|
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 - Daryl Ray
51
« on: May 12, 2017, 11:57 »
Woah, something positive for once. Thank you Fotolia.
Also, yet more evidence that those participating in the undercut race to the lowest video prices are way off track.
52
« on: May 12, 2017, 06:38 »
Not just you. Sales at Alamy are so rare it's ridiculous. And when they do happen, it's awesome seeing the BBC and other massive companies using my full rez, unwatermarked images in the headlines of their articles, waiting 3 months, and then getting only $1.60 of the $5 they paid for it.
They're definitely on my "don't bother wasting time uploading" list.
Have you queried why you don't get 50% for your Beeb sales? The BBC doesn't buy via a distributor, and anyway, $1.60 isn't 30% either: that's surely a mistake.
Alamy has tried to keep prices up, but have lost some big buyers to eg SS.
"BBC and other massive companies" - True, it was another sale to some other massive brand that was $5.21 with an Alamy Distribution Commission of 30% and Distributor Commission of 40%, leaving me $1.57, to be more specific. BBC was just a few more dollars more of a sale, but was indeed a 50% split. The 50% is why I've stayed with them, but more pieces are being cut out of ever-shrinking and increasingly rare pies.
53
« on: May 10, 2017, 14:22 »
Not just you. Sales at Alamy are so rare it's ridiculous. And when they do happen, it's awesome seeing the BBC and other massive companies using my full rez, unwatermarked images in the headlines of their articles, waiting 3 months, and then getting only $1.60 of the $5 they paid for it.
They're definitely on my "don't bother wasting time uploading" list.
54
« on: April 25, 2017, 13:43 »
Nope. Does nothing at all. I'm an Emerald. Sales are horrible there for me.
Same here also Emerald and sales are almost non existant! I was earning far more three years back. The one and only reason I still stick with Adobe-Ft is because I cant really be bothered deleting or uploading. Theyre just there so to speak.
The key to success is to consistently upload which helps keep your content near the top of the search results. If you have stopped uploading, it's possible your existing content is being pushed back in the search as new, relevant content continues to flow in thus making it more difficult for customers to find your work.
-Mat
The key to success is to consistently treat content on it's own merits and not assign arbitrary expiration dates to their search viability, in other words, new content isn't necessarily better. If our existing uploads that took our time and money to create and keyword sold well before and then suffer unnecessarily due to Fotolia's search algorithm choices, then yes, it will indeed be difficult for customers to find our work. It also shows a lack of appreciation for our past contributions and trust in the company, unevenly marginalizing those with higher rankings and thus higher royalty %. It's a short-sighted, greed-driven "keep the contributors on the hamster wheel" approach which also encourages repeated, near duplicate uploading of already saturated topics to "keep up" instead of inspiring innovation and contributing to more lacking subjects.
55
« on: April 18, 2017, 09:54 »
Have any of you ever actually done real searches for content on Pond5, comparing regular results to the membership clips? Because if you did, you'd notice that it's not very extensive and not "very high quality" or inclusive of the best options by a long shot. One piece of criteria for inclusion was that the clips had to be a poor sellers to begin with, did ya know that? I do not participate in the program so cannot comment further, but I can say that when searching for clips relevant to mine, I do not feel the slightest bit threatened by the competition of the membership options. These "loads" of lost sales are pure imagination.
Considering Shutterstock, Videoblocks, Fotolia (and everywhere else for that matter) already had subscription programs in place, doesn't it make more sense to speculate that Pond5 was responding the them, not the other way around? This latest action is just Shutterstock taking it further and squeezing more profit for their shareholder reports and to pay for their unnecessarily lavish real estate needs.
Disheartening how the reaction for some is being "glad" that Shutterstock is lowering their price and not anger and resistance to all price drops like this by any company. So many pessimists around here believe the trend is ultimately going downward, but instead of kicking and screaming and making it at least uncomfortable for them to marginalize our livelihoods, you choose to lay down and justify it.
56
« on: April 14, 2017, 04:00 »
Believing that the trend of the industry is downward is understandable. But actively encouraging it, spinning PR for bottom feeding companies that hasten the process, and then making extra effort to pick apart someone pushing to keep their, yours and my prices fair? Less understandable.
57
« on: April 14, 2017, 03:10 »
My point was, and always has been, that contributing to bottom feeding sites will eventually drive prices down as a whole. Here we can see clear evidence that prices on SS are being lowered. Draw your own conclusions. I'm just here to balance the views either defending the bottom feeders or ridiculing those that are trying to bring fellow contributors around to keeping prices fair (like Video-StockOrg above).
Look, I honestly hate being right sometimes. Especially about others lack of perspective and their poor decisions that eventually affect all of us.
59
« on: February 28, 2017, 14:11 »
People like Irina see microstock as a sinking ship. They have the option, the freedom, to go do something else, but no, they get on, bring a hammer, and smash holes in the boat. All the while ignoring reason and the pleas of fellow shipmates begging them to think about what they are doing. It doesn't occur to them, or enough seasoned contributors for that matter, that if more of us started patching those holes instead of making them bigger, and did what little we can each do individually, that maybe we might come to realize the ship isn't sinking that fast, maybe not at all.
So can you name a web based service/industry where the same thing hasn't happened? its just the reality of the market place it doesn't make me like it or think its fair or just.
"From now on I'm thinking only of me. Major Danby replied indulgently with a superior smile: But, Yossarian, suppose everyone felt that way?
Then, said Yossarian, I'd certainly be a damned fool to feel any other way, wouldn't I?
Yup, stock video. Although, it inevitably will because of aforementioned reasons.
Its already happening as you have pointed out in other posts its just behind because the barriers of entry are higher.
Fair enough. Doesn't mean we shouldn't keep pushing back as long as possible.
60
« on: February 28, 2017, 13:58 »
People like Irina see microstock as a sinking ship. They have the option, the freedom, to go do something else, but no, they get on, bring a hammer, and smash holes in the boat. All the while ignoring reason and the pleas of fellow shipmates begging them to think about what they are doing. It doesn't occur to them, or enough seasoned contributors for that matter, that if more of us started patching those holes instead of making them bigger, and did what little we can each do individually, that maybe we might come to realize the ship isn't sinking that fast, maybe not at all.
So can you name a web based service/industry where the same thing hasn't happened? its just the reality of the market place it doesn't make me like it or think its fair or just.
"From now on I'm thinking only of me. Major Danby replied indulgently with a superior smile: But, Yossarian, suppose everyone felt that way?
Then, said Yossarian, I'd certainly be a damned fool to feel any other way, wouldn't I?
Yup, stock video. Although, it inevitably will because of aforementioned reasons.
61
« on: February 28, 2017, 13:55 »
People like Irina see microstock as a sinking ship. They have the option, the freedom, to go do something else, but no, they get on, bring a hammer, and smash holes in the boat. All the while ignoring reason and the pleas of fellow shipmates begging them to think about what they are doing. It doesn't occur to them, or enough seasoned contributors for that matter, that if more of us started patching those holes instead of making them bigger, and did what little we can each do individually, that maybe we might come to realize the ship isn't sinking that fast, maybe not at all.
You might as well whistle down the wind.
It's the same argument I (and others) made years ago about selling for 25c on SS; and which the old macro shooters made about iS.
I know it. But I think it bears repeating, maybe not for the stubborn cats I'm wasting time "debating" with, but for the sake of the silent readers of these forums.
62
« on: February 28, 2017, 12:04 »
I really just find it incredible how people know which buyers are part of which markets, sight unseen. I mean, that massive youtube market that just can't afford to pay fair market prices, how some people know when they're not just traditional buyers with real budgets who would have otherwise happily bought a HQ clip for $50+ on Pond5 or Videoblocks, but then actually took the 10 seconds to shop around and go to the low-priced outlet Videohive that the same clip sells at. I mean, as a buyer, if it saves me $42, well yeah, I'm gonna do it, doesn't matter what my budget is or market I'm in.
Is it really a mystery why Videohive guys are complaining about sales at Videoblocks?
While your theories on markets are interesting, without a way to separate them, you are simply just devaluing yourself to all markets.
63
« on: February 28, 2017, 11:32 »
Saying "Fair (market) price" is just a made up number like anything else, shows a pure lack of understanding of basic economics.
If I see that I get $3 per clip per month at a certain price point, but $1 at another, higher price point, which one is more fair?
To me, it is more fair to see a higher number in my bank account for the time spent. If a lower price (say, 1/10) reaches an audience that is a thousand times bigger, it results in a bigger payment. I sell clips for $199, but I can't sell 5-10% of my portfolio for that price every day...
You are selling digital goods that have zero cost for you after upload and can be sold an infinite number of times. This is not milk where each unit has a production cost.
The only thing that determines fair or not is what you see in your bank account versus clips in your portfolio. Not price per clip.
Serious question, How low is too low? Is there a bottom, or is it inevitable that HD footage will be under $1 eventually? And does that mean, in your chain of logic, that 10's of thousands more customers will be waiting to scoop them up and you'll be making even more?
64
« on: February 28, 2017, 11:21 »
There will always be "markets" full of customers who want to have something for less than it's value, just because they want it, doesn't mean it's a smart move to contribute to lowering the market value as a whole to cater to them. Just because Billy wants to make a living making Youtube videos daily, doesn't mean the market now needs to drop to his standards. If he doesn't want to make the content himself, well then he can put on his big boy pants and earn the money to pay me what my time and effort is worth. The markets are there and will adapt one way or the other, either we stand our ground and keep our prices fair, or you give in to Billy's demands for cheap high quality content.
65
« on: February 28, 2017, 11:12 »
If seller 'A' sells for a fair market price or more, then they literally hold value in their work. If seller 'B' can only make an equal amount by selling well below market price, undercutting seller 'A' in the process, then seller 'B' is demonstrating that they do not value their own work. Sure, I'm pointing that out, but you are the one doing it. The normal market price for HD video at this time, set by the leaders of the industry, not me or you, is $50+. $8 is substantially lower than market value. And since no one put a gun to your head, that you choose to sell for that price, you are valuing your work low all by yourself. Plain but apparently no-so-simple for some of you.
Since this is all about undercutting, your comparison of stock video to iTunes is irrelevant, because the normalized market price of a digital download is now $0.99, so you, me or the Beatles selling tracks at $0.99 is not undercutting. The two markets are not logically comparable. As sad as that may be, it's how it is. Why would you want to push the video market that way anyways?
Why is it that the only option for adaptation in some of your minds, is dropping price?
And then, the irony of using John Lennon as an example, is pretty solid. That man embodied ethics, philosophy, principles, having some respect for yourself and those around you, the greater good, I mean like, you know, essentially a perfect example of what I've been suggesting more of us should emulate.
You don't seem to understand what markets there are, or know that you are in fact selling digital goods that never run out, not physical stock.
Do you know about YouTube? Do you know how creators work there? Do you know that many upload 1, maybe 3 videos EVERY single day.
"Fair price" is just a made up number like anything else. If I get $5,000 selling my work for $10, instead of $1,000 selling it for $500. Is that not more fair to me since I'm selling digital goods and after upload there is no additional work?
It's perfectly fine if you don't want to sell to the YouTube market, which is in fact the biggest market there is, and growing each day. But others want to capitalize on this opportunity, and will do so.
Saying "Fair (market) price" is just a made up number like anything else, shows a pure lack of understanding of basic economics.
66
« on: February 28, 2017, 10:56 »
From my perspective
You need to realize that telling someone they don't value their work can be a condescending insult when the bottom line answers are right there.
That's why John Lennon's personal tape master of Imagine may cost $1 million while the digital copy is $0.99. I'm sure you understand the difference but just want to be difficult.
If seller 'A' sells for a fair market price or more, then they literally hold value in their work. If seller 'B' can only make an equal amount by selling well below market price, undercutting seller 'A' in the process, then seller 'B' is demonstrating that they do not value their own work. Sure, I'm pointing that out, but you are the one doing it. The normal market price for HD video at this time, set by the leaders of the industry, not me or you, is $50+. $8 is substantially lower than market value. And since no one put a gun to your head, that you choose to sell for that price, you are valuing your work low all by yourself. Plain but apparently no-so-simple for some of you. Since this is all about undercutting, your comparison of stock video to iTunes is irrelevant, because the normalized market price of a digital download is now $0.99, so you, me or the Beatles selling tracks at $0.99 is not undercutting. The two markets are not logically comparable, in many ways. As sad as that may be, it's how it is. Why would you want to push the video market that way anyways? Why is it that the only option for adaptation in some of your minds, is dropping price? And then, the irony of using John Lennon as an example, is pretty solid. That man embodied ethics, philosophy, principles, having some respect for yourself and those around you, the greater good, I mean like, you know, essentially a perfect example of what I've been suggesting more of us should emulate.
67
« on: February 28, 2017, 08:46 »
People like Irina see microstock as a sinking ship. They have the option, the freedom, to go do something else, but no, they get on, bring a hammer, and smash holes in the boat. All the while ignoring reason and the pleas of fellow shipmates begging them to think about what they are doing. It doesn't occur to them, or enough seasoned contributors for that matter, that if more of us started patching those holes instead of making them bigger, and did what little we can each do individually, that maybe we might come to realize the ship isn't sinking that fast, maybe not at all.
68
« on: February 28, 2017, 08:14 »
Maybe microstock has more than "3-4 years left" if new contributors didn't come into the game acting like they know it all, maybe actually listened to those with a few more years under their belt trying to give valuable advice. Maybe they shouldn't be taking a firm, uneducated stand about things they have no historical context of, uploading blindly "to multiple sites, including iStock,". Maybe not undercutting, maybe not perpetrating the continuation of the precedent that companies can pillage our earnings while some of us smile and thank them. Maybe, just maybe, "The same thing will surely not happen to videos", unless of course folks like you continue being mesmerized by trickling pennies, refuse to listen to reason, and continue actively contributing to the demise of this industry.
Maybe it's a language thing, but no one is telling you what to do. It's called advice from people who have been in this long enough to know the difference between sustainability and erosion. The history is there, whether you want to listen or not.
69
« on: February 27, 2017, 17:08 »
Sounds heroic. Another frustrated little person desperate speech. I guess istock wouldn't notice that but people here would like it, one more competitor is gone. How many people who liked your post still keep their own portfolio online on istock?
I liked the post, and my portfolio has been gone from there for a few years. I dont see leaving as frustration, I see it as good business sense.
It's quite a strange business sense to waste some more time with instant portfolio deletion instead of simple stopping new uploads and getting some residual income as some sort of compensation.
I guess you missed the part where I said I don't want to do business with a company who treats me poorly...I am just not into abuse. Along with MY business sense is also something called ethics and pride in product. If you think "its far better to make a penny than nothing at all", then you can have it. istock must LOVE you.
Well, that's definitely not a penny, although my portfolio there is less than a year old. I don't defend that crappy greedy site, but you and many other decent people here take it too personal. Why? You are not raising your chidren with them. It's just some pictures which sell elsewhere too. I've noticed some time ago that words "ethics" and "pride" are often used in cases of hobby-businesses instead of words "new car" and go along with just couple of hundreds of income  Somebody talked about undercutting himself or herself. Be honest to yourself, are your pictures that unique the buyer would go looking for them on a cheaper site? The market is oversaturated and the answer is no in 99,99%.
When a "crappy greedy" company has direct and obvious contempt for it's contributors, yes, it is personal. It's not "hobby income", when it's "feeding your family and paying mortgage income". A hobby to you does not mean it's a hobby to someone else. "with just couple of hundreds of income" Who's income? $150 to a contributor made iStock $850. If that doesn't bother you, you either work for iStock or have no respect for what you create. "are your pictures that unique the buyer would go looking for them on a cheaper site?" The answer is yes, mine are, I've seen many others here that could say the same. How about you speak for yourself. "ethics" and "pride". Someone with both would remove their content from iStock as soon as they understand how awful of a company they are.
70
« on: February 22, 2017, 02:23 »
Been trying to figure out why some of you are make a discussion about Envato about VB, misrepresenting my thoughts as me trying to tell anyone what to do, attempting to compare incomes with zero information to back your theories, and getting all fired up and defensive about it. You're trying to convince yourselfs, not me. I've said it before, we're on the same side. I want contributors, you and me, to be getting a bigger piece of the pie, to take some pride in your own hard work. But some of you just can't seem to comprehend my intentions, and actually have instincts that lead you against your own best interests. That's not me telling you what to do, that's me describing my observation based on the information you have provided.
From my perspective, I see companies taking advantage of contributors, offering nothing more to our business than a gradual devaluation and decreasing shares of profits. I try to chime in to encourage my fellow contributors to have the confidence in their own work to not squander it, and all I get is grief and defensive pivoting. All the effort you guys make to try to convince me, or yourselves rather, should really be focused on the agencies with their hands in your pockets and contempt for their contributors. We are on the same side, well except the guy who works for Envato. I'm really starting to understand more and more why so many others have stopped posting in forums like these.
71
« on: February 21, 2017, 09:44 »
I can't control what other people do,
You certainly seem to have a need to tell them they don't value their work though, and that they should stop contributing, even though they might make more money than you.
Never once told anyone what to do. If you're getting defensive, it's because of your own internal doubts. And yes, if you literally are valuing your own work lower, then you are literally valuing your work lower. That's not an opinion, that's math. And really, do you honestly think that personal jab at the end was necessary to make your point? That's yet another debate tactic called "I no longer can make my point through civil discussion so I have to resort to unfounded personal insults." Sorry forum, last post on this from me, for real this time.
72
« on: February 21, 2017, 09:31 »
"150 sales from a cheaper site is nicer if that means more $."
And this is where people like you and people like me can never seem to agree. It's short-term thinking for a life-long business.
"Again, it comes down to YOUR clips. Which is completely natural, you should do what you want with YOUR clips. Just like ANYONE should do what THEY want with THEIR clips."
I can only control where I put my clips. You can do what you want. I choose to keep the value up, you choose to drive the value down. Never said you can't. Just pointing out why undercutting is flawed logic.
I respect anyone's personal choices. Just not double morals and telling others where and where not to sell...
Why on earth should prices for something remain the same for all eternity when the cost of producing is a fraction of what it used to be and the limited budget market demand is 100,000 times higher than it used to be? Just to satisfy one's ego with single pricing?
Why do the world's biggest artists sell tracks for $0.99? Don't they value their work? They do, and they sell lots of those tracks.
I know I just look for the best ratio between buyers/supply as that's where I stand the best chance of selling the most.
Never once told anyone what to do, only offered my opinion. My "morals" have been consistent, feel free to point out specifically where they haven't. If you misunderstood me, I'm sorry about that.
73
« on: February 21, 2017, 09:26 »
increasingdifficulty, I've responded clearly to each of your points in detail. If my simple and consistent philosophy is still strange to you, I suggest re-reading my previous posts instead of me repeating them. I'm not saying you have to agree with me. I don't defend or participate in VB's subs. I can't control what other people do, only what I do. Not sure what more I can say about that.
Well, I'm about done taking up two threads for the same topic. I apologize to the forum for that.
74
« on: February 21, 2017, 09:12 »
Not exactly sure what the relevance is there, I don't participate in the subscription program at Videoblocks. I make $47.16 a sale, and don't compete against myself by accepting $2.88 elsewhere instead.
It's extremely relevant since you were concerned about hurting the business as a whole.
Uploading to VB means you support them and help them in their marketing to get membership customers who download thousands of clips for next to nothing. Much cheaper than VH.
Those membership customers don't have access to my clips. I do not participate. Of course I'm not a fan of the sub programs. It's called picking battles. Just because I state that getting punched in the face by VH is bad, it doesn't mean I think getting kicked in the stomach by VB's sub program is good. The world isn't that black and white. IF my clips were included, I would not support them. And much like Pond5's sub, often the better clips are not included, so my $50/100% clips are there available for purchase.
Sorry, but I do not understand your battle, although I was with you until a year ago.
VH I believe sells their clips for $10, P5 for as little as $4.
VH pays a royalty to artists for each sale, I believe in average more than 30%, which is not bad compared to others.
P5 as far as I know doesn't pay anything to artists for each sale, just half a peanut per month per file, regardless of the tens of thousand of sales
I don't and wouldn't participate in Pond5's sub program. My HD/4K clips are not available at that $4 price point, and I make 50% a sale. All I can personally do is be responsible to myself as to where I choose to sell, and do my best to offer my reasoning. We all have to make our own decisions.
75
« on: February 21, 2017, 09:06 »
"150 sales from a cheaper site is nicer if that means more $."
And this is where people like you and people like me can never seem to agree. It's short-term thinking for a life-long business.
"Again, it comes down to YOUR clips. Which is completely natural, you should do what you want with YOUR clips. Just like ANYONE should do what THEY want with THEIR clips."
I can only control where I put my clips. You can do what you want. I choose to keep the value up, you choose to drive the value down. Never said you can't. Just pointing out why undercutting is flawed logic.
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
