MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Over 200.000 new files added weekly :(  (Read 18942 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #50 on: January 12, 2014, 17:23 »
0
I don't have a problem with them beating the competition. More money for me when they do.

I don't know what expenses you have, my friend, but mine are as close to zero while my earnings keep going up. I write off the cost of my equipment and travel in my taxes, so you can thank Uncle Sam for my new D800. I have Wal-Mart style photos and I don't mind selling them at all Wal-Mart prices. If I had Neiman Marcus photos, I wouldn't sell them at Wal-Mart. Sounds like to me you should be mad at people who take Neiman Marcus photos but sell them at Wal-Mart.


« Reply #51 on: January 12, 2014, 17:59 »
0
I'm not sure what your point was with all those quotes. I sell illustrations, and SS has never been my top agency since I started there in 2006. I've done well there, but it is not the ideal model for selling my work. I know it works the best for others, but it was never going to get me where I wanted. Maybe, one day it will change, but probably not.

« Reply #52 on: January 12, 2014, 19:03 »
+5
I don't have a problem with them beating the competition. More money for me when they do.

I don't know what expenses you have, my friend, but mine are as close to zero while my earnings keep going up. I write off the cost of my equipment and travel in my taxes, so you can thank Uncle Sam for my new D800. I have Wal-Mart style photos and I don't mind selling them at all Wal-Mart prices. If I had Neiman Marcus photos, I wouldn't sell them at Wal-Mart. Sounds like to me you should be mad at people who take Neiman Marcus photos but sell them at Wal-Mart.

My expenses seem to be a bit higher than your own, however based on the numbers you have been posting I receive much higher returns even at SS.

You consistently miss the point. If you read the quotes from SS they are well aware that our assets are worth more money and they are well aware that they could successfully raise prices. They know that many of our HCV images cost more to produce, however they are low balling them long term to gain market share. They gain and our assets continue to lose value.

I no longer upload my best files to SS because I have come to the conclusion that they have no problem devaluing my assets.  I think your expectations for a return on your investments and time are exceptionally low.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #53 on: January 12, 2014, 19:13 »
+18
I buy my props at Wal-Mart, Party City or Michaels, and then I return them for a refund when I'm done with them.
So you'll be OK if I buy your photos and return them for a refund when my project is finished?

Shelma1

« Reply #54 on: January 12, 2014, 19:17 »
+2
I buy my props at Wal-Mart, Party City or Michaels, and then I return them for a refund when I'm done with them.
So you'll be OK if I buy your photos and return them for a refund when my project is finished?

Well, you can certainly do that at iStock.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #55 on: January 12, 2014, 19:26 »
+1
I buy my props at Wal-Mart, Party City or Michaels, and then I return them for a refund when I'm done with them.
So you'll be OK if I buy your photos and return them for a refund when my project is finished?

Well, you can certainly do that at iStock.

You can on SS, but maybe only for footage (?) as it costs more.

I was making a comment on returning clothes and props after use, not intending a war on agency policy and practice.
« Last Edit: January 12, 2014, 19:35 by ShadySue »

« Reply #56 on: January 12, 2014, 19:35 »
-5
I buy my props at Wal-Mart, Party City or Michaels, and then I return them for a refund when I'm done with them.
So you'll be OK if I buy your photos and return them for a refund when my project is finished?

I've never had a refund on Shutterstock out of more than 31,000 images sold, so I'm coming out ahead. You got to do what you got to do.

Shelma1

« Reply #57 on: January 12, 2014, 20:33 »
0
I buy my props at Wal-Mart, Party City or Michaels, and then I return them for a refund when I'm done with them.
So you'll be OK if I buy your photos and return them for a refund when my project is finished?

Well, you can certainly do that at iStock.

You can on SS, but maybe only for footage (?) as it costs more.

I was making a comment on returning clothes and props after use, not intending a war on agency policy and practice.

I know. I was trying to be funny. Guess it went over like a lead balloon. ;)

Hobostocker

    This user is banned.
« Reply #58 on: January 13, 2014, 02:57 »
+7
if you guys think 200K per week is a lot, look at Flickr or Instagram, BILLIONS of images online and it's getting bigger and bigger thanks to smartphone apps that allow random iphone users to post their selfies with a couple clicks.

however, people love to take snaps but truely hate to keyword or adding captions so these billions of snapshots aren't in any way a danger for the stock industry and never will.

as for shutterstock, i've the impression there's an obvious polarization process at the moment, lots of photographers moving to micros and dumping their whole portfolios to see what sticks on the wall.

as always, the 20/80 rule applies, 20% of the top ranking pics will sell well and the remaining 80% will be sandboxed and forgotten.

in the long run those with big portfolios will still stay afloat and anyone else will stop making sales and leave the industry.

actually it's the same logic we see on web journalism, blogs, forum, and even in RM agencies, the number of images in the archive is not as relevant as we think.

« Reply #59 on: January 13, 2014, 03:18 »
+8
Feel free to stop uploading, if you think it's a problem.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #60 on: January 13, 2014, 08:53 »
0
if you guys think 200K per week is a lot, look at Flickr or Instagram, BILLIONS of images online and it's getting bigger and bigger thanks to smartphone apps that allow random iphone users to post their selfies with a couple clicks.
How much of that impacts on stock sales? I know nothing of Instagram as it seems you have to sign up to discover anything, but Flickr isn't a vehicle for direct sales, though they can be had.

« Reply #61 on: January 13, 2014, 10:44 »
+1
I think Instagram and Flickr are the biggest competition for Microstock. There are so many free images there under the creative commons licensing structure and many not half bad. Where I used to see people pay pennies for an image at SS for a web size image, now they just go to Flickr and download for free. People will always seek out high quality images and will pay for them but I think that percentage of the people is shrinking every year. Sure more images are being downloaded, but they are mostly for the web and print is shrinking away.

There are only so many people in the world that need stock images. I'm sure these stock agencies have figured out a number (like 1 billion images) as the upward limit that makes them money. We are not there yet obviously...

« Reply #62 on: January 13, 2014, 10:49 »
+2
I think a part of this boom is explained by the acceptance of "illustrative editorial" images. For instance I haven't produced new images in a month or so, but I have still uploaded 200+ images (editorial images that have been rejected earlier - over half of them are now accepted, and some of them are already selling :)).
« Last Edit: January 13, 2014, 10:51 by Perry »

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #63 on: January 13, 2014, 11:01 »
0
I think Instagram and Flickr are the biggest competition for Microstock. There are so many free images there under the creative commons licensing structure and many not half bad.
True, and that's where Stock has it for images needing releases for commercial use. Otherwise, many more subjects can be found on Flickr.

farbled

« Reply #64 on: January 13, 2014, 11:29 »
+2
I'm not worried about this at all. I think the vast, vast majority of new images will be the typical stuff like a sandy or rocky beach, flowers from the backyard, the office building down the street or things people have around their houses. Of those 200k per week, only a very tiny percentage will directly compete with my portfolios.

I agree with Rob, my pictures now cost nothing to produce except some spare time, and I barely edit them before throwing them up for sale, so it is completely worth it to get my pennies on the dollar. My stuff is pure micro work, and once it gets good enough to go to the next level, that's where it will go.

« Reply #65 on: January 14, 2014, 08:33 »
+2
I'm not worried about this at all. I think the vast, vast majority of new images will be the typical stuff like a sandy or rocky beach, flowers from the backyard, the office building down the street or things people have around their houses. Of those 200k per week, only a very tiny percentage will directly compete with my portfolios.

I agree with Rob, my pictures now cost nothing to produce except some spare time, and I barely edit them before throwing them up for sale, so it is completely worth it to get my pennies on the dollar. My stuff is pure micro work, and once it gets good enough to go to the next level, that's where it will go.

No, they are not, take a look at the newest pictures. 90% are very good highly competitive images.

farbled

« Reply #66 on: January 14, 2014, 11:07 »
+2
I'm not worried about this at all. I think the vast, vast majority of new images will be the typical stuff like a sandy or rocky beach, flowers from the backyard, the office building down the street or things people have around their houses. Of those 200k per week, only a very tiny percentage will directly compete with my portfolios.

I agree with Rob, my pictures now cost nothing to produce except some spare time, and I barely edit them before throwing them up for sale, so it is completely worth it to get my pennies on the dollar. My stuff is pure micro work, and once it gets good enough to go to the next level, that's where it will go.

No, they are not, take a look at the newest pictures. 90% are very good highly competitive images.

Maybe so, I should've checked before stating that first bit. However, I stand by what I said after, only a tiny percentage will compete directly with my stuff.


« Reply #67 on: February 07, 2014, 13:16 »
+1
Wow, now over 250,000 new files weekly. Fast pace!

« Reply #68 on: February 07, 2014, 16:18 »
+2
Yet my sales keep growing.

Same here, and my port is very small, but I seem to be gaining more and more sales each day.

BoBoBolinski

« Reply #69 on: February 07, 2014, 18:06 »
-1
-Thought better of saying that. ;)
« Last Edit: February 07, 2014, 18:15 by BoBoBolinski »

« Reply #70 on: February 08, 2014, 03:05 »
+3
The figure is still a grease spot on a global digital scale and whether it hurts your bottom line depends on what you continue to shoot IMO. To put it in context see how many images there are behind these keywords:

Woman Headset  - 400k
Apple Isolated - 1.3m 
Beautiful Woman Portrait - 2m
green grass blue sky - 2.67m

If you're still knocking out any of the above (and there are some ports chock full of this stuff) it might account for your current perturbation.


Ron

« Reply #71 on: February 08, 2014, 03:25 »
0
To my shock when searching the SS library for a similar image to the one I was about to submit the return was 0

And this is a shocking result as it is a very normal subject. I looked in Shutterbuzz if there was a restriction but there was nothing about it.

It might get rejected for reasons I dont know yet, but surely it will be the only image in the library of that subject if it gets accepted.

Weird.

« Reply #72 on: February 09, 2014, 10:21 »
-1
Editorial will only crowd source until some actress or actor gets publicized and the images turn out to be fake.   Editorial crowd sourcing will change very rapidly after that.  Imagine a nuclear explosion occuring somewhere only to find it was hoax by a group of people all reporting a mushroom cloud from different angles. 

Batman

« Reply #73 on: February 11, 2014, 16:31 »
+2
The folks at Shutterstock do the great work of course, but so do high tier photographers who are with SS almost from the beginning. Then, why aren't we given any perks? I don't ask for yoga, massages etc, but a pay rise to let's say 0.44$ and being more selective in approval process (at least in limiting access to newcomers)!
Newcomers are limited by the extremely tough entry test, which nobody I refer seems able to get past even those with a lifetime's work behind them in commercial photography.
It certainly would be nice to see an increase for hitting 50k or 100k sales but with shareholders to keep happy that doesn't seem likely to happen

+1 new higher level.

« Reply #74 on: February 11, 2014, 17:32 »
+2
I'd certainly welcome a new higher level - especially if it was within reach for me.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
3 Replies
2043 Views
Last post April 30, 2007, 15:34
by fintastique
1 Replies
1707 Views
Last post September 25, 2012, 02:40
by Wim
5 Replies
3556 Views
Last post December 02, 2014, 14:28
by asmai
24 Replies
5068 Views
Last post August 15, 2015, 13:10
by Stickystock
6 Replies
3516 Views
Last post June 01, 2016, 04:04
by emjaysmith

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle