|
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 - sharpshot
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 ... 263
176
« on: August 17, 2017, 03:25 »
Am I the only one who has no idea what AnySite is? 
It's so obvious, I can't explain it 
177
« on: August 17, 2017, 03:21 »
Still here, redesign is completed, we're just doing significant analysis and fixing bugs prior to launching. We're moving as quickly as we can, but as documented in other posts, we're taking our time to do it right the first time so that we can launch the best product possible.
GL has a lot of untapped potential (ie: video, audio, and other file formats). We are hopeful that changes we make will benefit our contributors and buyers alike. Our key focus during the redesign is to improve the buyers flow, as well as add functionality for them to more efficiently use our site.
We appreciate our contributors (as is clear by our royalty rates and our committment to keeping them as high as possible). I understand a high percentage of few sales may not amount to a lot of money, but if we are successful at turning it around and increasing sales, that high royalty percentage offers a lot of opportunity to our contributors.
Almost all the sites that were late to the market with video seem to have extremely low sales. I don't see any potential there unless you can offer something different. The royalty rates are good but how can you use that to attract more buyers? I still think you need to come up with a USP for buyers. Otherwise it's going to be almost impossible to get out of the lower end of the low earners in the poll here, where I'm sure you don't want to be.
178
« on: August 17, 2017, 03:06 »
I think if we all supply a site that pays only 15%, all the other sites will go down to that level. So I left istock, I don't understand why anyone would want to sell for that little? You might be losing out if buyers use istock instead of sites that pay much more. It isn't as simple as some people think.
Some sites sell so little, it's almost impossible to reach the payout level, it isn't worth supplying them.
179
« on: August 17, 2017, 03:00 »
I wouldn't mind if we could have 2 accounts and upload new images to the new account at the lowest rate. Getting almost nothing for new images is demoralising.
180
« on: August 16, 2017, 02:45 »
They could soon be one of the many with a nice site and very few buyers. I hope that doesn't happen but hard to be optimistic. Is there one site that has come back from such low sales?
181
« on: August 12, 2017, 10:12 »
Closed my account there. Not worth taking the chance to leave my work there knowing they are likely to fold.
I doubt they will fold, they sell a lot, it's just we don't see much because it's spread too thin.
They have NEVER sold anything for me even when times were good. I doubt it is customer related. MP has been a lowest of low tier agency for years. There's a reason for that and it isn't having plenty of customers spread amongst floods of images that makes them low tier.
They are usually towards the higher end of the low earners. So although they don't sell a lot, they are probably doing much better than many other low earning sites. As they don't have the expense of paying reviewers, I suspect they are doing OK.
182
« on: August 11, 2017, 05:35 »
Closed my account there. Not worth taking the chance to leave my work there knowing they are likely to fold.
I doubt they will fold, they sell a lot, it's just we don't see much because it's spread too thin.
183
« on: August 04, 2017, 02:33 »
Revenue per download increased for them. It doesn't necessarily mean it increased for us. As someone pointed out earlier, pushing new contributors with lower royalties to the top of the popular search could increase their RPD because they keep more of the moolah.
Could, but there's no proof or evidence that they do. They could have purple cows that give green milk. Show Me?
I liked your other idea better. Competition up 57% will hurt sales.
Well, i will gbe you one data pount. In a matter of a day, my income was cut in half....about a grand a mont to less than $500. Now on my third month of this. It was a search change. Search changes happen over night. This was not a slow, gradual, incremental change. So the question is why would they do that? My very logical hypothesis is that they are pushing lower royalty content to the top because it costsbthem less. It shows in their financial. Pretty easy to assess. Can i prove it? No but i sure can make a reasonable argument that its not easy to defelect by using a purple cow analogy. 
Its possible but I doubt it as I think the risk of losing customers who can't find the best images offsets it I think. I just think as they have said they are always tweaking the algorithm to maximise sales and sometimes this has unfortunate consequences for some contributors. If they are doing it maybe it does explain some of the drop in downloads and its not a smart move.
I would be surprised if they weren't giving a boost to the people on a lower rate. They are only really interested in maximising profits and that's an obvious way to do it. It would explain why some people seem to have no problem selling new images but others find it almost impossible.
184
« on: August 03, 2017, 16:06 »
It does seem highly likely that we will end up paying if they can't keep their shareholders happy. The best case scenario might be for the share price to collapse and Oringer take the business private again. Things like that never seem to happen to microstock sites. My fear is that a hedge fund, possibly the same one that owns Getty, might see this as an opportunity. SS was the one site that kept me motivated with microstock but that clanged when they took over BigStock and cut commissions and then announced their IPO.
yes, 2 scenarios possible ; one good for us, other tragic.
1) Oringer short the stock and waiting for the price to collapse then go back in to buy up everything, then declare SS private
2) Getty also short the stock and wait also for the price to collapse then become the main shareholder and we are all dead ducks ...
as money will not make us happy, because it 's money Getty intends to keep for themselves.
scenario on is unlikely, as Oringer already makes enough money , he does not need to own SS anymore as if already mention, micro is dead, why would he bother to keep ss???
Getty are millions in debt they're buying nothing.
Getty are owned by a hedge fund, they would do the buying, not Getty. They would probably saddle SS with debt like they did with Getty. It wouldn't surprise me if it happened, just look how much money the hedge fund that originally bought Getty made.
185
« on: August 03, 2017, 02:45 »
One of the best of the low earner sites is MostPhotos. They accept everything. Alamy do quite well accepting everything that passes basic technical requirements. DT tried to be more selective with disastrous consequences. Image Vortex have always been very selective and sell almost nothing.
I do think sites like Stockfresh need a USP but this one doesn't work. Canva got sales going by trying something a bit different. I'm sure there's other ways to stand out from the crowd, drastically restricting content is a short cut to failure.
DT outperforms MP by hundreds to one and alamy by a factor of 5 for me, so horses for courses I guess.
I compare DT to SS, IS and FT/AS. They were around in the early years of microstock. I'm sure that becoming too selective with reviews hasn't worked out for DT. MP is more comparable to Stockfresh because they were both late to the market.
186
« on: August 03, 2017, 01:30 »
If they can explain how they can make this policy work when it's been disastrous for other sites, like DT, I might be interested. For now, I will just stop uploading. They just aren't worth the effort.
187
« on: August 03, 2017, 01:22 »
It does seem highly likely that we will end up paying if they can't keep their shareholders happy. The best case scenario might be for the share price to collapse and Oringer take the business private again. Things like that never seem to happen to microstock sites. My fear is that a hedge fund, possibly the same one that owns Getty, might see this as an opportunity. SS was the one site that kept me motivated with microstock but that clanged when they took over BigStock and cut commissions and then announced their IPO.
188
« on: August 02, 2017, 11:58 »
Not sure I like it, that's why I haven't uploaded much to videoblocks. Did they sort out the withholding tax? That put me off as well. I might upload some of my more unusual images, as they wont lose out to their wholly owned content.
189
« on: August 02, 2017, 05:39 »
One of the best of the low earner sites is MostPhotos. They accept everything. Alamy do quite well accepting everything that passes basic technical requirements. DT tried to be more selective with disastrous consequences. Image Vortex have always been very selective and sell almost nothing.
I do think sites like Stockfresh need a USP but this one doesn't work. Canva got sales going by trying something a bit different. I'm sure there's other ways to stand out from the crowd, drastically restricting content is a short cut to failure.
190
« on: August 02, 2017, 03:24 »
So many sites have failed with this strategy. Shame to see Stockfresh not learning the lesson. I have no idea why they can't make a collection of their best images? It's so subjective, I'm sure the vast majority of buyers like to make their own minds up, hence SS is doing so well and now other sites are following their strategy.
A smaller collection of images might work in theory but in practice is there a site that has made that work? Stocksy is different because their images aren't on all the other microstock sites. Stockfresh don't sell enough to get exclusive images.
191
« on: August 02, 2017, 03:17 »
The email gives me a laugh once a month.
192
« on: August 02, 2017, 03:13 »
This is good new if buyers go to sites that pay us more per download. If sites could be given a Darwin award, I would nominate Photodune
193
« on: August 01, 2017, 04:47 »
Would be interesting to know if the sites push down new images from people that are on higher commission tiers. It sure feels like that. My new images just vanish now.
194
« on: July 31, 2017, 03:17 »
Perhaps they don't. People love to find patterns in randomness. With so many contributors, the sales stats are going to look strange for some people over a short period of time.
195
« on: July 30, 2017, 14:55 »
Whatyall think about september and october sales. Should we open new topic?
Is that for 2018?
196
« on: July 30, 2017, 03:05 »
I'm sure there are benefits for sites having a huge amount of images. Most of them have gone from strange rejection policies that often rejected good images to accepting low commercial value images. Is it because they do much better with Google with more images? I don't think the shareholders care about much, just look at the people investing in banks when they were about to go bust. Most investors have a lot of similarities with gamblers.
197
« on: July 28, 2017, 17:29 »
I'm just slowly doing the supertags. Only 2 images optimised out of 2800.
198
« on: July 27, 2017, 11:32 »
Good to see. Must of taken some time to do some of them, like #10.
199
« on: July 27, 2017, 03:23 »
I like buying a cheap body because I don't think it matters much. The money I save goes on lenses. I do like having different sensor sizes, from full frame to my phone. They all have their uses. I have spent more on camera bodies in the past but it seemed like wasted money.
I can't agree with that. I went from the old Digital Rebel to a Canon 5D to 5d MkII to 6D and each time the new body came with huge improvements over the previous one, among them the introduction of automatic sensor cleaning in the 5DII, improved low-light performance in each newer body, automatic CA correction in the 6D along with GPS and lots of other stuff. The bodies are constantly being improved.
That's true but you don't have to pay a lot to get most of those things. I just buy the cheaper range, second hand or with a heavy discount. I would rather spend money on lenses because they last longer and hold their value more.
200
« on: July 26, 2017, 15:14 »
I wonder how it can be so easy (apparently) to steal images
Microstock sites ask you your ID to register
Paypal and similar ask you your ID too, and some other personal information. They ask you a valid bank account
So, how it can be?
Unfortunately, it isn't that difficult. A lot of microstock images are on illegal sites and there's many being used at full size by people who have purchased them and don't know how to downsize them. What shouldn't be easy is for someone to then sell these images on the same sites as the copyright holders. There must be a way to identify when someone uploads lots of images that are already on a site from different contributors? I have no idea why the sites have been unable to stop that happening.
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 ... 263
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
