|
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 - Pauws99
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 ... 195
51
« on: March 21, 2021, 01:57 »
snip... Stock is really about capturing real life as it is.
....
I think that this statement is rarely true. It seems agencies always crow about "reality" and being "genuine", but what they mostly want is a sort of curated version of reality that fits whatever dream someone is trying to sell. Maybe they don't want airbrushed plastic looking models anymore, but they sure do want better than average looking people with clean backgrounds, good weather, etc. Maybe they want older people or plus sized or different demographics, but they still want the good looking versions of those. There is nothing wrong with this - the purpose of stock is usually to sell something, and you aren't going to sell much with average reality. - you need the iconic, the perfect, the essence of what you are shooting, and that isn't really the reality of most people and most places.
Mat, I definitely appreciate your point of view and your coming on here to communicate with what can be a pretty hostile crowd, and maybe even give me some ideas to shoot, so thanks.
Not much travel photography used to sell holidays features the crowds and queues that are ever present at major tourist sites ;-).
52
« on: March 21, 2021, 01:26 »
Wow, reading some of the above (what people are photographing), it seems a lot of countries must be much further out of lockdown than we are here. We've been in a pretty strict lockdown since 26 Dec.
Still, there seems to be a new third wave in several counties of Europe who eased lockdown rules before getting a significant proportion of their population vaccinated, so I'm not complaining.
Covid is miles from being "over" and as long as countries like Brazil are acting as mutation incubators things will be difficult. The UK is doing well at present but a surge in Europe is a big threat.
53
« on: March 20, 2021, 14:49 »
I think the question "Should I continue to shoot stock?" is very different from "Should I start doing stock". The first can be answered by analysis of costs and a projection of income the second is more of a gamble. I'm pretty sure also that its getting progressively harder to make a good income. For the best it will remain a decent source of income for a while but for the more average/less committed its probably not worth it.
54
« on: March 16, 2021, 03:17 »
This will depend very much on your country of origin and the professionalism and marketability of the model. It can range from "Time for Prints" e.g producing a porfolio for someone starting out in exchange for permission to market the image upwards. Using inexperienced models though can prove costly in missed appointments and time taken to get decent shots. Internet sites are a good start in gauging the market and you can check model ratings and referals. I found working with someone who knows what they are doing is worth paying for. I would also say hiring a professional studio for a couple of hours is well worth it too.
55
« on: March 12, 2021, 03:57 »
Continuing to sell your images on stock sites will reduce the value of the NFT to virtually zero.
Except it wouldn't. As I understand it, it doesn't matter how many "copies" are out there, the "original" still holds its value.
Of course, it all sounds like nonsense to me, but that's what I glean from what I've read.
The "original" holds its value but if you are trying to sell an exclusive item for $XXXX.XX nobody is likely to pay that if they can download it for $0.XX
Having a small number of copies around would be fine. Sort of like limited edition art prints or something. But trying to sell things in a similar fashion to microstock (generic images with many similar available ones being sold at extremely low prices) is not really a model that would fit with NFTs as far as I know.
But oddly a number of things that have been sold are available free on You Tube. See Logan Paul. It seems to be all about the idea that you "own" something. You can buy a massive range of merchandising of the worlds most famous art works like the monet fridge magnet on my noticeboard and it doesn't detract from the value of the original..if anything it increases it.
56
« on: March 12, 2021, 03:34 »
Continuing to sell your images on stock sites will reduce the value of the NFT to virtually zero.
Except it wouldn't. As I understand it, it doesn't matter how many "copies" are out there, the "original" still holds its value.
Of course, it all sounds like nonsense to me, but that's what I glean from what I've read.
The "original" holds its value but if you are trying to sell an exclusive item for $XXXX.XX nobody is likely to pay that if they can download it for $0.XX
Having a small number of copies around would be fine. Sort of like limited edition art prints or something. But trying to sell things in a similar fashion to microstock (generic images with many similar available ones being sold at extremely low prices) is not really a model that would fit with NFTs as far as I know.
No one knows if the original holds its value...it only does if someone wants to buy it (or more correctly the token) which is how art has always worked. I'm not sure about it probably because I'm too old to grasp it. Someone was saying that its the same as having the original Mona Lisa vs a copy. My issue though is that in the digital world the copy is identical to the original. Art collectors tend not to buy Art to monetise it by selling copies but either because they are rich enough to indulge their passion or they believe the value of the original will increase.
57
« on: March 11, 2021, 12:05 »
Well I got there in the end. It was a bizarre experience.....it seems they don't want to simply tell you what they will accept on the form as I think they think that constitutes "tax advice" so they give you links to give clues and you need to guess until you get a phrase they accept. I have now learnt all about Tax treaties.
58
« on: March 08, 2021, 14:07 »
I really appreciate the feedback received so far, keep it coming. It confirms my bias - I think that to make money from stock photography one would be well-advised to buy shares. Dividends for shareholders are more generous than commissions for photographers. When I started ten years ago, the figure old timers would cite was one dollar of return for each photo per year. A portfolio of 1000 high quality photos would yield about 1 thousand dollars per year. I think that in today's market, it is about ten cents per year and the same quality portfolio of 1000 returns $100 per annum.
Hello:
I am preparing an article about stock photography. Those of you who have been in this business for a number of years, do you agree that
-over the years, the quality of stock photo increased tremendously
-Prices and commissions decreased dramatically and out of the millions of stock photographers, very few make a living from stock photography and those who do have highly specialised portfolios
-Would you advise a young photographer to join the industry?
Thank you for your feedback
Buying shares now would be a big mistake in my opinion....I think they are very over valued. This isn't a growth industry and shares are priced as if it is.
59
« on: March 08, 2021, 13:02 »
Hi I am trying to complete the W-8BEN for Zazzle for the UK. I received a cryptic and unhelpful reply from their support. Can anyone advise how I complete Part II section 10?
I remember they gave me the run-around too. I dug out an old form which I think is the one they accepted? (bold are the parts to fill in)
Article 12(1)....claim a 0 % rate....income): royalties....owner meets the terms of the treaty article: Resident of United Kingdom
Thanks I found something on the Govt site about royalties so hopefully that should do it....they seemed to want to play Cludeo rather than just telling me what to put ;-)
60
« on: March 08, 2021, 08:36 »
Hi I am trying to complete the W-8BEN for Zazzle for the UK. I received a cryptic and unhelpful reply from their support. Can anyone advise how I complete Part II section 10?
61
« on: March 08, 2021, 03:45 »
The quality is higher in the sense that because of the sheer increase in volume more quality images can be found. In absolute terms the average quality of images has plummeted.
I would advise against viewing it as anything more than a potential side line when their main business of being a photographer is slack. I would advise them to work hard on their people/networking skills as much as photography. Its not technically difficult these dys to produce decent quality images. Marketing yourself is. The money is in Face to Face and "experiences" (post covid). If you are good with people teaching/workshops/events is where the money is. Thinking of yourself as "a stock photographer" narrows the options to one with a limited future.
62
« on: March 06, 2021, 13:35 »
Hopefully this isn't too accurate as it will be the end for me 
63
« on: March 06, 2021, 08:01 »
The comany is not in any trouble they are maximising short term gain as they see little future for the stock industry in terms of revenue growth. Contributors who take their photography business seriously should look to do the same and find more innovate/lucrative ways of using their skills.
I would say the the section bolded by me demonstrates that they are in trouble. I would also point again to the big slow down in growth that predates the pandemic.
From my own personal experience they have gone from being my far and away top earner to just another one of the larger sites extremely fast. Other sites are continuing to grow in terms of my payouts and have made up for SS's drop (I stopped uploading new content to them when the new structure was announced).
I have also just done an interesting comparison for number of downloads/ year. For 2015-2020 my total number of DLs for AS(FL) + SS have been remarkably consistent @ approximately 80,000 total with AS taking up more of a chunk every year. Make of that what you will.
We will have to wait and see I guess.
For a business though the objective is to make money not shift units. Its only my opinion though but I think they are not expecting a growth in the market as a whole and are managing on that assumption. There is no hard evidence looking at SSs financials they are in any sort of "trouble".
64
« on: March 06, 2021, 04:13 »
They are going to see an epic first quarter thanks to the reset and lower payments to contributors generally.
Longer term I don't think they have a clue what the next step will be. Share holders are going to want to see more growth and they are in a tail spin.
Revenue increases 2% in 2020 and 3% in 2019 compared to 11.9% in 2018 and 12.7% in 2017. They are in a tail spin and instead of reacting by coming up with innovative products they simply put their hands in our pockets and filled theirs.
I agree, recent actions by Shutterstock are indicative of a company in trouble and reacting in panic. At best, unsustainable, at worst a concrete wall dead ahead.
I don't know about tailspin, but the revenue benefits from cutting our earnings are going to go flat. Investors want growth. The other key word mentioned above is innovation. Without innovation, growth will absolutely go flat and then cause the stock price to drop. One thing that works in their favor, competition isn't doing much to take away customers.
I don't think the company will fail or go under, but they won't be interesting to investors and the flat earnings will just mean flat share prices. Jon has been selling, he's smart. When Stan gets his big bonus that we provided from our losses, he should sell as soon as he can.
Back to $40 again and maybe lower by the end of 2021 if they don't come up with something better than steal from the poor to pay the rich.
The Microstock boom has run it's course.
The comany is not in any trouble they are maximising short term gain as they see little future for the stock industry in terms of revenue growth. Contributors who take their photography business seriously should look to do the same and find more innovate/lucrative ways of using their skills.
Oh sorry I forgot! the company is doing brilliant and shareholders are over the moon! The company is famous for treating contributors with respect and even increasing their royalty payments.
Thank God I joined this company in 2005! just couldnt get any better!.." Semper ama"
You are confusing the way you are treated with the financial performance of the company. There is zero evidence that Shutterstock are in any difficulty.
65
« on: March 06, 2021, 03:11 »
They are going to see an epic first quarter thanks to the reset and lower payments to contributors generally.
Longer term I don't think they have a clue what the next step will be. Share holders are going to want to see more growth and they are in a tail spin.
Revenue increases 2% in 2020 and 3% in 2019 compared to 11.9% in 2018 and 12.7% in 2017. They are in a tail spin and instead of reacting by coming up with innovative products they simply put their hands in our pockets and filled theirs.
I agree, recent actions by Shutterstock are indicative of a company in trouble and reacting in panic. At best, unsustainable, at worst a concrete wall dead ahead.
I don't know about tailspin, but the revenue benefits from cutting our earnings are going to go flat. Investors want growth. The other key word mentioned above is innovation. Without innovation, growth will absolutely go flat and then cause the stock price to drop. One thing that works in their favor, competition isn't doing much to take away customers.
I don't think the company will fail or go under, but they won't be interesting to investors and the flat earnings will just mean flat share prices. Jon has been selling, he's smart. When Stan gets his big bonus that we provided from our losses, he should sell as soon as he can.
Back to $40 again and maybe lower by the end of 2021 if they don't come up with something better than steal from the poor to pay the rich.
The Microstock boom has run it's course.
The comany is not in any trouble they are maximising short term gain as they see little future for the stock industry in terms of revenue growth. Contributors who take their photography business seriously should look to do the same and find more innovate/lucrative ways of using their skills.
66
« on: March 05, 2021, 02:22 »
Part of the problem is every newcomer doesn't realize it's in decline and many don't care. So if they only earn $100 from 10,000 images they wouldn't know any better.
It's:
- Better than nothing
- Better than collecting dust on computer
- Good enough for them
- A hobby so financials like profits matter
- Amazing someone wants to pay anything for their photos
- Helps pay the bills during tough times
- And on and on
I'm sure a lot of people are selling at a loss and don't even know it. Spend time and money on equipment, props, models, gas, and never hit break even.
If you have the equipment and travel to those places anyway the cost is in effect zero. I gave up with models as it lost money. Now I just do stuff that is extremely easy to produce....it doesn't sell much but it only costs me time that I would probably be wasting anyway. To invest money in production costs seems very risky to me at this point.
Problem is (for the stock sites) because of the declining return for photos, more and more photogs will give up on high production value and there will be less and less marketable images for the sites to sell because it isn't worth it for the photogs any more.
If that were to happen which I doubt it wouldn't be a problem as people with those needs would have to source the images elsewhere for more $$$. If you have too many people expecting to make a living from high production value images it will always force prices down.
67
« on: March 05, 2021, 02:18 »
Part of the problem is every newcomer doesn't realize it's in decline and many don't care. So if they only earn $100 from 10,000 images they wouldn't know any better.
It's:
- Better than nothing
- Better than collecting dust on computer
- Good enough for them
- A hobby so financials like profits matter
- Amazing someone wants to pay anything for their photos
- Helps pay the bills during tough times
- And on and on
I'm sure a lot of people are selling at a loss and don't even know it. Spend time and money on equipment, props, models, gas, and never hit break even.
If you have the equipment and travel to those places anyway the cost is in effect zero. I gave up with models as it lost money. Now I just do stuff that is extremely easy to produce....it doesn't sell much but it only costs me time that I would probably be wasting anyway. To invest money in production costs seems very risky to me at this point.
Problem is (for the stock sites) because of the declining return for photos, more and more photogs will give up on high production value and there will be less and less marketable images for the sites to sell because it isn't worth it for the photogs any more.
Right. Some of the sites had content requests along the lines of "attractive elderly couples playing shuffleboard on a cruise ship". So assuming you aren't already going on a cruise with your attractive elderly grandparents and their friends, this would seem to be a difficult, high effort and high cost shoot. Back when RM sites were paying top dollar you could probably quickly break even. Now? I doubt it unless you worked out some special deal for premium non-subscription licensing. Otherwise, it's a lot of pennies, nickles and dimes to turn a profit.
The thing is with so many people doing stock theres a very good chance that someone will actually be going on that cruise with a camera...and btw many elderly people can shoot stock.
68
« on: March 04, 2021, 14:43 »
Part of the problem is every newcomer doesn't realize it's in decline and many don't care. So if they only earn $100 from 10,000 images they wouldn't know any better.
It's:
- Better than nothing
- Better than collecting dust on computer
- Good enough for them
- A hobby so financials like profits matter
- Amazing someone wants to pay anything for their photos
- Helps pay the bills during tough times
- And on and on
I'm sure a lot of people are selling at a loss and don't even know it. Spend time and money on equipment, props, models, gas, and never hit break even.
If you have the equipment and travel to those places anyway the cost is in effect zero. I gave up with models as it lost money. Now I just do stuff that is extremely easy to produce....it doesn't sell much but it only costs me time that I would probably be wasting anyway. To invest money in production costs seems very risky to me at this point.
69
« on: March 04, 2021, 14:36 »
Portfolio size isnt the important thing at all. There used to be some sort of an Industrial guy with just 4000 images and he was earning well over 5K a month. The last I hear he was shooting assignments only but he said he was 70% down and that was over a year back! he deactivated his port needless to say!
If its who I think it is I woudn't take those claims too seriously .
70
« on: March 03, 2021, 01:58 »
"I was trying to understand and find a clue of why Jon Oringer did what he did last year with Shutterstock to hurt us contributors". I think Billionaires tend to have a different make up to most of us which drives them to continue pile up money when a more rational person would say "OK thats enough now". Whether its good for society we have such people to create wealth is another debate.
71
« on: March 02, 2021, 03:35 »
I had an exceptional Month January and a better than average February maybe a freak or maybe they've messed with the algolrithm which has gone in my favour.
72
« on: February 23, 2021, 03:32 »
You might want to do a bit of research if you think the poor, downtrodden, impoverished stock creators should be included under the umbrella of social justice. Spoiler alert... we're not on Amnesty International's radar either.
Being paid a fair rate for what you produce is part of Social Justice according to my research whether its digital media or tea.
73
« on: February 22, 2021, 04:12 »
Mine has....best month for over a year ;-).
74
« on: February 21, 2021, 15:20 »
....
This will also drastically reduce the demand since fewer customers will be able to afford the new prices....
this is as wrong as Sean is wrong in naming the user H2O by the wrong name.
web design companies have no problem with photo prices at all nor do they insist on cheaper ones. they charge it most often from the customer's design anyway. nor does anyone go bankrupt because of the high prices of photos on the internet.
but I see that you are accustomed to this wild west and the real question is whether you should be paid more at all when you think you are worth less.
I 'did the math' and even for every contributor at SS to just earn minimum wage (and SS to earn the same as they are now), then SS would either have to increase their customer base by 100 times, or keep their customer numbers the same and increase their revenue per customer by 100 times. I.E. their $1,999 per year subscription would then become their $199,900 a year subscription.
Do you really think these web design companies would have no problem at all with such prices?
Bottom line... Sean is right.
Minimum wage? who mentions any minimum wages? you are completely lost.
but this is the internet, trolls are all around us. no worries, I understand.
What I mentioned are the greater rights of copyright authors. where they are sold, whether other people's copyrights are shared for free, whether anyone uses photos and illustrations without paying, etc. 10 years ago, istock had prices that would still be acceptable for most companies today. Im not talking about the times of macro stock when 5 people in town had a camera and you could sell it at the price you wanted. it is a long-forgotten past.
mentions streaming music services, try playing music in a cafe through such services for personal use or playing Netflix movies in public like in a movie theater so I can see if you get a fine.
there is a lot of misunderstanding of the basics here. confusion of non-commercial and commercial use.
I have said mine many times, I will remind you in year two on this topic. just that much.
Sean publicly shares someones personal information (although he mistakenly says its h2o) against his will which is also punishable by law.
but that is now really all of me on this subject.
about 100 years ago people laughed at workers demanding paid annual leave. imagine, they dont work and someone pays them for it. yesterday they laughed at the uber workers, today they laugh at the fact that the creators of copyright works demand greater rights to their works, that without their knowledge they are not distributed for free, and the same creators of copyright works laugh at them.
no wonder we are where we are.
I think you are confusing people as the thread was about the Uber judgement about drivers being employees. Copyright control is a completely different subject which the Uber judgement only has a distant relationship to.
75
« on: February 21, 2021, 15:13 »
....
This will also drastically reduce the demand since fewer customers will be able to afford the new prices....
this is as wrong as Sean is wrong in naming the user H2O by the wrong name.
web design companies have no problem with photo prices at all nor do they insist on cheaper ones. they charge it most often from the customer's design anyway. nor does anyone go bankrupt because of the high prices of photos on the internet.
but I see that you are accustomed to this wild west and the real question is whether you should be paid more at all when you think you are worth less.
I 'did the math' and even for every contributor at SS to just earn minimum wage (and SS to earn the same as they are now), then SS would either have to increase their customer base by 100 times, or keep their customer numbers the same and increase their revenue per customer by 100 times. I.E. their $1,999 per year subscription would then become their $199,900 a year subscription.
Do you really think these web design companies would have no problem at all with such prices?
Bottom line... Sean is right.
I'm not sure how you got to that were you assuming contributors are full time? The Uber judgement says they are employed while they are logged into the app. If we were paid for the time we were logged in loading stock to SS im not sure everyone would be earning more. In fact best best earners would probably be worse off. It just illustrates its absurd to try and class contributors as employees.
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 ... 195
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
