce at Istock and would you believeit nowadys years later Bruce actually admits it! it was good while the going was good but dreadful in reallity. This is actually a veruy intersting point you are bringing up. Before micro you could easily get paid. $. 1000 for just a cloud formation well thats history. You have to admit its pretty nasty photographing and perhaps with overheads studio this and that considering micro prices. However its a quantity factor really. I do stand by my words 1000% if stock-photography went back to the way it was ( digital of course so much more predictable then film) yes most people would experience a completely different world. Haha thats not a crusade man thats just a wish thats all. Never mind I have little if any time.
773
« on: April 07, 2017, 03:19 »
Said it in another thread it really seems as if some contributors earnings are pre-set. My earnings from Monday this week up to now Friday morning differs only by cents not even a dollar. I find it extremely suspect.
Well its a matter of just giving up thinking about it really. Much worse is all the negative and bad publicity SS right now is getting almost in every single forum and texts concerning photography stock photography etc. if I'm not wrong thats really what finally triggered the downfall of Istock?
Where for example?
Where??? oh! " please tell me this makes sense" thread! this is how I have had it since the beginning of January 2017! frankly I don't mind too much but I do find it laughable almost comical.
I thought by every single you didn't mean a single I don't think criticizing ss is anything new here....indeed for some it seems to be a crusade over the years
I beg you pardon! crusade over the years? I been with them since 2007! how long have you been there? I find it insulting. I earn very good money there even if its gone down. I have absolutely no need or wish for any crusades but wanting them to do well and at least for my sake. If one can not point out the obvious together with hundereds of so called old shrivled up old-timers then whats the point and whats the need of a forum?? whats the need of MSG where we all meet sharing experiences up or down. Everything is not just black/white. The world is not honesty personified. Kindly refrain from any insinuating actions or simply don't read my postings. Thanks and appreciating that.
774
« on: April 07, 2017, 02:24 »
Said it in another thread it really seems as if some contributors earnings are pre-set. My earnings from Monday this week up to now Friday morning differs only by cents not even a dollar. I find it extremely suspect.
Well its a matter of just giving up thinking about it really. Much worse is all the negative and bad publicity SS right now is getting almost in every single forum and texts concerning photography stock photography etc. if I'm not wrong thats really what finally triggered the downfall of Istock?
Where for example?
Where??? oh! " please tell me this makes sense" thread! this is how I have had it since the beginning of January 2017! frankly I don't mind too much but I do find it laughable almost comical.
775
« on: April 07, 2017, 01:57 »
Said it in another thread it really seems as if some contributors earnings are pre-set. My earnings from Monday this week up to now Friday morning differs only by cents not even a dollar. I find it extremely suspect.
Well its a matter of just giving up thinking about it really. Much worse is all the negative and bad publicity SS right now is getting almost in every single forum and texts concerning photography stock photography etc. if I'm not wrong thats really what finally triggered the downfall of Istock?
Pages: 1 ... 26 27 28 29 30 [31] 32 33 34 35 36
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
