|
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 - LDV81
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12
201
« on: January 03, 2017, 13:35 »
Step 1. Make a list of all the places where they could have licensed this photo. If I understand you correctly, it would be only IS.
Step 2. Find the texts of regular and extended license agreements on these sites and analyze the licence terms.
Some licensing agreements have examples of what is allowed and what is not. I don't want to go to the istock site for you, because that site makes me want to puke.
And I don't want to puke right now, because I just ate dinner and drank some wine. Cheers and good luck.
202
« on: January 02, 2017, 05:48 »
Maybe a small team, with each person having different skills, i.e. one who excels in SEO, one in social media, etc. and a leader with good communication and interpersonal skills might be able to get something going and succeed. And startup operating capital would be necessary.
What you're proposing is close to a microstock co-op. A leader, an IT developer, marketing people and a group of selected photographers. The idea of a microstock co-op had been ridiculed on this forum many times over the years. Then Stocksy emerged out of the blue and bang, a midstock co-op turned out to be relatively succesful. But the skills, knowledge and experience necessary to launch a successful co-op are not so easy to find.
203
« on: December 31, 2016, 19:43 »
Average royalty per download of $22.55 but they're all video.
I didn't mean average royalty, but the royalty rate based on lifetime earnings. SS earns more when files from lower-tier contributors get downloaded, so theoretically there might be some motivation to "tweak" the search engine accordingly.
204
« on: December 31, 2016, 18:53 »
Might be interesting to know! This factory with a few photographers with over 100.000 files at Shutterstock. Spoke to one of them this morning. Yesterday they had 2 downloads and today at 12 noon still nothing. I cant even put in writing what they said about SS.
So people we are not alone far from it.
December was dire for me too. Pathetic. Last December was also bad, but I had roughly twice as many downloads then. I can think of 3 possible explanations: 1. Major search engine change, possibly punishing contributors who get $0.38 / DL. 2. Exodus of relatively many large clients to competition. 3. Errors in sales reporting. If my balance can increase incorrectly tenfold out of the blue and other glitches happen all over the place, I would not exclude this possibility at this moment. If you guys had a good December, what is your royalty per download? If you had a bad month what is yours? Mine is $0,38 and December sucked big time.
205
« on: December 31, 2016, 01:37 »
I hope they will launch sciety 7 soon, with improved sales performance and a faster upload process.
206
« on: December 29, 2016, 20:59 »
My thoughts on direct selling is that it is business model not likely to succeed, or rather not generate enough sales for it to have been worth anyone's time. From reading various threads over the years here, I think that has turned out to be the case. Think about it from the customer's point of view. I used to buy stock photos for work, so I once thought like a customer. How am I going to spend the least amount of time searching for the best possible image for myself or my client? I'm going to go a mega big site like shutterstock or istockphoto or adobestock, or gettyimages because I know that is where I'll spend the least amount of time getting the right image for my project. Can you imagine the nightmare it would be if I had to remember 500 individual photographer's websites and go to each one by one and do my search in the hopes they might have something suitable? The latter just isn't going to happen. Say you get an individual website up to sell photos. How are you going to let the hundreds of thousands of graphic designers know you exist? Will you be spending tens of thousands of dollars on Google adwords? You guys are trying to solve a problem that exist for you, but does not exist for the customer.
SAD BUT TRUE. Not much to add.
207
« on: December 25, 2016, 14:58 »
I earned my first 37 dollars  on Shutterstock and they send me an email that I can claim my money.
If you have reached your payment threshold, the money will be sent automatically during the first two weeks of the following month (usually it is on the 7th or 8th, I think). At the beginning of the new month they will send you an email with your calculated earnings and the money will come later. Just make sure you entered the correct email address for payments in Shutterstock account settings - the same address that you use for paypal.
208
« on: December 25, 2016, 11:17 »
I like this one very much: https://www.shutterstock.com/de/pic-68874208/stock-photo-taj-mahal.html?src=MsUAPl8KDnafjnTEbUDheg-5-2But there is a gazillion of great photos from Taj Mahal. You're probably a few years too late. To earn significant money in microstock a photo should get to the top of search results (most popular on SS, in the good old times they called it Best Match at iStock). It is much more difficult to achieve now, than it was a few years ago, because there are millions and millions more photos in the pool. And with time it should get even more and more difficult. You must answer it for yourself, if time spent on microstock is time wisely spent. The future for individual photographers doing microstock is not looking good. Some people moved on to do better things, but their portfolios stay in the pool.
209
« on: December 23, 2016, 13:38 »
And people say VideoHive is bad... there you'd get $9 if you're non-exclusive, and $12.5 to $17.50 for a 4K sale!
Yes, Spacey, it is very bad because on P5, I get $37.5 for non-exclusive HD clips. Let me add: sometimes it is "low-hanging-fruit" type of clips.
210
« on: December 16, 2016, 23:06 »
Several thousand $, but then I woke up and when I went to check the stats, these earnings were no longer there, unfortunately.
Other than that, quite a few times in the range 250-500, I don't sum up daily earnings usually, too many places.
211
« on: December 16, 2016, 06:50 »
Do! with the right agencies its a completely different story. Joined micro from the start in 2004 and have had some great times and earnings but now I feel they have played their game to the end and what remains are the leftovers. The reason all play around with the search is probably because they know its come to an end and they want to earn as much as possible before the crash.
What crash? The micros won't crash anytime soon, but most contributors will crash quite soon. The root of the problem is obvious: too many contributors producing too many (decent) files. It will be my first year since 2008 when I earned less than in the previous year, and the prospects for the next year are bleak. In 2008 SS sold almost all files that I sent them and people were shocked when 50K files were being added every week. I'm afraid it's Game Over for most of us quite soon. Even Stockmarketer seems to have disappeared from MSG. He must have found greener pastures, I suppose.
212
« on: December 15, 2016, 20:44 »
I had over 3,000 photos approved in my portfolio and today and sold a few during the year and last night every last one was declined. I wrote support and got this answer.
"Although your images were good and approved and sold, our new team felt they were not suitable for consumers today"
I don't have any of the 3,000 images anymore--I do have about two months left on my paid subscription which I will cancel very soon. All this work gone down the drain.
Well photographers---Stay clear!!!
Thank you very much for the warning, Oscar.
213
« on: December 15, 2016, 06:52 »
"Specialists".
I suppose each one is kinda different.
Seems like there is money in the graduation caps business and human lightbulbs.
214
« on: December 15, 2016, 03:13 »
I would suggest that everybody takes an example from Volkan and goes exclusive with DT.
It certainly takes a great deal of courage.
If everybody went exclusive with DT, my life would be so good...
DeeTee is the place to be, guys.
215
« on: December 14, 2016, 15:41 »
The way I see it: ALL photographers should be in this, otherwise news media will just buy photos from the cheaper ones...
And then nobody earns good money because the pie is divided into too many pieces. Not everybody is in Stocksy and there is like a gazillion cheaper agencies and cheaper contributors, and yet clients buy from Stocksy. Why? Because Stocksy has the know-how and understands how to deal with the right kind of clients. And the collection has a certain style which certain clients like. And ONLY because NOT everybody is in, individual contributors can earn meaningful money.
216
« on: December 14, 2016, 05:36 »
One more tip: before jumping you can do some research: identify the potential buyers, divide them into categories and just talk to them. Ask them if there is something that they miss in the current model, if there is something that should be improved, something that irritates them. And if you do this and that better, would they surely switch to your co-op or not?
Starting an agency and hoping that the buyers will 'just come' might not be a good idea. The buyers decide the fate of an agency, so they should be able to give you the best answers. Just my opinion.
217
« on: December 14, 2016, 05:13 »
I would say yes, but only if it is organized by some of the best people in the business. A great advantage of Stocksy was Brianna's and Bruce's experience. I suspect they knew personally quite a few buyers and thanks to their connections it wasn't difficult to convince them to switch.
If you select the contributors carefully, not too many from each region, not too many from the same discipline and only the best ones, then maybe yes?
But I don't know how that market works, if the big newspapers are the main users of such photos and they have staff photographers - then if these photographers leave and join the co-op, they would just be replaced by others, or not?
Eliminating the news agencies as the middlemen would be probably easier.
If, let's say, the top 50 sport photographers, only the best ones, join the co-op and are exlusive, then it could get interesting if the sales dept. is also experienced, people know the market and have connections. Or not?
218
« on: December 13, 2016, 01:53 »
It's not just the original poster. My account has also been closed as well.
No payment of any funds that where in the account has been made AND my images are still available for license.
How can they still sell images and profit when they closed my account so have no way to compensate me.
Your profile seems to be online, therefore the account should be active. I suspect you have 'login problems'. 3 possibilities: - Canstock is having some IT glitches - You enter the password incorrectly, I would try another browser, make sure caps lock is not on, etc. Perhaps you changed the password and forgot about that. - Somebody hacked your password or emails and changed the password on CS. If that's the case I would quickly change all passwords, but from a computer that you are sure is not infected with malware. Try to request a new password from CS. There should be something like "forgot password".
219
« on: December 12, 2016, 20:59 »
$50 is not much at all.
More is possible.
On some other sites, even much more.
But the general trend is going down.
220
« on: December 11, 2016, 16:45 »
Were some of the photos editorial? I have found they always go down a different channel and have a different review time.
Do they accept editorial photos now??? Are you sending them editorial stuff and it gets accepted? I think you're on the right page, but in the wrong book.
221
« on: December 10, 2016, 03:52 »
When the time comes, they will be reviewed.
Don't worry. Their time will come. Relax. Go out for a walk. Drink a cup of tea.
Reviewers are also people and need to rest. Unless they are bots, as at some agencies.
(for Christmas pics it's too late anyway, start to think about Easter)
222
« on: December 08, 2016, 16:45 »
Shoot timelapses or hyperlapses instead, man...
I think it is fine to have 10 or even more photos of the same subject, but only if they're substantially different from each other. Different angles, vertical vs. horizontal, close-up vs. wide, etc. You're not doing that, your similars are more like 'clones', the differences between them seem to be purely random and usually don't seem to be a result of a creative process.
Cheers!
223
« on: December 04, 2016, 07:16 »
I'm no expert in the software you speak, of but if you need six extra frames then they've got to come from somewhere... so you're either going to have duplicate frames, or interpolated frames...
Why? I would expect that the conversion process just changes the duration of each frame, for example from 1/30 s to 1/24 s, or vice versa. But I am not sure, I have never done it. As long as the agencies accept all common frame rates or don't have a preference, I don't really care much.
224
« on: December 03, 2016, 19:02 »
Thanks, so I guess, this "geo-location" search is just a conspiracy myth...
Maybe? Maybe not? I know that SS sends cookies from what I search and I get ads to match that.
Yeah. For the life of me, I can't understand why they spend money on ads trying to convince me that I should buy my own photos from them..
225
« on: November 30, 2016, 14:02 »
I am not against upload limits. If this helps to get my files processed in time it is much better than having to wait 6 months for inspections. Dissolve is a very small agency, so maybe this is the best way forward for them. It also allows them to keep taking new contributors.
I have never applied to Dissolve, they got themselves a very unpleasant reputation when they first came here. Not sure, how they work with people now.
But upload limits are not a serious issue or anything that would put me off. It seems like a useful measure to handle an exploding queue.
Yes. +1
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
