MicrostockGroup

Hey,

I hope I'm posting my question at right place.

I have some small photo stock website. Most of the traffic comes from Google search and Google Images.

My question is: Just one person of each 500 visitors click on "Buy Image" (but doesn't actually buy it). How can I increase the number potential buyers?

Thank you!

I doubt if we have the answer. Isn't that why we sell through agencies rather than putting a big effort into trying to sell as individuals?

I suspect that to get direct sales at a reasonable level you need to become a world famous photographer so people think they are buying something very special.

There are two things that will help

1) Increase traffic (for each 500 visitors you get you make a sale) more traffic will equal more sales
2) Increase your conversion rate, if you can reduce the number of visitors required for a sale from 500 to 250 then you will double your sales

If you can do both so much the better

I would suggest using Google site analytics, to define your goals and funnels and see where you are losing those 499 potential buyers

Yes many, but I'm not taking on additional clients at the moment.

Yeah, I don't see the point of trying to drag in the sort of customer who doesn't want to pay. The free photos are useless with that huge watermark all over them. The lighting on your food isn't good enough to be trying to sell against the sort of competition the micros offer.
You might do better, if you are going to cover things like motorbike events, to advertise that the pictures will be available on your site to the participatnts - but then you probably want some way of delivering prints as well as jpgs.   Selling them as RF stock could get you in trouble over the use of identifiable people in commercial adverts without having model releases.
With a personal site it is certainly easier to sell photos as souvenirs to local individuals than it is to sell them into the advertising market which already has clearly identified sources.

I'm not sure it's entirely necessary to spend like crazy on ads. Some decent SEO can bring in traffic.

I did notice a lot of foreign language text is pulled up when I do a Google search for site:download-free-photos.com. I don't know if that affects your traffic or not though. I'm not sure about the free thing either, although you may be locked into that with the site name.

It's not easy running your own show, so good luck!

Just wanted to emphasise this point in case you skimmed over it. This also applies to your people photos and some of your travel photos. You have several photos which could also land you in serious trouble if you don't have property releases, e.g. the actual music in your music photos, the bikes, shop/business names in Israel ...

Everyone should read this:
http://danheller.blogspot.com/2011/09/busting-myths-about-model-releases.html

If it could be established that that particular music was published by a particular publisher, e.g. maybe there's distinctive notation or fonts, they could have a claim against you.
Many of your photos have elements which require property releases to be sold for non-editorial purposes.

Even more relevant is the first page of Dan Helller's blog, September 30th, 2011. http://danheller.blogspot.com/ Great example and explanation.

True and here's the collection of shorter simplified answers.

The law doesn't require releases for many items and situations, the agencies do. There's a big difference! That's where people get confused. If agency X says, you need a property release, it's their rule, not law. Easy enough to understand?

I've pointed out a number of times before that the end user is responsible for the use, not the agency or the artist. This is also confused by many people. None of us are responsible for someone using an image improperly if we don't misrepresent the release or make some claims about our ownership when licensing it. Very Simple.

The reason the art and dance steps issue was resolved out of court is the dance steps art is protected! They are copyrighted, end of story. You can't use someone else's copyrighted work of art without license. People can't copy our photos and sell them because it's protected.

Property releases do have a need and purpose, just that once again the agencies have created an artificial situation that's not based on law, but on their own rules. Modern buildings now have rights. Famous pets, show dogs and horses, cats Etc. are protected (I don't understand how and why, but I know they are...)

In 1989, the United States joined the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, which required that its signatories protect completed architectural works from infringement. As a result of both this convention and a recognition by Congress that “architecture is an art form that performs a very public, societal purpose . . . deserving of protection under the Copyright Act,” Congress passed the Architectural Works Copyright Protection Act (AWCPA), which amended the Copyright Act to specifically include “architectural works” among the list of protected works in 17 U.S.C. § 102

Protection for “architectural works” under § 102(a)( is available only for those works created on or after December 1, 1990. (is that easy enough?) Almost... Protection for architectural drawings as “pictorial, graphic, or sculptural” works under § 102(a)(5) is valid if created after 1976. But we aren't shooting drawings or pictorial works, so the physical buildings are only protected, after 1989 OR if the building is a landmark, trademark and those situations where it comes under other protection.

USA - I'm here, I'm talking about where I am. Laws are different all over the world, don't assume that anything is the same anyplace else, until it has been researched.

In the end, most of the problems are created by the confusion between what some agency requires and the actual laws. Agencies can make their own rules and requirements, but that doesn't mean it's legally required.

Also not directly relevent to the OP, but I noticed this in iStock's editorial forum. It was posted about an hour ago:
"We can no longer license imagery for Editorial Use Only, which includes unreleased copyrighted material as the main focus. Items such as statues, sculptures, paintings, engravings, artwork and magazine covers cannot play an important role in the composition."
I wish they would explain exactly why they come to these decisions, not that we can question it, but so that we can know under which legislations there might be a problem.

Yeah, sorry about the omission. It's a b*gger if we get pics expunged which have had sales as we can't just whack them straight onto e.g. Alamy.
I really wish they'd do all their homework FIRST.
Thanks Sean for pressing for a proper explanation, even if you get an evasive answer.