Author Topic: Sales at CutCaster (Read 65366 times)

cathyslife · « **Reply #150 on:** February 25, 2010, 13:49 »

I see you can change them one by one by clicking on the image and Edit Media Details. For bulk change, I think if you ask John to do it, he will. I think I saw another post somewhere where someone asked the same question. IIRC, no guarantees.

WarrenPrice · « **Reply #151 on:** February 25, 2010, 14:13 »

@stockastic and Cclapper:
During the upload process you have three choices. The default is the cutcaster algorithm. Or, you can select a "starting price" or a "minimum price."
After the upload, you must change each individually ... again, selecting either the "starting price" or a "minimum" price.

Selecting the "starting price" allows the price of the image to vary over time, depending on sales or lack thereof.
Selecting the "minimum price" fixes the price to stay at that minimum.

Also, notice that prices may vary according to size of the image downloaded.

PS: I just had another large payout and am working on another. Plus, was just contacted by a Belgian Magazine editor looking for images from 1980. John is working it now.

A lot of success at cutcaster is dependent on your niche; niche and self-promotion.

Good Luck.

stockastic · « **Reply #152 on:** February 25, 2010, 21:10 »

Oh what the heck. I'll just leave them at whatever prices CC set. It's just one big shot in the dark anyway.

stockastic · « **Reply #153 on:** March 02, 2010, 20:52 »

Warrren, is this the CC blog post you were referring to?

http://blog.cutcaster.com/2009/07/07/share-button-leads-to-more-views-and-sales/

WarrenPrice · « **Reply #154 on:** March 02, 2010, 21:40 »

Yes... I think that is the one. But, I can tell you that it works best with the search engines (google, yahoo, etc) rather than social networks. Use your keywords generously.

mwp1969 · « **Reply #155 on:** March 08, 2010, 16:17 »

Quote from: sharpshot on January 29, 2010, 08:44

Quote from: Komar on January 29, 2010, 05:25
Quote from: johngriffin on January 28, 2010, 16:12
Keep your chin up sharpshot. We are getting more sales each month and there is NO WAY we are closing anytime soon. I run a tight ship budget wise and am in this for the LONG HAUL. I know getting up to the top 3 is a challenge but Rome wasn't built in a day and no one ever said this was easy.

Keep up your support. I need everyone's help in order to change the system the way it is now.

Well said. Patience guys. The system is so much nicer for contributors as we have more control over how we price our images, you can go for microstock prices if you want or price it higher if you think the image is worth more. I got my first payout with Cutcaster last year, with 5 sales and I only have 70 odd images with them. So they are attracting buyers, it does take time to establish a business like this and we can help by uploading and keeping our images with them. Even if you don't see any results immediately or in the near future, you never know what the future holds.
I have lots of patience and don't regret using Lucky Oliver and Zymmetrical. I stick with sites, never seen the point in deleting portfolios, unless the site does something like cut commissions or has security issues. But I am far from the typical microstock contributor. People complain about the big sites, then delete their portfolios from the smaller sites when they don't get many downloads after a few months. Then the buyers just go to the sites with the bigger collections. It is just hard for me to see how Cutcaster can get around that problem. I still hope John can do it and make people wish they had more patience but I think he needs to come up with something to break this trend.

For what its worth ... and I hope its worth something

... I signed up to Cutcaster through your referral link. I greatly appreciate your insights here on MSG as a champion for non-exclusives.

-Mark

tiero · « **Reply #156 on:** March 15, 2010, 06:28 »

I got my first 2 sales yesterday!

stockastic · « **Reply #157 on:** March 15, 2010, 14:43 »

1 year - 100 images - 0 sales. New images not even getting any views. But, it's spring, and hope refuses to die.

cathyslife · « **Reply #158 on:** March 15, 2010, 15:10 »

Quote

1 year - 100 images - 0 sales. New images not even getting any views. But, it's spring, and hope refuses to die.

Bleh, that's not good news.

borg · « **Reply #159 on:** March 15, 2010, 15:15 »

Quote from: cclapper on March 15, 2010, 15:10

Quote
1 year - 100 images - 0 sales. New images not even getting any views. But, it's spring, and hope refuses to die.

Bleh, that's not good news.

Ha!

One and half year!

750 images, only one sale...

I ll be patient till 1000, after that....

WarrenPrice · « **Reply #160 on:** March 15, 2010, 15:49 »

Are you making any of your cutcaster images exclusive?

stockastic · « **Reply #161 on:** March 15, 2010, 16:26 »

To be fair, I have to say my images aren't red hot stock. They're all object things, but they're nice, and they all sell now and then on SS, DT and IS. A few of them are doing fairly well, by my modest standards. But CC probably just doesn't have enough a wide enough spectrum of buyers, my images there aren't even getting touched.

borg · « **Reply #162 on:** March 16, 2010, 17:38 »

Quote from: WarrenPrice on March 15, 2010, 15:49

Are you making any of your cutcaster images exclusive?

No, I haven't exclusive files there?

Is it point in that???

WarrenPrice · « **Reply #163 on:** March 16, 2010, 18:06 »

Quote from: borg on March 16, 2010, 17:38

Quote from: WarrenPrice on March 15, 2010, 15:49
Are you making any of your cutcaster images exclusive?

No, I haven't exclusive files there?

Is it point in that???

I think there is. Prices at Cutcaster seem to be higher, at least mine are. Only my exclusive images have sales.

hqimages · « **Reply #164 on:** March 16, 2010, 18:34 »

Quote from: WarrenPrice on March 16, 2010, 18:06

Quote from: borg on March 16, 2010, 17:38
Quote from: WarrenPrice on March 15, 2010, 15:49
Are you making any of your cutcaster images exclusive?

No, I haven't exclusive files there?

Is it point in that???

I think there is. Prices at Cutcaster seem to be higher, at least mine are. Only my exclusive images have sales.

Finally some stats to back up what I said here months ago, and most members laughed at the idea! Web sites like cutcaster will HAVE to get exclusive images in order to survive.. you simply cannot stick a price of 70 euro on an image (as I saw heavyweight stock uploaders do on Zymmetrical) and sell the EXACT same image on istock for 5 euro same size.. it just makes a laughing 'stock' of the mid-stock model, pardon the pun

I'm a heavy buyer of stock images, to the point that I browse the sites so much looking for similar type of images I can spot a duplicate a mile off, and I'm not the only buyer this astute, even if the price different is 2 euro, it's still the exact same product, at a more expensive price, would you pay extra?

stockastic · « **Reply #165 on:** March 16, 2010, 18:47 »

I could believe that people are finding images on CC and then immediately searching for them cheaper elsewhere. Of course since I'm not even getting any views, I guess that's not my problem.

hqimages · « **Reply #166 on:** March 16, 2010, 19:05 »

Quote from: stockastic on March 16, 2010, 18:47

I could believe that people are finding images on CC and then immediately searching for them cheaper elsewhere. Of course since I'm not even getting any views, I guess that's not my problem.

I search everyday for images on istock as part of my work.. I then go visit another web site, and see the same images.. doesn't take much brain power really

hqimages · « **Reply #167 on:** March 16, 2010, 19:07 »

Quote from: hqimages on March 16, 2010, 19:05

Quote from: stockastic on March 16, 2010, 18:47
I could believe that people are finding images on CC and then immediately searching for them cheaper elsewhere. Of course since I'm not even getting any views, I guess that's not my problem.

I search everyday for images on istock as part of my work.. I then go visit another web site, and see the same images.. doesn't take much brain power really

And actually, I am trying to get my company to change from istock to another site that gives better return to the photographer, but at the same price or cheaper than us.. but there's no enough consistency with pricing yet to implement it.. for example on cutcaster, if we move our account to there because there are three photographers producing lots of new images we like, who's to say on their next batch of images they won't increase the price.. it's a tough model to sell..

But besides that my main gripe is people charging more when they set the price themselves, than their lower price elsewhere, it will put all midstock sites offering a higher return to them, out of business..

stockastic · « **Reply #168 on:** March 16, 2010, 19:21 »

I've set most of my images on CC to $5 for the largest size.

ap · « **Reply #169 on:** March 16, 2010, 19:46 »

Quote from: hqimages on March 16, 2010, 19:07

And actually, I am trying to get my company to change from istock to another site that gives better return to the photographer, but at the same price or cheaper than us.. but there's no enough consistency with pricing yet to implement it.. for example on cutcaster, if we move our account to there because there are three photographers producing lots of new images we like, who's to say on their next batch of images they won't increase the price.. it's a tough model to sell..

isn't there a site that does price comparison across the board for a particular image? wouldn't that be more helpful to you?

so, as a buyer, are you placing all the images you like into your own private lightboxes and then search for them cheaper elsewhere? this seem to be happening to me at is. my lightboxes that covert to sales are about 2.5:1.

WarrenPrice · « **Reply #170 on:** March 16, 2010, 20:43 »

The exclusivity issue was subject of an intense discussion back in the early days of the cutcaster forum. It is sort of a damned if you do; damned if you don't kind of issue. Making images exclusive means you have to trust cutcaster to find a buyer. That could mean a long wait with no sales. My idea was to make them exclusive for a year; give cutcaster a chance. If no sales, spread them around. Spreading around, of course, would mean cutting the prices. I got lucky.

sharpshot · « **Reply #171 on:** March 17, 2010, 03:58 »

Some sites I have tried have had success selling the same microstock images at higher prices. Perhaps some buyers will spend time looking for cheaper prices but there are also buyers that are used to paying a lot more and find midstock cheap. When FP lowered their prices, it didn't make any difference, sales are still low there, I made much more with zymmetrical selling at higher prices. I don't think prices are the problem with cutcaster, the buyers can put in a lower bid if they want to. There just aren't enough buyers there at the moment and that is probably because they started much later than the other sites, they haven't had a big enough collection of images to attract new buyers and they have spent much less than the big sites on marketing. I still hope cutcaster can attract more buyers but it is going to be a difficult task.

hqimages · « **Reply #172 on:** March 17, 2010, 04:48 »

Quote from: ap on March 16, 2010, 19:46

Quote from: hqimages on March 16, 2010, 19:07

And actually, I am trying to get my company to change from istock to another site that gives better return to the photographer, but at the same price or cheaper than us.. but there's no enough consistency with pricing yet to implement it.. for example on cutcaster, if we move our account to there because there are three photographers producing lots of new images we like, who's to say on their next batch of images they won't increase the price.. it's a tough model to sell..

isn't there a site that does price comparison across the board for a particular image? wouldn't that be more helpful to you?

so, as a buyer, are you placing all the images you like into your own private lightboxes and then search for them cheaper elsewhere? this seem to be happening to me at is. my lightboxes that covert to sales are about 2.5:1.

No not at all, as I said above somewhere, I buy on istock every day practically, and I'm always searching for images on that web site.. I then go to visit a new web site, and I can pick out the istock images IMMEDIATELY (they usually form about 90% of images on a new site on the market imo), so obviously if I have already seen them on istock, or I know that photographer is on istock, I can then look at the price on the new site and compare.. basically any new site that enters the market, needs to compete with istock, and if it's the same image they're selling, at an inflated price, they can't break into that market..

It's not just cutcaster, I saw it on Zym (rip), and on em.. whats that one Crestock.. Crestock I really thought was a joke, because you have an entire database of instantly recognisable istock photos being sold at inflated prices.. I don't know how they are still around, but I guess they did create a more clean database of a higher standard so maybe some buyers will pay extra in order to find the image they want faster..

hqimages · « **Reply #173 on:** March 17, 2010, 04:57 »

Quote from: WarrenPrice on March 16, 2010, 20:43

The exclusivity issue was subject of an intense discussion back in the early days of the cutcaster forum. It is sort of a damned if you do; damned if you don't kind of issue. Making images exclusive means you have to trust cutcaster to find a buyer. That could mean a long wait with no sales. My idea was to make them exclusive for a year; give cutcaster a chance. If no sales, spread them around. Spreading around, of course, would mean cutting the prices. I got lucky.

It's true it's tricky.. it's a problem for each photographer really, the fact that you are uploading to a new site means you are NOT exclusive with istock, so you enjoy that bit of independance.. maybe have a set of exclusive images separate from the rest of your work, and move it around choosing whichever site gives the best % back to you! If everyone did it, the photographers could actually ensure the success of a new web site.. but you'd have to do it in conjunction with pricing for your other non-exclusive images, so only price at the lowest price you sell elsewhere if the image is being sold somewhere else..

Oh and giving exclusive images in order to price them a bit higher/lure customers to the better web site for return to you, they need to be properly exclusive, not one outtake from a series you have on istock with the same model/set/lighting.. I will still recognise that as an istock image, as will others, I think an exclusive image should be a series of pics that go together, keep them all together and exclusive rather than splitting them up, cos again, buyers are more clever than you think

hqimages · « **Reply #174 on:** March 17, 2010, 05:03 »

Quote from: sharpshot on March 17, 2010, 03:58

Some sites I have tried have had success selling the same microstock images at higher prices. Perhaps some buyers will spend time looking for cheaper prices but there are also buyers that are used to paying a lot more and find midstock cheap. When FP lowered their prices, it didn't make any difference, sales are still low there, I made much more with zymmetrical selling at higher prices. I don't think prices are the problem with cutcaster, the buyers can put in a lower bid if they want to. There just aren't enough buyers there at the moment and that is probably because they started much later than the other sites, they haven't had a big enough collection of images to attract new buyers and they have spent much less than the big sites on marketing. I still hope cutcaster can attract more buyers but it is going to be a difficult task.

Well I'm a buyer, and the reason I haven't moved to cutcaster for example, is because I see a lot of istock images there, and my company already uses istock, the only way I could get my company to use a new site, is if they have images we want, that we can't get/are hard to get on istock..

Then on top of that price the istock image at a higher price on the new site and you have put the nail in the coffin really as regards buyers who already know the market.. I'm sure you'll get some new buyers, but then the opposite might happen to them, where they see the same images they are buying from cutcaster on istock, and realise they save money with istock.. so you'll have to deal with that no matter what or where the buyer came from..

(Also you mention Zymettrical as making you more money, but Zym could never survive long-term selling istock images at inflated prices, Yuri had just joined before Zym closed down, and you saw a flood of istock images, at a more expensive price, not blaming anyone, but it is a problem.. however on cutcaster I think he has actually stuck to the istock pricing pretty much, still I won't move unless he's half the price he is on istock - but then, that might still give a larger return to him so you should include this kind of thinking in your strategy.. ie. if the web site gives me 50% return, then I can afford to price my image cheaper than istock, but still make more $ in my pocket per download, now THAT would get me/my company to move - istock images at a cheaper price, and exclusive images of the type we are looking for, with the pool being added to frequently)

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Sales at CutCaster (Read 65366 times)

cathyslife

WarrenPrice

stockastic

stockastic

WarrenPrice

mwp1969

tiero

stockastic

cathyslife

borg

WarrenPrice

stockastic

borg

WarrenPrice

hqimages

stockastic

hqimages

hqimages

stockastic

ap

WarrenPrice

sharpshot

hqimages

hqimages

hqimages

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors