|
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 ... 22 23 24 25 26 [27] 28 29 30 31 32 33
651
« on: August 06, 2018, 21:11 »
a) People like complaining
b) People don't like change, so people hope things will change back to how they were
c) It's fun to whine about how someone else is getting ahead of you, instead of adapting and/or making yourself better/smarter/etc.
d) It's still fun taking pictures/videos/etc.
e) People are 'comfortable' with what they know, and don't want to change. (Me too sometimes).
Kodak was THE camera company in the 80's and 90's and dominated. They refused to accept people would go digital. They are a shadow of their former self.
Likewise - the "old" way of making money through photos has changed.
You have an army of people with cell phones figuring they are "photographers" (which, ironically has changed the definition of 'good' photography in some instances. Before you needed good lighting, proper composure, etc, etc - but because the people purchasing photos are used to "bad" photography (cropped body parts, poor lighting, etc, etc) - but the majority of the population identifies with that as "good" photography - that is what sells. (Companies buy photos that will encourage more sales. Bad photos sell).
People like getting things for free. They don't like paying. Google has made getting "free" images easy. Google doesn't care, because they make money from ad revenue (and analytic insights/marketing data which they resell or use for their own purposes).
So you are competing with "free" images.
So what does all this mean?
You can still make money with photography (pictures) - but you need to learn & adapt.
Some suggestions.
a) Get into wedding photography. Baby pictures. etc. Granted, not the 'online passive income' bit - but I was shocked to learn people sell $10,000 wedding packages on a regular basis where I live. (I've never done wedding photography - and it is competitive - but get 3 gigs/year - you have your standard living expenses paid for. 1-2 weeks work, not bad. Get more than 3 gigs/year - now you are making a profit).
b) Become an expert in a specific field. Maybe you are the "rose" guy - that takes 10,000 pictures of beautiful roses. Or the shoe guy. Or the hand guy. Or whatever. People are willing to pay for someone who is an expert.
c) Learn how to do your own marketing/sales. Yes, it's extremely competitive. But, things go full circle. The internet in many cases is now simply an 'extension' of a bricks and mortars store. But get your name out with 'free' photography (or - maybe give 3-4 prints 'free' from an entire set) - and sell the rest of the set if the client wants it. If they don't - it builds your portfolio to showcase to others.
There are many ways to make money as a photographer.
652
« on: August 01, 2018, 21:39 »
Yes, chances are they are the best sellers.
Videoblocks has the sales data, so knows what sells. And chances are - they purchased those clips and that is what the contributor provided.
Probably also the reason why you see very little sales from your own collection, because most people are happy with what they find in the collection, so don't want to pay for anything else.
653
« on: July 23, 2018, 10:38 »
There's a whole number of things that could affect your sales.
Maybe you are correct. Maybe SS does have an algorithm that favors newer submissions over old. Or sales history. I don't know. It would just be a guess unless you have access to that information. But just a guess - so no point worrying about it, because nothing you can do about it.
HOWEVER, more likely these reasons factor into your sales:
a) Increased competition. More & more people uploading. (So your discoverability is lower).
b) Less people buying. A possibility.
c) More agency competition. More and more agencies (i.e., videoblocks) are "giving away" 10,000's and 10,000's of clips for a "cheap" price, so that can affect individual clip sales. (I.e., why buy a single clip when you can have access to 10,000's. Of course there are still reasons, i.e., your clip is unique/something someone wants - and can't find in VB, etc).
d) Your content is seasonal or trendy. (I.e., if you have all christmas stuff, then less likely for people to purchase it now).
LOTS and lots of different reasons.
The microstock industry is a moving target. While uploading more is one possibility - based on your personal experience, probably not the best solution. (Simply because from the sounds of it you've done a lot more work, and now getting 50% the results).
So...
I'd suggest focusing on unique/desirable content that only you can produce, or is technically hard to re-produce (i.e., expensive cameras for unique shots, etc), and that way you can at least have a little bit longer of a 'sales lifecycle' (i.e., say 1-2 years of the same content selling), as opposed to it becoming 'expired' after 2-3 months (because of other competition, similar clips elsewhere, etc, etc).
654
« on: July 21, 2018, 00:27 »
a) Every agency is different.
b) That being said - 'generally' speaking if the images/videos/etc are "generic" (i.e., you could have taken a picture of a boat from 1,000+ different places) - then it is more likely to be accepted - than say something that "identifies" a specific location (i.e., "naval shipyard abc @ location xyz). Furthermore - if it is specialized technology/equipment/etc for a specific company - then yes, you may need a property release from them where they give you explicit permission to use it for re-sale, etc.
655
« on: July 20, 2018, 07:41 »
pps, what is the direct CEO e-mail?
I wrote to support as well - and not only did they not really read the message - it appears I received the *exact* same carbon copy message
656
« on: July 20, 2018, 07:39 »
They didn't read the message then. I got a virtually identical response. I sent them an email (directed to their CEO) and at least their support desk responded - with the following email:
We completely understand where you are coming from and I want to help clarify.
The reality is this: we have been proud to offer 100% commission since the launch of the Marketplace, and we made major investments in its success, but we need a more sustainable way to manage the operating costs going forward. After weighing every option available, we have determined the only way to maintain long-term health and success of the Marketplace is an even share in commission.
We get that this isnt ideal, and its not what wed hoped for either. Thats why we want to show our continued commitment to our contributor community by making impactful changes. Our plan is to increase the promotion of Marketplace content to those customers who are purchasers. This will lead to more sales for you.
We will also continue to educate all new and existing customers about the benefits of the Marketplace as part of their subscription. We definitely want to support you moving forward. Please let us know if you have any questions. Thanks!
If there is anything I can do to assist, please let me know.
657
« on: July 19, 2018, 09:05 »
Well - my question is more of - how WOULD you be able to market your site?
(Not - 'oh man, it's too hard').
I'm genuinely interested if anyone has any ideas on how to do this successfully. Or even just ideas.
658
« on: July 19, 2018, 08:50 »
More specifically - they probably feel that they've found all the 'low hanging' fruit (i.e., people that WOULD sign up for subscriptions) - and their marketing efforts in that area aren't producing the same results... So now, they are going after the other market... Worse, they've proved their lack of judgement in imagining that 100% could be sustainable.
The 100% has always been a lure to fill their gallery and attract customers then incite them to subscribe, their model has always been to sell subscriptions not to have people buy our stuff from the market place !
Now that the market place is probably making enough money by itself they want their share.
659
« on: July 19, 2018, 01:45 »
I can bear the cut although I don't like it. In any case 100% was for sure not sustainable in many ways.
BUT the HD price is way to low for some files . Or they let set prices by suppliers or part of my content will just not go there. I will not cannibalize Pond5, which is the only agency left that I think is somehow contributor friendly and on top lets you set the value of your footage.
Doesn't matter if it wasn't "sustainable" (which, actually isn't really true based on how they've designed their site). The main point is they broke their word. They've proven that their word means nothing. They will just abritrarily decide to do whatever they feel like. So. Maybe the future you'll get a new e-mail that says "Upon further reflection, we've decided we need 75%..." then later..." Actually, we need 90%"... And then, maybe "Well, we'll pay you $0.10/video, because of 'competition'", etc, etc... They've proven their word means nothing.
660
« on: July 19, 2018, 01:37 »
How could you market your "own" site to make sales? (Whether video or images)
I read (and agree to an extent) about people being upset about other microstock sites cutting commissions, lowering prices, etc, etc... So... how could you market your own site & make sales? (Most recent being videoblocks - which I totally agree is wrong for them to go back on their word. They "promised" 100% commissions "forever" - so they should have figured out a way to stand by that... because by going back on their word - it now means nothing. Nothing to stop them from "deciding" to say go to 25%, 10%, 5% etc in the future. Plus, they were very non-specific in their "marketing" efforts... so in essence, their e-mail is
Videoblocks (in essence/paraphrasing) e-mail: "Thanks for uploading your videos, giving us data on which clips sell - so we could buy those dirt cheap from you and build our membership library and grow that hard. However, we've now decided that we also want to get any marginal revenue left over, and don't feel like paying for clips even more at the dirt cheap prices we did... so - if your clips on our site that we benefit from SEO where you did all the work keyword, titling, etc make a sale, we've decided we are going to take 50% of those earnings too... If we get around to doing some extra marketing for you, great. If not, well, we've decided we just want to take 50%".
So... If you paid for hosting, I think you could get away with about $30/month. (Would you pay it? And would you pay for the extra cost as you scaled up, i.e., storage space/bandwidth, etc, so maybe $100/month for say 5,000 videos? Do you even 5,000 videos?)
That seems to be a logical alternative.
The big sites seem to have economies of scale (which simply means they are so big, they get a lot of traffic/buyers - so it is "easy" for them to make sales). So, you as a little guy with maybe 1,000 videos may find it hard pressed to go head to head with say a site like videoblocks that has 1,000,000 videos in their library.
So... if you did make your own site, upload your own videos, showcase your own work, take care of your own payments, etc... how could you effectively market/find those buyers, to not only cover your costs, but make sales too?
I think this would be a good discussion.
661
« on: June 29, 2018, 17:35 »
Am I glad that I am not on Instagram. Maybe I am too old for that but I never understood why some photographers can become so famous because of Instagram. What's going to happen to that fraud? No criminal charges??? There is a photography holiday website and they are using images I have seen on SS. They have not written that there are their own but I thought that they were the images they themselves have taken during their touring holiday. People will think that these photographers are great, that they can learn from them and will book a photography holiday based on the quality of the microstock photos. They chose awesome photos and I found all of them on SS. Isn't that also fraud even though they have not written that they took the photos?
Since he is a little more high profile (i.e., "made" the news) - maybe something would be done for that... But I think (opinion, not sure) - since there wasn't any "direct" monetary compensation for it - that nothing would really happen other than him being embarrassed about being 'caught'. If he 'had' directly passed off images as his own & then sold them - I think it would be up to the individual photographers to pursue it (i.e., sue, etc) - which... is probably unlikely to happen - because they may not know their images are being ripped off. And - even if they did - as can be evidenced by many comments in this forums - most photographers seem more content to complain than actually do something about it (most likely because of limited time & money/resources to pursue it) - so probably nothing would really happen. Bottomline - I think he will just be embarassed for being called out, temporarily lose a few 'contracts' - but get new ones simply because he has a large following, and there will be some people that want access to that and willing to pay for it.
662
« on: June 27, 2018, 21:46 »
I have 0 items there, and make approximately $0/month from there.
663
« on: June 26, 2018, 17:34 »
I don't think you should be having to be forced to send it in, period.
But - with deposit photos - I have noticed they do *not* keep the info secure.
When I sent them some info - some guy "replied" to me with a link to my ID on an ONLINE IMAGE site that he "stamped" with "depositphotos" to "confirm" it. So they do NOT keep it secure.
664
« on: June 26, 2018, 10:50 »
cool. thanks for sharing!
665
« on: June 09, 2018, 23:38 »
I already spent some time sending emails to the SS complaining about these portfolios with almost the same images. Do you know what they answered?
"If you do not like the images use the search filter."
Simple like that.
The SS is behind these portfolios.
This is ridiculous. A joke to be very honest.
Don't worry about it. It'll come down to money. If/when other people start "copying" this guy, and then shutterstock has portfolios of poeple wioth "1 million" images each, with virtually identical content - and customers complain and threaten to go elsewhere - *then* they will do something about it. Not any time before. If indeed for the time being they are letting it 'ride' - sounds like they just want bragging rights for being the biggest portfolio site on earth. Once they've gotten that, then they will clean things up.
666
« on: June 07, 2018, 12:06 »
This is one of the stunning portfolios I've ever seen. Not because of how good it is, but how dedicated the contributor is. This is passion in its purest form. I have no choice but to admire it.
He just sets a 3D model and a camera with an helicoidal movement around it.
Then he starts the rendering and go to sleep.
The following morning he has 2000 frames ready to keyword and upload
Thing is, keywords were probably auto-generated, as well as the uploads. So he just goes to sleep, wakes up, says 'ooh! portfolio of 260,000 images!'
667
« on: June 07, 2018, 11:32 »
The evidence is no they won't look and delete and supposedly images are inspected makes you wonder if some people have a "back door". [/quote] All that will happen is just 1-2 customers will have to complain, and say 'what is this', and then 'poof', portfolio gone...
668
« on: June 07, 2018, 01:43 »
PPS, ss says: "199,570,752 royalty-free stock images / 1,392,424 new stock images added this week" So his 260,000 "photo" portfolio is 0.13% of shutterstocks entire portfolio! OR... if he uploaded it all this week, 19% of the entire upload. Maybe only '4' people uploaded "photos" this week, and each did 260,000+! 
669
« on: June 07, 2018, 01:39 »
Lol, quite funny actually! But what it looks like is it was 100% automated. I *highly* highly doubt he manually submitted those. He probably did spend at least 2-3 hours creating the content. But pushing a button did the rest. For generation, it looks like a 3D model, which he 'slightly' tweaked/moved by 1 degree, just pushed a button, and submitted 26,000+ photos. I am sure he is dominated the "POS" market. Lol, really quite funny. https://www.shutterstock.com/g/percom -> 260,000+ images. It's actually really quite hilarious. HOWEVER, I don't think you have to worry about it. Shutterstock can play the same game - and they'll look and (eventually) say 'hmm, who has a portfolio of 260,000 photos of almost nearly identical content'? And then all they have to do is push 1 button, "delete", and his entire portfolio is gone. Most companies have a low tolerance for what they perceive as spam, and it's just a matter of time until shutter stock does something about that. Even though he 'only' spent 2-3 hours (maybe actually 10-20 hours) - he will be quite upset when his account is deleted, and/or most of the images gone somewhere down the road...
670
« on: May 31, 2018, 17:36 »
Hmm, okay, thanks for the feedback. I think I am 'starting' to 'get' it.
671
« on: May 31, 2018, 06:41 »
Hmm, okay - 'kind' of making a bit more sense - but can you give me an example of a specific color change (i.e., say premiere pro) - where it would look bad in one but good in the other? I do editing myself (on both say 50kpbs, and 10kpbs) - and for the most part - looks identical.
The 'only' time I would say notice a difference is if you had gradients (i.e., a timelapse with a blue sky). *Then* yes, I admit I definitely notice the 'banding' on a lower kpbs/more compressed item...
672
« on: May 31, 2018, 06:01 »
Speaking of which - can someone please explain to me the advantage of a 'higher' bit rate?
I have a large monitor (25") as well as large TV (60") - and if I view HD/4K video on them at say 20MPS as opposed to 150MPS - they look pretty much identical to me.
So I don't get/see the advantage of a higher bit rate.
673
« on: May 20, 2018, 08:19 »
Personally, what I think is happening is this.
It has nothing to do with content "kicking" in on the agency site. They have their algorithm, and it does whatever it does. You could have a clip listed there 10 years, and you aren't going to get any extra special ranking for simply having a clip there. (They may rank you higher if you make sales, etc - but not simply because you have a clip in their library).
What it is - is this. They are simply getting more people to their site through "google". Google search takes about 2-3 months (sometimes faster) to get indexed. If, once your clip gets indexed by *google* - you appear in *google* search - and then someone searches for your video, and then goes to a video site to get it (and doesn't simply decide to sign up for their membership program) - *then* you get a sale.
Aside from a few speciality sites (i.e., envato) - I don't think your sales have anything to do with the agency trying to promote you. (In fact, it appears they really don't care which clip sells - as long as *something* sells because then they get a cut of that). It's just simply because someone looked for something in google, decided they liked your image/video over what was presented on the hard sell to sign up for a membership, and decided to purchase it.
674
« on: May 19, 2018, 10:50 »
What exactly are you referring to/which program to participate in? Yes - I had been hearing (reading) great things about how pond5 was so great, so signed up - spent hours and hours uploading videos (several thousand) - and a month or so later, jsut 0 sales... Yes, it's clear WHY they did it. It's always been their business model.
BUT people still show up here asking how and why their sales suddenly stopped. The why has always been known. The how is that one day last year they flipped a switch to hide the marketplace collection, making our work invisible unless the customer flipped the switch back to the old default.
Yes, absolutely, fully agree with you. Just wanted to clarify some things.
The switch in combination with a now much bigger membership library results in very few people feeling the need to flip the switch back.
And furthermore, what does decreasing marketplace sales do to the sellers? Naturally, it makes it more likely that they will now say "yes" to a buyout... And so on, until the membership library is good enough to outcompete the rest.
I perfectly agree.
But even worse is the fact that something very similar is happening at Pond 5 with their membership program, which was much amplified only a couple of month ago.
Last year only the contributors left out of the membership were squeezed out, as the participating members were pushed up in the search rankings, but now everyone is complaining of very poor sales in their forum.
They did it in a very clever way: even the members who did not want to participate had no choice, as they knew that they would have been squeezed out of the search engine
675
« on: May 16, 2018, 16:45 »
Looks like you have some nice timelapses! What did you do to add 'motion' to them?
Pages: 1 ... 22 23 24 25 26 [27] 28 29 30 31 32 33
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
