|
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 - SuperPhoto
Pages: 1 ... 13 14 15 16 17 [18] 19 20 21 22 23 ... 33
426
« on: September 03, 2019, 08:57 »
Unless someone just has a super "bad" portfolio (unlikely in the first place, otherwise they wouldn't have accepted the submissions)... I suspect it is just a pyschological trick to try and make contributors "feel" they may be missing out on something, i.e., sense of urgency - "uh oh, better act now, or I could "miss out"!".
I believe the queue is totally artificial, and has nothing to do with them being "backed up".
They would probably be ecstactic if 100% of contirbutors agreed to their watered down program where they can pay them peanuts.
But since not everyone is excited as they thought about their "great news" about screwing over contributors again, they are trying this to get people to sign up.
427
« on: September 02, 2019, 10:05 »
That's interesting.
Sounds like they are desperately trying to get people to sign up for their "great" "$0.05" (or less)/video download program.
They do have a huge enough library now that I think they can coast quite comfortably for the next 5 years, but I don't think many people will be too excited to work for pennies and submit new worik. Unfortunately - there is a large supply of "newcomers" - but - not sure if they will take the time to keyword, title, edit, etc videos for the wonderful prospect of 5 cents a video.
Plus - since they' basically screwed people over in the past (100% "we'll never change! not like they other guys!" commissions -> 50% "oops sorry we have to" -> "buh bye now, give it to us for pennies!" structure).
Now 'supposedly' how they calculate the contributor pool is by "3x the HEIGHT of commissions when contributors earned 100%" to make it sound like a "huge" amount. (They don't actually specify that number - which leads me to believe it's really just something they are picking out of their butt). Educated guess they are probably only allocated about $50k (out of their $30 million revenue) to be split amongst contributors.
But then it would be very naive to believe they were actually being honest, since they've proven themselves already to be dishonest several times over. They don't actually "commit" to any number (so no accountability whatsoever). And then - for the arbitrary number they've chosen - they'll probably squeeze it as low as possible until people actually start dropping out.
They've just gotten too greedy.
428
« on: August 27, 2019, 05:58 »
Actually, in a way its funny.
It's something I've seen happen in many other industries with 'content generation', although seemed to happen a lot 'slower' in this industry.
Basically - they build it up (attractive rates) - then once they reach a critical threshold (whatever that is) - they then slash commissions.
While a % of people will leave/remove portfolios/etc - a large % will stay because of various reasons (apathetic, something is better than nothing, not knowing any better, forget about their account, etc, etc).
And then the company "coasts" off that income for a long time (super low overhead, super high profits).
But then - that means there is an opportunity for a "new guy" to pop up with brand new super attractive rates, etc that will be good for at least a few years to get market share from these other guys.
So. I'd pay attention/look for this new guy.
If you can figure out who the new player is, who is aggressive, wants to build up their site, the one that is hungry, etc - then I'd support them. Because they will be the next "big" player that you will be able to benefit (profit wise) for the next few years.
429
« on: August 26, 2019, 09:51 »
Read that but I don't know anything on audio.
For Music Tracks and Sound Effects, your share of Net License Revenue will be 35%
This time I will c/p the whole text for the next "update" 
Not sure if I remember those words previously:
We may also exclude or deduct any of the following from the calculation of the Net License Revenue and the net amount payable to you: (A) taxes or other withholdings paid by the customer or that we determine are required by applicable law; (B) refunds, chargebacks and uncollectible sums; and (C) fees, charges and/or costs payable to or deducted by financial institutions for the processing of any credit card, debit card, e-check or alternative payment method and/or currency conversion for payments received by us or paid to you in a currency other than U.S. Dollars.
Edit
plus this
In cases where a customer purchases an Extended License, we will deduct from Net License Revenue and retain a portion of the additional fees charged for the Extended License as a "Legal Guarantee Fee" to cover our self-insurance costs as determined by us in our sole discretion for providing the customer with additional legal protection. For avoidance of doubt, you will be paid your share of the net Extended License fees collected by us after such Legal Guarantee Fee is deducted. Refer to the Website Contributor Portal Payout Overview for further details. I have a copy of the old license (as of Jan 2018). These portions are identical (nothing changed, it was already there).
430
« on: August 23, 2019, 14:59 »
A few more thoughts...
A) Are you solving a problem that you have? Is it an itch that you NEED to scratch?
B) Think in terms what is in it for the various stake holders, contributors, customers. What do they get out of it that they can't get somewhere else with less effort?
C) There are always nay sayers, the college professor once told a college student that over night delivery of packages across the country was a stupid idea, that college student eventually launched Fedex.
D) Sometimes it is just being at the right place at the right time. That is what a lot of very successful entrepreneurs say about their success.
E) If it is a superior product, it is never too late to launch it.
I'm not saying you should go ahead and built this thing out, more just giving you thoughts to think about.
All good points. Part of the reason I thought I'd ask. If the majority of people here just complained/whined, then might not be worth the time/effort... (so far that seems to be the case). Funny thing - not one person has yet asked any of my original questions, which were: a) Images? Video?
b) $29/month? $59/month? $99/month? More? Less?
c) Features you'd want?
d) What would you pay for 'marketing' of your content?
e) What is your portfolio size? (100 items? 1000? 10000?)
Got a lot of poo-pooing... The only really constructive comments so far have been by you & one other person...
431
« on: August 23, 2019, 05:21 »
Since it reads like you know how to code, here's some random thoughts of the top of my head...
Setup it up a bit like Squarespace.com have a bunch of different beautiful templates that people can choose from. Then do sales in 2 different methods.
1st method - allow sales via individual accounts, individuals keep all profits.
2nd method - build out a platform that shows all files from all individual sites. Have some pre-defined rules about how the search algorithm will work, and make that public. Ask all the files that are submitted here are exclusive. A large amount of exclusive files will draw traffic, for example like Stocksy.
Make this site a co-op, spell out how revenue would be shared from the platform sales. Give yourself a very nice unreasonably big payment in the future for doing work for nothing in the beginning. Spell this part out upfront. After that just pay yourself a reasonable salary moving forward from the sales.
Re: #2, was thinking of something like that... BUT... then it becomes
a) essentially a new agency
b) which, of course is a LOT more overhead than an individual sites. (An individual would be fully responsible for their content, whereas in an agency you need staff to review assets, staff for customer/sales assistance, staff for other items, etc, etc).
So I was wondering if essentially 'owning' your own site that was as easy as creating an account would be appealing.
I will give some thought to the marketing aspect though - just as I was writing this had an idea that might be appealing, going to think about it to see if it would work...
Virtually no stock buyer is going to go to an individual's own website unless it is amazing work and they can't find something similar on one of the big agencies' website. It is all about what would be the least amount of effort for the buyer. A big stock site is most often where the buyer finds what they want with the least amount of effort. Similar to shopping on Amazon.com, 50% of all US online shopping happens on that website because it is where people go to buy stuff with the least amount of effort. Anyway, the only way for you to launch something new is that you have to have contributors that commit to giving high quality exclusive files, otherwise buyers already have existing stock websites to go to.
Regarding staff, just find volunteers who will work for nothing, just like you will work for nothing. Then one day if and when the site actually becomes profitable, then pay all these people an unreasonably large amount of money out of the sales for all the free work they gave. Then figure out what the new pay will be moving forward.
Situation here though is - it's been my experience when looking for volunteers, in most cases you get what you pay for. In some cases, you might find a gem - but then they will have limited availability. Others - the quality of work varies widely, and then they may promise something will get done, but it doesn't. Unless you have a highly motivated volunteer - which if you have an insight as to how to find those, I'm open to hearing - it would be easier to hire someone. In which case - the 2nd option is like creating a brand new agency. Might be a good idea though (creating a new agency), simply because the attitude of the larger ones is 'we are the king, do as we say, otherwise too bad'...
432
« on: August 23, 2019, 05:16 »
..
So I was wondering if essentially 'owning' your own site that was as easy as creating an account would be appealing.
always promised, never realized
I will give some thought to the marketing aspect though - just as I was writing this had an idea that might be appealing, going to think about it to see if it would work...
are you saying you HAVEN'T yet given 'some thought' to marketing!??! and you wonder why no one takes your proposal seriously .
The original question was with respect to setting up the site itself, nothing to do with marketing. As an aside though, something occurred to me that might work marketing wise as well.
433
« on: August 23, 2019, 05:12 »
So........
434
« on: August 22, 2019, 21:11 »
Sorry, I know this isn't an answer to your question but I'm curious. Is there a market in audio even and how expensive is it to break into it?
Yes, there is a market if you have high fidelity audio, and unique settings. Matching buyers to sellers can be a challenge. Breaking into it - depends what you consider "profitable". There is an abundant supply of files though (I think last time I checked pond5 had over 1 million files). So I think you'd have to produce a considerable amount to break in, and/or have something uniquely interesting.
435
« on: August 22, 2019, 21:08 »
Since it reads like you know how to code, here's some random thoughts of the top of my head...
Setup it up a bit like Squarespace.com have a bunch of different beautiful templates that people can choose from. Then do sales in 2 different methods.
1st method - allow sales via individual accounts, individuals keep all profits.
2nd method - build out a platform that shows all files from all individual sites. Have some pre-defined rules about how the search algorithm will work, and make that public. Ask all the files that are submitted here are exclusive. A large amount of exclusive files will draw traffic, for example like Stocksy.
Make this site a co-op, spell out how revenue would be shared from the platform sales. Give yourself a very nice unreasonably big payment in the future for doing work for nothing in the beginning. Spell this part out upfront. After that just pay yourself a reasonable salary moving forward from the sales.
Re: #2, was thinking of something like that... BUT... then it becomes a) essentially a new agency b) which, of course is a LOT more overhead than an individual sites. (An individual would be fully responsible for their content, whereas in an agency you need staff to review assets, staff for customer/sales assistance, staff for other items, etc, etc). So I was wondering if essentially 'owning' your own site that was as easy as creating an account would be appealing. I will give some thought to the marketing aspect though - just as I was writing this had an idea that might be appealing, going to think about it to see if it would work...
436
« on: August 22, 2019, 19:48 »
Weve already done Symbiostock. Didnt work.
a) Who says it doesn't work? (I've heard it mentioned here before from those who said it didn't work for them, never really looked at it. But I am sure there are some people it does work for).
^^^^^^
What makes you "sure"? Did you mean, "I think it might work for some people" ?
Read all about it here:
https://www.microstockgroup.com/symbiostock
Thanks for the link. Will read through those posts. I think one of the big issues was it was a "wordpress" plugin, and wordpress itself is nortious for been EXTREMLY slow/resource hungry/etc if you use more than a couple plugins. I was thinking of something pretty streamlined - basically, it would be as easy as creating an account at something like adobestock/pond5/etc, except you get 100% of the commissions, except of course the fee you pay for the hosting. I get marketing is important too. That's a little more challenging. But - do you think the 'site' itself would be appealing if it was that easy?
437
« on: August 22, 2019, 15:57 »
What was wrong is that buyers dont care about looking at an individuals site. Those that have niche content that is very valuable already have a way to sell.
OKay - so what you are saying is you'd need marketing? For niche content sellers - do you know what ways they sell?
439
« on: August 22, 2019, 15:37 »
Weve already done Symbiostock. Didnt work.
a) Who says it doesn't work? (I've heard it mentioned here before from those who said it didn't work for them, never really looked at it. But I am sure there are some people it does work for). b) If it didn't work for you - what specifically was "wrong" about it that you would need to be "right" in order for it to work for you?
440
« on: August 22, 2019, 15:23 »
Seeing as certain agencies are trying to "force" the bigger ones in a race to the bottom through a subscription model (and seem to forget what made them BIG was the contributors contributing content)...
What would you pay for your own subscription site? IF you had an easy to use/plug & play solution?
(Also - by 'plug & play' - I don't mean a wordpress plugin. I mean something where *literally* all you have to do is upload your assets, and enter your payment information, and then start marketing - unless you want that included too).
a) Images? Video?
b) $29/month? $59/month? $99/month? More? Less?
c) Features you'd want?
d) What would you pay for 'marketing' of your content?
e) What is your portfolio size? (100 items? 1000? 10000?)
I'm thinking a good solution to the "content crisis" was if individual authors could manage their own content, and collect 100% of the fees for their work.
Not only would it help stop the race to the bottom (simply because the "mega" agencies would receive significantly less new content), but it would help make authors feel more in control of their work, and not have to undermine their own efforts.
What are your thoughts?
441
« on: August 22, 2019, 15:14 »
Solution:
a) Don't upload to subscription sites.
b) Start your own subscription site.
While yes - some types of content will most likely become saturated - there are still 'unique' types of shots that I would pay more for if it suited my project. But if I can find that 'unique' shot on a subscription site (because someone was desperate) - then of course I would just go with the subscription site.
I think what WILL happen is:
There will be a bit of an 'equilibrium'. The "subscription" agencies seem to forget that what made them "big" was standing on the shoulders of other people. They make money because of users submitting content. Without those content creators, they'd make $0.
Not that they will be "hurting" any time soon (i.e., envato, motionarray, storyblocks, etc) - because they already have a large content pool. (I think they will still make LOTS of money for years to come).
BUT, they'll likely see a huge slowdown in "new" submitted content - simply because it won't be profitable for content creators to submit new content. So their collection will become stagnant. It will still of course make lots of money - (it's like a casino saying they are "losing" money because intead of making a $150 MILLION dollar "profit", they are "only" making a $120 million profit. It's still "profit" (revenue - expenses = net profit) - but they will spin it saying they "lost" $30 million dollars. (No, they "made" a huge profit, just not as much as they wanted).
Taking good videos, and processing them is much harder than images.
And so I think there will still be a market for that.
442
« on: August 17, 2019, 07:17 »
Don't listen to anybody here. They only know what they know and thought they are already right about it. After all, those that have really tried and are truly successful will not speak of anything here because they don't want you to know about it.
Not true. I actually have created subscription sites, ad not related to photography, and sometimes I do share my expertise. Some successful people will share, because they want to see others succeed as well. Anyway, like I said - definitely doable - the main challenge you have to figure out though is the marketing. If you can figure out a good USP (unique selling proposition), and make something go viral (because free advertising here is probably what you want) - then you can get the 4000 subscribes.
443
« on: August 16, 2019, 22:03 »
Is it possible to launch own subscription site? I have a lot of photos, I sell a lot of photos. Like between 25,000 - 50,000 images, per year, mostly all subs. Most of my photos are of one genre that graphic designers use a lot of. If I just charged a $5 per month sub fee, and I got 4,000 people to sign up, that would be $20,000 per month, before expenses. My thought was that $5 per month is a rounding error for almost all advertising agencies. I think my content is good enough that I can get 4,000 people to sign up, BUT I earn enough from iStock's exclusive contract to be weary to experiment, it is the same reason I've never tried to sell to other sites.
Right now I'm just speaking out loud. It is fairly unlikely I'd try this, I don't feel like having my income plummet by going independent.
Answering your question: Yes, you can launch your own subscription site. It is very inexpensive if you know what to do. Price-wise, not sure where you live - maybe $5 in your country is a 'large' amount - here (north america), that would be too cheap. You can get your cc fees low depending who you go through (so could "net" about $4.50-$4.75/subscription). The challenge you'll have is acquiring customers. That is marketing. If you are looking for paid marketing methods - there is a steep learning curve in order to see a positive ROI (making more than you spend). There are a lot of very smart people competing with a lot of other very smart people (& software). I think you would probably find it quite challenging to use paid marketing methods. If you can figure out a way to make your site go 'viral' for free - AND - you have a good sales page/process/funnel in place - then yes, acquiring 4,000 customers in a short period of time (1-3 months) is doable. People have done it, and you can do it too - but that is where the challenge is. In the marketing of your site.
444
« on: August 16, 2019, 21:45 »
Housing 50000 high res images will take a lot of server space plus the traffic. You'd need a private server and an admin to maintain it. It only seems like the web is automated.
Private servers can go for $1000/month plus an IT guy (at least one to start but more if you grow).
You'd need a CSR to handle customer questions and complaints. Full time job even if you out source that's a chunk of change.
Insurance and security since you'll be dealing with user's financial info. Expensive.
Accounting. Do you want to shoot more photos or deal with the bookkeeping on 4000 subscriptions?
I'm pretty sure with just the above your $20000/month is gone. Of course you'd need working capital to keep you going at least 2 years unless you can get 4000 to sign up and pay on the first day.
You would need at least a quarter to half a million dollars in start up money. Good luck.
Where are you getting your numbers? You are *way* out to lunch here (I *do* this kind of thing - and those numbers are waaaaay off).
445
« on: August 14, 2019, 18:54 »
Strange, where are you located?
I just tried it (north america), and it shows minimum to maximum ($700).
446
« on: August 12, 2019, 14:29 »
I know, it is funny.
Probably a lot of people didn't "get" the difference - so I can see people who go the subscription route (paying $30 for 100,000+ clips) getting a little annoyed thinking "wait! I hafta pay 2x that much just for a SINGLE clip?".
(I've used their services as a customer, and I admit - when I first was using it - I didn't understand that it was "contributors" that had submitted the majority of the content. I thought storyblocks "employees" had taken 100,000+ videos - and was a bit annoyed because I thought they were trying to upsell me to get the "good" stuff.
Many times there would be a clip of a model that wasn't "exactly" right - and then I'd noticed a "perfect" clip - but it would be $79 to get it. I didn't (at that time) understand that it was a "contributor" who had taken 10-15 different videos, and that storyblocks had just purchased the one clip to include in their 'unlimited' marketplace).
But - once I got it - it wasn't a big issue. If there was a clip I REALLY wanted, I would pay the extra.
So it's just a bunch of B.S. rhetoric on SB side, they just want more $$$, for less work.
447
« on: August 10, 2019, 05:26 »
Now that conversation faded to more generic, does anyone want to read outloud the post?
That micro...pennies sounds non politically correct but funny enough!
Thanks for the levity Never thought of that - but yes - aside from SB going micro pennies, they may also have a micro p_____... so have to make themselves 'look big' otherwise 
448
« on: August 10, 2019, 05:22 »
Yeah that video doesn't explain why they've shut down a highly lucrative part of their business.
Well, you seem to be quite a mary mary quite contrary know it all, that always has a 'BEST MONTH EVER', no matter what the case (yet whines about people stealing stock when you upload it to micro penny sites like this, then says 'haha it was a humorous post!' when called on it), so let's hear your side. If I said this was a 'fantastic' deal, you'd probably say 'Oh no! its HORRIBLE!'. So, what are your numbers/calculations/insights, in your grand wisdom of things? Maybe I am not aware of some insight you have, that may change my view on this. Since you seem to be quite the contrarian, have you decided to make your portfolio available for micro pennies? You probably should, it will help you have even more best month's ever, while totally devaluing your work and eating into future revenue. But, at least you can say 'best month ever!' for now. Plus - at least you'll get lots of exposure, and just think, you'll be helping your fellow man by letting pirates download & resell your complete portfolio and make their own best months ever too! Quite the nice grand gesture!
449
« on: August 09, 2019, 23:25 »
822,000 * 0.3 GB * $0.021 per GB = $5,178.60/month.
So I'm confused... is it $5,178.60 a month, or considerably less than $8.22 a month? If it is $5,178.60 a month... then where did this 'considerably less than 1 cent per 1000 videos' come from? Did you pull that out of thin air?
That is if you use AWS. There are cheaper services (which increasing guy doesn't seem to believe), so I decided to use his numbers for the calculations, to illustrate my point. It's still highly lucrative for them, & still very inexpensive to host the files even if they use AWS.
450
« on: August 09, 2019, 09:08 »
Storage, like I said, is less than 1 cent per 1000 videos. (Significantly less, actually).
$0.021 per GB. All of the data needs to be accessible at any time, as they have no idea which clip will be bought.
SB themselves are reporting a nosedive in marketplace sales.
Pretty much every contributor active on various forums has reported a nosedive (often to $0) in marketplace sales since the end of 2018.
It's likely the marketplace only brings in four figures or a low five figure amount (SB's cut), which means - not profitable.
Even so - assuming then using the AWS rates (with according to SSF they have 822,000 clips) - Let's say each clip on average would be about 350 MB (thats for 4k video about 20 seconds at high detail, looking at my own clips. Many do a much lower MPS, so in reality the average would probably be about 50-100 mb. But lets say 350 MB for arguments sake). 822,000 * 0.3 GB * $0.021 per GB = $5,178.60/month. (That's if each clip in their entire market place was downloaded once). Let's be super generous and say every single clip in their market place is downloaded 10x/month. (It's not - you'll have some extremely popular clips downloaded 1000x+, and then the majority of them - 75-80% - download 0x). But let's be generous. So $5,178.60 * 10 = $51,786/month in costs for their *membership* library that is downloaded. Add that to the super low previews/resolution (assuming 1 million videos 'previewed' - which are super LOW resolution, not the original mps/dpi/etc) so add +$5,630/month. SO their costs are $57,416/month. Subscription revenue is roughly (according to 3-4 years ago, so most likely much higher), $2.5 million per month ($30 mil/year). So 2.5 million revenue/month - 0.05 million in costs/month = $2.45 million profit/month (or $29.4 mil/year). They are doing 'okay'. Of course there is staff/overhead, according to linked in (which may or may not be accurate) - they have 107 employees. Employees generally are not paid millions/year, more like let's say $50k/year (being generous again, because a lot most likely are support staff, so most likely would be getting paid close to minimum wage, i.e., $7.25/hr =~ $15k/year) - but lets be generous and say everyone makes a 'nice' salary of $50k/year. $50,000 * 107 = $5,350,000 expenses in wages/year =~ 450k/month. Let's also for arguments sake say their building rental/office space, with electricity/hydro/etc is $100k/month. (Most likely not, because you can get a LOT cheaper, but trying to be super generous here). $2.5 MILLION revenue/month - $60k hosting costs - $450k salaries/month - $100k building costs/month = $1.89 MILLION PROFIT/month = $22 million PROFIT/month. They are still doing "okay". Lol - given the fact that their staffing costs are higher than their hosting costs - I'm surprised they haven't sent a letter to their staff saying "GOOD NEWS! We've realized the salaries we are paying you are too high, so we've decided to cut it in HALF! YAYAY! Aren't you HAPPY"?
Pages: 1 ... 13 14 15 16 17 [18] 19 20 21 22 23 ... 33
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
