pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Fotolia is my best seller this month  (Read 11378 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #25 on: July 22, 2014, 11:48 »
+14
Hi everybody,

This month in Fotolia if I compare proportional for the first 21 days the income is 20% more than my best month ever  ;)

But the most important thing I notice is that this month I have not rise of the subscription sales!

Are you selling your images through the Dollar Photo Club?

I sell in DPC, but the rise is not from there as the subscription sales are not more then before DPC exist. I mean the sales as the number of sales, because now we have very good subscription sales in Fotolia as price. I think that about DPC we can draw conclusions for at least one year not now.

Deyan, do you know the reason why you have "good subscription sales in Fotolia as price"???
Because of all the contributors who opted out from DPC! All of us lost some money because of this!
And now you came here to tell us how happy you are with your sales?
May be all of these contributors are the reason why you make more money today!

You don't want to talk about DPC? There is direct relationship between DPC and FT!
People like you who supports DPC are not part of the community who thinks for the future of microstock!


« Reply #26 on: July 22, 2014, 12:03 »
+5
You don't want to talk about DPC? There is direct relationship between DPC and FT!
People like you who supports DPC are not part of the community who thinks for the future of microstock!

so where is the community?  a coop? an exclusive club? creative commons? software selfie?

maybe if those who are so pissed-off with him sends him an invitation he might just give you all his portfolio and not "compete" against you or me.

but in business, that would be ironic.  the world of business is just that...
the sharks eat the little fish like him, and when the little fish like him is finally getting some planktons off the ocean floor, he is seen as doing something wrong.

it sounds like a politician saying the whole nation has to tighten their belts while he gets fatter and his wallet gets thicker.

very interesting !

the sad hidden fact is that most of us started like he did. selling or giving away our wares with IStock at the beginning, and we became big earners. and suddenly microstock and even ft  are too small for us.
so we form little cliques and hype ourselves as something elitist.

and then little fish Deyan Georgiev comes along and announces he is doing fine, thank you !!!

and the whole "community" goes ballistic  :'(
« Last Edit: July 22, 2014, 12:06 by etudiante_rapide »

« Reply #27 on: July 22, 2014, 12:21 »
+6
You don't want to talk about DPC? There is direct relationship between DPC and FT!
People like you who supports DPC are not part of the community who thinks for the future of microstock!

so where is the community?  a coop? an exclusive club? creative commons? software selfie?

maybe if those who are so pissed-off with him sends him an invitation he might just give you all his portfolio and not "compete" against you or me.

but in business, that would be ironic.  the world of business is just that...
the sharks eat the little fish like him, and when the little fish like him is finally getting some planktons off the ocean floor, he is seen as doing something wrong.

it sounds like a politician saying the whole nation has to tighten their belts while he gets fatter and his wallet gets thicker.

very interesting !

the sad hidden fact is that most of us started like he did. selling or giving away our wares with IStock at the beginning, and we became big earners. and suddenly microstock and even ft  are too small for us.
so we form little cliques and hype ourselves as something elitist.

and then little fish Deyan Georgiev comes along and announces he is doing fine, thank you !!!

and the whole "community" goes ballistic  :'(

I don't think it was about sour grapes or any of that. There's always a real danger in crowdsourcing that the crowd can devalue the work and hurt the industry. So, I see it as more of a warning than picking on someone or bullying them.

« Reply #28 on: July 22, 2014, 13:00 »
0

I don't think it was about sour grapes or any of that. There's always a real danger in crowdsourcing that the crowd can devalue the work and hurt the industry. So, I see it as more of a warning than picking on someone or bullying them.

cheers 4 the insight, cthoman.
but OP is not the one who started the crowdsourcing. he is a little fish and a new minnow .
my point is that many years ago, we all started in the same way as he is today.
in more ways than one, we set the precedent... ie lifestyle , food, etc and the money was great
with less upstarts.
today, the upstarts are younger, brighter, faster... (like my monicker "rapid learner")..
and they know the technology better than most of us who were not weaned on these technology.
like Yuri said, even the smartphone is soon or already a contender.

the ocean is wide, and little minnow here by himself is not a contender. but with many little minnows
= a big school of little sardines. and they can be like the piranhas, gobble up the old cow(s).

if old cow(s) want to keep the crown, old cow(s) have to stay uptodate and face the competition.
old cows are only sitting comfy because our old images gain first page first para. which is more or less
filling our coffer.
but eventually, old cow(s) need to stand shoulder to shoulder with their new work
or else be replaced.

some old cows are unbeatable, like certain exclusives who are never even here on MSG or even their agency's forum. they keep producing new work and do not see little minnows as a threat.

in fact, they welcome it, as little minnows bring new ideas and reflect the changing micro market.

« Reply #29 on: July 22, 2014, 13:57 »
+5
Those who are opt in on DPC, they say:

we need time to figure out of DPC is hurting our sells on other sites or not.

But they don't have a clue of where the sells come from on their list of sold images, either from Fotolia and DPC.

then they see less ODDs on Shutterstock and say that there is no proof that DPC is responsible for that loss.

then they see a day with more ODD and SOD and post "oh see? see? that'a proof that DPC is not hurting our sells"

How can they possibly guess, if in one day they have 100 subs + 7 ODDs, that in reality they could have 110 subs + 10 ODDs if they weren't on DPC..

I would like them to explain, how possibly can they prove/know for sure, in a year from now, that their sells were/are not being affected by DPC.

Because I must be really dumb, but I can't see a way to realize that.




« Reply #30 on: July 22, 2014, 14:06 »
+1

thank u, but not here to collect likes. just want to say my piece. life is too short to worry over what others think about you, ..when the fact is , they are mostly clueless about themselves.  carpe diem. 8)

« Reply #31 on: July 22, 2014, 14:07 »
+4
if old cow(s) want to keep the crown, old cow(s) have to stay uptodate and face the competition.
old cows are only sitting comfy because our old images gain first page first para. which is more or less
filling our coffer.
but eventually, old cow(s) need to stand shoulder to shoulder with their new work
or else be replaced.

My fear isn't being gobbled up by new fish. It's everyone becoming cannibals and no longer being safe at my favorite restaurants because of the chaos.

« Reply #32 on: July 22, 2014, 14:19 »
-6
DPC have ~25% less images than Fotolia, I am on the 75% side of portfolio by the moment as I said. After a year will do analysis. This situation with DPC is not positive nor negative and is not so easy to define it.(I know about the $1, about the unused downloads transfer month to month and so on)

To all of you who reproach me have to tell you to concentrate to create more images, to create more creative images, to spend more time on thinking what to shot and to spend more time to shot more...You do not have to care about the microstock industry, because like all businesses this will be regulated on business principle not because of our "hard contributor activity and protest". Try to create a high value images and all agencies will pray you to give them your photos at high price.

Maybe you would not have thought that every your sale could only happen at this particular moment at this particular agency, only from this particular client who use only this particular search tags and liked your particular image. This is very important if you are not presented as wide as possible then you are falling behind.

For me are two types of contributors who opted out from DPC the first one are big players who knows that the client can/will search them directly on DPC for to buy cheap(but if this is true they have to sell only on one place with the best prices) and the others are the rest, I can't understand them for the moment.

You make me superfluous to justify why I'm in, but the question is so simple because of money :)
I'm in because of money, you are out because of money. 

Finally do not underestimate the agencies, they have business for billions and will not collapse it don't worry you just try to be maximal presented with your portfolio.

objowl

« Reply #33 on: July 22, 2014, 14:28 »
0
and if you profit because Fotolia increase prices due to the pressure of others you will come here to gloat about it?

« Reply #34 on: July 22, 2014, 14:46 »
-2
and if you profit because Fotolia increase prices due to the pressure of others you will come here to gloat about it?

Would be true if we have the same pictures ;), again hypothetical stories...

« Reply #35 on: July 22, 2014, 14:53 »
+5
I just paid $29 for a 32 gb memory card at Costco.  It would take 116 downloads at DPC (oops, add 17 more for the sales tax) to pay for it.  Why bother?

But back to the original question.... I am not at home so not looking at my spreadsheet, but I have noticed several sub sales at Fotolia between $1-$3 this month.  It's almost enough of a change for me to consider uploading to them again.

« Reply #36 on: July 22, 2014, 16:23 »
0
Those who are opt in on DPC, they say:

we need time to figure out of DPC is hurting our sells on other sites or not.

But they don't have a clue of where the sells come from on their list of sold images, either from Fotolia and DPC.

then they see less ODDs on Shutterstock and say that there is no proof that DPC is responsible for that loss.

then they see a day with more ODD and SOD and post "oh see? see? that'a proof that DPC is not hurting our sells"

How can they possibly guess, if in one day they have 100 subs + 7 ODDs, that in reality they could have 110 subs + 10 ODDs if they weren't on DPC..

I would like them to explain, how possibly can they prove/know for sure, in a year from now, that their sells were/are not being affected by DPC.

Because I must be really dumb, but I can't see a way to realize that.

not sure if i understand your point. but i will take it in a nutshell to assume you mean that you have both the same portfolio in SS as well as on FT. and when u lose sales on SS, u blame those on DPC for ripping you off.
the thing is, you are the maker of your own misfortune if you cannibalize your portfolio everywhere.
if your work is only available at SS, and certain other works in available on FT and DPC, there is no way DPC is affecting your sales .  you just need an excuse to blame your lack of sales on someone else, other than the fact that you did not make images the clients need.

afaik, there is no proof that clients will check DPC and SS and then go back to DPC . in business, not too many buyers have the time to go price checking. and even if so, the best images still win the day.

if not, clones of Yuri, SJLocke, Dolgachov, Lise Gagnon,etc.. will wipe out the earnings of these icons a long time ago.  There is no proof i am right , either.

but many of these top sellers say one thing in common:  don't worry over the little things,
just make sellable images. if you make images clients need, you need not have to come up with an excuse why you suddenly are losing money.

« Reply #37 on: July 22, 2014, 16:29 »
+3
if not, clones of Yuri, SJLocke, Dolgachov, Lise Gagnon,etc.. will wipe out the earnings of these icons a long time ago.  There is no proof i am right , either.

but many of these top sellers say one thing in common:  don't worry over the little things,
just make sellable images. if you make images clients need, you need not have to come up with an excuse why you suddenly are losing money.

Well obviously, Yuri doesn't believe that.  ;D

« Reply #38 on: July 22, 2014, 16:41 »
+3
Quote
"but many of these top sellers say one thing in common:  don't worry over the little things,
just make sellable images. if you make images clients need, you need not have to come up with an excuse why you suddenly are losing money."

Maybe but if my images have a life of say 100 sales I would much rather be getting $7 to $15 per sale instead of $0.29.

The crux of the matter here is there are three types of contributors
1) Those who are all about today and are looking to max out this month's income and don't really care about the future.
2) Those who would rather make less today but still be making money 5 years from now
3) Those who have uploaded 100 images or less and have forgotten they even have files for sale.

I fall into the 2nd category and feel like the agencies will just keep chipping away at my income until there is nothing left. I prefer to say no and choose other outlets rather than just accept that my images are only worth $1. And yes customers do seek out images because if they didn't my personal sites would not be garnering any sales at all.

You can argue that DPC may not be harming your sales or mine but it is hard to argue that DPC as a concept isn't likely to hurt all of our sales in the long run. You (contributors in general) are entitled to choose today's sales I personally am more interested in sustained future ones.

« Reply #39 on: July 22, 2014, 16:43 »
0
and if you profit because Fotolia increase prices due to the pressure of others you will come here to gloat about it?

hey, you are as free as he is to gloat, as you call it. Tyler lets us start a thread as we wish. i don't see a problem here. if u think it's a gloat, go make your own gloat !

« Reply #40 on: July 22, 2014, 16:46 »
0
You can argue that DPC may not be harming your sales or mine but it is hard to argue that DPC as a concept isn't likely to hurt all of our sales in the long run. You (contributors in general) are entitled to choose today's sales I personally am more interested in sustained future ones.

i am not arguing anything about DPC hurting my sales, because it isn't.
i am saying, if we want a whipping boy, we have lots more than just DPC of ft, or the OP.
why not pick on say, dreamstime and their free images?
that's a lot worse than DPC, isn't it?

what i am saying is, he has every privilege to find DPC advantageous to him. it isn't to me, because i am not in DPC, but then again, as i said, i do not cannibalize my work . but that's not the issue of this thread.

the issue is, he came to let us know his views on DPC. we may not like it, but it is his thread.

« Reply #41 on: July 22, 2014, 16:49 »
0

 Those who are opt in on DPC, they say:

 
 we need time to figure out of DPC is hurting our sells on other sites or not.
 
 But they don't have a clue of where the sells come from on their list of sold images, either from Fotolia and DPC.
 
 then they see less ODDs on Shutterstock and say that there is no proof that DPC is responsible for that loss.
 
 then they see a day with more ODD and SOD and post "oh see? see? that'a proof that DPC is not hurting our sells"
 
 How can they possibly guess, if in one day they have 100 subs + 7 ODDs, that in reality they could have 110 subs + 10 ODDs if they weren't on DPC..
 
 I would like them to explain, how possibly can they prove/know for sure, in a year from now, that their sells were/are not being affected by DPC.
 
 Because I must be really dumb, but I can't see a way to realize that.
 
Conversely, how can you prove / know for sure that they are?
As far as Im concerned the jury is out.  A few cents per sale is across the board not just this one site AND its the only place that pays in which is a 35% bonus at the moment.

« Reply #42 on: July 22, 2014, 16:53 »
+4
@etudiante_rapide
I couldn't agree more. But you also won't find my images in the DT free section, I only have 8 images at vectorstock and its been almost 2 years since I have uploaded to a sub site. I think Envatos pricing is to low and I stopped uploading to Bigstock when they introduced their new system.

There are other ways to make money in this industry. Although, I will admit that I am certain I will make far less this month than I would have had I uploaded everywhere. I am also quite certain that I will make more money in the long run by being selective about who gets my images.

« Reply #43 on: July 22, 2014, 17:05 »
0
@etudiante_rapide
I couldn't agree more. But you also won't find my images in the DT free section, I only have 8 images at vectorstock and its been almost 2 years since I have uploaded to a sub site. I think Envatos pricing is to low and I stopped uploading to Bigstock when they introduced their new system.

There are other ways to make money in this industry. Although, I will admit that I am certain I will make far less this month than I would have had I uploaded everywhere. I am also quite certain that I will make more money in the long run by being selective about who gets my images.

chromaco...yes, i agree too. we cannot always expect the other person to like what we say or do;  to expect that would be foolish and unrealistic.
the only thing that matters, to me.. to you.. to the next guy or gal... is that we make money one way or the other. i am not worried over whether you are recording 200% profit this year over last year,
or if Yuri cares about this or not. i only care that i see an increase in my own payout monthly.

no one else is contributing to my studio, equipment, rent,etc... so no one is entitled to qualify anything i do.
until you or the other person is my benefactor, we answer to no one else .

we do as we see fit. whether it is sustainable or not, it is not the OP , you or me, who is going to make it sustainable or not. it is Jon Oringer, and other owners of each agency that decides that.

we can only see what they do, and then choose whether we want to continue to supply them with our work or not. we can also dream and hope for some saviour to come and make microstock less of a monopoly, but really... we already have enough (dreamstime),lol..

i take it one day at the time. if i wanted sustainability, it would not even be as a stock photographer.
20 years ago, i bring in more money in one walk in to a newspaper and a photo essay page of 5 photos than i ever see in an extended licence today.

so, to ask for sustainability is a myth. there is no such thing... at least not in photography, or music, or art, or whatever.   if you want sustainability, go toss burgers  ;D

sorry OT, but maybe not. our OP is making money for himself. so , to him, it works... DPC works for him.

« Reply #44 on: July 22, 2014, 17:16 »
+3
But don't you agree that you and I are better off if we work to protect our long term interests against tactics that undercut our potential sales. It seems to me that saying "produce good product and everything will work out" is a bit optimistic. If we would collectively say "no" to bad industry policies everyone would be better off. The problem here is that too few people are willing to say no. The agencies know this and are exploiting it. The OP is quite happy to get sub commissions for on-demand purchases because he has decided that it is OK. I have decided that it isn't OK. I wish he had my point of view but I respect that he doesn't. Nevertheless, I do feel that his perspective will in some small way hurt my sales in the future.

It's really not about 1 person... it's about 10,000 with the same attitude. That is where the problem lies.

« Reply #45 on: July 22, 2014, 17:28 »
0
But don't you agree that you and I are better off if we work to protect our long term interests

what long term interest?  as soon as a microstock company makes enough money, they sell it to someone else and take to the hills. and then suddenly someone else comes up with the magic pill, and everyone goes oooh ahhh!

there is no long term interest ; at least not anyone i see to the right of this page,
except SS. but even that is now open to question.

carpe diem, because if you place your hopes in any microstock company or any company
even if it is successful today,
it is not going to bend over backwards for anyone but themselves.
so you make the money while you can.

all else is maya ... illusion  ;)

cheers for the discussion. i wish the OP continual success. i am going out for a pint so, no more talk LMAO

« Reply #46 on: July 22, 2014, 17:50 »
0
But don't you agree that you and I are better off if we work to protect our long term interests against tactics that undercut our potential sales. It seems to me that saying "produce good product and everything will work out" is a bit optimistic. If we would collectively say "no" to bad industry policies everyone would be better off. The problem here is that too few people are willing to say no. The agencies know this and are exploiting it. The OP is quite happy to get sub commissions for on-demand purchases because he has decided that it is OK. I have decided that it isn't OK. I wish he had my point of view but I respect that he doesn't. Nevertheless, I do feel that his perspective will in some small way hurt my sales in the future.

It's really not about 1 person... it's about 10,000 with the same attitude. That is where the problem lies.

Unfortunately, I think people have to see it for themselves before they change their minds. They have to find a better place than the status quo to sell their work and/or experience the frustration of falling sales, royalty rates, or other setbacks. Not everybody is there yet and they may never be. I think opinions will eventually come around, but it may take a while. It would definitely be nice to speed it up.  ;)

« Reply #47 on: July 22, 2014, 18:02 »
+1
About 3 years ago you started hinting about a better way. I decided to follow your lead and looked for my own options. I have to say that you are probably right about needing to see it for yourself. I think it's all going to come crashing down and explode. I've built my life boat I just want it to be stronger.

stock-will-eat-itself

« Reply #48 on: July 22, 2014, 18:55 »
-3
Photography and illustration are completely commodified now, no use picking on the OP he's just reacting to the way things are.

The problem with stock is that it gives you the illusion that you are in control, the moment you try to make money in stock you instantly commodify your work.

Opting in, opting out really makes no difference.

« Reply #49 on: July 22, 2014, 19:10 »
+2
...I think it's all going to come crashing down and explode. I've built my life boat I just want it to be stronger.

It's not going to crash, but it will divide. Anyone worth their salt will find it entirely unsustainable (cracks me up every time I use that word in this forum) to continue producing work that ends up in these nanostock products like DPC. And there will be more of them, and without opt-outs.

Remember that every time a company pulls some shenanigans to cut our pay, it's a bit of an experiment. There is a pre-determined set of criteria in which the experiment is deemed a success or failure, and some of those criteria include how many contributors opt-out, how many delete their accounts and leave, etc. And as long as those numbers stay within a range that is satisfactory to the company, they'll keep pushing these things out.

Or other companies will watch and see what happens and they duplicate the experiment. They'll look at DPC and say, "Hey, Fotolia rolled out this thing out and only 25% of their contributors bailed." That's an acceptable amount loss in some cases, and that experiment would be deemed a success and worthy of repeating.

So as more of these things emerge, the market will divide. But microstock won't implode. It will just separate out from these nanostock offerings and we'll see these divergent levels of stock content, price points, etc. As far as customers are concerned, if they're satisfied with these cheaper yet lower-quality collections, they'll be fine with going to the DPCs of the world. If they want something better, they'll go up a level.

And these nanostock collections will suffer in terms of quality. Even though there are some good artists opted in right now, they'll burn out eventually and the quality of those collections will drop. Then customers will have to go elsewhere if they want better content.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
41 Replies
7323 Views
Last post July 30, 2014, 14:54
by stocked
31 Replies
12318 Views
Last post March 11, 2010, 13:26
by fotografer
10 Replies
2292 Views
Last post May 09, 2013, 12:57
by RGebbiePhoto
60 Replies
9223 Views
Last post November 23, 2015, 11:08
by Pauws99
12 Replies
1257 Views
Last post November 14, 2018, 05:21
by derek

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors