MicrostockGroup

I've come to the conclusion that low-earning sites are also sites on which the contributor uploading mechanism is ill-conceived, bulky, troublesome, and (most important) time-consuming.  The reason is because they use the same design rationale for the buyers that they use for the contributors, so if the uploading mechanism is burdensome, the purchase mechanism will be likewise.  Therefore, the buyers will tend to do business at other sites with better (more user-friendly and streamlined) designs.  For example, the FT upload mechanism allows only one file to be edited at a time, including the assignment of model or property releases, and it can take a long time to wade through all of those stinkin' categories.  Contrast that with SS where I can assign a model release to multiple files, edit multiple files on one page, and submit multiple files with one click.

Example:  I've been a contributor to FT since March of 2009, and I have 1445 files in my portfolio.  I might average a half dozen sales per month.  I've been a contributor to SS since April of 2005.  I started with video and was accepted as a still photographer in September of 2010.  I currently have 1570 files in my portfolio, and I experience consistent daily sales.

In summary, it seems that there's a connection between the upload mechanism and the profitability of a site because the same design rationale is used for the contributor and the buyer.  My conclusion is that I get a better return on the investment of my time uploading to those sites with the most efficient upload mechanism.  One exception, however, is CanStockPhoto.  Very efficient upload mechanism, but sales (and even views) have dropped to zero.

I'd be interested in knowing whether or not other contibutors have the same observation and conclusion.

My top seller at SS, downloaded 87 times thus far:



My second-best seller, downloaded 57 times thus far:

I think it's a tenuous connection at best

If an agency doesnt have a smooth operating customer side, they are plain stupid.

The degree of lousiness on the contributer side, shows the respect they have for their contributors´ time.

Which is not always much.
IS far worse than any of the others, and its very telling that they did not improve it in all the years I have been there.

A plague on "categories".

CanStockPhoto ain´t just worth because of the fastest upload but also because of sales, they were my 8th best agency in 2011 with 137 sales for 160$, exactly 1.6% of my total earnings for 2011

I hope you don´t own a restaurant

And then there's the site that insists on fixin' what ain't broke.

Am I the only one making money with Canstock? It's not the first time I hear this, and it does not compare to my experience with them. Anyone else make a decent income with them? It might simply be that my portfolio is vector where most if photo.

I have a lot of vector sales at 2.5$ and 5$ commission for me which do add up quickly, but I make at least a 200$ payout each month with them, where I do half that on Fotolia.

Am I the only happy camper of Canstock out there? :p

Canstock has always been a modest performer for me.  Lifetime, they're my #9 performer and represent 2.7% of my total microstock income, hardly anything to get excited about.  But that's changed recently.  In November they were 10.6% of my total, dropping to 8.4% in December but climbing to 20.9% and second place this month, behind only Shutterstock at 38.1%.  My sales are mostly subscriptions, which makes the growth even more impressive.  I'll be curious to see how it performs over the next few months.

I'm with you. My results are pretty similar, but I'm vectors as well.