|
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 - increasingdifficulty
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 ... 74
26
« on: April 26, 2020, 08:02 »
And what is the average sell through rate of all of pond5 or Shutterstock?
I'm glad you asked. The 1 sale and up average for Pond5 total for clips added since 2017 (excluding Blackboxguild) is 2%. For Blackboxguild it is 0.77%. Pond5 as a whole is 2.6 times better on average. --- The ALL-TIME corresponding numbers are 5.4% P5 and 0.8% BB. So, 6.75 times better. --- As for Shutterstock, there is no public information so I don't know. --- The unfortunate truth is of course also that the better you are, the worse the deal gets. Let's say your goal is $3,000 a month from stock footage. Suddenly, your "free" Blackbox community now costs you $450 per month. Quite steep in addition to all the other cuts you MUST accept. This one, you don't have to accept. Let's say you also use a curator and those few minutes they spend tagging your clip could end up being the most expensive service you have ever used. And being in a large portfolio on Pond5 is nothing but a gigantic disadvantage. If someone finds your style interesting and wants more from you, it is virtually impossible to browse and find those clips within the 1.4 million... --- If you are happy with it, then that's great! I just think that everyone should find out as much as possible about what it REALLY means.
27
« on: April 26, 2020, 07:19 »
Absolutely - https://www.pond5.com/document/help_adv_search.html -
but the only ones that are really useful are artist:, salegt: (or salelt:) and maybe itemgt: if you want to limit the results to when a clip was uploaded.
You have to know the upload date of at least one clip (from your own portfolio probably) to be able to correctly see the results for the dates you want.
Yup! now I see my error. Thank you 
Curator rating seems also an interesting one,
whatever clip makes 5/5 seems to have a chance to be highlighted
in relevant frontpage collections they assemble from time to time.
Really? I've been in several collections but none of those clips were rated 5, and the ones that are are far from my best work (or best selling work). I think it means pretty much nothing at all. Fun fact: 8.9% of rated 4 clips have sold, and only 8.2% of the rated 5 clips. --- Anyway, looking at the newest rated 5 clips makes you quickly realize that there is not much logic to it, other than maybe some reviewers giving their friends or themselves a 5 on entire mediocre batches... I would not spend even 1 second worrying about the curator rating on Pond5.
28
« on: April 26, 2020, 06:30 »
Absolutely - https://www.pond5.com/document/help_adv_search.html - but the only ones that are really useful are artist:, salegt: (or salelt:) and maybe itemgt: if you want to limit the results to when a clip was uploaded. You have to know the upload date of at least one clip (from your own portfolio probably) to be able to correctly see the results for the dates you want.
29
« on: April 26, 2020, 06:12 »
Perhaps I calculated or search wrong @ID. I will take your numbers as actually correct, no problem, apologies for possible misinformation!
No I don't support BB, I was trying to focus on P5 past year sales for the same period everyone said "no sales!".
No worries! You probably put artist:blackboxguild salegt:0 right? The right ID, but the number you get is the number of clips with 1 sale OR MORE, not the total number of sales. You have to keep going up (salegt:1 gives you 1,422 clips for example) and add those results to get the total, until there are no more clips shown, after salegt:19 in this case). The 10 sales number you mentioned was probably from the 2019 thread with the same subject... That was 10 clips with 5 sales or more (from my post). Today, that number is 93. That just means that another 83 clips reached 5 sales or more since last year around this time. Nice if you have a personal portfolio of 500 clips... Not so nice if your portfolio consists of 1.4 million clips... --- I will say that the average has gone up since last year! But only from incredibly bad to slightly less incredibly bad.
30
« on: April 26, 2020, 05:51 »
What is the salegt:0 that you've mentioned
Sent from my HD1901 using Tapatalk
Pond5 gives you the sales numbers if you use a few advanced search methods. If you write (EXACTLY, don't add or remove any spaces) artist:blackboxguild salegt:0 Pond5 will show you all the clips from that artist with 1 sale or more. If your name is izzikiorage on P5 - artist:izzikiorage salegt:0 will show you all of your own clips with 1 sale or more. "Salegt" stands for "Sale Greater Than". So, salegt:99 will show you all the clips with 100 sales or more. --- It's a very fun and educative way to see through the bull**** of many forum posters.  --- As soon as I see a forum member (usually at P5) with very strong opinions on how everything new is bad, and how they know how things should be done because they are "old industry professionals active since day one" I check their actual results. Since my own average is almost always MUCH better than theirs, I can continue my way of working with confidence.
31
« on: April 26, 2020, 05:34 »
At one time it seemed every youtuber was talking about it and now suddenly nothing. Did they all get super rich and move to a private island?
That was of course due to a big marketing campaign. Those YouTubers didn't recommend it out of the kindness of their hearts, and most of them didn't even work with stock footage. They of course got paid (in one way or another - referrals, cash, better rates, etc.). Be very aware that that's how it usually is - from the latest tripod that is a MUST have, to the newest coolest LED light - those YouTubers got paid (with free products, cash, or referral links). Very few are honest unfortunately, because they like free stuff. And they like to keep receiving free stuff. --- Now, regarding the service. There is one advantage: you save some time. Disadvantages? Everything else. Less control, less money. If uploading yourself, and keywording yourself is your worst nightmare, of course use them. In fact, it's better for me since that means less competition. But if you care about maximizing revenue - keep as much control over your clips as you can. --- Of course, people working as "curators" will tell you that you should use them so that they can make some $$$ off of your clips and they don't have to film as much themselves. Browse the portfolio and you can see some of the quality of those titles and descriptions... Not good. --- A bit of a rant, but it just annoys me when stuff like this is so heavily marketed, essentially tricking people into giving them money.
32
« on: April 26, 2020, 05:05 »
Last year we talked the had some 10-20 P5 sales I think?
now they have 11711 sales priced from $25 to $99.
So much with "P5 had no sales for year 2019", right?
most valuable BB/P5 clip? aerial in Madrit sold 20 times for $79.
Although the contributor could have a better split $1580 if he uploaded by him/herself?
hm!?
Firstly, those numbers are WAY off... Salegt:0 gives you all clips with 1 sale OR MORE. You have to go up in numbers (salegt:1, salegt:2 etc.) and add in the results. And they did not just have 10 sales a year ago. Secondly, (even if that number is wrong), 11,711 sales in one year from 1.4 million clips is incredibly bad - under 1% of the clips sold. Would you be happy with 10 sales per year from a 1,000-clip portfolio? I sell much more than that average per MONTH. 30,000 sales on 1.4 million clips per year is also very, very low. --- The accurate number of LIFETIME Blackbox P5 sales is 14,038 as of today. That is for 3+ years, an incredibly bad average when you have 1.4 million clips. When we get up to clips with higher sales count even my own <1,000 clip portfolio has performed better! That is compared to a 1.4 million clip portfolio! Not even including membership sales. To me, that makes it insane to believe that Blackbox would give you any kind of advantage (when the truth is the exact opposite).
33
« on: March 09, 2020, 05:46 »
EDIT:
The jumping shark is a BBC clip, most likely ripped from YouTube, probably like the rest of the footage.
https://stock.adobe.com/video/shark-jumping-slow-motions/175014389
Who approves this stuff? Sure, a lot of it could slip through, but a jumping great white in super slow motion? I would think most people would have seen this clip before, and even if that isn't the case with the particular reviewer, it should raise suspicion.
is it reported to Adobe now ?
Not by me at least, so feel free to do so. Anyway, the more people reporting the better I would assume.
34
« on: March 09, 2020, 05:37 »
To be brutally honest, whoever is an idiot enough to upload to Unsplash should be aware that there's a high risk that someone will upload their copyright for sale
Yes, of course it's the victim's fault - always! Just like the BBC are idiots for uploading their clips on YouTube, when they should of course realize that someone will just rip the footage and upload for sale. And when walking around at night you of course DESERVE to be robbed. Entirely your own fault. (for people unable to detect sarcasm - that was sarcasm). To be brutally honest, that was, let's say, not a very wise comment.
35
« on: March 08, 2020, 04:59 »
EDIT: The jumping shark is a BBC clip, most likely ripped from YouTube, probably like the rest of the footage. https://stock.adobe.com/video/shark-jumping-slow-motions/175014389Who approves this stuff? Sure, a lot of it could slip through, but a jumping great white in super slow motion? I would think most people would have seen this clip before, and even if that isn't the case with the particular reviewer, it should raise suspicion.
36
« on: March 08, 2020, 04:53 »
I don't know for sure (yet), but I randomly came across this portfolio: https://stock.adobe.com/search?creator_id=207271937and it seems quite suspicious. Extremely bad descriptions "very nice...", downright inaccurate descriptions, a "too good to be true" portfolio variety, and lots of 720p footage (even timelapses that the original owner would probably never upload as 720p). So, find any of your footage there? I haven't reported it, so feel free to do so if you can confirm it is indeed a stolen portfolio.
37
« on: February 26, 2020, 03:18 »
Both GIF and the peanut butter are pronounced "Jif."
Why didn't I think of this Subject before?
Geoffrey starts with a G but we don't say gefry !! ;-)
What peanut butter 
How about gift, get, giggle, gimmick, girl, gig?
38
« on: February 26, 2020, 03:15 »
Both GIF and the peanut butter are pronounced "Jif."
Why didn't I think of this Subject before?
Both "JIF" and "GIF" (g sound as in graphics) are correct. I would use the latter.
39
« on: February 23, 2020, 10:50 »
there is a limit at $150 in P5 frontpage due to the price slider.
Changed prices and left some days for cache to refresh or whatever and no 4L clip was shown...
So, guess, $149 is the top limit currently in order for videos to be seen...
P5 blog suggest even lower price range. pffff...
The limit is $150+, not $150. So, infinity. Not saying infinity is the right price, but clips priced over $150 are very much shown.
40
« on: February 19, 2020, 05:43 »
And of course they also havent announced how much every download will earn....
Since you cannot know how many downloads there will be, or how many subscribers there will be, in any given month, quite naturally, you cannot say how much one download will earn. An educated GUESS is that it will be from $0.01-0.50, likely closer to $0.01 than $0.50. It could also be less than $0.01. If you need $ per download numbers to be high, an unlimited subscription site is not for you.
41
« on: February 18, 2020, 10:18 »
They are selling my 4k clips more than 20% lower than the price I set. what are they doing?
Pond5 is actually SELLING?
I actually had my best payout ever (for footage since 2015) this month, just beating Dec 2019. Admittedly, P5 has never been in the top for me, but getting closer to a $1/per clip/per month average. Of course P5 is selling, or they would have closed down a long time ago. And of course many individuals are experiencing a steep drop due to increased competition etc. My other media is also selling well this month, although not close to the all-time high. Definitely better than the fall months, though. No doubt that the company as a whole has been struggling this last year, and the changes are a reaction to that, not the cause. We will see.
42
« on: February 18, 2020, 07:34 »
I understand what you are saying all I am stating is the it is not dollar for dollar 50% more as I have the sales to prove it.
No, your sales prove that creating a new account with mostly a different portfolio with new clips with 0 sales (= bad search placement), with a large part consisting of animated still images didn't produce the sales you had expected. If you had had a non-ex deal on that same account with those same clips, uploaded at the same time with the same prices, you would only have earned 67% of what you actually earned. When you make business decisions you base them off of actual math, not what you know happened in the future... --- Since I make several hundred percent to 1,000%+ more from the other sites (and always have), a 50% bigger cut was not enough for me. Of course going ex COULD have resulted in amazing promotion and customers flocking to $1,000 clips and I would have been wrong. In this case, I wasn't, but I didn't base my decision on that.
43
« on: February 18, 2020, 07:05 »
Only doing the % math not the earnings, I have sold a lot of exclusive files and it is not 50% earnings difference, I can post that.
A 60% cut is 50% more than a 40% cut. "% math" and "earnings math" follow each other 100%. This is extremely important.
44
« on: February 18, 2020, 06:47 »
Sorry Non-Exclusive =40% Exclusive +60% that is a 20% difference.
No, it is not. That is a 50% difference. Price: $100 Ex: You get $60. Non-ex: You get $40. $60 is 50% more than $40. --- If you get $2,000 as non-ex, you get $3,000 as ex for the same sales. 50% more. --- It is very important to get the math right when making business decisions.
45
« on: February 18, 2020, 06:19 »
10%
10%? You make 50% more on an exclusive sale at the same price as a non-exclusive sale.
46
« on: January 30, 2020, 10:10 »
Not really a drone question, but what is your take on the shutter speed for video? I know about the rule to use 2 x the frame rate and I have been trying to do that using ND filters. However, when the drone is out in the sky, and I want to take a still photo, I am limited to the same "slow" shutter speed unless I up the ISO, which I don't want to do. So getting a clear sharp photo seems to clash with the desire to have smooth video. A friend suggested that unless there was a lot of motion in the clip, then not using the ND filter would be fine for video even if the shutter was considerably faster than the norm - ie about 1/320th second
Steve
In my opinion, this isn't much of a problem anymore since the Mavic 2 Pro has an adjustable aperture. It was more of an issue with the older drones that had a fixed aperture. Where are you filming? Unless it's VERY bright, I seldom need more than an ND4 filter, and you can stop down when filming, and open up when taking pictures. Furthermore, since the drone has a gimbal, a 1/50 shutter will most often produce very good results. I feel that most of the motion comes from the drone, so while taking pictures, keep it still. In my opinion, using a 1/50 shutter looks much more professional, and if things aren't moving when you're out filming with your drone, I'd say you might not be filming very interesting stuff. Even if you had to use a 1/50 shutter for photos, do you really find that to be too slow for a wideangle lens on a gimbal that is usually far away from the subject? Of course, there is no perfect answer. Personally, I've always had more problems with too little motion blur for video, than too much for photos.
47
« on: January 29, 2020, 08:34 »
That is good to hear. Then it would be interesting if they would allow all artist to opt in content of their choice to the pond5 subs plan.
Well, I see artists reporting lower membership revenue than before the change, so I don't know if it's necessarily "good". Anyway, you're a bit late to the party, since next month all membership content will automatically go to the new, this time unlimited, subscription site. I don't know if they will keep the current membership plan as is, or if the new site will simply replace it. Time will tell.
48
« on: January 28, 2020, 14:27 »
Perhaps that has changed, I dont know. But at least when it came out it was a we rent it for a low fixed price thing.
Yes, this has indeed changed. But you are right, it used to be a low guaranteed return. Not anymore. See my post above for current numbers, and download number estimates.
49
« on: January 27, 2020, 07:27 »
And pond5 also has a subs program with over 400 000 files, but unlike Getty, artists never know the sales volume or for how low they sell.
https://www.pond5.com/membership$19.90 per clip if you have a monthly membership. Contributor gets 40-60% of that. $8.32 per clip if you have an annual membership. But, as you say, we have no way of knowing what the custom deals are. But an estimated guess would be an average buyer price of $10-15 per download (let's say $12.50), so if you make $100, you probably had around 20 downloads if you're non-exclusive.
50
« on: January 22, 2020, 09:22 »
No it was like a rendering glitch I had in CS6. It would just glitch out a random frame every now and then. A lot of my stock work from around 2011 must have a random frame sometimes in the clip as it was a good half year before I realized 
I see, but at least since CC 2015 those problems have been fixed. Never had a frame issue like this in After Effects. On the other hand, Final Cut Pro X does have a bug similar to the one you're describing. It happens if you drop 25p footage on a 24p/23.976p timeline, and choose to retime automatically, which should make it play back at 96% of the speed. It says it does, but you will find duplicate frames. Interestingly, if you DON'T retime the 25p footage in the 24p timeline, it plays back just fine without duplicate frames! Any other combination seems to work fine (30 to 24, 25, or 24 to 30 etc.).
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 ... 74
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
