|
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 - Noedelhap
Pages: 1 ... 29 30 31 32 33 [34] 35 36 37 38 39 ... 90
826
« on: June 07, 2018, 03:58 »
The most annoying thing about uploading to Dreamstime is that it's a waste of time because it hardly sells.
Writing a 10-word description isn't that hard, for example:
"Bright red and round tomato isolated on a white background."
827
« on: June 06, 2018, 16:03 »
I'd be surprised if he had more than 5 sales a week.
828
« on: June 06, 2018, 12:44 »
The agencies technically have nothing to do with the agreement between you and your friend regarding this specific image. But Shady Sue is right, make sure the contract explicitly states that similars are still for sale and that it doesn't change anything about their royalty-free status.
829
« on: June 03, 2018, 04:36 »
I've been in microstock 10 years now.
I remember when it was exciting to track sales and watch my income steadily rise, like some on this page are reporting.
But a few years back, everything changed:
- My port size hit 10,000 and each new upload was a miniscule addition as a percentage of my total collection... meaning I couldn't expect to see constant growth like I did as a newbie.
- At the same time, oversupply at the agencies was getting out of control... total collection sizes were going up by tens of millions a month, and my few hundred new images meant nothing.
- The agencies started stacking the deck against us, favoring the brand new artists to give them hope that this is a sustainable income so they keep uploading. (news flash... it's not.)
So, how was my May? Crap. At least I assume, because looking too deep into the numbers is depressing and I've stopped putting myself through that.
Same experience. And still listening to naive arguments around here, that our sales aren't capped. Sure they are, the bigger you go, the more they suppress your sales so that newbies have more of sales share. That's why I lost interest even in responding or discuss in topics.
If you are big, that means you must have some best-sellers and a port full of rich content that sells. Why would an agency push good content to the back? They profit from your popular files as much as you do.
830
« on: June 03, 2018, 03:36 »
I think shelf life only applies to:
- certain photo or footage or graphic trends (e.g. web 2.0 buttons with reflections)
- images that contain outdated technology or fashion (e.g. A 2004 generic stock photo of a man sitting behind a laptop or using an older phone)
- a lower production quality (i.e. SD instead of HD or 4K)
Unless the work can be labeled as "retro" or classic (e.g. a 50s jukebox or a man posing as a hippie) it will have a certain shelf life.
The Great Depression might not be a good example, because it symbolizes a historical event, has already received worldwide regonition and is considered a work of art.
Stock photos will never be art.
831
« on: June 02, 2018, 13:13 »
At the rate I'm selling photos on Storyblocks it should take me roughly 300 years to meet the minimum payout level.
They should combine Video and Photo sales.
I'd like to see it combined with video sales as well. Otherwise it takes months to reach minimum payout for photos/images alone.
832
« on: June 02, 2018, 07:00 »
I use Stocksubmitter.
833
« on: June 01, 2018, 11:44 »
I noticed that I sold a video for $27.06, meaning the client paid $54.12, even though the video was priced $69. That's almost 22% less. What is going on, is this a discount?
If so, does Pond5 expect us contributors to share the burden? If I had known this, I would have priced my videos higher to counter the lower royalties.
834
« on: May 28, 2018, 13:00 »
you said: "Surely you don't mind?"
no I don't mind.
Could you give me your portfolio URL then?
835
« on: May 27, 2018, 17:09 »
you said: "because I, also, would prefer not to be sued"
why would you be sued? you can legally sell almost any photo that you take. you would not be liable if the buyer uses the photo in an infringing way, and neither would the agency that facilitates the sale. there is a near zero percent chance that you will be sued for selling stock photography.
Hey, can you give me the URL to your portfolio? I'm writing a news article but I don't like paying for images, so I would like to use one of yours for free. Completely editorially of course. Surely you don't mind?
836
« on: May 26, 2018, 10:35 »
In case of the dreadlocks article, it's infringement because the watermarked photo is used commercially to enhance the article. The writer/website should have paid for it.
837
« on: May 26, 2018, 10:17 »
Uploading video (HD or 4K) to Istock/Getty is probably one of the worst business decisions you can make as a videographer.
838
« on: May 26, 2018, 08:40 »
Poking fun at cheesy stock photos, sure. But I didn't really find this funny.
The bit was longwinded, predictable and kinda boring. It reminded me of an average Red Nose Day sketch.
It could've worked with David Brent, though.
839
« on: May 24, 2018, 06:05 »
Not worth it.
The few videos I have sold there were for downsized versions (720p, 480p, and even 240p). The RPD is okay though, I received ~$6 for 240p, $13 for 480p, and $16-$21 for a 720p sale. Never sold a 1080p though.
840
« on: May 22, 2018, 18:05 »
Of course, even though I don't like having to pay taxes. But it's better than the possibility of a fine or jail time (although the latter probably won't happen with the small amount I'm making on stock).
841
« on: May 22, 2018, 05:25 »
Number of sales dropped, but RPD and some nice video sales gave me two decent months. Overall and weekly position has dropped
Someone in this thread suggested something Ive been thinking for years. Every download is counted towards your rank (credit sales/subscription), but I think footage downloads should count as double or even quadruple, as they're less frequent, which makes it unfair for videographers.
842
« on: May 15, 2018, 15:16 »
$199, $449 and $1699 for 2, 5 and 25, respectively.
Thanks for the help, that's great.
May I ask if you see the same numbers (price) in GBP as the ones shown by Niktol in $ ?
I see the same amount in , that is strange.
It's not strange, they just rip European customers off.
843
« on: May 12, 2018, 12:08 »
My goodness, look at the terrible reviews on Facebook. Such a good product with a unique selling point. How did things go so wrong?
https://www.facebook.com/pg/canva/reviews/
Wow, they really lack some competent customer service management there. Such a shame, because they're doing well in terms of sales. This kind of bad rep is not good.
844
« on: May 11, 2018, 07:19 »
I didn't like their new tier structure/commission cuts, but this change is something I can live with; the v1 was priced too low and the v2 was priced too high (especially 4K). I think this is a fair inbetween pricepoint.
845
« on: May 10, 2018, 05:47 »
They seem to be affiliated with Fotosearch and or Canstockphoto, perhaps someone could confirm this?
846
« on: May 10, 2018, 04:59 »
123RF has become total crap. I even got kicked back a level because sales are dwindling. Not my fault, they are to blame for the lack of sales. All the while SS and FT/AS are going better than ever.
847
« on: May 06, 2018, 10:41 »
because some of these stock photos are indeed ridiculous.
They are commercial photos, anyone who buys them can use them any way they want. For giggles or anything else. Well, with some restrictions and in accordance with the license. And they are obviously not to be taken literally. They don't pretend to be about "real life" - whatever that could be, and they can serve their purpose - be sold. Some of those pretending to be scientists in comments though - not so much. Image number 5 from the top, scientist Kate Adamala. She calls a "beaker" what in fact is Erlenmeyer flask. Now that's ridiculous. I wouldn't be a good handyman if I called a hammer "screwdriver", would I?
You're taking this too seriously.
848
« on: May 06, 2018, 08:15 »
Seems some photos nicked from SS have been bought - or at least watermark removed - but not all. Istock and Adobe still clearly watermarked....! 
If I had shot those photo's I'd be ashamed if somebody had bought them.
why?
because some of these stock photos are indeed ridiculous.
849
« on: May 06, 2018, 07:07 »
Seems some photos nicked from SS have been bought - or at least watermark removed - but not all. Istock and Adobe still clearly watermarked....!
If I had shot those photo's I'd be ashamed if somebody had bought them.
850
« on: May 06, 2018, 05:07 »
All time revenue:
SS: 29%
IS: 20%
Fotolia/AS: 10%
Storyblocks: 7%
123RF: 6%
Canstock: 4%
Pond5: 4%
SS is still steady #1.
iStock used to be 30%,
Fotolia/AS and Storyblocks are the biggest climbers.
Pages: 1 ... 29 30 31 32 33 [34] 35 36 37 38 39 ... 90
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
