|
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 - grey1
1
« on: February 05, 2014, 06:44 »
I can not see anything wrong with promoting new files since they are the sellers of tomorrow. I mean we all know of another giant who will give new files a 5 sec exposure and if they dont sell, well then they are just history. Hobsons choice really.
2
« on: February 05, 2014, 03:48 »
Nothing wrong with Wun-tung soup and noodles. 
3
« on: February 05, 2014, 03:46 »
Shutterstock makes too much mistake. Every batch there's something like this. 
It's a macro image of LCD screen.
When shooting screens or Tv monitors you very often get banding, fringing, purples etc. Could be that? use an f-stop of 16 or smaller.
4
« on: February 04, 2014, 15:53 »
The search also favors American artists.
Presumably because the price heavily favours American buyers1, even without the huge shipping hike, then the taxes EU buyers would need to pay on receipt. Their promise of having a European printer available from 1st January came to naught, like other promises.
1The vast majority of sales are to buyers in the US, which isn't suprising at the prices.
I suppose that makes sense. Should be some sort of control/editing though. Just too wide open for everything and anything.
5
« on: February 04, 2014, 14:24 »
^^ don't stop there. Let it all out.
gbalex, is a good member and one of the few that dares to oppose. I find your comment somewhat naive. BTW, I made payout over there after 2 days so its no sour grapes. Just observations really.
6
« on: February 04, 2014, 14:15 »
I think it's great that Scott has taken the time to drop in here and explain things to us.
As someone with a tiny portfolio who has some images that frequently show up on page one, I can't fault their efforts. February was my worst month last year and this year I even had multiple sales over Superbowl weekend, so I'm cautiously optimistic about the latest shuffle. I'm in the .33 tier so not a .25 newbie and I don't think they are favoring the .25 cent folks. I think they are tweaking things to license as many images as possible and of course this is focused on the site as a whole and not targeted to any one contributor's portfolio. Given SS's track record, I really can't imagine that their efforts would deliberately target long-time .38 contributors to harm the value of their portfolios.
Obviously there has to be a way to get new photos seen or they would never sell, and any advantage given to new photos is going to mean that new photos by the .25 and .38 cent crowds are going to get equal billing, so more established portfolios won't completely dominate the searches.
I would guess they continually test algorithms that bring them the most moolah.
I'm sure they favor 25 images over 38 images *unless* the 38 images are downloaded so much more often they simply bring in more money overall, despite the difference in profit per download.
They also have to factor in how often an image brings in EDs, ODDs, etc.
In advertising we test stuff all the time. If a product is more expensive and gets fewer sales, but in the end brings in more profit than when it's priced lower, clients will go with the higher price.
And here is the crux. How would a 38 image receive sales much more often than a 25 file? When in actual buyer search experience the 25 files and new lower cost files are favored in the search. My best selling images no longer show up in the search AT ALL. They have no way of competing for sales, nor will they ever be seen by buyers unless they visit the end 1/2 of my port sorted by most popular.
To many people here SS have become an obsession, a religion that simply can not do anything wrong. Before the IS fiasco, SS was just a mere micro agency and nothing else. One could even say that IS, because of all their errors of judgements gave SS the opportunity to become what it is today. People have short memories and forget this. So trying to ask or speculate for any logic here is a total waste of time. You will get all the woojayers giving you one minus after another. Theyre afraid you see.
7
« on: February 04, 2014, 13:50 »
I think it's great that Scott has taken the time to drop in here and explain things to us.
As someone with a tiny portfolio who has some images that frequently show up on page one, I can't fault their efforts. February was my worst month last year and this year I even had multiple sales over Superbowl weekend, so I'm cautiously optimistic about the latest shuffle. I'm in the .33 tier so not a .25 newbie and I don't think they are favoring the .25 cent folks. I think they are tweaking things to license as many images as possible and of course this is focused on the site as a whole and not targeted to any one contributor's portfolio. Given SS's track record, I really can't imagine that their efforts would deliberately target long-time .38 contributors to harm the value of their portfolios.
Obviously there has to be a way to get new photos seen or they would never sell, and any advantage given to new photos is going to mean that new photos by the .25 and .38 cent crowds are going to get equal billing, so more established portfolios won't completely dominate the searches.
I would guess they continually test algorithms that bring them the most moolah.
I'm sure they favor 25 images over 38 images *unless* the 38 images are downloaded so much more often they simply bring in more money overall, despite the difference in profit per download.
They also have to factor in how often an image brings in EDs, ODDs, etc.
In advertising we test stuff all the time. If a product is more expensive and gets fewer sales, but in the end brings in more profit than when it's priced lower, clients will go with the higher price.
Of course they prefer 25c over 38c. Its obvious. Less commission payouts. Its business for * sake or else they would be down out stupid. This happens all the time in business and is acceptable. Whats not acceptable is to make out its all down to some weird experiments and so on. Its also pretty strange all these "experiments" starts right after going public. Superb timing.
8
« on: February 04, 2014, 12:28 »
Yes Sue and this is the problem. No checks, control, editing or anything. Spam like crazy. The search also favors American artists. I am actually doing well there but I am withdrawing. Not a very healthy environment at least not for photographers.
9
« on: February 04, 2014, 12:02 »
Shutterstock prefers whichever one brings them the most sales.
A cynic would say - most sales at the lowest cost. That means pushing up images from newbies who are paid only 25 cents.
Exactly! but no one even dares to speak about this. Its an infamnia to even think in these terms. Funny! as we speak I just noticed three ELs at SS and almost identical. Must be the same buyer. Just wait a second now and you will see who is going to post. People resenting. Thats the way it is.
10
« on: February 04, 2014, 11:30 »
The issue is the "popular" search. Not who is who. Thats a TV program. Anyhow Les is right. The popular, is not even remotely close to files being popular and how do they asses popular anyway? by downloads or views?
The Popular as implemented now has nothing to do with views or downloads. Well, maybe a little bit if these are new files.
If they are old files even with thousands of downloads, SS tries to push them out of sight. Maybe they are well meaning, but totally misguided and dishonest with their buyers. The designation as popular is misleading and deceptive. And very sad that they can't even find a proper name for it.
I can understand they they are trying to force the new files to the surface, but that order should never be called popular.
Popular means most downloaded.
I have to agree with that. I can see how they add views to that equation, but most popular shouldnt be based on how quickly a file gets their first downloads or whatever fancy algorithm they come up with. My ultimate best seller is no longer my ultimate best selling image. Its dying, and SS killed it. Scott said, tests that generate the most downloads are pushed live, meaning more royalties, but that in my opinion is a partial fallacy. Yes it means more royalties, overall, not in my pocket. Unfortunately my bottom line is not important to SS test results. The SS RPD is though.
All they need to do is rename the tab most popular to Currently Hot and add another tab called Downloads, next to the existing Relevant and New tabs and its all sorted.
Quite right. It used to be based on views. If new file hardly get any exposure no matter how good they are. Never gets a download. Then what? just fades away and thats why uploading right now is quite simply a waste of time.
11
« on: February 04, 2014, 11:25 »
Micro earnings are higher than last January overall, though SS my best earner, is down a bit from last January which is worrying. Still, SS earnings are generally showing an upward trend & new files are starting to sell more. RPI across my big three micros averages out to roughly the same as it was last January, so with RPI pretty steady, I'm still seeing a decent increase overall as I upload more files.
Responding to the RM discussions below, I licensed 7 RM images this month, one on my own, two through Alamy, and four through a German site I was invited to join last year. The single largest of those earned me more than I made from all the micros combined. Also just had a photo shortlisted at ImageBrief last week, so I'm inclined to keep holding back certain types of images as RM.
February sales have been brisk even over Superbowl weekend, which is a nice way to start this month. I can't predict the future so I'll just keep chugging along and keeping my eggs in many baskets.
Same here. The RMs are flourishing. Bit of a warning though. Just to mention you are doing well in RM and especially here is not popular at all. these are micro people only and feelings towards RMs are fierce. I do agree with you though. See below! I told you! this person have got nothing else to do.
12
« on: February 04, 2014, 11:04 »
The issue is the "popular" search. Not who is who. Thats a TV program. Anyhow Les is right. The popular, is not even remotely close to files being popular and how do they asses popular anyway? by downloads or views?
The Popular as implemented now has nothing to do with views or downloads. Well, maybe a little bit if these are new files.
If they are old files even with thousands of downloads, SS tries to push them out of sight. Maybe they are well meaning, but totally misguided and dishonest with their buyers. The designation as popular is misleading and deceptive. And very sad that they can't even find a proper name for it.
I can understand they they are trying to force the new files to the surface, but that order should never be called popular.
Popular means most downloaded.
BTW, take no notice of some geeks above. They have been like that for years. Yes thats what I thought, popular means in terms of downloads but then this so called popular search is all wrong. In most searches, no way the files with most downloads are promoted, its really more like just a random search and because of spamming, thats the worst one. However there is a small but valuable trick to avoid all this and pretty much make sure that your new uploads are in fact getting a good exposure.
13
« on: February 04, 2014, 10:55 »
Does anyone have theories on how an image is elevated on the popular category for Shutter? I've thought maybe views, subs downloads, OD's, SOD and EL. Also the dollar amount of the SOD's? Since Shutter give promotions to artists based on $$ I was thinking just the $$ amount of the sales on the image might be the sole trigger to determining where it resides on the popular page?
visit the thread above! some of the brainiest people on the planet are voicing their opinions.
14
« on: February 04, 2014, 10:40 »
The location is pretty irrelevant
We all see different results. Your results may be completely different to mine. Without the location there is no way of knowing.
PM me! and I will tell you how and when to upload in order to get a premiere position is their best match!!
15
« on: February 04, 2014, 10:25 »
Now with these alternatives most here will know in advance they end up with a coronary occlusion or at best on the dole. 
Well, while some posters are destined to one of those two alternatives, I'm sure the others will pick up these concepts as inspirations for new shooting ideas.
I agree but even concepts do not grow on trees nowadays.
16
« on: February 04, 2014, 06:14 »
Yes Les! but I would strongly advice the agencies to just have three search alternatives and these would be the most honest towards us and the buyers. 1. wishful thinking 2. Scullduggery 3. not a hope in hell. Now with these alternatives most here will know in advance they end up with a coronary occlusion or at best on the dole.
17
« on: February 04, 2014, 01:43 »
You said it^ and too true. The problem as I see it is that just anybody can upload and without the slightest bit of control and editing, just green light all the way. People throw in some of the worst keywording I have ever seen.
How could you possibly promote Art in a place like that?
18
« on: February 03, 2014, 11:38 »
Never. Old musicians never die. especially Old Long haired radical Hippies. Like they say, If ya remember the 60's...You weren't there. LOL
Oh I was there. Woodstock, flower power and everything. We are blessed with that. Most here would not even know what we are talking about. All they know is Brittany Spears and Bionce. LOL!!!!
19
« on: February 03, 2014, 10:59 »
It's kinda sad that I post that microstock has become a waste of time and I get 17 plus posts for it. Time was when I would have got vilified for that (oops! it's just gone down to 16+ .... there are still people out ther who have hope! Good luck to you!).
I HEAR THAT!!. I left here for 3 years. because I told the truth as I saw it then, How i did it was wrong. The WOO HOO gang at IS shot me down then also. So much for that now. because I posted a erroneous story called "I did a test" stating at the time exclusives got better treatment and I lost $500 a month doing so. someone here turned me in and my account was closed. I know who it was.
Oh well. Im never sticking up again for "US" and yes.....Good luck to everyone. And I mean Good Luck and highly suggest you find options if ya wanna sell your work. And i would do it sooner than later. Most won't.
I wish I was positive. Im not. But if ya wanna earn a few hundred a month. This is the best way. You want more? then you better get real Busy...real quick. and I mean REAL BUSY and "REAL QUICK" in a few short months theres gonna be 10 Million more to compete with and thats the truth especially when they complete there "Farming" of new contributors in asia and beyond in the next year.. Im gonna let my 5500 Images sit and see what happens. Then give it to my daughter as an annuity and let her deal with it.
BTW...Your back to 17 Now....lol
Isn't it better to just get high?
YES SIR!! Now your talking.
Come on man youre getting too old for that crap. Weed is for beginners.
20
« on: February 03, 2014, 04:59 »
Not here. I am now close to Emerald and I find FT very steady, same as DT. Steady earners. Although same as with SS. Never upload so that reviewing takes place over a weekend. Just a tip.
21
« on: February 03, 2014, 02:03 »
3900x0.5=1950$
1950x20=39000$
41k $
I would have left micro long time ago 
Oh dear! well I wish it worked that way in a perfect world. Reality is a bit different. there is nothing wrong with micro, can give a good living but as Baldrick say another income would not hurt.
maybe I have missed something but you have said RM was doing 20 times more so I don't understand what you mean by "reality is a bit different", there are only two options: you have a big maths problem or you are lying
I really hope I am not talking with Christian
I gave you a heart for this one! The numbers quoted are the numbers of files uploaded, not dollars. Speaking in dollars? well it depends how much they sell for. Nowhere do I mention any sums of money, just amounts of files, uploads. I do apologize for giving you the impression of multiplying my amount of uploads into dollars.
22
« on: February 02, 2014, 14:45 »
Well a mans intellect can be measured by the size of his egg-basket. 
23
« on: February 02, 2014, 08:42 »
3900x0.5=1950$
1950x20=39000$
41k $
I would have left micro long time ago
Oh dear! well I wish it worked that way in a perfect world. Reality is a bit different. there is nothing wrong with micro, can give a good living but as Baldrick say another income would not hurt.
24
« on: February 02, 2014, 07:35 »
Baldricks post here is one of the most logical I have ever read. Exactly what I feel. If producing 2000 shots per year so will thousands of others and the outcome is still a limbo position, no matter what. Its gone so far as to say that not even quantity matters anymore and as far as quality well that went out the window years back. The comes the agencies sporadic search changes which can throw you back to square one.
A year back I had 3000 files on line, today I have around 3900 and earnings have dropped. I have always regarded Microstock as a sidekick to assignments and Rm stock but there comes a time when even a sidekick can just be too expensive too time consuming to maintain.
I have approx. 1600 Rm files and they bring in some 20 times more then all micros put together. I know you can not compare the two models but its a fact.
25
« on: February 02, 2014, 01:32 »
Uploading creative and typical stock to an agency which mainly deals with the editorial markets, well....... not too clever is it.
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
