Jump to content

RozenskiP

Members
  • Content Count

    346
  • Joined

  • Last visited

2 Followers

About RozenskiP

  • Rank
    Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    In the man cave in post processing dont bother me

Recent Profile Visitors

1,388 profile views
  1. Actually there are billboards or other signage near the bottom just left of center. Saw them fairly quickly
  2. Getting rejects for “non-licensable content” for a location that is not on a restricted list nor should it be. The Saint Louis Art museum, exterior with the King Louis IX statue have long been used in editorial credit as a symbol of the city as they go back to displays at the 1904 worlds fair. Is this just AI sayin it looks like an art museum that is restricted (similar to NY city museums that are). Any thoughts?
  3. Been some strange pricing days this month and I don’t sell videos. I will get blasted for sure but my averages and sales went up and I mostly do travel photography. Today was light on volume but pricing worked well.
  4. did you check their web and YouTube pages many companies repost their adds so people can find them the youtube pages are by country market but seems most TV ads are listed.
  5. As I said ti would depend on tier break out what was defended was no on was basing anything on data and now we can support with data. So Yes I was correct and yes it did not turnout well for anyone at this point like it or not
  6. This is why I think tiering that limits uploads based on sales would help. Some thoughts to piggyback on your list...and I qualify they are only opinions. pathway to better cost so can share more revenue QC costs to pay reviewers--also quality is both technical and commercial value--does it sell. You might have best picture you ever took was wheat field at sunset...but same for 10K others...so how do you limit saturation that creates no value... There is some sort of challenge that makes exclusivity worth discussing. People uploading on multiple sites means they in theory
  7. I am having a spike in volume for some reason...not particular content driving it so my month revenue is up on volume. I have had almost no 0.10 sales. Lots of 0.13 / 0.17. No reason other than feeling but it seems like maybe there was a leakage in sales volume in the system that was corrected.
  8. Yes you are correct, part of why I don't like to get in to their business too much as there are multiple ways to look at it. I have just seen on the boards some that were wrong in terms of pay and compensation that would make interacting with them harder as they may be seen as adversarial. We need to build a group of partners with them. I had pulled form Yahoo Finance as quick reference when I logged in to my accounts some metrics even showed PE at 80.1 this AM.
  9. I do get at that with mention of I think the might be on the verge of triggering a downward spiral. If the force the makers of commercial quality to leave, even 10% what happens is the cost of review is spread among lower revenue producing accounts. And these are accounts that spam upload--again technical quality to get in but no commercial value so the metrics of review cost are upside down. That said with the down labor market they will likely get reviewers at a lower cost so may not be an immediate crisis. But likely that the next trend in images could be filled with lower commercial qu
  10. All good perspecitives. I don't like to get in to their heads as so many things could be in background...aqcuisitions or being acquired is often something you see, bond financing etc. Financial strategy can be complex. The PE is only 45 not 75 but not uncommon for a smaller cap tech focused model. Most of the pay I saw was much lower than millions but the incentives were in millions (some were even at zero salary but incentive paid). Again nothing out of the norm really. It does feel like even if not intentional they disincetivized us to use their platform relative to others. As a s
  11. Agreed but they squandered it with excessive review costs... remember last year when they couldn’t even keep up and reviews got into the one week plus range. Of course its about more profit that is why we also contribute. They are treating it as zero sum... never steal a large piece of the pie when you can make the pie larger for all. In this case the larger piece of the pie is going to cost of the networking between creators and buyers. If we need a 40% pay cut it was because for them to maintain targets they pushed the costs of networking on us... hence they have a broken model. In theor
  12. Looking at financial statements and annual report it seems that SS needed to find a way to increase profits from the business model as it has gotten stagnent in an increasingly competitive but growing market—commoditized if you would. The reality is the recent pricing changes did not fix the model but was a zero sum approach that took out the problem on the creators, and we are a vital partner as stated in the annual statement. This shows a lack of understanding of the community. There are three ways to correct the business Profit model Increase sales—hard to do in a competit
×
×
  • Create New...