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 - PaulieWalnuts

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 119
1
General Stock Discussion / Re: Licensing opportunity question
« on: September 01, 2021, 21:59 »
Depends on the terms of the contract. You should really find out what the images are being used for and make sure there isn't any legal verbiage that may be problematic for you later.

2
General Stock Discussion / Re: Time For A Veteran To Walk Away
« on: August 19, 2021, 08:04 »
Best of health and fortune to you!

3
How is your experience with contest on FAA? That contest help to improve sales? Thanks!
This is my profile there. fineartamerica.com/profiles/1-alexander-sanchez   :)

I've tried a couple. Probably not enough to judge sales effectiveness. All of the extra likes, comments and other stuff and supposed to improve search engine placement and in turn improve sales. I'd prefer to spend time on creating new work and let SEO do its thing.

4
Selling Stock Direct / Re: Rights managed website solutions
« on: July 23, 2021, 06:42 »
I use Photoshelter and also Photodeck. Considering dropping Photoshelter after using them for probably over ten years.

Photodeck is a turn-key website platform. Licensing can be configured so I created a custom RM model. If you know SEO, Photodeck seems to do reasonably well with search engine ranking. They have trials so check them out.

5
https://www.artstorefronts.com/

It's under POD because that's what I see on the surface?

Not using it but looked into it a few years ago. It's a turnkey art platform to build your own website. I remember being put off because there was a whole involved process of demo and sales pitch. And I couldn't just sign up for a trial to see if it met my needs. Pricing also doesn't seem to be public and after I dug it up it's pretty expensive. Plus they take a transaction fee on your sales.

Again, it's just a website platform. As part of their offering they claim to provide marketing assistance but some of the comments I've seen have been mixed. You only make as many sales as the customers you bring.

This is older info but gives some perspective https://theabundantartist.com/artstorefronts-com-review-done-print-demand-service/

I'm working on a Shopify site now.

6
123RF / Re: Data Breach At 123RF
« on: June 07, 2021, 22:26 »
Whether it's a new breach, or the old one, our data is already being sold. I use a unique email for every online account I create. I now receive spam ads to my unique 123RF email address.

7
Commission cuts always follow when a company gets shareholders.

Their next move will of course be more commission cuts.

When did Alamy get share holders?

Also when the company is sold to someone new, who will always try to get more of the value, that wasn't tapped before. 11 Feb 2020: PA Media Group has bought stock images business Alamy for an undisclosed fee, the company has announced.

Alamy can look forward to a fantastic future as part of the PA Media Group.  ::)

And the obvious?

Alamy prides itself on offering a better commission rate than most other agencies. Will PA Media Group continue to offer the same commission rates to Alamys existing contributors?

There are no plans to change that.

Yeah we all believed that lie, as soon as Alamy was sold. Here we are with the new "no plans" changes, as expected.

LOL. Here's what it should have said.

"There are no plans to change that... for now"
"There are no plans to change that... until our plans change"
"There are no plans to change that... and by change we mean no increase"

Seriously, is anyone making a profit doing this anymore? What percentage of people even track profitability? Or is this just now hobbyists who don't care how much they spend on their hobby while these companies get filthy rich?

8
who/what is "PA"?
https://www.pressgazette.co.uk/pa-group-acquires-stock-images-firm-alamy

I wasn't even aware this happened. Seems they're trying to get more return out of their investment using SS and IS as a template of how to wring contributors dry. I stopped submitting to stock sites years ago. I keep hoping something is going to turn around to give me an incentive to start producing stock again but this is just another move in the wrong direction for us.

10
Alamy has copied the micros with a carrot/stick jump through the flaming hoop tiered commission model. Enjoy.

https://www.alamy.com/terms/contributor-contract-changes.aspx?

11
Selling Stock Direct / Re: Selling at Own Website
« on: May 16, 2021, 19:54 »
You need to have a strategy. Just dumping your existing micro work on your own website will likely be a waste of time. You need to have something unique that's different from what's sold in micro. Otherwise, if you offer the same thing as micro why would anyone want to go to your site over just using micro? Offering lower price won't matter. You need unique content buyers cant get on micro. You also need to be an SEO expert to get traffic. A few years ago I created a completely new style of work just for me own site. I use Photodeck and have had decent results. I'm looking into creating a new site with Shopify.

I tried Google, Facebook and other ads and for me it was a waste of time and money. I'm sure other people have had success but not me. Same thing with social media as a whole. Some people are great at using it for marketing and I've had no success with it. If you're a social media expert that's great. Otherwise it's SEO.


12
Don't these agencies realize the quality of stock photography will diminish greatly if photographers are only earning 10 cents an image which includes enhanced/extended licensing? Even the "new/pumped up generation" would probably not stay long at that royalty ...

Also, inflation is coming. They are reducing our pay while the cost of everything is going up.
'

I think they've realized quite the opposite. They can continue decreasing royalties and new contributors easily fill any losses. Unsplash has proven there is no shortage of gullible people who are willing to give free work away to ruthless businesspeople posing as philanthropists. They will keep decreasing royalties until they see a negative impact and there doesn't seem to be any end in sight.

13
I was just wondering 

Could Dreamstime turn out to be the Next Big Thing???

You have to see the pattern here I hope.
- Getty/Istock is evil we love Shutterstock
- Oh, uh, Shutterstock is now evil, we love Adobe
- Oh, uh, Adobe is now evil, we love.........


Yeah, I actually do see that pattern. My question was meant to be tongue-in-cheek, or maybe ironic.

Haaa, okay. I've seen this exact same question asked over and over so I missed the sarcasm on this one.

14
I was just wondering 

Could Dreamstime turn out to be the Next Big Thing???

You have to see the pattern here I hope.
- Getty/Istock is evil we love Shutterstock
- Oh, uh, Shutterstock is now evil, we love Adobe
- Oh, uh, Adobe is now evil, we love.........

ETA: I keep reading about blockchain technology at some point potentially connecting individuals and cutting out the corporations. Will be interesting to see where it goes.

15
iStockPhoto.com / Re: Istock acquires Unsplash
« on: March 31, 2021, 12:30 »
So let me get this straight. Getty Images, a company known for shrewd financial business practices, is going to take their profits and invest in growing a standalone company that provides free photos? Riiiiiiiiiggghht! If there wasn't a method or loophole to monetize Unsplash and boost Getty profits and revenue, there would be zero interest from Getty. It'll be interesting to see how they spin this in their financial favor while also continuing to not pay contributors anything.

16
General Stock Discussion / Re: Microstock vs. Unsplash
« on: March 31, 2021, 07:28 »
Who didn't see the acquisition of Unsplash coming? In fact, who thinks the entire purpose of Unsplash was to build a free collection and sell it for a ton of money. Oh the irony.

I love the altruistic messaging of Unsplash.  "Unsplash is a platform powered by an amazing community that has gifted hundreds of thousands of their own photos to fuel creativity around the world".  And in the end, all of those photographers who felt a sense of philanthropy by "gifting" their work are now getting a lesson in ruthless business. It will be interesting to read reactions from their contributors.


17
iStockPhoto.com / Re: "exciting" News from Getty
« on: March 11, 2021, 20:26 »
Before I deleted the email, I noticed this.

Briefs are moving home! Soon you will be able to browse briefs and submit your content, all in ESP. And were not stopping there later in the year we will be introducing a new, simpler look to the ESP website, so stay tuned!

Maybe [idle speculation] too many people were opting out of the briefs emails, or ignoring them.

Count me in, I don't even know what "briefs" are.

Those things you wear around your lower regions.

18
General Stock Discussion / Re: Quality of stock photo
« on: March 09, 2021, 12:39 »
...Technical quality has decreased. When I first started 14 years ago the technical quality was very stringent including lists of acceptable DSLRs. Now low quality cell phone photos are fine. ...

'acceptable' dslrs has always been a silly criteria - alamy always had a banned list altho most of my early digitals (ca 2002-2006)were taken w a camera that used floppy disk storage! all the other agencies accepted these (and alamy often did too, which shows just how silly it was - technically images were fine and i suspect the rejects were from metadata.  sales were good

Yeah I didn't really agree with the list method but it was their game their rules. Point being, they used to have strict rules for technical quality and don't anymore. Phones are fine. I have the iPhone 12 Pro Max and am underwhelmed by the new raw feature and overall image quality. It's still nowhere even close to the quality of the Nikon D50 I had fifteen years ago.

19
General Stock Discussion / Re: Quality of stock photo
« on: March 09, 2021, 07:31 »
I really appreciate the feedback received so far, keep it coming.   It confirms my bias -  I think that to make money from stock photography one would be well-advised to buy shares.  Dividends for shareholders are more generous than commissions for photographers.   When I started ten years ago, the figure old timers would cite was one dollar of return for each photo per year.  A portfolio of 1000 high quality photos would yield about 1 thousand dollars per year.  I think that in today's market, it is about ten cents per year and the same quality portfolio of 1000 returns $100 per annum.     


Hello:

I am preparing an article about stock photography.  Those of you who have been in this business for a number of years, do you agree that

-over the years, the quality of stock photo increased tremendously

-Prices and commissions decreased dramatically and out of the millions of stock photographers, very few make a living from stock photography and those who do have highly specialised portfolios

-Would you advise a young photographer to join the industry?

Thank you for your feedback

  • Content quality has increased. Technical quality has decreased. When I first started 14 years ago the technical quality was very stringent including lists of acceptable DSLRs. Now low quality cell phone photos are fine.
  • Correct
  • No. And the reason I say this is profitability and continued decline. Collections are now massive with huge competition while these sites continue to decrease commissions. So it would be difficult to make a profit and even if you did it's likely to decline long term.

$1 per image per year used to be what beginners could expect. Top contributors were earning well over $12 per portfolio image per year and up to $60 PIPY. There's another post on here where a "top contributor" is earning about 50 cents PIPY from SS. If he's submitting to a dozen sites he may be at $.75-$1.00 PIPY total. That's a huge drop from the average ten years ago and still headed downward. And this is why I said no in #3. You'd be getting into this knowing the results won't be good long term. I'm sure a small fraction of people can be successful but for most people the gold rush is long over.

20
I reckon Shutterstock have got their back against a wall now. They can't cut contributor earnings to a meaningful cost-cutting level now less big producers of high quality content finally unlicense or withdraw their ports. Very unlikely they'll be able to raise prices on customers. Their other cost cutting avenues are drying up so contributor earnings is all they have left to savage. Their arrogance is almost certain they'll overreach to protect profits and share value and it's gonna come right back and hit them where it hurts and hard.

They have plenty more slight of hand tweaks they can do to the royalty structure to where you'd have no idea what you're earning. That will be the innovation to offset stalled growth.

Interesting that Royalty Free is what microstock invented and it's now probably a big cause of stalled growth. Customers can just keep using the same images over and over for their websites, mailers, financial reports and on and on. After they've been paying for years and have a huge amount of stockpiled images there's really not much of a reason to continue paying the monthly subscription. And I'm sure the massive copyright infringement from free-for-all copying of RF images online isn't helping. I can only hope for an implosion and correction toward more reasonable royalties.

21
Part of the problem is every newcomer doesn't realize it's in decline and many don't care. So if they only earn $100 from 10,000 images they wouldn't know any better.

It's:

  • Better than nothing
  • Better than collecting dust on computer
  • Good enough for them
  • A hobby so financials like profits matter
  • Amazing someone wants to pay anything for their photos
  • Helps pay the bills during tough times
  • And on and on

I'm sure a lot of people are selling at a loss and don't even know it. Spend time and money on equipment, props, models, gas, and never hit break even.
If you have the equipment and travel to those places anyway the cost is in effect zero. I gave up with models as it lost money. Now I just do stuff that is extremely easy to produce....it doesn't sell much but it only costs me time that I would probably be wasting anyway. To invest money in production costs  seems very risky to me at this point.

Problem is (for the stock sites) because of the declining return for photos,  more and more photogs will give up on high production value and there will be less and less marketable images for the sites to sell because it isn't worth it for the photogs any more.

Right. Some of the sites had content requests along the lines of "attractive elderly couples playing shuffleboard on a cruise ship". So assuming you aren't already going on a cruise with your attractive elderly grandparents and their friends, this would seem to be a difficult, high effort and high cost shoot. Back when RM sites were paying top dollar you could probably quickly break even. Now? I doubt it unless you worked out some special deal for premium non-subscription licensing. Otherwise, it's a lot of pennies, nickles and dimes to turn a profit.

22
I believe that the old stocker are running short of new ideas. They are dreaming of the good old days, when they had the new ideas.

I have plenty of sellable ideas and there are still a lot of gaps in content. What I'm running short of is motivation to create new content due to lack of reasonable and profitable royalties.

23
Part of the problem is every newcomer doesn't realize it's in decline and many don't care. So if they only earn $100 from 10,000 images they wouldn't know any better.

It's:

  • Better than nothing
  • Better than collecting dust on computer
  • Good enough for them
  • A hobby so financials like profits matter
  • Amazing someone wants to pay anything for their photos
  • Helps pay the bills during tough times
  • And on and on

I'm sure a lot of people are selling at a loss and don't even know it. Spend time and money on equipment, props, models, gas, and never hit break even.
This exact same post could be written 5, 10 or 15 years ago. There was someone somewhere saying the exact same thing about us when we were starting. There is a great quote from Nobel priced writer Ivo Andric who said - Every generation thinks that they are living through crucial events in history, but the truth is history is just repeating itself over and over again.

Yes that's what I'm getting at. Many newcomers, including me 15 years ago, thought at that time that earning anything was great. The old time stockers weren't happy at all. Now a lot of us are the old timers. Every year the income bar gets set lower and the newcomers don't know or care. That's how its always been.

24
Part of the problem is every newcomer doesn't realize it's in decline and many don't care. So if they only earn $100 from 10,000 images they wouldn't know any better.

It's:

  • Better than nothing
  • Better than collecting dust on computer
  • Good enough for them
  • A hobby so financials like profits matter
  • Amazing someone wants to pay anything for their photos
  • Helps pay the bills during tough times
  • And on and on

I'm sure a lot of people are selling at a loss and don't even know it. Spend time and money on equipment, props, models, gas, and never hit break even.
If you have the equipment and travel to those places anyway the cost is in effect zero. I gave up with models as it lost money. Now I just do stuff that is extremely easy to produce....it doesn't sell much but it only costs me time that I would probably be wasting anyway. To invest money in production costs  seems very risky to me at this point.

Over the years, how many people used the equipment they already had vs buying new/better equipment because of stock? Better computer, camera, lenses, bag, tripod, etc. I'd bet a large percentage of people bought better gear once they figured out they could earn money. I started with a Nikon D50 and by the time I stopped investing time in stock I was using a Canon 5DMII.

25
Part of the problem is every newcomer doesn't realize it's in decline and many don't care. So if they only earn $100 from 10,000 images they wouldn't know any better.

It's:

  • Better than nothing
  • Better than collecting dust on computer
  • Good enough for them
  • A hobby so financials like profits matter
  • Amazing someone wants to pay anything for their photos
  • Helps pay the bills during tough times
  • And on and on

I'm sure a lot of people are selling at a loss and don't even know it. Spend time and money on equipment, props, models, gas, and never hit break even.


Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 119

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle