pancakes

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 - Firn

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 14
1
Off Topic / Re: Covid spreading again - World Markets Crashing
« on: December 04, 2021, 11:04 »
Driving and shooting are skills you have to learn before you can physically do them so needing a license for those activities is very different from severely restricting the lives of the unvaccinated.
Nha, maybe the driving wasn't the best example, but the shooting? Tell that to the country with 329,5 Millionen people where everyone is allowed to use a gun without any licence. Shooting doesn't require any learned skills, it's pulling a trigger. Aiming probably is a different story.
But the reasons why you are not allowed a gun without a license in Germany is not because it's a skill you have to learn. We just don't like havin maniacs with guns here for the safety of people. You can do all the training required for a license in Germany and still be refused one, because the requirements include things like "giving a good reason why you actually need gun", but also proving that you are not mentally ill, an alcoholic and so on. In Germany (which is what we were talking about), not everyone can have and use a gun (actually two different things in Germany with different licenses) not because you need training, but because it's not safe  - So actually EXACT the same reason as for restricting the lives of the unvaccinated.

2
Off Topic / Re: Covid spreading again - World Markets Crashing
« on: December 04, 2021, 06:20 »

One example: there are reliable official figures that people with driving license were even involved in accidents.
It's actually much worse than that, it's not just people with driving licences being involved in some accidents. Did you know that in over 99% of car accidents in Germany the cars involved were driven by people with driving licenses?! The numbers are very clear. Only people without driving licenses should drive cars, but the German government is way too much into controlling and oppression to ever let it come that far.

3
Alamy.com / Re: Alamy sale for 7 cents
« on: December 04, 2021, 05:21 »

Congratulations! You got 47% more than me for a sale with the same licence type on Alamy last month.

4
Off Topic / Re: Covid spreading again - World Markets Crashing
« on: December 04, 2021, 04:54 »
...
. Protests against vaccination almost always end in riots and vandalism. Vaccinated people are extremely annoyed by this, but do not take to the streets, do not destroy anything, almost no threats.
. Doctors, virologists are threatened, hospitals secured.
...

I have to wonder what these same people had to say about the BLM protests when they were going on...

Most people seem to  think for their cause alone their methods are justified.
I condemn all types of violence, even if it is for a cause I agree with. Violent riots from BLM movements, anti-vax.... it's never acceptable, no matter how noble the cause.  Violent riots will always cause innocent people to suffer. Reporters and photographers, police officers who are just doing their job getting hurt, property getting destroyed. It's basically  terrorism. "I threaten innocent people with violence to I get my way".  But nothing surprises me at this point. The world is a sad place with too many people havng no empathy.

5
Off Topic / Re: Covid spreading again - World Markets Crashing
« on: December 03, 2021, 12:18 »
The latest studies of household transmission showed almost no difference and proved that fully vaccinated individuals with breakthrough infections have peak viral load similar to unvaccinated cases


In this case giving covid-passes only to vaccinated and restricting non vaccinated to anything is nothing but segregation and has absolutely no scientific weight. Everyone should be tested cause bouth groups have same viral load and represent same danger.

Yes, it's true that infected vaccinated people have the same level of virus load, which doesn't mean much, because studies have also shown that:
- They don't get infected as often in the first place (up to 85% less shortly after the latest dose of vaccine, but depending on the vaccine like for example with Moderna even after 6 month it's still 60%). Thus vaccinated people who don't get infected don't infect others.
- While they have the same virus load the virus particles are actually less infectious then with not vaccinated people. So, again, less chance to infect others.
 - The duration for which they are infectious is much shorther than with not vaccinated people.

And, OF COURSE it has  scientific weight - because what maters - actually the really ONLY thing that matters in the end, is whether you get sick. Because if no one got sick, we wouldn't have any problems with corona being spread around. And even if vaccinated people can in fact infect others if they themselves are infected - even though the chance is much smaller - the risk of them actually getting sick is even smaller. Therefore they aren't at such a high risk of dying, and, most important, aren't the cause of any possible collaps of the health sector.

I have attached a screenshot from last week's report of the official German institute for disease control and prevention. On the left you see listed corona cases with symptoms. Not all people who were infected/tested positive. Just the ones who actually got sick from the virus. On the right you have all cases of people who got corona and got so sick that they have to be treated a the hospital. The different rows show different age groups.
The dotted lines are not vaccinated people, the other line is vaccinated people. I think these diagrams speak very loud and clear why vaccintions are important, why they help and why it makes sense to allow vaccinated people more than not vaccinated people, even IF they can infect others (which is only a problem because - duh! - others aren't vaccinated!).

6
Off Topic / Re: Covid spreading again - World Markets Crashing
« on: December 03, 2021, 03:56 »

How can traveling from one end of a country to another spread a new virus mutation from Africa to European Union in short time ? 
Is this a serious question?

Person A from Europe travels to Africa and meets Person B who is infected with the virus mutation. Person A gets infected.  A few days later Person A travels back to Europe. Virus is spread across the world.

Vaccinated or not has nothing to do with this. There is no vaccine in the world that provides a 100% protection. The chance of getting infected gets smaller, but it'S always still there.

7
Shutterstock.com / Re: Asset Data on SS
« on: December 01, 2021, 02:42 »

I really wonder which criteria they use.

The only thing I could figure out was that time of upload seems to play a role. Images I uploaded less than 12 months ago always seem to be "not used yet", no matter how often they actually sold.  What a great way to promote newer content....  ::)

8
Shutterstock.com / Re: Asset Data on SS
« on: December 01, 2021, 01:31 »
Yeah, my bestsellers with hundrets of sales on Shutterstock are "not used yet".  ;D
The data is all messed up.

9
Off Topic / Re: Covid spreading again - World Markets Crashing
« on: November 30, 2021, 05:11 »
However, there are very big question marks for me as well when it comes to Corona stats.
One example:
The most densely populated country in the western world is Bangladesh. The vaccination rate for fully vaccinated people there is only 22%. The infection rate is less than 1%. I actually wonder how that is possible, if the statistics are even halfway reliable. Do people there have a different genetic immune response to the virus?

I have some theory.
In most western countries Corona was really bad in winter and spring, when we had lockdowns all over the western world. In summer we had basically no lockdowns whatsoever and we still don't really in Germany. I mean, we still have soccer games with 40.000 visitors.  ::)
Lockdowns always have the same effect: Numbers go down. Then lockdowns are lifted and numbers slowly start to rise again.

In Bangladesh things were a bit different. They actually had their peak of infections and death cases in August. This is probably because Bangladesh has tropical climate with no winter, so the infection cases there don't work in the same summer-winter rhythm as in European countries. That's why they also had lockdowns till October. Schools were closed, travel bans from some regions, at some point during summer even all workspaces that were not essential had to close - so this was even a way more extreme lockdown than for example in Germany.

So Bangladesh basically just came out of a total lockdown last month, which is why right now the Corona infection cases are as low as they are in any other country after a strict lockdown.


And yes, underreporting is also an issue in Bangladesh. They apparently only test people in hospitals. But that's not the explanation for the rise and fall of reported cases, just for an overall possible lower case number. I think the quite simple explanation is really that they just came out of a lockdown.

 (I have taken the data for all this from the reuters webpage, if anyone wants to take a look. They show all in neat graphs with infection and death cases but also with lockdowns and what measures were taken. )

10
Off Topic / Re: Covid spreading again - World Markets Crashing
« on: November 29, 2021, 15:43 »


There is this Stanford study that claims to have proven that lockdowns have little effect. Other scientists criticize this study. The term "scientifically proven" is very flexible, but that was already the case before Corona.

That's why I have purposefully and very specifically used the term "scientific consensus" before.

There are all kinds of studies that are messed up, because they were not made under correct circumstances. Take studies of various ingredients of anti-aging creames. They all claim that they reduce wrinkles and that this was proven in studies, but if you actually take the effort to look up the details of the study, it's very often something like "tested on 20 women, no control group, results were based on the women's personal assessment". That's a "study" alright, doesn't prove anything though. The number of study participants is way too low,  the lack of a control group could mean that moisture from the cream alone was enoug to reduce wrinkles, not any special ingredient and self-assessment alone isn't any scientific correct method. .

That's why a single study or a single opinion doesn't equal "scientifically proven". But if 100.000 scientist around the world make various proper studies, collect data, evaluate them, create meta-studies and all come to the same conclusion you talk about "scientific consensus". If then some single scientist comes around and says "No, I disagree" that is not "scientific consensus". But conspiracy theorists will rather believe that single one instead of the 100.000.

If you take scientific consensus into account, "scientifically proven" is not flexible at all.

11
Off Topic / Re: Covid spreading again - World Markets Crashing
« on: November 29, 2021, 10:52 »
. They/I dont agree with what you think. Too bad!

They and you also don't agree with scientists all over the world who have studied their fields of expertise for decades. Why you think you have any ability to judge these matters better than experts is absolutely baffling to me. Is it sheer arrogance and the believe that by having read a few news articles you know more than they do? What sane person would thinks so?

12
Off Topic / Re: Covid spreading again - World Markets Crashing
« on: November 29, 2021, 06:18 »


This is exactly where the problem lies, because it is not like that.

There is official data that they believe in. But they only believe in the data they want to believe in.


Yes, of course there are people like this too. But I have come across enough people who aren't like this, who will not believe any official data at all, not even misinterpreted ones, because they think this is all a lie - Covid is just a flu, people aren't dying of it more often than from the flu, the hospitals in Germany are half empty, the vaccine has no efficiency and so on.... I am talking about the people who think it's a big made up conspiracy to either introduce some crazy new world order, purposefully kill off half of the world populaion with vaccine, or for someone to get rich. Crazy people. And there are way too many of these. I make the mistake of daily reading the comments on corona related posts of the Tagesschau and our local newspaper facebook page. Sometimes I thnk I might become crazy myself just by reading all that absolutely ridiculous crazy stuff people post there.
Though I don't think there is any point in discussing with people who think the facts that suit them are true and the ones that don't are fake - because it comes down to the same - They will not believe the facts you will present them to get across your point, so a waste of time in any way.

13
Off Topic / Re: Covid spreading again - World Markets Crashing
« on: November 29, 2021, 05:23 »
I have tried to reason with many people like this mayself. Mostly on the internet as I actually only know one single person in my circle of acquaintances who refuses to get vaccinated. And for me there is always one point where I walk away from the discussion and deem it a worthless waste of time and that's when people tell me that they think scietific facts based on scientific consensus are fake/wrong/lies.
That's really the one point where I think these people are a lost cause, because there is absolutely no way to reason with them as every proof, every fact you can provide to them based on scientific evidence they won't believe anyways.
So how in the world would anyone have a sane discussion with someone like this? There is nothing you can tell them that will make them see reason, because they believe it's all a lie. And the most absurd thing is that, while they believe all the official data is fake, they instead chose to form their opinion based on no data at all - because no conspiracy theorists ever could provide any other data - Death cases, hospitalization cases, infection cases, - this data is all collected by official institutions. There is no "alternate" data any cospiracy theorists would have access to, so their whole argumentation is based on wild assumptions in opposite to facts. I seriously believe these people have lost it, it's a form of insanity and there is no argument in the world that you can offer such people to make them change their mind, so don't waste your time trying.

14
Off Topic / Re: Covid spreading again - World Markets Crashing
« on: November 28, 2021, 10:50 »
The problem with this news is that the population in Africa is extremely young. Only around 4% of the population is over 65. And since covid symptoms are usually more mild when younger people get infected, it's only natural that most cases will be mild in general. Hard to tell what the new variant will cause in a population with more people of older age.
 So it's hard to really make any conclusions yet. I do hope it turns out to be true - it would be the more logical mutation as a virus wants to spread, not to kill the host before it can spread. But so far I don't think we have enough data to tell.
At the speed its spreading and considering it has reached so many other countries already (also already several confirmed cases here in Germany) we should probably know in 2 or 3 weeks, maybe earlier as it seems it might have a faster incubation period as well. There was the case of two infected people in Hongkong (that unfortunately didn't have mild symptoms, at least one of them had to be hospitalized) and they were tested negative at first and positive with an extremely high virus rate only like 3 days later.

I must admit, I am not all that hopeful. The new variant will cause us many problems for sure. Even if it only causes mild symptoms for most people, its tendency to spread more easily and faster will make up for that and infect more people, so in the end cause the same amount or even more severe cases, especially if the vaccine won't be as effective anymore. I've been too hopeful of a positive turn of events in this pandemic and have been disappointed too often, so I will now expect the worse and be thankful if it doesn't turn out that way instead of the other way around.

15
Alamy.com / Re: No money
« on: November 22, 2021, 02:03 »

$.18 is better than $.10 on SS---

Not necessarily, because you get the full 0.10$ on SS, on Alamy you just get a part of it that, depending on your rank this might just be as low as 0.4$ and 0.11$ if you get 60% at best.

Also, since I had such a sale on Alamay myself only yestreday and see the details: On SS for a 0.10$ sale the customer would "only" be allowed to print the image in a newspaper with up to half a million copies. This is bad enough, but Alamy is topping that by allowing an unlimited print run. For 0.4-0.11$. Depending on the print run of the newspaper this could have been an extended licence on SS.

16
Alamy.com / Re: Alamy Demographic Survey
« on: November 20, 2021, 07:07 »

But the main thing (as mentioned already above) is how can  you claim to be 'ethical' while selling files for low prices and scraping off 60%?
What would you say if a customer asked  you that? "We do it because we have all the power. Suppliers are free to leave."?

Let's be realistic here. The problem is, the customers most likely won't ask for that. Every company wants to join on the diversity bandwagon these days. Not because they are so concerned about the issue, but because it's "in" these days. It's a marketing strategy. "Oh, look, we are so diverse!"  They probably want to print in some flyer how diverse their image providers are.
And I think it's good that diversity is more represented these days! I am all for inclusion. I just don't buy that it's anything but a marketing campaign when I see for example an advertisement for a body lotion with women of different skin colors and body shapes. I don't feel like it's "honest".
Payment on the other hand? Most companies don't care what the contributors or any other workers get paid. They got away with paying low wages forever. No one but the people getting paid poorly really care, because everyone fears that paying them fairer will lead to higher prices somewhere for someone else one way or another.
"Paying well" is not in, but everything is about diversity these days. Diversity doesn't cost a company anything.

17
General Stock Discussion / Re: Etsy petition - NOT signing this!
« on: November 16, 2021, 12:16 »
This petition is about protecting people, from reading it, it is about consumer rights for both the sellers and purchasers.

I can't see anything wrong in that.
No, this petition is about etsy not wanting to be held accountable if someone steals your artwork and sells it on etsy.

18
Adobe Stock / Re: Payout query
« on: November 16, 2021, 10:48 »
I don't think payout on Adobe takes all that long compared to other agencies? I always request my payout at the last day of the month. I got my money on the 4th this month, last month it was on the 7th. With 4-7 days Adobe doesn't seem to take longer than other agencies?

It's similar to SS and istock/getty and faster than most of the others:  On Alamy my earliest payment was on the 8th and the lastest on the 13th of a month. Depositphotos is random. I had payment sent to me on the same day I made the request before, sometimes it takes several days. Bigstock is the worst, because they always pay you on the 15th and If you reach minimum payout and request payment on the 16th you will have to wait a full month till the payment is processed.

19
General Stock Discussion / Re: This month's sales
« on: November 15, 2021, 16:01 »


Look what I saw on Pinterest, Firn - another one to add to your online uses!

https://www.pinterest.com.au/pin/623748617151939273/

 ;D Thank you!

20
Shutterstock.com / Re: SS annual plan fraud
« on: November 12, 2021, 12:40 »
I can't just order something online, then I cancel my account with the online shop and think that makes my sales agreement invalid. This is not really different.

It is a whole lot different. I didn't cancel a purchase and I certainly didn't get any product shipped in return for my recurring payment. If I cancel an order in an online shop as long as it's technically possible (i.e. not in delivery) it's just cancelled. I wouldn't want my money back just because I changed my mind when it's already on the way. And in that case I'm happy (or unhappy) at least with the physical product i got.

In this case, however, they are billing for what exactly?

Yes, you didn't cancel a purchase - you just deleted your account. That's the problem.
And you did get a "product" - The product of Shuttertock's annual subsription plan is that you are allowed to download X images per month. You don't have to, but you will still get charged, not for the images, but for being allowed to download them. It's like an online newspaper subscription: If you subscribe, you have to pay, regardless of whether you actually read all, a few or no online articles at all.
You agreed to that.

Look, most of us like to bash Shuttesrtock wherever we can, but in this case you are just wrong. This is not fraud. You agreed to these terms and conditions when signing up for the trial!

Quote
The 10 images per month annual plan will automatically charge you each month for EUR XX , allowing you to continue to download content without interruption. If you wish to cancel during your free trial period, visit the Plans section of the My Account page here
.  The link leads to your account page where you will find a link called "Cancel plan early" which you have to cklick on before the free trial period ends. That's what you have to do to cancel the plan and you agreed to that, so you can't call it fraud whenthe only problem here is that you did not follow the cancellation process you agreed to.

Don't sign stuff on the internet without properly reading what you sign up for! No one really wants to give you anything for "free".



21
Shutterstock.com / Re: SS annual plan fraud
« on: November 12, 2021, 11:10 »
How is it not fraud that you have no membership with them, no affiliation whatsoever, you have deleted your account a long ago and they keep charging you for services they cannot and will not render? What am I actually buying from them? What am I paying for?


You signed a treaty with them when you signed up for the free trial. You have to read it, understand it and cancel it accordingly. It's all written there. That's why it is not fraud. And it's normal practice for any service that offers a free trial. No one really wants to give you anything for "free". They all want you to keep your subscription. Is it a nice practice? No, of course not! But is it fraud? No! You agreed to these terms.
I can't just order something online, then I cancel my account with the online shop and think that makes my sales agreement invalid. This is not really different.

22
General Stock Discussion / Re: This month's sales
« on: November 12, 2021, 06:04 »

Same here. AS has a really great algorithm IMO. If you get quick sales on new work, the algorithm repays you tenfold. And thats where I am making the most money. More so on AS than other agencies.

I haven't put any of my work there up for free. Don't know if that makes a difference or not.
Please tell me your secret then!
Because I can't get Adobe to sell new content at all. Most of my sales there seem to come from a fixed set of older images that keep selling regularly and once in a full moon some random other image will sell, but I don't have any other agency where new images sell as poorly (= basically not at all) as on Adobe!  Getting new content to sell is difficult on all agencies to begin with, but on Adobe I always thought they had the worst algorithm for promoting new content of all agencies.
 :o

Firn, I hope you don't mind but I had a quick look at your new work on SS, I should have looked on AS but SS was easier, and I noticed at least 3 things that I do differently to you.

First of all, and I feel a bit awkward giving advice about AS because Mat Hayward is on here and he would know better than me, but I have always thought of AS as the designer agency. So once again, its about knowing your buyers.

So, the things I noticed about your shots vs mine: I offer twice the size as you (ie at least 6000 x 4000 px vs a lot of yours are only 3k x 2k), a lot more copy space than you (especially important if you're selling to designers) and I offer a lot more new trends (eg. colors, themes, etc)

People have been arguing with me about following trends for years, but I stopped listening to them a long time ago, and have been laughing all the way to the bank ever since. You know how many dls I get, so I dont have to go into any more detail than that.

As for selling to designers, I was a graphic designer, so that helps, and early this year I opened up an account with DesignBundles.com, and did a lot of research on what I can shoot to sell to those designers. One day I decided to upload them to AS and they have been selling like hotcakes ever since. A few sell on other agencies, but mainly on AS. Once again, the designer agency (because their buyers come through their software)

I am also on social media every night looking for new and popular trends in colors and styling - and that's how I get so many dls as well. My huge success from my holiday candyland cakes started back then in 2018, and been selling ever since. I remember at the time seeing all these eye-popping crazy cakes on Pinterest that were being pinned like crazy, I checked back to microstock databases and almost nothing there.

And thats the same with sooooooooooo many things I find on social media. I think contributors are still shooting too many traditional things without doing a lot of research.

No, Annie, I don't mind at all, on the contrary, I am very thankful for your advice.

I think you mentioned that you see a connection between good sales and image size before at some point and I actually try to implement this and while I always used to submit in 3kx2k, I now often try to go bigger, but I am afraid I am either simply not a good enough photographer or don't have have the right equipment. Most of my images will have way too much noise or a too soft focus in 6Kx4K size to get accepted by agencies like Shutterstock.
About the copy space I will try to keep that in mind. I actually thought I was already creating versions with a decent amount of copy space, but apparently not.  :-[

But, Annie, this is all good advice to get more sales overall, but I am not sure it explains why on Adobe I can't get new images to sell? Because for me it's really a problem that stands out on Adobe. This year around Halloween I wasn't really able to establish and decent bestseller, but last year for example I added a series of images that performed well on ALL agencies - Expect on Adobe. 0 sales there. So for me it's really Adobe that fails to promote my new work and I am not sure image size or copy space is the reason why new images sell on other agencies but not on Adobe? That's what baffles me. I am not complaining about poor sales in general, just how on Adobe my newer works seems to stay unnoticed.

Ok, I just had another quick look at your Halloween searching by fresh images - and I see a lot of pumpkins and a lot of orange. Very traditional.

I dont shoot pumpkins anymore because that subject is too oversaturated for me. My thought is, its already done so why shoot it.

I made killing on AS this October - and I can give this away now because Halloween is over - I looked at Pinterest for what was trending a few months ago - and it was PINK halloween. So, this year I did one big Halloween party table shoot in pink, black and white theme, and lots of background flatlays - and some of my images and stop motion videos made it to the first page of those respective searches on AS. A couple on SS as well. It was big hit. Not a lot of competition. Thats what you have to go for.

But that's all the tips and trade secrets from me for now  - I dont want to give too much away on a public forum. lol ;-)


Firn, I think you're a great photographer. I love your puppies. So cute. You've done extremely well for someone who only started a few years ago. I think you just need a few tweaks here and there and you can do even better.

But AS's algorithm is great if you can find new stuff that designers want. A friend explained this me just this morning: "Yes, I like Adobe, remember they have that 30 days rank thing, then images are pretty well fixed where they are. Early views and sales are important. Which is good for your current type of material, instead of long run kind of things."
Pumpkins and "traditional" Halloween stuff don't do well for me on Halloween. What sells well for me are my dogs - same as on all other holidays. That's where I make the most money with. The shoot I was talking about that failed so miserably on Adobe was from this one: https://www.shutterstock.com/de/image-photo/french-buldog-dog-wearing-red-halloween-1831416523
So much work, I sew all the costumes myself, drove all the way to a cemetary where I could take dogs, embarassed myself by desecrating graves and then none of the images sold on Adobe at all. That was disappointing.  :(
I admit I don't look out so much for new trends, that's certainly something I have to look into. But as said, since it's my dogs that sell well and I like to stick to that as it works for me I am not sure trends is something I can implement there. Though, thinking about it, actually I could probably have made some "pink Halloween" themes with my dogs too.
Again, thanky ou for your advice. Thanks for taking the time! I will try to work on my copy space issue and try to look out more for new trends.

OK> another tip. I am trying not to be too negative. So dont worry too much about what I say - only take on what you think is ok. In the bulldog wearing red halloween pic - there is too much distraction in the background. Another angle perhaps?  If I was a designer looking for a pic like that - I would move on to something else. Because of lack of copy space usually.

What I do is shoot something like that with a full background is have one like that - and then move everything else to the side and shoot with a lot of copy space. Or for your puppy I might have brought him home and shoot him against a plain background with lots of negative space in a studio shot. And then see what sells most.

Your doggy pics are great though and wow, you do a great job on the costumes! I didnt know that. Well, play to your strengths, I always say. Your doggy pics and costumes are great.

Thank you very much for taking all this effort. I am not taking it as being negative. I always welcome advice when it's constructive and actually gives me an idea of what to improve.
I  have another one with that costume that should have more than enough copy space, as it's isolated:
https://www.shutterstock.com/de/image-photo/french-buldog-dog-red-devil-halloween-1792920889
But I could not say one sells more than the other. But maybe isolated images is a whole other topic altogether. I don't know.

I just wanted to write how my best selling dog photo on SS and Adobe (two completely dfferent photos) don't have proper copy space at all and still sell well, but actually I was wrong. I looked through my folders where I collect screenshot of all online uses I can find and even though these images don't have much copy space in many cases the people buying them still added text to the empty areas, even though there was't much space available. You are definitly right with the copy space being something that buyers are looking for. As said, I thought I often tried to implement copy space, but it looks like I have to pay more attention to this. Thank you very much.

23
General Stock Discussion / Re: This month's sales
« on: November 12, 2021, 04:06 »

Same here. AS has a really great algorithm IMO. If you get quick sales on new work, the algorithm repays you tenfold. And thats where I am making the most money. More so on AS than other agencies.

I haven't put any of my work there up for free. Don't know if that makes a difference or not.
Please tell me your secret then!
Because I can't get Adobe to sell new content at all. Most of my sales there seem to come from a fixed set of older images that keep selling regularly and once in a full moon some random other image will sell, but I don't have any other agency where new images sell as poorly (= basically not at all) as on Adobe!  Getting new content to sell is difficult on all agencies to begin with, but on Adobe I always thought they had the worst algorithm for promoting new content of all agencies.
 :o

Firn, I hope you don't mind but I had a quick look at your new work on SS, I should have looked on AS but SS was easier, and I noticed at least 3 things that I do differently to you.

First of all, and I feel a bit awkward giving advice about AS because Mat Hayward is on here and he would know better than me, but I have always thought of AS as the designer agency. So once again, its about knowing your buyers.

So, the things I noticed about your shots vs mine: I offer twice the size as you (ie at least 6000 x 4000 px vs a lot of yours are only 3k x 2k), a lot more copy space than you (especially important if you're selling to designers) and I offer a lot more new trends (eg. colors, themes, etc)

People have been arguing with me about following trends for years, but I stopped listening to them a long time ago, and have been laughing all the way to the bank ever since. You know how many dls I get, so I dont have to go into any more detail than that.

As for selling to designers, I was a graphic designer, so that helps, and early this year I opened up an account with DesignBundles.com, and did a lot of research on what I can shoot to sell to those designers. One day I decided to upload them to AS and they have been selling like hotcakes ever since. A few sell on other agencies, but mainly on AS. Once again, the designer agency (because their buyers come through their software)

I am also on social media every night looking for new and popular trends in colors and styling - and that's how I get so many dls as well. My huge success from my holiday candyland cakes started back then in 2018, and been selling ever since. I remember at the time seeing all these eye-popping crazy cakes on Pinterest that were being pinned like crazy, I checked back to microstock databases and almost nothing there.

And thats the same with sooooooooooo many things I find on social media. I think contributors are still shooting too many traditional things without doing a lot of research.

No, Annie, I don't mind at all, on the contrary, I am very thankful for your advice.

I think you mentioned that you see a connection between good sales and image size before at some point and I actually try to implement this and while I always used to submit in 3kx2k, I now often try to go bigger, but I am afraid I am either simply not a good enough photographer or don't have have the right equipment. Most of my images will have way too much noise or a too soft focus in 6Kx4K size to get accepted by agencies like Shutterstock.
About the copy space I will try to keep that in mind. I actually thought I was already creating versions with a decent amount of copy space, but apparently not.  :-[

But, Annie, this is all good advice to get more sales overall, but I am not sure it explains why on Adobe I can't get new images to sell? Because for me it's really a problem that stands out on Adobe. This year around Halloween I wasn't really able to establish and decent bestseller, but last year for example I added a series of images that performed well on ALL agencies - Expect on Adobe. 0 sales there. So for me it's really Adobe that fails to promote my new work and I am not sure image size or copy space is the reason why new images sell on other agencies but not on Adobe? That's what baffles me. I am not complaining about poor sales in general, just how on Adobe my newer works seems to stay unnoticed.

Ok, I just had another quick look at your Halloween searching by fresh images - and I see a lot of pumpkins and a lot of orange. Very traditional.

I dont shoot pumpkins anymore because that subject is too oversaturated for me. My thought is, its already done so why shoot it.

I made killing on AS this October - and I can give this away now because Halloween is over - I looked at Pinterest for what was trending a few months ago - and it was PINK halloween. So, this year I did one big Halloween party table shoot in pink, black and white theme, and lots of background flatlays - and some of my images and stop motion videos made it to the first page of those respective searches on AS. A couple on SS as well. It was big hit. Not a lot of competition. Thats what you have to go for.

But that's all the tips and trade secrets from me for now  - I dont want to give too much away on a public forum. lol ;-)


Firn, I think you're a great photographer. I love your puppies. So cute. You've done extremely well for someone who only started a few years ago. I think you just need a few tweaks here and there and you can do even better.

But AS's algorithm is great if you can find new stuff that designers want. A friend explained this me just this morning: "Yes, I like Adobe, remember they have that 30 days rank thing, then images are pretty well fixed where they are. Early views and sales are important. Which is good for your current type of material, instead of long run kind of things."
Pumpkins and "traditional" Halloween stuff don't do well for me on Halloween. What sells well for me are my dogs - same as on all other holidays. That's where I make the most money with.
I admit I don't look out so much for new trends, that's certainly something I have to look into. But as said, since it's my dogs that sell well and I like to stick to that as it works for me I am not sure trends is something I can implement there. Though, thinking about it, actually I could probably have made some "pink Halloween" themes with my dogs too.
Again, thanky ou for your advice. Thanks for taking the time! I will try to work on my copy space issue and try to look out more for new trends.

24
General Stock Discussion / Re: This month's sales
« on: November 12, 2021, 03:34 »

Same here. AS has a really great algorithm IMO. If you get quick sales on new work, the algorithm repays you tenfold. And thats where I am making the most money. More so on AS than other agencies.

I haven't put any of my work there up for free. Don't know if that makes a difference or not.
Please tell me your secret then!
Because I can't get Adobe to sell new content at all. Most of my sales there seem to come from a fixed set of older images that keep selling regularly and once in a full moon some random other image will sell, but I don't have any other agency where new images sell as poorly (= basically not at all) as on Adobe!  Getting new content to sell is difficult on all agencies to begin with, but on Adobe I always thought they had the worst algorithm for promoting new content of all agencies.
 :o

Firn, I hope you don't mind but I had a quick look at your new work on SS, I should have looked on AS but SS was easier, and I noticed at least 3 things that I do differently to you.

First of all, and I feel a bit awkward giving advice about AS because Mat Hayward is on here and he would know better than me, but I have always thought of AS as the designer agency. So once again, its about knowing your buyers.

So, the things I noticed about your shots vs mine: I offer twice the size as you (ie at least 6000 x 4000 px vs a lot of yours are only 3k x 2k), a lot more copy space than you (especially important if you're selling to designers) and I offer a lot more new trends (eg. colors, themes, etc)

People have been arguing with me about following trends for years, but I stopped listening to them a long time ago, and have been laughing all the way to the bank ever since. You know how many dls I get, so I dont have to go into any more detail than that.

As for selling to designers, I was a graphic designer, so that helps, and early this year I opened up an account with DesignBundles.com, and did a lot of research on what I can shoot to sell to those designers. One day I decided to upload them to AS and they have been selling like hotcakes ever since. A few sell on other agencies, but mainly on AS. Once again, the designer agency (because their buyers come through their software)

I am also on social media every night looking for new and popular trends in colors and styling - and that's how I get so many dls as well. My huge success from my holiday candyland cakes started back then in 2018, and been selling ever since. I remember at the time seeing all these eye-popping crazy cakes on Pinterest that were being pinned like crazy, I checked back to microstock databases and almost nothing there.

And thats the same with sooooooooooo many things I find on social media. I think contributors are still shooting too many traditional things without doing a lot of research.

No, Annie, I don't mind at all, on the contrary, I am very thankful for your advice.

I think you mentioned that you see a connection between good sales and image size before at some point and I actually try to implement this and while I always used to submit in 3kx2k, I now often try to go bigger, but I am afraid I am either simply not a good enough photographer or don't have have the right equipment. Most of my images will have way too much noise or a too soft focus in 6Kx4K size to get accepted by agencies like Shutterstock.
About the copy space I will try to keep that in mind. I actually thought I was already creating versions with a decent amount of copy space, but apparently not.  :-[

But, Annie, this is all good advice to get more sales overall, but I am not sure it explains why on Adobe I can't get new images to sell? Because for me it's really a problem that stands out on Adobe. This year around Halloween I wasn't really able to establish and decent bestseller, but last year for example I added a series of images that performed well on ALL agencies - Expect on Adobe. 0 sales there. I was really frustrated about it, because that shoot was so much work and I felt like the images could have done so well on Adobe, if only they promoted them correctly. So for me it's really Adobe that fails to promote my new work and I am not sure image size or copy space is the reason why new images sell on other agencies but not on Adobe? That's what baffles me. I am not complaining about poor sales in general, just how on Adobe my newer works seems to stay unnoticed.

25
General Stock Discussion / Re: This month's sales
« on: November 12, 2021, 01:30 »

Same here. AS has a really great algorithm IMO. If you get quick sales on new work, the algorithm repays you tenfold. And thats where I am making the most money. More so on AS than other agencies.

I haven't put any of my work there up for free. Don't know if that makes a difference or not.
Please tell me your secret then!
Because I can't get Adobe to sell new content at all. Most of my sales there seem to come from a fixed set of older images that keep selling regularly and once in a full moon some random other image will sell, but I don't have any other agency where new images sell as poorly (= basically not at all) as on Adobe!  Getting new content to sell is difficult on all agencies to begin with, but on Adobe I always thought they had the worst algorithm for promoting new content of all agencies.
 :o

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 14

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle