|
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 ... 14 15 16 17 18 [19] 20 21 22 23 24 ... 33
451
« on: August 09, 2019, 08:46 »
Storage, like I said, is less than 1 cent per 1000 videos. (Significantly less, actually).
Their website says they have over 822,000 clips. You can't seriously be suggesting that their total hosting costs are 'significantly less' than $8.22 a month?
Your math is off, 822,000/1000 = $822.
452
« on: August 08, 2019, 20:23 »
thanks, I appreciate it! I believe I should qualify.
When will the codes/info be sent out?
Thanks!
453
« on: August 08, 2019, 11:07 »
And BTW - videoblocks does not use petabytes for the the 'client' side of things. The videos are highly compressed, clients do not *preview* 100,000 videos at a time (maybe "10" or "15" in a day) - so the costs are VERY very minimal.
And where do you think they store the original files? In their basement on USB drives? The original files all need to be available at all times.
Shutterstock, P5, SB all have very big hosting and bandwidth costs. Shutterstock/P5 probably in the millions. Maybe you should approach them as a consultant and you might make some good cash?
Storage, like I said, is less than 1 cent per 1000 videos. (Significantly less, actually). It is only the data transfer that really costs. SO yes, it is dirt, dirt, cheap.
454
« on: August 08, 2019, 10:46 »
So funny. HISTORY of storyblocks. (BTW - for those that cite "cost" for hosting videos -
it's actually become dirt cheap to host videos, i.e., 1 cent per 1000 videos/month, so
"cost" really is not a factor for any of these decisions).
I see, do you run many companies that need to use Amazon/CloudFront to store petabytes of data that needs to be available to the entire world at high speeds?
Look it up.  You don't use a free DropBox account and post the public links...
---
Did someone hurt you personally at StoryBlocks? Do you know the purpose of a business? Did you know that if a part of a business isn't profitable, a smart business owner closes that part. We don't have to like it, you don't have to like it, it's business. If the marketplace was profitable, they would keep it. Evidently it costs more than it makes, so it must go.
I'm wondering why you haven't started your own site we can contribute to so you can sit back and see that $30 mil roll in? Let us know when you've found the $0.01 storage.
*Actually* - I do - but I don't need petabytes, nor do I use AWS. There are much cheaper alternatives specifically for videography. I do this for fun, because I like videography. And BTW - videoblocks does not use petabytes for the the 'client' side of things. The videos are highly compressed, clients do not *preview* 100,000 videos at a time (maybe "10" or "15" in a day) - so the costs are VERY very minimal. Doing some simple math. Let's say you have 100,000 people view 10 videos/day. 1,000,000 videos previewed. Video previews are super compressed - let's say 2 mb's on average for a 15 second preview. (I just did a test run at a resolution LARGER than what they use, and my test video with lots of information was only 1.5 MB). So that is only 2TB of data transfer (1 million videos previewed per day @ 2mbs each preview, or 60TB/month). Using the cost caculator here: https://calculator.s3.amazonaws.com/index.htmlIt is $5,630/month *TOTAL* - if they had ZERO customers - and 100,000 people just looked at video previews per day. They make $30,000,000+/year in subscription revenue. $70,000/year for "previews" is a drop in the bucket. It is dirt cheap for them. For the *actual* subscribers - while you have outliers (i.e., some people downloading 2,000+ videos/month, then others that try to scrape the entire collection which videoblocks automatically blocks) - the "average" I would estimate (based on my experience) is about 15-20 videos/month, at about 30MB/video. And then you have probably 75% of subscribers that never use their subscription beyond the initial signup. So for people who *use* their subscription, it's about $3-$4/month in cost (downloads/transfers/etc). So also dirt cheap for the actual subscribers that download content. It's a VERY very profitable business model.
455
« on: August 08, 2019, 09:49 »
So funny. HISTORY of storyblocks. (BTW - for those that cite "cost" for hosting videos -
it's actually become dirt cheap to host videos, i.e., 1 cent per 1000 videos/month, so
"cost" really is not a factor for any of these decisions).
a) 100% COMMISSIONS FOREVER! Aren't we great?
Translation: (We want a no-risk way of seeing what sells, then buy those clips dirt cheap)
b) SOZ - 50% COMMISSIONS NOW DUE TO "EXPENSES". BUT AREN'T WE GREAT?
Translation: (We bough all the dirt cheap clips that sold well, but now want a cut of the
periodic sales that we don't want to buy).
c) OMFG! MICROPENNIES FOR YOU CLIPS! MORE SALES FOR YOU! AREN'T WE GREAT?!??
Translation: kk, we've squeezed as much juice as we can out of the clips that don't sell
well - customers don't want to pay full price for those, but we can boost our subscriptions
making us craploads of money, and throwing a few crumbs their way.
d) WHAT? No one is signing up because they don't want to sell it for micropennies? Well,
we'll send them a PRETEND letter saying they were "specially" selected! (So storyblocks
sent out a letter to contributors saying "YOU HAVE BEEN SELECTED TO BE EXPEDIATED
FOR OUR MICROPENNIES PROGRAM!! AREN'T YOU EXCITED?!?!? APPLY NOW!"
e) Very few still get excited about the micropennies program, even with the "SPECIALLY
selected" program. So storyblocks says "FINE! You ain't gonna sign up? Well - we are
gonna try and FORCE to sign up then! SIGNUP FOR THE EXCITING MICROPENNIES PROGRAM,
otherwise we are going to KICK YOU OFF! EXCITING NEWS, EH?!?!?!?!"
Cost is a minimal factor here. (It literally is less than a penny to host 1000+ videos/month. As long
as you make more than 1 penny/1000 videos in sales, you are profitable).
The only real complaints they would have had would be from subscribers - who were paying a dirt
cheap price ($30/month) - and noticed there was a corresponding clip from the marketplace that
"looked" better for their project - so they complained, asking why should they have to pay $70 when
they have dirt cheap access to 100,000+ other clips.
So, the reason for the program is pure greed, and simply because they want to reduce customer support
questions specifically related to that.
They want to further dominate the video marketplace with cheap cheap content
(but great subscription revenue for them). They have already successfully decimated the
industries previous prices (getting other people to follow in the subscription battle/revenue
war), with contributors as the casualties.
Not that I think they will be hurting any time soon (they have such a HUGE library, they can now
auto-pilot it for at least 10-15 years making $30+ million/year in profit, with pretty much no effort.
The effort is logging in to your bank account and saying 'oh cool, I made $30 million this year!!).
I hope contributors are smart enough not to panic and think 'oh-oh, I better get into the MICRO pennies program!'.
I'm pretty sure everyone who "applies" will be "accepted", but that the "application" process was part
of a ploy to give a sense of "importance" to this micropennies program.
So, I guess good for them.
456
« on: August 06, 2019, 07:39 »
likewise, if all your work is original - perhaps someone stole your content, and is submitting it as 'their' own...
in which case I would ask them about that. easy to prove, etc.
457
« on: July 30, 2019, 14:06 »
Part of it is due to companies like videoblocks saying "GIVE AWAY YOUR CONTENT FOR PENNIES, AND YOU'll MAKE "LOTS"!". And people believing that, and making their content for virtually free.
458
« on: July 24, 2019, 21:49 »
je n'sais pas... pourquoi y-a-t-il toujours des franais dans l'avion?
459
« on: July 23, 2019, 13:10 »
are you saying shutterstock gave your name/contact info to the airline? and that your content was marked as "editorial"?
seems very strange... what are they suing for?
460
« on: July 23, 2019, 11:19 »
what I find *really* interesting though is -
given how computer algorithms work - I imagine the image would have been "found" first on unsplash by copytrack because unsplash is a 'bigger' site... so....... was unsplash sent a message/notice?
461
« on: July 22, 2019, 22:44 »
try uploading a picture of a 'pinkish' ring around a whitish planet you might get a 'mature content' or 'nudity' rating for that too! 
462
« on: July 19, 2019, 15:06 »
I'm not making any comment on the degree of responsibility of the photographer. That would depend a lot on e.g. whether his image was a Live News photo of e.g. the opening of the exhibition, and how the image was originally captionned. IIRC, there was a label on the wall in the Alamy pic which presumably indicated the origin of the pic. and clearly showed that the tog was not trying to pass it off as his own work.
However, I've learned something via this as I'd never heard of Nandar, and possibly not of David Lynch, before. GIMF.
It's an interesting topic. Who is responsible for infringement? The photographer took a picture "of" a picture that was not cropped. So there is some 'freedom' here (i.e., otherwise other than nature shots, or shots with absolutely *no* identifiable features of any person/business/art work/etc - you couldn't resell. I.e., say you had a city picture, with 1/32 of that shot containing a billboard for a 'coca cola' advertisement. Then... the person who purchased the picture cropped it (i.e., say to 'just' the coca cola' advertisement). Is the onus really on the 'photographer' - or - rather should it be the company that used the "cropped" image knowing full well it was not in the context of the original picture? (and might be brand/trademark issues). In this case - (while I haven't "seen" the original photo, but from what was written it was clear that it was a photo "in" a frame, i.e., so someone seeing the original picture would know that it was a portrait on a wall)... I am thinking the onus would be on the actual company?
463
« on: July 19, 2019, 15:00 »
-----------------------------------
464
« on: July 18, 2019, 20:46 »
...
However, I do love it how people who are strongly against the subscription model have been presented with information that goes against their preconceptions, so as a result... that means it's 'strange', I may be out by a factor of ten, I'm dreaming etc etc! I'm not preoccupied with selling to the bottom feeders... I'm preoccupied with selling to the top feeders, the middle feeders AND the bottom feeders.
Well, then don't cry/whine when people steal your content and pass it off as their own, i.e., this post you started here: https://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/check-this-pond5-account-see-if-they're-selling-your-content/It's because of people selling assets/their entire portfolio for fractions of pennies, undervaluing their work thinking only of the short-term gain, which causes the problems/race to the bottom.
465
« on: July 13, 2019, 09:10 »
yes, I agree/think simply updating the form on the relevant agencies might be easiest...
466
« on: July 13, 2019, 08:59 »
It's funny... I'm thinking (& in a way, seems quite possible it could come this way)...
Videoblocks/Storyblocks has gone from...
- 100% Commissions to Authors!
- We buy your good clips, so you have crap left to sell, but still get 100%
- 50% Commission to Authors!
- $0.00000000001/clip Commission to Authors, but you get LOTS of it!
To............. next step/e-mail probably will be something like this:
"Hey Authors!
Why not give away your clips for FREE, and YOU get TONS OF EXPOSURE!!! JUST THINK - PEOPLE WILL THEN KNOW WHO YOU ARE, BECAUSE OF ALL THE MASSIVE EXPOSURE YOU GOT, WHICH MEANS YOU COULD GET SALES IN THE FUTURE!
We'll keep all the money from our subscriptions and value you add to our subscription model - because of course we have to eat, pay for fuel for our lambourghini's & mcclarens, which hopefully you understand costs money - but you'll get... EXPOSURE!!! JUST give your clips for free... Freee... FREEEEEEEEEE!!! Think of the POSSIBILITIES! And we've done the math, and its best for you - so anticipated your response - we've already made your clips available for FREE!!! If you want to opt-out, there is a 90-day new waiting period, and you can only remove 10% of your portfolio at a time... oh, and our script for removing stuff is broken, because there is a coding error, don't know why... so strange, we'll get it fixed, might take 3-4 years, but we'll give your clips FREE in the meantime, that's why we need the money... but FREEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!! AND EXPOSURE FOR YOU!!!!!!!!!! SUCH A GREAT GRAND DEAL AIN'T IT?!?!?"
- The StoryBlocks Team - now making $50 million/year to the owner + a handful of employees because this is a digital business, but helping YOU get EXPOSURE!!!!!!!! Because WE know what's BEST for YOU!
467
« on: July 11, 2019, 09:18 »
What would make more sense is to figure out what paperwork is required to fight infringement, then do that yourselves.
A lot of the processes are routine (i.e., DMCA notice, cease/desist letter/etc) - and could save $$$. The only reason you'd really need the lawyer is if you were going to pursue it (i.e., suing) - but then you'd be looking at lots of $$$$$ for a good one - and better to do a class action type of thing as opposed to an individual by individual case.
468
« on: July 11, 2019, 09:08 »
What I'm a bit confused about is.......
From a programming standpoint - it is NOT that hard to create this type of site!!!!!! It of course requires a SMART
programmer - but if you have that - then its not that hard!
The only cost is programmers, which I am assuming they were - so they could have written the code themselves.
Sure - they may have been working for "free" for 6 months while they did the coding - but NO cost to them!
Running a host - to get "started" & test out the market - is dirt cheap! Like $100-$200! So... if they couldn't afford that...
So it really makes no sense...
469
« on: July 09, 2019, 14:14 »
...
pps... if you'd like clarification, I suggest logging into your account and clicking "partner program" and reading what is written there. OR, you could always ask them if they are sharing 60% of their "total" revenue. (They aren't, but, if you need triple verification that they aren't, that is a good way to do it).
470
« on: July 09, 2019, 13:50 »
POINT #1 - 60% is NOT of their TOTAL revenue, but rather an ARBITRARY random number they pick out of thin air
the "membership pool" is NOT "60%" of storyblocks ENTIRE membership base. They make about $30 million+ year.
It is NOT a portion of that.
RATHER. It is some arbitrary number they pick out of the air to decide what to split amongst authors. RIGHT in their text, it says:
"Instead of members paying for clips a la carte in the Marketplace, they pay for a subscription to access content in our Member Library. We then create a Member Library Earnings pool, which we divide among all contributors who participate in the program based on how much of their content is downloaded."
So out of that $30 million, maybe they pick $50,000 to split amonst all authors. Maybe less. Maybe more. Chances are - they are
will use simple math to figure out what is the bare minimum they can pay people to get them to participate. But its REALLY important
to note, the 60% is NOT part of that "$30 million" in revenue.
I think this bit's wrong. Sure, the wording isn't exactly the best, but I'm pretty sure the 'we create a member library earnings pool' refers to the amount of money that's left after they've taken their 40%. I.e. the 60% is the pool. If it doesn't mean that, then why would they leave out the 60% cut part? As it stands, there's nothing in the description about that, so it gives the impression they distribute 100% of the earnings pool. The only thing that would make their description accurate would be if the pool is the 60%. I mean, I could be wrong... but you just seem super certain without any kind of supporting evidence other than your interpretation of a couple of sentences.
I don't think even Storyblocks would go so far as to have an earnings structure that's based on an amount of money they've just completely made up.
It's not "interpretation". It's black & white - *exactly* what they say if you go to sign up for the program. Also - the numbers I am quoting are directly from press releases, interviews, etc where they have disclosed figures. The "supporting evidence" is exactly what you see if you go to sign up. And based on how they've done things - they will do what they can to maximize their revenue (which includes paying out the least possible amount they can). So yes, I am pretty certain. But - if you'd like to participate in the program - I know you have a unique collection. Maybe it won't cannibilize all of your sales - because you do have the exclusive account with envato. But for your non-exclusive, I remember just a little while ago you were quite upset because you found a "stolen" profile account on pond5 with actual sales paid out to *another* user. If you don't care about (I'm assuming/educated guess) the $10k/year revenue streams you get from Pond5, Shutterstock, etc - and instead would like that reduced, so you can make a few extra $$ on storyblocks, then go ahead. Also, because of the pirating, you can look forward to playing 'whack-a-mole' as you chase down people reselling your content, instead of focusing on making new content to increase your already well established video stock career/sales. Who knows, maybe you'll have a "BME" (best month ever) making the majority of your sales from storyblocks, while all your other site earnings drop to zero.
471
« on: July 09, 2019, 12:12 »
First, if anyone forgot - storyblocks/videoblocks already proved to be dishonest. They promised "100% earnings for authors" - then only a couple years later - said "meh, we only feel like doing 50-50". So remember that.
Moving on. Reading a few posts - seemed a couple people weren't sure about the math - so decided to make this post. Just in case anyone missed this -
POINT #1 - 60% is NOT of their TOTAL revenue, but rather an ARBITRARY random number they pick out of thin air
the "membership pool" is NOT "60%" of storyblocks ENTIRE membership base. They make about $30 million+ year.
It is NOT a portion of that.
RATHER. It is some arbitrary number they pick out of the air to decide what to split amongst authors. RIGHT in their text, it says:
"Instead of members paying for clips a la carte in the Marketplace, they pay for a subscription to access content in our Member Library. We then create a Member Library Earnings pool, which we divide among all contributors who participate in the program based on how much of their content is downloaded."
So out of that $30 million, maybe they pick $50,000 to split amonst all authors. Maybe less. Maybe more. Chances are - they are
will use simple math to figure out what is the bare minimum they can pay people to get them to participate. But its REALLY important
to note, the 60% is NOT part of that "$30 million" in revenue.
POINT #2 - Test market versus ACTUAL market
Their "test" market, and the actual number of users that participate will see COMPLETELY different earnings.
Using easy to understand numbers, Let's say, they've decided to be ultra greedy (proven), and ultra cheap, to split $50,000
amongst authors.
In the test group, they have 10 people. Site wide (educated guess) - they have 10,000+ contributors.
In the test: $50,000/10 = $5,000 per author. (for simplicity, assuming everyone had an equal # of downloads, so equal pay).
Let's say only 10% of the 10,000 contributors sign up (1000 authors).
Now, $50,000/1000 = $50 per author.
But wait! There is more! They have decided only 60% of those funds will be distributed. (Maybe for internal accounting, they've
decided they need a 40%'management' fee for the arbitrary pool funds they set). So $50 * 60% = $30/author.
ANDDDDDDD... of course, if they "feel" it is too little, or too much, they can of course at ANY time adjust the member amount.
POINT #3 - Canabalizing your other sales (maybe a TINY bit more money @ storyblocks - but a LOT LESS everywhere else)
It's already been happening for quite sometime when subscription type models were introduced - but why help storyblocks speed
up the process?
IF they actual did become "THE" "go-to" place for video (they alreayd have a HUGE membership of 150,000+ - but there are still
people on other sites like shutterstock/pond5/etc). But if you take your GOOD videos - and upload here - many will migrate
FROM pond5/shutterstock/etc - and just go to storyblocks/videoblocks. So that means 'byebye' larger sales @ pond5/shutterstock,etc
and welcome to $0.000000000000000001 sales @ storyblocks!
POINT #4 - More of your "stolen" content on the web
It's one thing for someone to "individually" pay $25/clip - and then "resell" it on the web. It's a lot of work, plus costs money.
BUT - if you like the idea of your ENTIRE PORTFOLIO being RESOLD by random individuals on the internet, or given away for free
as "warez" - then this is the way to go! Many individuals have something called "scrapers" - which basically download 1000's and
1000's of clips in hours, or even minutes - and then allows them to re-package it on the web.
And not only will it be incredibly difficult for you to control that, but it will most likely affect ANY kind of LONG term sales you COULD
have had...
SO WHAT CAN YOU DO?
a) DON'T PARTICIPATE IN THIS PROGRAM.
b) SHARE THIS WITH OTHER ARTISTS IN WEB FORUMS/EMAIL/FACEBOOK GROUPS
c) "optionally" tell storyblocks what a crappy deal this is and you don't like it. (Unlikely they care, because they didn't last time
people complained. And they might even decide to terminate your account, because they don't like complainers. But, if it makes you feel better, you can).
472
« on: July 09, 2019, 10:32 »
Highly supporting not to participate in this deal... they are obviously desperate and without doubt they need new content... have tried with small sample and got almost nothing in return... do not support them, because they know what they are doing - luring for naive contributors!
it's not that they are "desparate" - its that they are "greedy". They got the pie, they got the crumbs, and now they want to lick the pie plate. It's a really raw deal for contributors because it will canabalize sales on other platforms. PLUS - videoblocks/storyblocks has proven they are a dishonest company - because they promised "100% commissions for life!" for your own content... Then, only a couple years later, they said "Welll... thats not quite true! Only 50%"... And even when there was an outcry by contributors - the canned response was pretty much "well, sucks to be you. we are big, you are little, so we decide what we want to do. so suck it up or go away.". Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.
473
« on: July 09, 2019, 09:46 »
VERY VERY STUPID if you participate - because not only will you canabalize your own sales - but it will affects your assets on OTHER agencies as THEY go into the race to the bottom... Then it becomes more or less how much can "churn" out - and only portfolios with say 20,000+ clips will really see the sales they want... or EXTREMELY unique and DESIRABLE content (which, is unlikely for most people).
474
« on: July 09, 2019, 09:36 »
SO...
IF you are thinking about making your content unlimited for storyblocks - DON'T.
ITS STUPID.
YOU'LL HURT YOURSELF & EVERYONE ELSE IN THE INDUSTRY. YOU'LL MAKE STORYBLOCKS EVEN FATTER & WEALTHIER THAN THEY ARE, WHILE HURTING YOUR SALES FROM OTHER AGENCIES AND MAKING YOU A WHOLE LOT LESS IN THE LONG RUN.I'd say videoblocks (aka storyblocks) was probably one of *the* first companies to really make a big push for the subscription based model of content back in I think it was around 2011/2012... In an environment where companies where charging 'per clip'. They very quickly (within a couple years) grew to $30+ million in revenue... Other companies started introducing "their" subscription models - which meant a lot less sales for the majority of authors. Then in 2015, introduced the 'membership' program - where basically they'd purchase any clips that sold to add to their library (no risk for them, but massive sales data) - and pay the author a token amount... Then when that was exhausted - have now decided to go for "unlimited" downloads! And give you a "percentage" cut of the number of downloads you get... The "pilot" program they say was successful... May very well have been, I mean 3x earnings of virtually nothing, is still something... and for a tiny test group - splitting earnings amongst "them" would skew the results so they could "honestly" say that they saw "3x" earnings (assuming they are being honest about that in the first place)... But now, if you get people jumping on the bandwagon, which they will - desperate to make sales - videoblocks library overnight grows by 100x (quite possibly 1000x, 10000x, I am not sure how tiny their test group was, but I do know there are a LOT of authors signed up)... makes VIDEOBLOCKS tons of cash because they market themselves as "the" place to get CHEAP CHEAP content... but now you make even LESS than you did before - because earnings are now are split 100, 1000, 10000x amongst the test group (and subscribers are not going to download 1000x the clips they did before)... So this is a REALLY CRAPPY deal for authors... only people that are really benefiting is storyblocks... Which, of course - puts pressure on the other agencies to make knee jerk reaction moves (i.e., they see a cut of their sales being eaten at - figure out its videoblocks/storyblocks - so then THEY introduce THEIR "unlimited subscription model") - and voila. NOT MENTION.......... If you like having your content upload on "warez" sites, other people "re-packaging" your content and selling it - then this is the precisely the type of thing that will most likely happen when you do. (i.e., motionarray which "forced" people to go unlimited downloads now regularly sends out "dmca" notices because of people reselling/repackaging content.... they sometimes even brag "we sent out 2,000+ notices just recently"... "2000"  do you REALLY want your content being given FREE or for RESALE by others on 2,000+ sites???) $0.0001 sales for you! SO........... IF you are thinking about making your content unlimited for storyblocks - DON'T.
ITS STUPID.
YOU'LL HURT YOURSELF & EVERYONE ELSE IN THE INDUSTRY.
475
« on: June 30, 2019, 07:35 »
i've been using it for quite some time - and really like it. Did a great job of denoising some of my nighttime footage.
Pages: 1 ... 14 15 16 17 18 [19] 20 21 22 23 24 ... 33
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
