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 - derek
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 36
1
« on: November 28, 2018, 04:14 »
I removed all my clips in the beginning of last week and put them all into pond5 and Lo and behold they've already sold twice and for good money!
Yet you only seem to have two clips there, with just 1 sale on one of them, priced well below the standard Shutterstock price.
...and 3 clips still online at Shutterstock.
Do I? all my clips are baked in under what we call a " factory" been for many years! and not in "clager" that should only be stills! ..well it should be!! Better check it out?...btw the ones you saw, were they old moving engineering parts?
2
« on: November 28, 2018, 04:06 »
I've tried the whole indie dance years ago, when I got started. Uploading like crazy to different agencies, and there were a lot less back then. It's not just about the uploading process, but each site has its own culture and rules. You have to keep up with all that, read forums, etc.
Exclusivity certainly worked out great for me, but it depends on your own situation and how much time you're willing to spend on the uploading/follow-up process as opposed to spending that time doing photography itself. I guess there is no perfect choice.
Thanks for the info Frank!.. yes I must say this indie process worked fine up untill a couple of years back when these agencies started to get " clever" and all sorts of short-term profit thinking this and that plus the fact that it drains your time to do actual photography! I work a lot on commissions and able to supply from commissions as well. I've earnt some great money from IS in spite of being an indie!...to be honest there is just too much crap going on right now with most of the non-exclusive agencies and its both draining and time consuming! all the best to you!
3
« on: November 28, 2018, 02:56 »
For everybody late for the party, here is a summed up with visual screenshots how SS actually works behind the scenes: https://video-stock.org/the-magic-button-at-shutterstock/
Great find!.....you most probably find the same skulduggery in stills as well!...some of us have been witnessing this for years now. So not surprised at all!. I removed all my clips in the beginning of last week and put them all into pond5 and Lo and behold they've already sold twice and for good money!
4
« on: November 28, 2018, 02:47 »
I'm an Istock independent since 2005! but considering all the crap one have to take from all these non-exclusive agencies I'm seriously considering applying for exclusivity here!..crazy perhaps but it saves me having to spend ludicrous time in front of the computer this and that. With SS singing on its last verse and Adobe not caring too much about its FT the options are to stick all the micro-stock images into one basket and just hope for the best. I do know lots of IS exclusives by now and no one of them are complaining too much about earnings, revenues!
5
« on: November 27, 2018, 13:05 »
the problem in micro stock is always the same...new content don't sell...established photo with many popular photos high in search engine still earn a lot despite uploading nothing...while to increase sales with new content is practically impossible....one moth of christmas and new year production with content who 5 years ago would have sold like hotcakes, today produce practically zero sales. when you upload content if they are not sold after 10 minutes they go in th garbage between snapshot i cannot even understand why they are uploaded fist and accepted secondly. personally i m shooting more and more for rm and i hope been accepted by stocksy this year. i worked a lot this year and so far i have just a 10% earning gain compared to last year and practically same download.
Well spoken!! couldnt have said it better myself!
6
« on: November 27, 2018, 07:32 »
I think we can safelty assume agencies like SS and Adobe will NEVER go back to its shall we call good days, hey days if you know what I mean. Right now there are two agencies being launched next month. They are governed by people with huge experience and its 50/50 split with contributors. These are agencies who will gear themselves towards the creative buyers, designers, ad-agency people etc, etc and not to be mistaken for pic off the peg outfits.
Keep your eyes open it might be something who knows?
Eyes open this I want to see happen if truth.
So do I mate! so do I!...well there is bound to be "some" truth in it, question is will the truth be worth to consider as an option?
7
« on: November 27, 2018, 06:05 »
He didnt have to!
8
« on: November 27, 2018, 06:02 »
Made many mistakes Pete like we all Have, my Biggest was 2006, Myself and Bobby Deal , a very prolific guy]almost started our own agency. we even had contracts Made up. It was very simple. 50% split on every dollar that came in. I had the Best shooters ready and we just couldn't get it done sadly. I still own the Domain. "The Best of Royalty Free" if someone wants it. I also owned "ShutterstockMusic" and Jon blew his top On that One....LOL we settled friendly.BTW, this site was the first Place I advertised "The Beginners guide to Microstock Photography"
Yeah well Jon was once a helper he sold out and dumped us with a bunch of bean-counting suits and ever since the whole thing just excalates straight down the plug-hole!
9
« on: November 27, 2018, 03:00 »
If the facts dont fit the theory, change the facts. -Albert Einstein!
10
« on: November 27, 2018, 02:52 »
Why would SS hurry?? when theyre earning money on all stolen goods!
11
« on: November 26, 2018, 15:19 »
Whether people like it or not, the market is starting to consolidate. It's similar to social networks and search engines of yesteryear trying to compete with each other.
Everyone wants a piece of the pie until 2-3 giants take over the industry. And I believe the 2 giants of the microstock industry will be Shutterstock and Adobe Stock.
Adobe Stock because of its integration with its software and cloud products. Shutterstock because of their resources and business reach. I just don't see iStock or 123RF being able to challenge them in the next 10 years.
There's more competition among contributors than ever on SS and AS and it's not going to get any easier. Some contributors will do well, but most won't. There is no choice but to step up and compete against the best contributors of Microstock if you want success in this industry.
Too true! and a good post!........what you say is spot-on! and thats the time an intelligent person would move on!
12
« on: November 26, 2018, 15:04 »
They also bookmark a picture for future ref's go back and because of the constan search-change they cant find it!...oh well...
So they bookmark a single picture, and when they try to get it again, the URI for that picture has changed:? Run a mile from SS in that case. If that's really so, they have totally lost the plot. (Though to be honest, I can't see how the 'constant search change' would mean a single bookmarked pic couldn't be found. That would have to be a deliberate URI change.)
Yep! Just to give you an example! I know an AD at greys Advertising co who constantly buy hundreds perhaps even thousands of fill out shots for annuals, company profiles etc, etc and he always bookmark shots for future use, they all do! and when he goes back to page this or that the pics are gone of course, why?? well simply because they changed the algorithm which they always do!
The location or ID of an image doesn't change if the search changes. If you mean the person goes to page six of the search for something, or bookmarks that, that's really a dimwit move. New files come in, old files move, more popular move up. Only a total idiot would bookmark a page of a search for future use! Of course the search changes, it changes in minutes, hours and days, all the time.
Tell the truth, you made this AD persons experience up, right?
Yes of course I did!
Seems appropriate
Or maybe if he's real you should warn him, his job is at risk because he's incompetent and shouldn't be in such a position if he can't understand how the Internet works. What logical person would bookmark a search result for anything? I mean if it was an article on Google, the search page could be different in an hour. You have to bookmark the actual location or that or in the case of a photo, the actual photo, not a search?
Dont worry about it Pete, water under the bridge by now!.....it wasnt your statement just that it sparks off the usual glibb and waffle brigade!....anyway have you EVER seen or experienced an Art-Director at work looking for a picture in an agency?? utter stress! they will flick through 3-4 pages and then move on! unless its a major campaign then they drool over it for days, why? because the client spends a heck of a lot of money!
13
« on: November 26, 2018, 14:55 »
They also bookmark a picture for future ref's go back and because of the constan search-change they cant find it!...oh well...
So they bookmark a single picture, and when they try to get it again, the URI for that picture has changed:? Run a mile from SS in that case. If that's really so, they have totally lost the plot. (Though to be honest, I can't see how the 'constant search change' would mean a single bookmarked pic couldn't be found. That would have to be a deliberate URI change.)
Yep! Just to give you an example! I know an AD at greys Advertising co who constantly buy hundreds perhaps even thousands of fill out shots for annuals, company profiles etc, etc and he always bookmark shots for future use, they all do! and when he goes back to page this or that the pics are gone of course, why?? well simply because they changed the algorithm which they always do!
The location or ID of an image doesn't change if the search changes. If you mean the person goes to page six of the search for something, or bookmarks that, that's really a dimwit move. New files come in, old files move, more popular move up. Only a total idiot would bookmark a page of a search for future use! Of course the search changes, it changes in minutes, hours and days, all the time.
Tell the truth, you made this AD persons experience up, right?
Don't even read what this dude is writing, he's so full of lies, even he probably cannot differentiate between truth and lies from what he's saying.
This goes against your five core habbits!!...or?.......
14
« on: November 26, 2018, 14:38 »
Anyone who doesn't believe Shutterstock manipulates search to favor some contributors over others is drinking the kool aid.
Dont say things like that Shelma! soon you will have every newbie ghostbuster telling you youre imagining things because theyre getting 2 sales per day which in their eyes is exeptionally good!!!
15
« on: November 26, 2018, 14:25 »
Its a scam! just forget it!
16
« on: November 26, 2018, 14:24 »
Blimey fellas! hoho! no one forces you to join anything! stay stuck here then!! it was just some info you will find out soon enough anyway. Just an idea people, no big deal!
17
« on: November 26, 2018, 14:17 »
They also bookmark a picture for future ref's go back and because of the constan search-change they cant find it!...oh well...
So they bookmark a single picture, and when they try to get it again, the URI for that picture has changed:? Run a mile from SS in that case. If that's really so, they have totally lost the plot. (Though to be honest, I can't see how the 'constant search change' would mean a single bookmarked pic couldn't be found. That would have to be a deliberate URI change.)
Yep! Just to give you an example! I know an AD at greys Advertising co who constantly buy hundreds perhaps even thousands of fill out shots for annuals, company profiles etc, etc and he always bookmark shots for future use, they all do! and when he goes back to page this or that the pics are gone of course, why?? well simply because they changed the algorithm which they always do!
The location or ID of an image doesn't change if the search changes. If you mean the person goes to page six of the search for something, or bookmarks that, that's really a dimwit move. New files come in, old files move, more popular move up. Only a total idiot would bookmark a page of a search for future use! Of course the search changes, it changes in minutes, hours and days, all the time.
Tell the truth, you made this AD persons experience up, right?
Yes of course I did!
18
« on: November 26, 2018, 11:18 »
Paws and Everest!...well you could be right! however after so many years, 20! of working with all sorts of picture-agencies, for the first time in say the last 10 years, This sounds interesting, like a new avenue and train of thoughts really ( not the usual spiel about join us and all that crap) no the people involved are people with tons of photographic and running, knowing the routine of selling pictures and goes back all the way to 98, thats lots of know how!
Anyway the way I see it is that anything is better then having to be at the mercy of places that house 100-200 million pictures where because of all the garbage accepted some 70% should really have gone into the dustbin!
19
« on: November 26, 2018, 05:51 »
I think we can safelty assume agencies like SS and Adobe will NEVER go back to its shall we call good days, hey days if you know what I mean. Right now there are two agencies being launched next month. They are governed by people with huge experience and its 50/50 split with contributors. These are agencies who will gear themselves towards the creative buyers, designers, ad-agency people etc, etc and not to be mistaken for pic off the peg outfits.
Keep your eyes open it might be something who knows?
20
« on: November 25, 2018, 12:15 »
I wonder if SS should do what Dreamstime does- any image that doesn't sell in a time period is removed. Of course, if SS just didn't accept the poor image in the first place they wouldn't have to worry about cleaning it up!
How's DT doing? Hmm, they went from 13.6 four years ago, people here earning an average of $680 a month to now, averaging $230 a month. Some great plan?
I won't neglect that SS has dropped $500 a month for the average person here as well.
I've gone from around $180 a month to $20 a month on DT and from $800 a month on SS to, well, this month will be $400, last month $500, so a drop based on a sudden change.
Haha! get this for a laugh!! this is a right rollercoaster! I have gone from 2500/month to 1800 down to 800 and nowadays 600!! oh yeah bar Sept which was around 800. this is true!!! I am down 4 times the amount I originally was earning!.........no wonder people are losing faith in SS. As far as DT?? dead, dead, just dead! Now you woul think Adobe would try and capitalize on this BUT they dont they are immitating SS in every move, takes a couple of weeks and they they do exactly what SS is doing!
21
« on: November 25, 2018, 03:24 »
Could be. Or it could be a videographer they want to work with. Or their algorithm could just favor contributors with the lowest royalty rate, which seems most likely. That way Shutterstock maximizes profits, because they keep more of the money made from each sale.
The royalty rate is always 30% for footage. So, no.
But I would assume most footage contributors also contribute still images, so their royalty rates would be different for those. And since still images sell more than footage, the algorithm would still benefit Shutterstock.
Sorry Shelma, Wrong assumption. If you contribute footage, you would never, ever want to contribute still images as well
Why do you say that? I mean I dont know but I certainly contribute both and have done for ages mostly to the trad agencies but still. Given this forum I would have thought most people do both?
22
« on: November 24, 2018, 13:41 »
They also bookmark a picture for future ref's go back and because of the constan search-change they cant find it!...oh well...
So they bookmark a single picture, and when they try to get it again, the URI for that picture has changed:? Run a mile from SS in that case. If that's really so, they have totally lost the plot. (Though to be honest, I can't see how the 'constant search change' would mean a single bookmarked pic couldn't be found. That would have to be a deliberate URI change.)
Yep! Just to give you an example! I know an AD at greys Advertising co who constantly buy hundreds perhaps even thousands of fill out shots for annuals, company profiles etc, etc and he always bookmark shots for future use, they all do! and when he goes back to page this or that the pics are gone of course, why?? well simply because they changed the algorithm which they always do!
23
« on: November 24, 2018, 10:12 »
Its true! SS is collecting all the garbage under the sun! pics that normally would be thrown away are accepted all over the place.
If I had to choose one factor that is hurting SS the most it's this.
I agree and I suspect the sheer number of images is putting their IT under strain....my belief is they've fallen for the hype that "intellegent" search engines mean the rubbish will be hidden so deep no one need worry. I'd love to hear more from buyers about their experience.
Exactly! but you know there are many kind of buyers you got the ordinary guy who just wants a webbie knows nothing about composition, photography etc and this kind of buyer dont care but then you have the creative buyer type ad-agency, art and creative AD and so forth, designers who demands quality and I can only speak of the ones I know personally, work with and have recommended an agency. They do not go to SS anymore, too time consuming they say, too much irrelevant material to pass. They also bookmark a picture for future ref's go back and because of the constan search-change they cant find it!...oh well...
24
« on: November 24, 2018, 07:16 »
Haha! yes in London $10 just about pay for 2 lagers in a Pub!....in countries like Sweden and Norway a coffee is like $7 and a beer in a Pub around $10, one stop on the underground in Stockholm $10!
"Craft Beer" is the thing now....$10 would be a bargain!
Craft beer?? whats that?? me I just ask for a pint of bitter or lager and thats it!...you want a pint of Urquel or something in Oslo its about 20 bucks!
25
« on: November 24, 2018, 07:13 »
I doubt their search engine has been hacked. Illustrators have been noticing this for a while now. Newbie ports are pushed to the top of the search and established contributors work is pushed back. Ive seen many instances of newbie ports suddenly taking over the entire first page of search results. But when I say it people laugh and make jokes about conspiracy theories. Now youre seeing it with footage. So now you see what I see.
This is the trouble in stills as well, the search the buyers see and the geographical search is all newbie content and also from very specific countries in the world and its NOT the rich countries!
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 36
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|