|
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 - etudiante_rapide
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 ... 79
101
« on: November 05, 2016, 14:15 »
I wish them luck and strictly not accepting any fired Shutterstock IT staff or any former Istock managers 
the million dollar quote... i too felt that what has been happening at ss, is because they parachuted the former Istock managers to ss; or at least, implemented the red book manifesto of istock 
102
« on: November 05, 2016, 14:12 »
An article on why investors reacted negatively to Shutterstock's results.
I read through the transcript of the earnings call, and it seemed to me that SS was being pretty defensive about the impact of Adobe on their sales/earnings (basically saying it made no difference and hammering on the talking point of their library being the biggest).
...Bottom line, the vanishing of the high-value SODs
A guy from Deutsche Bank asked about revenue growth - ..why hadn't that happened as they'd earlier said it might. Lots of words in the answers about motherhood and apple pie, but no direct answer to the questions asked 
May be the first signs of Adobe making serious inroads....SS really need to get their act together imho they do seem to be losing their grip but think they are still a long way ahead.
I think you are right. Maybe not the end, but a serious change in the overwhelming leader dominance. Reminds me that once IS was the leader and the rest were chasing. Adobestock will catch SS eventually, not for a few more years. Growth and innovation will win.
in one of my early days of seminars, i remember one thing prevalent with all successful businesses.. whenever the question of competitor threat comes up... they don't look at it at all, nor find an excuse to belittle the competition... they look at their own first... ie. they take care of their own act first, and ensure goodwill and transparency with suppliers, employees, public relations,etc.. iow, the only time you worry about damage control , is when your act is not together, and your sales are down, and your suppliers are no longer having good faith in the CEOs,etc. the question of when is also volatile. many companies who went backrupt also had that arrogance, to think it's going to "take awhile" .. before the competitor is a worry. but as a result, the competitor came to ovetake them faster, as a saying , "before the fall, comes arrogance". what goes around comes around. it happened to istock, it will happen to ss if their arrogance persist... to think only of shareholders bolstering numbers to fake potential, while displeasing contributors . the writing is on the wall. the direction is much in line with the steps istock took, is now the resume of ss these past months ... with esp. the vanish high earning SODs
103
« on: November 05, 2016, 13:58 »
Adobe/Fotolia seems to be a stock site with the best potential nowdays. I had some very fast sales there, I mean time between the upload and the first sale. They are simply doing simple things the way they have to be. I wish them luck and strictly not accepting any fired Shutterstock IT staff or any former Istock managers
Yep to me they are now like what I used to say about SS ...they are the best simply by just being comptetent
so agree with you irina and pauws... as the keywords being red. also that matt is himself a photographer, if i am not mistaken; and his consistently coming in here whenever there is a concern to be fixed. it perpetuates the goodwill with contributors and agency... something we have not seen from istock and now following istock footsept , ss ...in a long time. yep, to echo pauws, we need another agency kick butt ss like istock used to do, and adobe is the one to do it . the name itself effaces ss.
104
« on: November 03, 2016, 08:19 »
i always wondered why only ss and dst accepts editorials.
i wonder, too.. can you pls explain what you mean by just limited to the Reuters content???
do you mean that we are still not yet able to upload editorial to fotolia
and./or adobe for general distribution???
at this moment, most web editorials seem to still be dominated by Getty,
but i am surprised no one sees any opportunity to expand beyond wire images
and get contributors of micro to upload editorials.
105
« on: November 02, 2016, 14:20 »
I have also been there since 2004 also with a huge portfolio and a specialized port of well over 20K files. There is a vast difference between today and yesterday. Yesterdays search algorithm was based on showing new files new content to attract buyers. Todays algorithm is there to be manipulated by the agency to earn more money, less royalty payoyts. Thats business of course but it made it a lot easier to maintain a really good income during the first sort of five or six years. Growing competition matters of course but then again since new uploads hardly gain any exposure its of less impact.
SS still produce even if only a fraction of what it was like but they do. Adobe on the other hand will benefit a selected clientel of photographers/buyers but the overall majority could not survive on any adobe income and the whole of the rest is just pathetic.
I know one member of SS whos portfolio generates $.7000 a month and exactly the same portfolio no more then just over $.1000 at adobe/Ft.
Micro-stock has become a somewhat weird and strange wheeling and dealing business rather then producing great photography.
wow over 20K files..!!! i would not even make that in a lifetime. but i get what you mean gyllens, as most of the top earners of this age have ALOT of files too. as sean pointed out, "one good file, or a hundred not so good file" ... will earn you money in microstock. it's like the golden M, ... it's the reality of the business. but today the supply has gone way off the summit, and where you live makes a lot of difference ... 1K in US or UK won't even make a dent in your household , while 1C in another country means you have enough to pay for your child's education, get them married, finance a grand reception. but if paying for your equipment means it is fine working in microstock, i guess , i say i did fine. ... even with a fraction of not 20K files. but those days are gone when you can quit your job and do micro and be a happy camper. most happy campers in ss are because our old files are paying their keep, while new files get little worthwhile effort. at least this is in my case, i see no reason why i would delete my ss account as my old files are earning 80% of their keep. but i won't waste my time uploading anymore as 20% of new files in the past 3 years are not even earning 10% of my monthly income.
106
« on: November 01, 2016, 17:22 »
Terrible month for me. Approx 30% down vs Oct 15 across all the big agencies.
Some folks here are reporting a good October. Is anyone who has been doing this for several years seeing positive results? Of course new microstockers are seeing growth... but I'd like to know how veterans are feeling about the performance of SS, FT, DT, 123 and other top sites. Seems like nothing but falling earnings for everyone with a large port.
for ss , as i mentioned earlier, i am back to my floating margin of # of downloads but the dollar total is down by +-30-40% maybe it was the SOD that boosted my total at the end of the month for the same month of the past years.
107
« on: November 01, 2016, 10:45 »
About the same for me. SS is all about the SOD's and video sales for me....without those, they would be like any other MS company.
yes, i assessed my record, and it looks like you say, without the SOD it is not good. another thing i noticed this month, i am back to the regular number of downloads, but the $$$ do not equal what it used to be. eg. for say , getting 500 dl which usually earn me 365 dollars, i am getting instead $225 is there a reduction to the pricing 
108
« on: October 20, 2016, 16:19 »
I had 8.000 images in my portfolio. I had 2-3 sales per day. Few days ago I uploaded 2.500 new images, got aproved arrount 2.200 images on the same day! But I did not notice any change in my salees whatsoever! I still god 1-2 sale per day, LOL. I think it is time to say godbye to SS.
wow 2k a day!!! i haven't uploaded that many in the past 3 years , never mind a day. the problem may be the kind of images you're making that are not selling, as dumc implies... but it can also mean the risk of not being seen. i say, not to upload too many at one time. if you don't get dls in the week your work is online after approval, it is sure to die stillborn. that is why it's best to stagger upload time. now with 8k images, i say, delete them and re-submit
109
« on: October 20, 2016, 10:50 »
I've only been doing this a couple of years but I've never had a 30 second review. That would be nice.
Last week, I had half submitted, had to change words and when I sent those, the first were already accepted. One rejected, I edited, uploaded new, all the rest accepted. Then under 2 minute, the last one accepted.
IS 10/6 upload still pending
Microstockphoto you need to add or something to sarcastic posts so people know you are not serious. Some people will complain about enything and some more will jump on everything negative here without getting the joke. I hear the bots were at a pizza party.
actually had a first hand experience this morning. amazing, but cannot believe it myself. uploaded 30 images i had sitting in my laptop , and was bored so i decided to give this a go. they were approved and rejected as soon as i submitted them. honest !!! 20 approved. 10 out of focus. OOF??? i had to look at it 200% to see it was OOF, LOL.. so i re-submitted with sharpen edge, and guess what??? instant approval. i don't know how ss do it. i think our images are robot-reviewed as we upload it. which could explain why they no longer sit in pending review stage. it 's ridiculous, really. the images were not OOF. but if that's all there is... approved or rejected OOF, at least it's predictable as opposed to having atilla f*ck your brains to figure out why it was rejected. now i have a set of images that are over-sharpened... according to my workflow.. but hey, ss wants it that way... *, why should i worry???
110
« on: October 17, 2016, 21:19 »
I submitted my batch about 15 minutes ago and it hasn't been reviewed yet, why is it taking so long?
lol,
people have problems when it is super fast reviews and they still have problem when its 20 min delay or 6 hr delay.. lol 
LMAO lana, artist.. other...(i got my stuff uploads and reviewed even before i finished editing..wow!!!) other2..(i didn't even submit anything but they still got approved ...wowweee zowee!!!) lana/artist/other/other2 (...buf,how come none of my new work are not even on pg 100 of the new images update???) moral of the day... it doesn't matter whichever way 
111
« on: October 15, 2016, 09:57 »
Doesn't prove that these sell better
that's true too. but after all the stellar performance with the IT guy leaving "to spend more time with fly" i think it's pretty obvious what sort of agency ss aspiring to. a. Trust Shutterstock to do something about it
b. Play the same game
c. Keep moaning about it, because misery loves company
d. Concentrate efforts on the sites that can actually give Shutterstock a run for their money
a is totally out of character for ss these days ! d is the wisest choice ... but the magic question is which agency can replace ss??? i was hoping stocksy, but they are not for everyman. when you have no agency worth their salt to challenge ss, it is no wonder ss can tell us all to FO !!!
112
« on: October 12, 2016, 10:48 »
"Buyers? theyre not needed. Just creating more supply then demand." I don't understand this point you think if income goes down shareholders won't notice?
pauws, your other comment sort of answers your first... Its more like farmers saying wow people love peanuts and we make a great profit...lets grow more peanuts its no surprise then when the price of peanuts go down.
having more supply than demand enables ss to continue earning while contributors continue to see less earning per dl. not the economist major, but i think that's how prices go down. also, the other commentor saying make better images do not hold water ... as looking at the oversupply of apples , tomato,... on white, it is not only still increasing in number but the earnings of old tomato, apple,.. on white is what is paying me my peanuts these days... not my amazing super-duper creation . microstock is not stocksy where perharps art is appreciated and might make good money (although i have not spoken to anyone telling me they make money yet in stocksy other than sean and a handful).. still, my point is we have to realise ss is not for those high end cost in-efficient production, it 's for zero cost boring produce on white. in that sense, we can pat ourselves on our back and say, "oh well, at least i still make payout (35 bucks) with my regular sales of my top selling produce on white which i uploaded 200 years ago..." sad consolation, but the reality is ss is not interested in great shots,... or great contributors.. or else why replace the 7/10 admission criterion??? it's still the numbers game,... except it's no longer feed the beast that works..
but it still works ...
for ss.
113
« on: October 11, 2016, 11:39 »
Forget it... Shutterstock is on a highway to the inevitable abyss. The turning point was the entrance in the stock market. ..
Today It could be - "upload all your stuff! The more the better!"... 1 Million a week. Insane! And this is only possible with the end of the "7 out of 10" exam. That goes to show how much SS cares for quality these days.
Says it all.
I'd say the people still on board with SS are the "true believers". They're relentless optimists, positive thinkers. "Just take better photos." God bless you people, the world needs you, seriously. But I'm not one of you - I'm a realist, i.e. what you think of as a pessimist.
yes, says it all it does. bloating is common in the stock market, it is also common in real estate where a trouble-riddled landlord fills up a bldg (bloating) with seemingly full tenancy so the buyer of the bldg thinks it is a great deal, only to come in to find after the deal is closed that there are tons of repairs left undone for ages. this is what ss is doing, bloat... removed the 7/10 and flood the numbers . it will be istock all over again. so let's jump ship as the captain has already left the bldg with elvis.
114
« on: October 11, 2016, 11:34 »
Yeah Shutterstock seems to be in a free fall!
I usually don't bother commenting on the negative bs going on here, but.. really?! Shutterstock is not "in free fall". Contributor's individual earnings are under pressure because of the huge competition. Shutterstock itself is doing just fine.
even though i condone with the older contributors suffering a shortfall of 50% or worse, i have to agree with you too as it is not ss in a free fall but the earnings of long-term contributors . ss is still the woo yay site to many new flood-snappers who go woo yay with earnings of pennies, and go party after reaching 35 bucks payout. we cannot deny the fact it is in freefall to many, but it is not affecting ss one bit. if it did, Jon Oringer would have come in here and ss forum a long time ago to change things around with the problems. but "what problems???" "what crisis???" it's only the large earning contributors in crisis, not ss.
115
« on: October 05, 2016, 12:11 »
Marijuana infused tomato stock. Can't see there being many of those. Like a stock image of somebody making soup, on a rustic counter top, the fresh ingredients to the side of the pan... tomatoes, seasoning, veg, a big bag of weed. I can see it now.
Stock of tomato and weed stock on shutterstock. Genius!
LOL, yea that's genius when you consider the cool thing today is using hemp for everything.. how about a telemarketing agent dress in hemp clothes ... someone adding marijuana sprinkles to his lunch of orgnanic tofu burger yesterday i saw an ad for pumpkin beer so why not marijuana beer???
116
« on: October 05, 2016, 12:05 »
it's quite different being clips of speakers. i would thread lightly and seek their approval.
if not, i would refrain to use those clips for stock.
but that's me. you have to use your judgement call as it could effect your future
connections to getting press credentials for other local events.
press credential ppl,organizers, know each other and spread a wide network.
for a few pennies, i would not risk it.
117
« on: October 04, 2016, 13:52 »
I wonder how long it would take SS to review 1M photos these days? After all, it only took 13 seconds to review Lauren's 19 images the other day....
i swear to you just the other day i saw two ss reviewers ... one looked like clark kent with an afro hairdo the other looks like barry allen with mohawk hairdo... that explains how they take less than a second to review one image
118
« on: October 04, 2016, 10:17 »
In this case it accurately reflects my experience.
FT pays me more rpd, SS makes much more money a month. Is IS going down or is FT going up? Alamy jumped up when people from there took the time to take the poll, nothing more, not cheating.
Cheating would be when DP had the trolls taking the poll do make them look better. We know DP are lying cheats. Now they are at the real number.
I like the new FT and the higher commissions I've been getting. No new files to speak of for almost a year. That tells me, FT is going up.
i like the new adobe for sure. i am back in fotolia, or rather adobe...as i closed my account a long back after joining and doing well with ss ..but now that all these funny games been going on with ss, i am back with adding new works with adobe... as a new bean, lol.. and already the starting with much less than i have at ss, fotolia is already way ahead in earnings for me than ss. i will feed the beast again, but this time at adobe.
119
« on: October 03, 2016, 18:17 »
...But it's gotta be something... some algorithms i don't know...
This is your basic problem - why does it have to be something? Why do you assume this market will conform to some sort of numerical pattern or model and the trick is to figure it out?
This isn't alchemy; there isn't some secret that you just have to dig deep enough to discover.
LOL. Yeah, just when I think I've got it all figured out, it all changes.
so true too, ... someone flip the switch and the portfolios went off the cliff... and the bottom fell out LOL like clapton quote marley... "every time i planted a seed, (ss) say..
kill it before it grows !!... i say... "(guitar)
120
« on: October 03, 2016, 18:16 »
"I actually miss the days when Shutterstock were so strict when accepting content from new "photographers"." I actually learnt a heck of a lot from them and especially I stock about the technical side of photography. To be perfectly honest when I look at my own portfolio I have let my standards slip.
waaa, that is so true... for me too, Pauws!!! i remember how when i first started with istock, fotolia, drstime, crestock, bst,123,canstock,... 20 all in all , the first 20 to the right of this page at that time LOL... i had like 20 % approval.. and it took me hours.. yes, hours to post-process 20 images. then with practise, and approval went to 90% , so did post-process to less than 15 mins per image as everything was spot on with the shot. istock, esp gave me a lot of training to cleanup my act and efficient up my workflow. and it took me 2nd try to get 7/10 for ss. and the improvement shot skyhigh , as did the downloads.. and with the introduction of regular 28 to 102 dollars signle earnings, peaked my own interest for micro. then with the disappearance of the 28 to 102 dollars single earnings, and the abolition of the 7/10 entrance requisite , and the lowering of the 35 dollar payout limit also went the earnings to a shortfall like many old contributors. it wasn't that our work got worse, but more as jo ann , mantis, rinderhart,etc.. point out that new lesser quality controlled items flooded the new images... and when looking back of a decade or so, i noticed my best sellers were not actually my best works... so too, to echo you.. i let my own standard slip...
to the point where it really does not matter anymore, since the earnings no longer warrant the time spent to shoot. but maybe, as i said earlier , this might change as i now look to apply to stocksy... change my workflow and shooting criteria to what stocksy is looking for.. in hope of gaining an earning that used to be my ss portfolio mandate.
121
« on: October 03, 2016, 15:35 »
in the time it takes you to take and post process 1,000 photos a week, if possible... there are much easier ways to earn money ... - squeegee cars at the red light - flip burgers - be a mime or buskers at the waterfront - play a flute or saxophone or walk on stilts at the underground - panhandle as someone said, it used to be true that feed the beast in ss and you will make money but even now with the way ss is, this is no guarantee anymore. but marijuana on white is still the best way to get downloads on ss. better still, send a box of marijuana in brown paper wrapping by courier to HO ss, ...
122
« on: October 03, 2016, 10:17 »
history repeats itself. what happened to the working photographer when digital cameras replaced film, and before that when 35mm replaced view camera and studios,... microstock now reaches a saturation point of being too much paying too little.
global economy is also the reason. where in USA, UK,EC, etc a buck means nothing,
it is alot in other countries where even minimum wage in our country is alot to someone in another.
we can only face reality and move on. perharps try something new,
join Stocksy, etc... where they do not cater to the apples, marijuana, tomato, telemarketing agent, business man ...on white.
we don't hear much of them coming in here to whine and balk..
so maybe this is where we should go.
forget microstock, ... unless you decide to move to a 3rd world where 30 US bucks is like
sufficient and a windfall. because that is who you are competing with in ss, fotolia,etc..
these days.
123
« on: October 02, 2016, 16:42 »
Good pdf Brazilnut. You could have saved much money by buying a good top prime lens and keeping the lower camera.
well spoken Yada3. brasilnut, as i echo what yada advised, prime lens are far superior to zooms and faster and lighter... and cheaper. the pro top of the line cameras are fine if you're shooting 18 hours a day in studio,etc.. that's what you pay for the top of the line, it's for the rough wear and tear . but if you're not doing that sort of heavy shooting, you'll save money with prime lenses as it is the glass that counts, not the body. many photogs over spend on the body , when really you could have used that money to get your studio lighting, and a more superior zoom if need... in exchange for a less expensive latest model issue body with all the bells and whistle.
124
« on: October 01, 2016, 17:40 »
I think Google has no right to show images larger than they appear on the websites.
i was thinking, in some sites it provides you to opt out on * your images being searchable by 3rd parties*. would it work if getty, ss, etc provide us with this option? then those of us who is not good with google motives, can choose not to be searchable by google. would that work as a prevention??? i think flickr provides their portfolio holders with this... so opt out will mean only those in flickr can find your images. i assume that means google can't find it then. am i correct???
125
« on: October 01, 2016, 13:38 »
It's like when a government sells arms to a rogue dictatorship regime and then acts surprised when they fire their own weapons back at them later.
Nothing unusual. We all know at least one.
LMAO, well said bafan4u... sold weapons to nicaragua, etc... endless list !!! then came in to save the world . they're all probably locked-up in some infirmary playing virtual reality wargames thank goodness for the world for that !!! ... for now
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 ... 79
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
