|
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 - tickstock
Pages: 1 ... 30 31 32 33 34 [35] 36 37 38 39 40 ... 151
851
« on: April 16, 2015, 13:13 »
Did they add the option for a cheaper/higher margin 350/month plan in Ireland?
852
« on: April 16, 2015, 13:11 »
I wouldn't be surprised to see you change your attitude about SS in the next year, things are changing there for the first time basically since SS began.
853
« on: April 16, 2015, 13:05 »
They added the 350 image option for the US too. Expect more changes to combat lower margins with the new monthly limits.
But their margin on a month subscription went up by 81%
Yep, I don't think that's the end of the changes though. Did they get rid of 750 dls altogether in Europe? If they do that everywhere else what will that do your sales numbers? I think a lot of their sales come from Europe so I would expect dls to start decreasing a little in the coming months.
855
« on: April 16, 2015, 11:49 »
Where on your home site I could get 28 cents for a sub? Keep pointing out how many contradictions there are in your hate for SS. ODDs can range over $100 does your place do that for Independent Artists?
keep at it, soon you will make 0.38 to have your image used in and advertising campaign.
Is your RPD closer to 38 cents or $100?
856
« on: April 16, 2015, 11:46 »
They added the 350 image option for the US too. Expect more changes to combat lower margins with the new monthly limits.
857
« on: April 13, 2015, 14:15 »
Well did you upload your best images first and then your second best later? Or it could be the holidays that are just finishing up.
858
« on: April 13, 2015, 14:11 »
It could just be that in the time you uploaded 2,500 images Shutterstock accepted 1,200,000 images.
859
« on: April 10, 2015, 15:21 »
I'd say no they don't look that sharp. It looks like sharpening and noise reduction was added, it's kind of smudgy to use a technical term. That could also be because of the subject but I can see why they would reject it.
860
« on: April 10, 2015, 15:10 »
I finally got my first bunch of crazy:
Focus--Subject is blurry, too soft, or out of focus when viewed at full resolution.
Noise--Image contains excessive noise, grain, artifacts and/or is poorly rasterized.
Here's a 100% crop of one of the centers where the center of focus is/should be:
http://www.seanlockephotography.com/images/examples/sampleFromBG.jpg
404 Page Not Found, it looks like Sean Locke Photography agency also rejected them.  ETA: Now it's up, they overturned that one quick. It does look out of focus to me though.
861
« on: April 10, 2015, 12:09 »
i am a "trad" shooter from before GI was around. i was with a bunch of wonderful agencies before that and GI bought them all up. very sustainable times right up till the point of microstock. after 5 years or so of microstock being around and noticing sales plummet cause you can't compete against next to nothing, i threw my "rejects" from GI onto IS.
So I understand that you only work with GI and IS, but you are complaining about SS.
Now, if I had to drop an agency that would be IS. My RPD with IS is the lowest by far. IS the the one that underpays me, by far.
Here is what I get:
1. DT - $1.45/DL
2. 123- $1.02/DL
3. FT - $0.88/DL
4. SS - $0.85/DL
5. IS - $0.65/DL !!!
So, despite underpaying their contributors by so much, IS is not able to compete with the rest of the players, losing customers like your friend to SS?
They are definitely doing something wrong! And maybe you are enabling them.
As an exclusive I get more like $10 for credit sales, $20 for Getty sales, and $1.50 for subs. Don't be surprised to see your RPD drop going forward nonexclusive work competes almost completely on price. The new adobe/fotolia/dpc will probably see that accelerated and if they are successful at moving sales from SS what will happen? You've already seen SS dropping daily limits and increasing the amount of copies for the standard license, it's just going to continue.
862
« on: April 10, 2015, 08:50 »
Shutterstock is basically giving away all 100,000+ videos on Bigstock for free already. $99 for up to 300 very good quality videos is one of the worst plans from any agency ever.
I don't see my videos on BigStock, so what do you mean?
I mean the 100,000+ that are up there now.
If all 100,000+ videos on SS are now on BS, why aren't mine there? Are you sure SS has transferred everything? I'd like to know for sure.
Shutterstock has 2.5 million videos, Bigstock has 100,000 high quality videos that they are basically giving away for free.
863
« on: April 08, 2015, 15:09 »
Shutterstock is basically giving away all 100,000+ videos on Bigstock for free already. $99 for up to 300 very good quality videos is one of the worst plans from any agency ever.
I don't see my videos on BigStock, so what do you mean?
I mean the 100,000+ that are up there now.
864
« on: April 08, 2015, 14:54 »
I would color correct.
865
« on: April 08, 2015, 13:36 »
Shutterstock is basically giving away all 100,000+ videos on Bigstock for free already. $99 for up to 300 very good quality videos is one of the worst plans from any agency ever.
866
« on: April 06, 2015, 10:55 »
Just to stay on track with this topic: each time a government interferes with the market (like for example artificially imposing minimum wages), it pumps another blow in a future economical bubble.
You might not see major effects immediately.
This is what the populist, irresponsible politicians count on: to appear as saviors, when in fact they act according to "Apres moi, le Deluge" policies!
Governments interfere with markets in all sorts of ways that almost every person agrees is appropriate. Would it be best to let the free market decide how much lead or arsenic or fecal matter are ok for drinking water? How many people would need to die before the free market fixed the problem? Should doctors be free from market interference or again should we wait for people to die before we correct problems? Building codes interfere with the market, national parks interfere with the market, car safety regulations interfere with the market. Would it be better if we waited for buildings to collapse and then stopped using a construction company or regulate it first and prevent catastrophes? What about externalities, if companies want to make a quick profit by dumping toxic waste and then go bankrupt they can walk away with millions and leave the area devastated. Markets need to be interfered with.
867
« on: April 05, 2015, 13:53 »
Sure it is. North Korea and former economies of Eastern Europe show what happens when government gets too much central control. It can only fail. The trick is striking a good balance, preferably weighed more toward free markets than otherwise.
What about China?
I'm from Eastern Europe, what exactly happened to our economy?
Seattle or Estonia or North Korea who can tell the difference?
868
« on: April 02, 2015, 15:08 »
When you look at this page, http://www.shutterstock.com/index-in.mhtml what do you see on the upper left? Just have to ask, because I still see this.
I don't see that, I'm not sure why you see that it looks like a very old version to me. SS image 177752849 from last year is the same page I see with a different background photo. Improving earnings isn't always the goal sometimes keeping market share is.
Shutterstock has stated many times that they do not roll our changes in all of their markets. If the test market changes are beneficial to them they roll them out everywhere.
They announced it's been rolled out in the US and Canada so Pete shouldn't be seeing the 25/day anymore.
869
« on: April 01, 2015, 14:30 »
When you look at this page, http://www.shutterstock.com/index-in.mhtml what do you see on the upper left? Just have to ask, because I still see this.
I don't see that, I'm not sure why you see that it looks like a very old version to me. SS image 177752849 from last year is the same page I see with a different background photo. Improving earnings isn't always the goal sometimes keeping market share is.
870
« on: April 01, 2015, 14:06 »
True! I was skeptical. But what you contend is not exactly accurate. I never said you were making it up. I said you were interpreting it from one tweet, and we had no confirmation that it was true. There's a large difference.
You also wouldn't admit that the page I linked to, still said 25 a day and you kept pointing to the subscription page, listing programs, that neglected to mention any daily limits. Not that the new program was 750 a month.
Deal in facts please.
Yes it is a fact, now for USA and Canada, and I guess we'll have to see if it changes anything or not. Or if we can even see a change? I'd say this is more of something good for customers, encouraging them to subscribe to SS vs a competitor. More new buyers is good.
Whether they take 25 a day or 750 in one day, won't change anything. Might increase downloads?
Oh God, you couldn't just let this one die?  USA and Canada, that's kind of interesting isn't it?
Your last posts accused me of making this up. I think posting the official SS release on it is completely relevant, now you and the others that thought this was fake can move on and begin thinking about what it means.
The page you linked to that said 25/day was not showing up for me that's why didn't admit to it. In fact I haven't seen anything about 25/day since I started this thread. Also the other links I had, like the one from the Facebook ad explicitly said no daily limits. You might not have been able to see that but some other people could, it was linked on Shutterstock's forum so I know someone else could see it. Like you said "Might increase downloads?" That's why I started this thread if downloads increase then SS will make less money per subscription and if the margins for subs are cut how does SS respond? Do they do nothing then and take the hit to their margins or do they try to make up for that cut by raising subscription prices or cut contributor royalties? I think those are basically the only options if downloads increase. My guess is downloads will increase and just a tiny increase will be significant for shareholders, it will be interesting to see the next investor call. I bet there will be some questions from the shareholders on this.
871
« on: March 31, 2015, 21:19 »
Oh God, you couldn't just let this one die? USA and Canada, that's kind of interesting isn't it?
Your last posts accused me of making this up. I think posting the official SS release on it is completely relevant, now you and the others that thought this was fake can move on and begin thinking about what it means.
872
« on: March 31, 2015, 16:24 »
The first major money grab was when they stopped paying us for referrals.
873
« on: March 30, 2015, 23:32 »
Couple years ago averaged $2.20 - 2.55/ rpi per month. These days more like $1.10 - 1.25.
Wow Ultimagia, you are either deliberately trying to mischaracterize my posts, or you are really not good at following a train of thought. Let me try to make it simple for you.
1. I am not a big fish or a small one. I been at this around 5 years and managed to get between 5k and 6k online, varying by site.
2. My main concern is my own income and paying my own bills.
3. I ONLY brought my more successful friend in to refute your ridiculous statement that successful people aren't complaining about sales, and if your sales are down you are the only one to blame. If he wants to chime in here he can, but unlike me, he's probably too smart to waste his time.
4. The past couple years I have seem trends, not conspiracies, that have effected my income. These include greater competition, which is inevitable, but also actions by the agencies, like lower prices, images given away for free, shady distribution deals, DFC, OD sales turning to sub sales, and total meltdown of what was the top site when I started. You don't need a crystal ball to see this is not going in good direction.
5. I sold 15% MORE photos in 2014 then 2013, but made 20% LESS. That's not a conspiracy, that's a FACT, and if it's my fault for producing sh*t, then why did I sell more? For me its a bummer to be down a couple k per year, but if that 20% was a loss of 20k I would be real upset!
Some top sellers like Yuri, Dolgachov, Elena, and a few others come in here once in awhile, and they seem to also mention sales are going down for them. But most of the top guys don't waste their time here anymore arguing with the uninformed and dogmatic blowhards who seem so prevalent here now. I shouldn't have bothered either. It's like arguing with my 5 year old only at least she's cute.
Aren't you down about 20k? You said in the other thread your RPI was about $1.25/month, that's $7,500 per month or about $90,000 per year. If you are down 20% then you are down $22, 500, right? If you are telling the truth about your numbers RPI $1.25, 6000 images then you wouldn't be down a couple thousand you would be down 10x that. Which numbers are you fudging here?
If you are down a couple thousand like you say and you are down 20% that would mean you make about $8,000/year now, that's a pretty big difference from $90,000/year which you are claiming with those RPI numbers. It just doesn't add up.
Your right. My maths don't add up. Not so much fudged as effed up.. The first post should have read rpd instead of rpi.
None of this changes the fact that even when my sales go up, the income goes down. I have lost money, others lost much more and a lot of us upset. Which is a result of agencies changes to prices and TOS. I am not a mathematician, but I am a micro photographer and this downward slide is affecting not just me but a lot more people.
The thread was titled "RPI", you wrote RPI, and the rest of your response was describing RPI Couple years ago averaged $2.20 - 2.55/ rpi per month. These days more like $1.10 - 1.25. Lots of factors in play. Among those is that as your port grows your sales gets dituted and rpi goes down.
It's clear you were talking about RPI, your port size has nothing to do with RPD. And what would RPD per month even mean? But you're right this off topic.
874
« on: March 30, 2015, 20:09 »
Pages: 1 ... 30 31 32 33 34 [35] 36 37 38 39 40 ... 151
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
