MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Show Posts

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 - etudiante_rapide

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 79
1
Shutterstock.com / Re: SSTK Q2 2017 poor results
« on: August 07, 2017, 15:04 »

I'm  pretty sure they already reduced commission rates as of June.  I used to see several $150 SODs a month.  This has now transformed to $1.50, $0.59, $0.75, $0.86 SODs. It's kind of sad, but I knew it would happen eventually.  I think everything started to change as soon as Adobe entered the market and pushed prices down.  It's hard to compete with a company that big.  My biggest fear of SS not paying as much per download has now come to fruition :(

defintely. even $28 would be nice today. in those days, i used to see $102, $80, and complain that some other times I get $28.
today you get nfa.  as for adobe, it only matters if you cannibalize your image and give it to both ss and adobe,etc..
but if you're not, i don't see why ss need to lower the prices. i don't think it's to compete with adobe;
i think it's to keep the giant share of the pie to themselves, and not share it with the contributors.

greed is the first thing when a company goes public.

2
Shutterstock.com / Re: SSTK Q2 2017 poor results
« on: August 04, 2017, 12:21 »
I received a mail from shutter and said to shot tons of isolated marijuana images...

no, not good idea, already saturated! 
a better idea would be to send a packet of it to ss H.O.  as i am sure they are running low in stock (no pun intended) of
that ganja !!! :)

3
Shutterstock.com / Re: SSTK Q2 2017 poor results
« on: August 03, 2017, 15:15 »
It does seem highly likely that we will end up paying if they can't keep their shareholders happy.  The best case scenario might be for the share price to collapse and Oringer take the business private again.  Things like that never seem to happen to microstock sites.  My fear is that a hedge fund, possibly the same one that owns Getty, might see this as an opportunity.  SS was the one site that kept me motivated with microstock but that clanged when they took over BigStock and cut commissions and then announced their IPO.

yes, 2 scenarios possible ; one good for us, other tragic.
1) Oringer short the stock and waiting for the price to collapse then go back in to buy up everything, then declare SS private
2) Getty also short the stock and wait also for the price to collapse then become the main shareholder and we are all dead ducks ...
as money will not make us happy, because it 's money Getty intends to keep for themselves.

scenario on is unlikely, as Oringer already makes enough money , he does not need to own SS anymore as if already mention, micro is dead, why would he bother to keep ss???

4
Shutterstock.com / Re: SSTK Q2 2017 poor results
« on: August 02, 2017, 14:49 »
did they say how many of the vultures short their stocks in anticipation for a killing ???
or how many of those who insisted on $cr*wing the contributors have already taken profit and now gone to another stock
to cannibalize???

not to forget their employees benefit. time for another bunch of good husbands to announce they are going to "quit" to  "spend more time with family"  ;)

5
General Stock Discussion / Re: JULY SALES
« on: August 01, 2017, 17:19 »
Worst month for years unless IS rides to the rescue (unlikely).
:(

Same here.
SS: worst month since Feb. 2014 (despite my files having doubled)
FT: worst month in about 2 years
Stock: worst month since 2010 (but who cares anyway)

ss was up .. but that was because for months it tanked so , anything looks like up nowadays ...
but like you said, who cares anyway? 
i think pancake tom sums it all up ...
SS was horrible. Lowest RPI ever, I have to go back to Nov 2007 to find a lower month there - that was with less than 1/6 of the images (nearly 1/7).


6
General Stock Discussion / Re: JULY SALES
« on: July 31, 2017, 19:18 »

.
And that is the reason why they are by far the number one.


correction! they are #1 but not by far ! it is like they say in politics or boxing, they are chosen not because they are the best, but that there is nothing else worth selecting.  ss is the only bozo that is #1 based on their history; something they are "by far" and "miles and miles behind" the SS that we all chose in the first place.

7
General Stock Discussion / Re: JULY SALES
« on: July 31, 2017, 12:59 »
we are probably third in line behind buyers who the sites need to keep happy with images to suit their needs. They also need to keep sellers sufficiently interested to keep uploading but this doesn't currently seem an issue.

definitely, as i said before, if they drop an sjlocke and let him suffer a shortfall, and instead please 1000 or even 10,000 marginal contributors that would go on ss forum every day as soon as the end the month with 30 dollars, they would not be lacking any new images from sjlocke. there's enough copycat to fill his void, and yes, their work won't be as good as sean's, but really,
the buyers can't see the diff anyway!  it's like hamburgers..you feed them garbage and eventually millions will buy from you everyday ;)

8
General Stock Discussion / Re: JULY SALES
« on: July 30, 2017, 10:23 »
I guess the cost of storage etc is close to zero the problem is though I don't think the search algorithms are good enough to present buyers with good choices. I think in the past the sites had a far higher standard than buyers which was also counter productive. The pendulum has swung too far the other way.

never thought i'd see the day i'd agree with you, pauws, but this time i am in agreement.
if i look at my consistent top sellers, i would say they're pretty ordinary compared to many , no, alot  of my non-sellers.
unique, "amazing" photography, do not make stock great sales. it's like music.. or art.. or even cuisine..
like the newspaper is meant for what? primary 5 readers, trying to sell cordon bleu to the masses is pretty much suicide,
as with trying to sell coltrane to the masses who go "awwwww!" at lady gaga or celine dion ,etc.
stock photos are the same. we waste out time trying to catch the great one, when really it's the silly stupid minnow that they really want. so, as they give us peanuts for stupid monkeys, give them minnows  8)

stop upgrading your equipment, sell the whole sebang and shoot with mob.  everything else is profit!!!

9
Shutterstock.com / Re: June algorithm change?
« on: July 14, 2017, 09:44 »
Another change? Just gone from bad to absolutely terrible. Last 3 days.
:(
On the other hand my last three days are normal. I dont think 3 days sample proves much....this month so far for me is turning out like the last one awful start average finish. I suspect though there is a lot of tweaking of the algorithm.

LOL, i think it's more like "holy sh*t, we just reverted to giving money to established contributors!!! quick change the algo back to give sales to the newbies and our shareholders cousin's cousins cousins !!!"  8)

yes, it lasted on the first days of July ! now back to the same sh*t-terstock

10
Shutterstock.com / Re: June algorithm change?
« on: July 12, 2017, 20:55 »

So for new images to sell, it has to be found. And for it to be found, it has to have good keywording. And for it to be downloaded, it has to have good execution and good commercial value. If it's missing one of the key ingredients, it won't sell well.

you're talking like you're a bigtime expert to all those contributors reporting a shortfall of 50% like you were with sh*tterstock longer than them . like as though they are green behind their ears and not know how to keyword properly. they were making lots of money for many years and then suddenly they forgot how to keyboard properly , except for you LOL

11
Dreamstime.com / Re: This is an robbery
« on: June 29, 2017, 12:20 »
I closed my dreamstime account. I had $ 94 on my account. They said they could not pay because it was not 100$. This is an robbery.

I closed my accounts on other sites for to be exclusively on istock. Other sites paid the remaining money. DreamStime is a site that needs to be avoided. >:( >:(

i would suggest you write them to say, "considering you are all living on porridge, i donate what you just stole from me as charity !
they have been in coma for a long time, so pity them, pull the plug out of this vegetable and let them die in peace with your money LOL

12
Shutterstock.com / Re: A million a week!!
« on: June 29, 2017, 12:16 »
"998,592 new stock images added this week" Just saw this on SS site....anyone know if they've topped a million yet? I sometimes think its a miracle I sell anything at all. (Then I look at the quality of whats being uploaded :o)

thus, my comment to that old thread you need 40,000 images in your portfolio to make 10k bucks a month .
i would say it is more like 1 million images to make 10 bucks a month LMAO

13
yes, old thread, perharps. but i think i like to see if those ppl who said 40,000 way back still think 40,000 in today's sh*tterstock environment they would make 10,000 / month. that is, if they are all still without sh*tterstock

14
Shutterstock.com / Re: 39 SOD
« on: June 23, 2017, 09:32 »
Any $$$ beats a poke in the eye...
Sadly, that attitude among some uploaders is what's fuelling the race to the bottom for prices.

when the monkey cheers for the peanuts, it's time to move on. or as neil young says Better to burn out than to fade away.
i consider myself a 4by5 view camera being replaced by an instamatic, so i decided to leave my portfolio unattended and do better things with my life (such as bask in the sun with a pina colado on the beach) than to waste my time checking in to sh*tterstock to see that i finally made enough to buy a stick of shishkebab to sh*ve up my you know where.

not worth the trouble. let the monkey scramble for the peanuts, and the ruggamuffins fight over the crumbs falling off the table .
no scavenger code for me. the days are gone.

15
I continue to size down my photos to 12 MP. They deserve no more for 38

no kidding, Chichikov!   when i used to get 28,85,102 dollars for single dl, now i see like 2.70.
there is no way i will give them even 12MP. all you get from me now is 4MP, ie if i even bother giving them sh*t

16
I am wondering why nobody is mentioning the poor quality of the images... or am I wrong?

No, the quality is really low.


strange! that was what many SS contributors have been saying, here and on their forum, about the change in ss since they flooded their inventory to bolster numbers for the shareholders carrot,
yet, ss seems to do fine with low quality ... and the departure of many old successful contributors.

17
Geeze everyone wants the new players to come with something different and as soon as they do, you complain.

Australia's GDP is around 13th in the world, GDP per capita is around 10th.

No need to be so negative all the time. Lets concentrate our negativity on the agencies that actually deserve it :)

which maybe be so, but this is a global world, no need to live in an oyster or a lilypad.
if it has what it takes to cut it with local portfolio, it can succeed just as well globally with a global portfolio..
and provide contributors who are looking for a viable alternative to the sick and tired istUck and shItterstock.

18
For years, jon has been consistently making choices for short term profit with no regard for the welfare of his contributors or employees.

the day they went public we should have known it is time for us contributors to "spend time with family".
it's like beating a dead horse, we come here and scream and shout, the only solution and change is we, you and me,..
become a major shareholder . that would be the only way anyone is going to make money with sh*tterstock these days.

ok, time to go back to spend with family.   8)  take care y'aall!!

19
They hope contributors will not notice and when they do, they offer very little in the way of meaningless noise to quiet the crowd.

noise is never approved by the reviewers  ;)

seriously, bravo!

20
Times change. "As an itinerant performer who played mostly on street corners, in juke joints, and at Saturday night dances, Johnson had little commercial success or public recognition in his lifetime." Hardly any good recordings as they were 78s, before tape recorders were invented, no Youtube. On the other hand (no pun intended) Django Reinhardt was fairly popular but I wonder how many people on this forum have a clue about one of the greatest guitar players of all time, or the songs he wrote?

Famous photographers aren't necessarily the best or the greatest artists. They are the best and greatest promoters, or the people who got public attention and took advantage of marketing to build a reputation. Not that they aren't good or weren't but most are over hyped or regarded because of the public perception. Oftyen based on what some critic or someone else says they like.

so true. i too remember what someone told me a long time ago, "it's not you have to be the greatest, just get the best marketing
people in town. "
django had no thumb either, didn't he? and without those slim neck ibanez or floyd rose and battery of sound enhancement pedals..
yet he , wes, joe pass, oh, lenny breau..the unforgotten genius... could play better , cleaner, faster ..like paco de lucia too.
but all these great masters had no hair,
and they don't look so good dress in tights, and looking like carmen miranda, speaking in a castrato voice..
and less we forget, having more hair than dolly parton.

of course, the radio, and nowaday, internet, did not hire a dj, reviewer,etc.. who knew the difference between playing guitar
and playing air guitar. photographers are the too... although there were some exceptions..
i think we have a history of better photographers who became famous than better musicians who became famous.

21

I can throw a rotten tomato in Chicago and hit a blues guitarist that just makes your fall over because they are so talented, amazing to hear and skilled. New Orleans, jazz people that play on the street that are capable of any top working backup band, or club. Branson has country musicians up the hills that can play as good as pretty much anything you'll hear in Nashville. You want classical, tryouts for most of the major symphony orchestras in the US draw thousands of hopeful applicants for a chair. The ones that aren't good enough for a violin will take a second or viola seat and be happy to get that. Rock and roll? If you can work and cover your expenses, you're a success. But don't quit your day job.

Dime a dozen for musicians isn't just an old term, it's pretty much still true. Microstock is even cheaper because with technology someone can take better photos, but music demands a deeper soul and much more personal investment in practice and experience.


so true, and the best ones are usually the hungriest. look at youtube, great music like robert johnson, or videos of buddy guy, bb king, even chuck berry ,etc.. get far less views than say
some copycat dressed in halter top ...
last i looked each video got like 2 million viewers in 6 months. i don't think robert johnson even got 200 in 6 years.

22
The real money for musicians lies in touring

Absolutely not! You are incorrect. It costs a lot of money to tour.

sorry y3 , have to agree with id. touring with a band  is a lot of trouble and costly. even playing locally or across the state is costly. going on youtube like so many musicians these days, is much simpler and cheaper. even for the indie musician, even if you don't
make money like prince, u2, loreena, imogen heap, .. on youtube.. you can still make money
as they have what is called "monetize your site"...
and for other sites there is adsense or something like that.
still beats touring or signing exclusive with ss.
you already know how it is with photos, the same thing will happen with music once they get a stranglehold of the market.
only the clueless will sign exclusive with ss music.

23
y y y, i know where you're getting at.
most recently, i thought i saw some movie stills and i could believe my eyes when i saw the credit line
saying alamy. how did the guy or gal got to submit and get approved still of movies they never
directed or owned???

24
in the days of elvis or even beatles, get 50 cents per song or was it an album was an achievement that only elvis, beatles, and recently, bruce springtein and michael jackson or prince could attain.
then youtube came along and the best artists, including prince , u2 ,  loreena mckinnon,etc.. decided to go indie.
why not??? youtube is probably more global than even cbs (japan) used to be.
so, why would ,if you're anything good, join ss and choose to jump through hoops,
with the eventual bad trip of the microstock photographers inevitably going to end up the same way for music producers???
even a bad producers can rally enough support merely by putting his or her music on youtube.

25
i don't think it's too important to give us so much (80%), as someone already mentioned the cost of the agency is high too.
i only think if you wish to get up there against ss, you must sell aggressively, ie have a good marketing share of the global
microstock market to compete against , yes you got it ss.

sales have dwindled for many ss experienced contributors since they lax on the 7/10 and filled the daily new images with absolute
garbage.  so, i would say, be like the old once super great ss, who was always in the 90% on the right of this page,
only challenged  by the also once great istock.

be like the old ss and is... and it really does not matter if you give us 80% ...
because i'd rather have 40 % of lots of dls incl SOD of 28 to 108 dollars each,
than 90% of 000 cts.
.. which was the promo of most of these redundant agenciesto the right who after years still do not reach 20 % er.

so, it's simple, be the old Oringer and we will be there for you.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 79

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle