|
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 - Wilm
Pages: 1 ... 38 39 40 41 42 [43] 44
1051
« on: November 15, 2021, 08:59 »
Fan of Annie's work (watched from the Shutterstock forum often). Not from Social Media. I never read that, but understand that it can be useful for sales. I don't have very expensive equipment, know a lot about insects, but that's not a subject that you sell a lot of, or you have to spend much more money on lenses, lighting.
So I don't mind, understand that my sales are not very high. I do like the fact that I can pay my provider of my website with the earnings of the photos, that I have money left over and that the earnings continue to rise.
I do find it strange that I didn't sell anything at Adobe in November, while November is not a bad month. But according to the probability calculation, it is probably not very special either. Who knows next week will be much better. 
Yippee! My first two sales this month from Adobe. Only unfortunately twice 0.33. But because of the number I am a bit closer to permission to upload my more commercial photos.
And since yesterday in level 4 at Shutterstock. Only my first sale after that was of course 0.10 
Congrats, Thijs! But one question: is there an upload limit at AS? Never heard of this before. Or was it a joke?
1052
« on: November 15, 2021, 06:55 »
shutterstock no longer has the capacity to maintain the forum. It's all the more amazing how often they ask me to participate in the contributor survey. I get it at least once a week.
After months I uploaded an image again. It was rejected because of noise. With all other agencies the problem did not exist. But I don't care. If they don't want it, they don't want it. I do not make a second attempt.
1053
« on: November 14, 2021, 17:25 »
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!
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 when you the 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".
Absolutely correct!
1054
« on: November 13, 2021, 12:20 »
I only have a good 200 images at Alamy. I just wanted to see how it goes there. Some of the images are ranked well or very well.
Until you have many sales and have been there for a time, your images are ranked in the middle. And for all the worries and concerns about rank, views, zooms and CTR, it appears Alamy hasn't had a re-rank in a long time. Everyone starts in the middle. That comes from Alamy support, not someone imagining things, to post on a forum. If it makes you feel better I can go find the quote from James.  I think he said at least 100 sales. [/quote] I have just had a look. You're right, Pete. Many of the images are hard to find anymore. But I am sure that it was different once. Still using the example of three images that are selling well with other agencies: One is on page 1 of 384 pages. One is on page 3 of 898 pages One is is on page 3 of 697 pages But I admit that page 3 is already bad. Nevertheless, I have a total of only 6 purchases there. Not worth it for me. However: Thank you for your information - which was new for me.
1055
« on: November 12, 2021, 18:25 »
I only have a good 200 images at Alamy. I just wanted to see how it goes there. Some of the images are ranked well or very well.
But there it does not run with me at all. And that, although I had found a few images of me on the web, with my name in combination with Alamy. Images for which I don't get a single download at Alamy. Images that even the German parliament uses. I personally don't trust them at all. And will delete all images there.
1056
« on: November 09, 2021, 17:10 »
Today sums up my whole month on SS pretty accurately: Had 50 sales today and still only a single digit earning amount. 
Single digit from 50 sales. I don't understand. What single digit? Like under $10 you mean? WOW
Yes, under $10 for 50 sales was what I meant. Sorry, English isn't my first language, maybe you don't say it like this in English.
In September I had 89 sales in a day on Shutterstock, but only made $9.12, they were all download from the same location and were all of the same subject.
This is why I don't upload to them anymore.
I have never had this many downloads in a single day in over 11 years. But there have been times when significantly fewer downloads brought home over $250 in a single day. And because of that, shutterstock was my favorite agency for a long time. Those times are gone - as you can see very well from your example. And that makes me sad. I admire all those who still invest time and work, and sometimes obviously can achieve increases with it. My personal motivation is at zero.
1057
« on: November 08, 2021, 10:02 »
AS is somewhat normal for me.
But with shutterstock it gets worse and worse. I don't know what it looks like for Murat, for example, who has been level 6 for months. But from my point of view the levels are a farce. Whether you are level 1 or level 5 doesn't matter from my point of view. The last downloads brought an RPD of $0.14 - screenshot attached. The days before it was hardly better.
1058
« on: November 04, 2021, 13:54 »
BTW November has started so badly that I now also have to fear for the five-figure income - especially with shutterstock. Underground!
1059
« on: November 04, 2021, 13:43 »
We could agree on a brass medal - Deb and Pete. Looks like gold, but costs only a fraction. That would also fit better with the current development in the microstock business - fewer and fewer contributors can afford gold. Already years ago I had decided to stop with microstock if the monthly income would drop below 1000 Euro. I did not keep my word. I just let it continue. I have uploaded new images only to AS lately. That's why I have about 1450 images there. At shutterstock I don't feel like it anymore because of the new revenue structure and because the images lose value too fast for me there - they disappear too fast in nirvana.
1060
« on: November 04, 2021, 03:16 »
Could I maybe get a tin medal instead? 
1061
« on: November 03, 2021, 17:34 »
At the beginning of October I passed the 10,000 downloads for this year. Just a few years ago, it took me only half a year to do that. In addition, for the first time since 2011, I'm going to make the five-figure income for the year by a relatively narrow margin.
Revenue October 2021 vs. October 2020
AS: + 54.5%
SS: - 31.5%
If I add up all 6 agencies, revenues are identical with Oct. 2020 (though I can only estimate iStock by using September numbers).
Downloads -6.2%
So RPD actually increased slightly compared to 2020, which I would not have expected.
$10,000 for the year, you're over $1 RPD and that's a great success story as well. 
Pete, I must have expressed myself incorrectly or poorly. My RPD is lower than $1. I already have the 10000 Dls, but the five-digit income not yet - in contrast to previous years.
1062
« on: November 02, 2021, 16:37 »
There is one more option:
The buyer is too lazy to read the license agreements or he does not understand them. So he passes the legal problem on to the contributors.
1063
« on: November 02, 2021, 16:26 »
I don't know how so many people can answer this question without knowing the image or the use?
Editorial can be used, some examples:
"Common uses include:
Newspapers and magazines (except for covers), editorial broadcasts, documentaries, non-commercial websites, blogs and social media posts illustrating matters of public interest
Cant be used for:
Book or magazine covers, commercial, promotional, advertorial, endorsement, advertising, or merchandising purposes in any media (e.g. print, commercial broadcast, film, digital)"
Also:
The microstock industry considers Editorial Use Only photos to be ones that simply do not have all the applicable model and property releases and thus should not be used for commercial applications. It is up to the buyer (the user, the publisher) to make the distinction based on the use of the image.
But Microstock agencies also require us to mark images as Editorial when they don't need to be. It's not illegal but they make up the rules for their agency, and all of them are not the same.
I still say if the buyer wants a license and wants to take the risk, and the offer of money is not significant, let them download it and they can be responsible. But lets not leap into, don't do it, or you're breaking some law, can get sued, without knowing the image, and how it's going to be used?
Pete, it's true - we don't know the image and we don't know what it will be used for. But I see it exactly the same way as ravens. If the buyer has problems buying the image from the agency where he found it, the very first thing to ask is what the problem is. If the $10 is the problem, then one should be very careful from my point of view. If signing up with a microstock agency is too complicated, then I'm surprised if it's less complicated to find out the contributors contact information through a search engine and write to them - and then possibly to formulate a joint agreement regarding the legal situation Personally, I would be very skeptical about such requests. Where is the benefit for the contributor if he sells it directly? There is only a benefit if significantly more money is offered than it would cost at the microstock agency. But why would someone who is looking for microstock - where it costs as little as possible - want to pay significantly more than they would have to? My opinion therefore: in this case, caution is advised!
1064
« on: November 01, 2021, 05:13 »
At the beginning of October I passed the 10,000 downloads for this year. Just a few years ago, it took me only half a year to do that. In addition, for the first time since 2011, I'm going to make the five-figure income for the year by a relatively narrow margin.
Revenue October 2021 vs. October 2020
AS: + 54.5%
SS: - 31.5%
If I add up all 6 agencies, revenues are identical with Oct. 2020 (though I can only estimate iStock by using September numbers).
Downloads -6.2%
So RPD actually increased slightly compared to 2020, which I would not have expected.
1065
« on: October 31, 2021, 15:25 »
Microstock is a business model / industry. We produce goods as it is common in other industries.
When production costs become too expensive in one country, production moves to a country where these costs are lower. And if that country produces too expensively, it moves on to the next country.
In the past, textiles were produced in Germany. At some point, that came to an end. Labor costs were too high and the cost of living was too high.
Later, Greece was a country where an important part of the gross domestic product was generated by the textile industry. But that belongs to the past, too.
Today, the textiles come from Bangladesh.
I am very sure that the market-dominating producers in the future will not come from the Western industrialized nations. You simply cannot produce below the price required for the cost of living.
That's why many microstock producers had the keywording done in Asia - in India, for example - already years ago. To make a profit.
From 10 cents, for example, model photography is no longer possible here.
1066
« on: October 28, 2021, 05:16 »
I've had a few of customer contacts over the years.
Ask yourself, why is the customer REALLY contacting you? Not because you're a top photographer and they love your work, but, because they want something. In this case, they want to put your editorial image in commercial use, they want you to take the risk, and they probably expect to get the image at the same low stock price. Maybe even lower, when they purchase it directly from you.
I would inform them that I don't sell directly, but only thorough stock agencies, and that the agencies will be happy to help with any questions.
Those were exactly my thoughts, too! +1
1067
« on: October 28, 2021, 02:42 »
On Tuesday, Shutterstock announced their Q3 results and on several measures beat Wall Street's estimates. Stock ended up for the day. Today (Wednesday) there was some sort of anxiety and the shares ended at 117.44 (-$6.87 or 5.53%). In general, management's actions have kept Wall Street happy and that's still much higher than a year ago.
https://investor.shutterstock.com/static-files/086ac986-a1de-4ef2-bf06-3c177314a566
https://investor.shutterstock.com/news-releases/news-release-details/shutterstock-reports-third-quarter-2021-financial-results
https://www.fool.com/earnings/call-transcripts/2021/10/26/shutterstock-inc-sstk-q3-2021-earnings-call-transc/
Shutterstock didn't include PicMonkey's numbers yet.
The Enterprise Channel has apparently risen from the grave and grew by 17% ("... bookings momentum and great performance at Shutterstock Studios"). They noted increase sales commissions to go with the Enterprise growth.
Gross margin improved by another 0.7% - they noted a gradual return to paid downloads but said it didn't impact their gross margins (I assume because of the lower minimum royalties, but they didn't say why).
They changed their guidance for the end-of-year numbers including this comment "Revenue of $765 million to $770 million representing 14.75% to 15.5% annual revenue growth. ...annual margin expansion of 100 to 150 basis points above our previously provided range of 100 basis points of annual margin expansion."
Any time they talk about increasing gross margins by 1% to 1.5%, contributors should look out for reduced royalties - contributors are the cost of goods and thus need to be shrunk 
They now have a FLEX subscription on the web site - think cut price on-demand packages (but you have to be careful to cancel as it will renew each month if not). You get 25 points per month - Images are 1, Videos are 8 and Music is 4. With no annual commitment, an image costs a buyer $2.76, versus $9.80 for an on-demand product. Not sure how a video for $22.08 will appeal to video contributors - compare that to $71.80 for an HD clip or $119 for 4K (with subscription).
From their support page, "FLEX 25 comes with no restrictions on image size or footage resolution, however, it currently excludes Select footage and PremiumBeat."
There was lots of frothiness about Creative Flow and its components - Shutterstock.AI...blah, blah...content organization...blah, blah...create and collaborate. Also larger and faster-growing TAMs (total addressable markets) including "... the $8 billion TAM for creative applications". They want to transform Shutterstock "...we should be able to accelerate our growth beyond the stock content market segment"
In the earnings call, questions were about slowdown of the growth rate and Stan deflected with some words about their data business to "... generate a pipeline around image recognition and data products, particularly for platforms that are building artificial intelligence models".
A question about Creative Flow was what users were asking for and how did this compare to competitors. Stan Pavolovsky's answer is primo content free corporate speak:
"So, if you can take millions of pieces of content and take that down to a handful based on recommendations, tied to our first-party data, that's an incredible win for our customers. And so the acquisitions we did as part of Shutterstock. AI in addition to our existing image recognition data is allowing us to launch these products with the recommendations, with content recommendations. And so that's really the kind of what we call the secret sauce to how we're transforming the company. But effectively. It's, we are moving into our customers' workflows with tools centered around storage, centered around planning, centered around image our editing, but we're doing it all with recommendations upfront."
They were asked about the new FLEX subscriptions and how those have performed and why introduce more. The CFO said that they were seeing increased "wallet share" especially from enterprise customers.
Another question was whether any of the other market "headwinds" - advertising, supply chain, etc. - were affecting Shutterstock's markets. CFO said not really.
And I've done a Q3 chart showing changes from a contributor perspective. Overall downloads are still down (they report them as up because they're comparing to Q3 2020, not all time) and royalties down on an all-time basis, but up 0.1% compared to Q2 2021. But compared to Q3 2020, even though the revenue per download rose nearly 11%, contributors' share (royalties) declined by 0.02%
One of the main arguments why shutterstock introduced a new revenue structure was the alleged pressure on the industry as a whole from free image agencies like unsplash, pexels... Nevertheless, the number of paid downloads has grown. If you look at the revenue per download, you can see very quickly what it was all about. Which brings us back to shareholder profit - paid by the contributors.
1068
« on: October 26, 2021, 03:30 »
When the promotion was advertised for the first time, 290 of my images were eligible for the free section. Now in the second step there are 68. If all were chosen, I would receive 340.00. But, as I have heard from other contributors, not all, but only a part of the images are selected. I guess that the participation in this action would bring me at most 100,00 - if at all.
Now I have looked once. Of these 68 images I have sold 8 images in the past week at AS. If I extrapolate that to a year, I could achieve 416 downloads with these images. My RPD at AS is in 2021 at 1,09. So the images could bring me 454,50.
Additionally, I do see a problem of cannibalization. For many of the selected files there are similar images in my portfolio, which are probably no longer sellable, if the counterpart is available for free.
In addition, the images also sell at other agencies. Perhaps they would no longer be bought there if the interested parties see that the images are available for free at AS.
And then there is something that is not quite clear to me. The number of images for this campaign is limited, isn't it? If it is limited, then the free selection should already be filled by now. Why are more images being sought now? Is the selection to be expanded successively?
One last question: If the images in the free selection were downloaded very often, would they increase in ranking during the year? Would the visibility of these images be significantly improved if they were available for sale again after a year? Or would the previous ranking of the images remain the same?
1069
« on: October 26, 2021, 03:24 »
Hi Matt. How long will the my free vector content being free after they are accepted into the program?
Will it be forever free? Or will there be a time period where it will become paying-asset again?
They are not talking about "photos". They wrote about "assets" - which include photos, vectors, illustrations... Your vectors would be part of the free selection for exactly one year and afterwards it would become part of the paid section again.
1070
« on: October 25, 2021, 15:04 »
Hi All,
If you have vectors and/or illustrations online in your Adobe Stock portfolio, check the contributor portal between now (Monday, Oct 25) and November 2. Selected assets may be available for you to nominate to be accepted into the Adobe Stock Free collection. If your nominated asset is accepted after the nomination window closes on November 2 you will be paid an upfront amount of $5 per asset. It's a short window for nominations so act fast!
Let me know if you have any questions,
Mat Hayward
Mat, is it really the right way for an agency whose business model is to sell images to now give them away for free? I see this as a huge danger for the future. Potential customers learn from the fact that there are more and more images that are given away. Why should they still buy images in the future? The problem is that in your free selection there are many really very good images. And the - in part very successful - contributors I have spoken to, who release their images for your free selection, only do so behause the algorithm has already buried the images, even though they are good. From my point of view this way is wrong and will lead to massive problems. Also for you. Many contributors only see the short-term additional earnings. If they were to look ahead into the future, they would have to keep their distance from this in my view. I am well aware that the sale of software products is more important to you. And you can integrate the free images into them. But in the long run, the signal you are sending out is economically wrong! Regards, Wilm
1071
« on: October 25, 2021, 14:44 »
Today sums up my whole month on SS pretty accurately: Had 50 sales today and still only a single digit earning amount.
I can't manage 50 downloads a day anymore.
But I once compared the difference between the levels.
100 downloads level 1 vs 100 downloads level 5.
If you take the percentage of sales to $0.10, it's like this:
Level 1: 80 x $0.10
Level 5: 26 x $0.10
So there is a clear difference between the levels.
But another comparison causes disillusionment:
Level 1: 80 x ≤ $0.20
Level 5: 72 x ≤ $0.20
Therefore, it is hardly surprising if you do not earn $10 with 50 downloads.
Not sure I understand those numbers? Here are some of mine, which do not include any of my racing images:
Oldest 100 no racing 2009 RPD $0.55
Newest 100 no racing 2019 RPD .68
Newest 100 no racing 2020 RPD .36
Newest 100 2021 no racing RPD .16
Top 11 images, all time No Racing RPD .71 (because #12 was a racing image)
Since 2021 isn't over, I can wait, but if your point was, we make less now, pretty much, no matter what level, mine are showing that's true.
The easiest part was taking my first 100 images that have been on SS "forever" not saying they are any good. 
I only wanted to point out, that even at level 5 more than 70% of the downloads are below $0,20. And this can lead to earnings below $10 with 50 downloads - as in Firn's example.
Yes, we make less now. But at the same time I have to admit that my RPD in October 2019 - before the introduction of the new earnings structure - was miserable, too.
On the other hand, there are people who do just as well as before, I'm not one of them, and I get less downloads, plus they are for less money.
I know exactly this problem very well, Pete! I know, what you are Talking about!
1072
« on: October 25, 2021, 11:28 »
Today sums up my whole month on SS pretty accurately: Had 50 sales today and still only a single digit earning amount.
I can't manage 50 downloads a day anymore.
But I once compared the difference between the levels.
100 downloads level 1 vs 100 downloads level 5.
If you take the percentage of sales to $0.10, it's like this:
Level 1: 80 x $0.10
Level 5: 26 x $0.10
So there is a clear difference between the levels.
But another comparison causes disillusionment:
Level 1: 80 x ≤ $0.20
Level 5: 72 x ≤ $0.20
Therefore, it is hardly surprising if you do not earn $10 with 50 downloads.
Not sure I understand those numbers? Here are some of mine, which do not include any of my racing images:
Oldest 100 no racing 2009 RPD $0.55
Newest 100 no racing 2019 RPD .68
Newest 100 no racing 2020 RPD .36
Newest 100 2021 no racing RPD .16
Top 11 images, all time No Racing RPD .71 (because #12 was a racing image)
Since 2021 isn't over, I can wait, but if your point was, we make less now, pretty much, no matter what level, mine are showing that's true.
The easiest part was taking my first 100 images that have been on SS "forever" not saying they are any good.
I only wanted to point out, that even at level 5 more than 70% of the downloads are below $0,20. And this can lead to earnings below $10 with 50 downloads - as in Firn's example. Yes, we make less now. But at the same time I have to admit that my RPD in October 2019 - before the introduction of the new earnings structure - was miserable, too.
1073
« on: October 25, 2021, 03:46 »
Today sums up my whole month on SS pretty accurately: Had 50 sales today and still only a single digit earning amount.
I can't manage 50 downloads a day anymore. But I once compared the difference between the levels. 100 downloads level 1 vs 100 downloads level 5. If you take the percentage of sales to $0.10, it's like this: Level 1: 80 x $0.10 Level 5: 26 x $0.10 So there is a clear difference between the levels. But another comparison causes disillusionment: Level 1: 80 x ≤ $0.20 Level 5: 72 x ≤ $0.20 Therefore, it is hardly surprising if you do not earn $10 with 50 downloads.
1074
« on: October 21, 2021, 09:36 »
October 01 - 21, 2021 vs. 2020
shutterstock:
minus 26 downloads
minus $61,15
AS
plus 21 downloads
plus $85,18
1075
« on: October 21, 2021, 09:17 »
hi i ve been composing some music lately and i ve bee posting it in youtube and tik tok
i used two wallapers from my pc as a background to my music .when i played somewhere over the rainbow in the piano and i used a movie poster of wizard of ozz it was shadowbaned in tik tok.they use AI and the AI saw it as a copyright thing
i found this page free images.com and if offers high quality images as roylalty free.some people take these images cause these are public domain and sell it in stock sites
i dont want to sell these images,but i wanna use them as backgrounds to my music for yt and tik tok
so my qs is can i do that? cause it says the site is royalty free images.i dont want to get warnings in the future from yt .
is anyone else using these from these sites to your project?
There was a website of a provider of vacation accommodation. This page was full of microstock photos. The company had bought the images but for what reason ever marked them as public domain images in the imprint. Name of the photographer@CC (creative commons). The page is obviously not accessible at the moment. I currently get an error message that the site is not secure. But I can make a screenshot from google search. But what I want to say is: You can't always be sure that an image that is shown to you as public domain has ended up there legally or by mistake. I personally assume that this applies to a lot of images.
Pages: 1 ... 38 39 40 41 42 [43] 44
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
