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 - Pauws99

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 182
1
Shutterstock.com / Re: Zero sales of new files
« on: Yesterday at 16:01 »
Just checked some 2020 concepts and almost all images I checked were from contributors from Thailand, some Russia, not one from America or Europe.

Sorry but you got to be pretty naive, hmm let me rephrase pretty d.mn stupid to think there isn't something else at play here. So my suggestion to all is put Thailand, Russia, Croatia, India, etc... as your location in your profile et voila problem solved!  :o

Seriously why do we even bother anymore if they only push those people in search?
Do you have any data on the proportion of new images from those places?

2
Shutterstock.com / Re: Shutterstock reviewers are idiots
« on: Yesterday at 07:13 »
I just had a small batch reviewed and the inspection seemed fair. One rejection for focus on a marginal image I put through as I liked the subject and thought I might get away with it and other for similar which I was not surprised about so not all doom nd gloom ;-).

3
Shutterstock.com / Re: Shutterstock reviewers are idiots
« on: October 21, 2019, 10:13 »
Theres nothing wrong with the policies its their ability to implement it thats the problem. I think most of us would welcome a more demanding inspection regime if it was implemented consistently.

I hate to mention the old days, but IS and SS had the strictest reviews for quality, and even if reviews took longer, they were much more consistent. Alamy and AS are still holding up the standards for submissions. Inconsistent reviews are terribly frustrating, not that I'm personally having any problems, but here we are, and I'm hoping for a change.

The real idiots aren't the reviewers who are "only following orders"  ::) the problem is the people who dictated the new standards and issued the directives.
Indeed though I have found Alamy have dropped their standards now...I put stuff through that I wouldn't of in the past. I think the problem lies in the link between those who set that standard and those wh implement it. Its rather like announcing a crack down on crime while at the same time reducing police numbers...a practice not unfamilar. If you have a policy you need to have a plan and resources to implement it. Im guessing all shutterstock did was issue reviewers with an email with no back up of training or supervision.

4
Alamy.com / Re: Alamy. Philanthropy is in our DNA
« on: October 21, 2019, 04:11 »
Yes of course you are entitled to your opinion but I think its fair to question it on a discussion board. I'm sure if Alamy were generating more income though this wouldn't  be an "issue". The problem with Alamy is not what it does with its profit but not generating a good income for contributors in my view.  The reason I sign up anywhere is the anticipation of making money if they deliver that short of moral issues such as using child labour I'm not too concerned with how they run their business.

5
Alamy.com / Re: Alamy. Philanthropy is in our DNA
« on: October 21, 2019, 03:29 »
Alamy, respect your contributors! Be charitable to us!
I signed up to contribute to a photo agency , not do charity. Charities should be kept completely separate.
I'm not sure that Alamy's profit margin is any different to the rest of the industry what difference would it make if they spent the profit on coke and lapdancers? When you signed up to them their business model was quite open.

6
General Stock Discussion / Re: Alamy - is it worth it?
« on: October 21, 2019, 00:48 »
Time and expense wise Alamy is not really worth it. However people are still prepared to waste tehir time doing it. Some weird sort of masochism IMO
For most people isn't that probably true of all but SS IS and Adobe these days?  Alamy is no 4 for me so plenty much worse. At least they give hope of a really big sale. I carry on uploading to sites I shouldn't from a return on time spent perspective from a combination of irrational optimism, stubborness and habit.

7
Shutterstock.com / Re: Shutterstock reviewers are idiots
« on: October 19, 2019, 15:18 »
I am seeing same thing and also am seeing revenue go down on Shutterstock.  When sites put in place a new tough reviewing policy, less approvals and their revenue goes down.

Look at Canstock, which is the worst reviewing policy in the industry.  Want a property release for the White House.  My revenue has dropped like a rock, but so has their total revenue.  Rumor is that they might go out of business soon.

So we will see.  The microstock reviewing policy is the weakest link in their business model.
Theres nothing wrong with the policies its their ability to implement it thats the problem. I think most of us would welcome a more demanding inspection regime if it was implemented consistently.

8
Shutterstock.com / Re: Zero sales of new files
« on: October 18, 2019, 01:28 »
Given the number of new images coming onto the market compared with slow growth in demand   if sales for most contributors weren't going down that would be strong evidence that sales were controlled. Certainly some suffer more than others. Whether that is by design, random results of algorithm changes or changing customer demand is speculation unless you have a source in shutterstock or access to their data.

i think if i had a proof they are capping me so breaking the contract i signed where there was no mention of a  cap...i would go to my advocate and they will be sued the second after i have the 100% confirmation...and i think many will do this..
You don't have proof though and where does it say in the ToS there isn't a cap? "Shutterstock shall have the right, but not the obligation, to license all Content through any of Shutterstocks brands and platforms to its customers for use in perpetuity in accordance with license agreements entered into by Shutterstock, including but not limited to Shutterstock, Inc. Terms of Service License Agreements (collectively, "Licenses").

9
Shutterstock.com / Re: Zero sales of new files
« on: October 17, 2019, 10:54 »
Given the number of new images coming onto the market compared with slow growth in demand   if sales for most contributors weren't going down that would be strong evidence that sales were controlled. Certainly some suffer more than others. Whether that is by design, random results of algorithm changes or changing customer demand is speculation unless you have a source in shutterstock or access to their data.

10
Shutterstock.com / Re: Shutterstock Milestones
« on: October 17, 2019, 02:11 »
Quote
1) prospective contributors believe the hype and enter the market without doing any research

If I may comment on that, there are not actuall resources on failure and agency tactics. Just "how i earned {amount of money}" and referrals even to crappy agencies. And a total recycling of "news".

The actual research and evaluation perhaps  is uploading and getting
rejected,
payed $1,37 per clip
etc etc.
You only really need to look at the total number of images on shutterstock and divide that by the total amount paid out to see the odds are against you. I'm sure though huge numbers do try it for a month or two and realise its not for them.

11
Shutterstock.com / Re: Shutterstock Milestones
« on: October 16, 2019, 00:57 »
The more images that are added and the less that's paid out per contributor, the more it seems to attract people to the pot. Obviously nobody in the stock game has their own financial wellbeing in mind. Basically it's a good way to lose money fast but yet it seems to attract more and more lemmings.
Obviously people in the stock game think it will benefit them financially for many it doesn't of course

I think there are two reasons
1) prospective contributors believe the hype and enter the market without doing any research
2) Some people believe they can beat the "odds" and some in fact do.

12
Shutterstock.com / Re: Shutterstock reviewers are idiots
« on: October 14, 2019, 12:57 »
I wouldn't blame reviewers so much. Its an entirely predictable outcome from opening the floodgates by allowing anyone to be a contributor with only one accepted photo. You could have a monkey press the shutter and do that. I doubt SS invest more than a tiny amount in training and probably give reviewers seconds to review each image. Along with that either by design or lack of control we seem to have some contributors able to contribute anything without inspection. I am amazed that they still remain by far the most succesful agency. Their marketing to buyers must be absolutely world class.

13
Alamy.com / Re: Alamy. Philanthropy is in our DNA
« on: October 12, 2019, 03:07 »
It's hard to fathom how tone deaf you have to be - how little you understand your contributor community - to post here about how you're taking a portion of profits to donate to charities (all of which I'm sure are most worthy).

Not once, but twice you've pleaded the business needed a larger share of the gross as your reason for cutting royalty payments to contributors (in the time I've been with Alamy).

From my perspective, that's our money that you have decided to donate to charities on our behalf. Don't expect me, and I suspect many other contributors, to feel good about that.
It doesn't really make much difference to me what organisations or people do with their profits. All stock agencies aim to make a profit. If Alamy decided to spend their profit on luxury yachts what difference would it make?.

14
Alamy.com / Re: Alamy. Philanthropy is in our DNA
« on: October 12, 2019, 02:55 »
Please start another company for your charity aspirations and stop using contributor commissions to make you look generous. It's a bit of a sham
They are open about how it works. No one is forcing you to submit work there.

15
Shutterstock.com / Re: How is this possible?
« on: October 12, 2019, 02:18 »
It seems that Grossinger has reached the $500 mark on SS. It took over 7000 photos and some videos to get there. Not an outstanding ratio between upload numbers and sales but it goes to show that he has persistance.
Seems to be he set out to prove one thing and his results show the opposite.

16
They most definitely are conserving server space.
Any evidence for that?

17
Now they are really overdoing it. I made one image where the object is isolated on white and one image where the object is in snow and a snowball is next to it. Where is that similar? I had the image with snow and the snowball rejected for similar. I have never made similar images like others where I couldn't even see the difference in the photos unless I looked at it for 10 minutes.

I do mostly editorial video and I am sure it's an AI/software application that's screening their massive database of 600 million files for similar content and rejecting it or flagging it for the reviewer to reject, I don't even know if SS has human reviewers anymore, could all be AI for all we know.

All I know is if pretty much any part of the images in the video are similar to anything already on the site it now gets rejected, I went from about 10% rejection to 90% rejection.

They most definitely are conserving server space.
I doubt its anything to do with server space which gets cheaper all the time. Its simply incompetence. Rejecting stuff that might sell makes no rational sense.

18
With the number of submissions they have encouraged with their free for all entry requirement I would imagine its impossible to recruit and train enough competent reviewers and give them time to review at a economic price.

19
The problem with Shutterstock is that you have to use your password to send over insecure FTP. Open invitation for hackers.

20
Adobe Stock / Re: The rise of Adobe Stock
« on: September 28, 2019, 00:40 »
Since some month Adobe stock sell more and more. here is my stats

June 2018   1337
July 2018   1390
August 2018   1430
September 2018   1403
October 2018   1656
November 2018   1771
December 2018   1368
January 2019   1835
February 2019   1699
March 2019   1787
April 2019   1857
May 2019   2067
June 2019   1816
July 2019   1924
August 2019   1983

Shutterstock lost sell but Adobe stock is rising

Having a lot of downloads is not all ... the most important number is the RPD! And this number is on the way down since AS is in the market!!!

... much more than the number of sales are growing for only few contributors!
Both RPD and no of downloads don't mean much on their own. Its multiplying the two that gives the important stat. Not sure anyone knows how many gainers/losers there are.

21
Shutterstock.com / Re: Shutterstock Milestones
« on: September 26, 2019, 02:31 »
The non-stop flood does in a way surprise me. Most images won't sell. You would think at some point word would get around and the sentiment might be: "don't bother" regarding uploading for the casual photog.
I suspect a lot of people load a tiny number of images the forget about it. Theres still a lot of suckers/phototraphers to recruit thinking they will earn big cash from random phone pics.

22
...Because Bill Gates has a taste for easy money. He owned Corbis for many years then sold it to VCG for a hefty profit. Guess he wants back into the game. ...

To interrupt your rant with some facts, temporarily...

Microsoft Corp and Bill Gates are two different entities. Microsoft never owned Corbis (Bill Gates did).

Bill Gates no longer runs Microsoft; Satya Nadella is the CEO.

https://news.microsoft.com/exec/bill-gates/
https://news.microsoft.com/exec/satya-nadella/

Adobe is much more than a stock agency - if you wanted to get "back into the game", buying Adobe, Inc. would be a very odd way to do that.
Adobe is a software company so its not out of the question that microsoft could buy them but not especially for  the stock element. But theres no reason to think they are even remotely thinking about itat the moment.

23
Quote
Thomas Cook travel just went bankrupt leaving 600,000 stranded and 21,000 out of work.


Offtopic. I was watching the news showing a Thomas Cook airoplane taking off. Perhaps at least all related stock media to have some boost sales. (in other words, one's death is other's survival...)

Actually, I sold the Thomas Cook logo (I shot it three weeks ago for Adobe editorial) eight times today... Not that it makes me rich, though.
I sold an image of a statue of James Cook.....no relation yesterday. Wonder if someone is confused?

24
Microsoft could afford to acquire most businesses if they felt like it. This is pure speculation from no where as far as I can see.

25
DepositPhotos / Re: New images - views and sales
« on: September 24, 2019, 02:53 »
My experience is similar. I just tink new content gets buried under the mountain of competition. It does seem odd though that I quite often sell 5-6 year old images for the first time.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 182

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results