MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: StockFresh surging?  (Read 1519 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: February 25, 2012, 18:49 »
0
I haven't paid much attention to StockFresh lately.  I typically just check my sales once every few days, and see a handful of sales a week.

But today (a Saturday, no less) I had a nice surprise at SF.  Nearly $10 today alone.  Looking back over the past few weeks, it appears that the site is picking up steam.  I've seen close to $30 in earnings since Feb 15, which seems to be about where the trend begins.

Anyone else experiencing this?  I wonder if SF has been stepping up its marketing these past few weeks?


« Reply #1 on: February 25, 2012, 18:59 »
0
no, exactly 1 year there and 31 sales for $32.45
« Last Edit: February 25, 2012, 19:02 by luissantos84 »

« Reply #2 on: February 25, 2012, 19:50 »
0
Nothing here.
Seams some buyer pick up you similar images as a whole story.

« Reply #3 on: February 25, 2012, 20:03 »
0
It's a completely dead site for me with 2500 images.  I think Peter is good at heart but in my humble opinion the site will be gone in the not too distant future.

« Reply #4 on: February 25, 2012, 20:58 »
0
Nothing here.
Seams some buyer pick up you similar images as a whole story.

No, I don't think so.  That might explain a few bursts of sales.  But there has been a sustained trend for me from Feb 15 through today. 

Feb 1 - 14 : 12 downloads
Feb 15 - 24: 40 downloads

« Reply #5 on: February 25, 2012, 21:27 »
0
It's a completely dead site for me with 2500 images.  I think Peter is good at heart but in my humble opinion the site will be gone in the not too distant future.

If costs are kept low it can easily keep going along.

« Reply #6 on: February 25, 2012, 21:31 »
0
It's a completely dead site for me with 2500 images.  I think Peter is good at heart but in my humble opinion the site will be gone in the not too distant future.

If costs are kept low it can easily keep going along.

At a buck or two a month yes.  Cost isn't everything, there are basic things called revenue, margins, etc.

« Reply #7 on: February 25, 2012, 22:02 »
0
Feb 1-15 sales 0
Feb 16-25 sales 1

an infinite surge. But not really statistically very interesting (or very interesting as far as income goes either). I'm not about to pull my port, but uploading there isn't very high on the priority list either.

« Reply #8 on: February 25, 2012, 22:46 »
0
Nothing here.
Seams some buyer pick up you similar images as a whole story.

No, I don't think so.  That might explain a few bursts of sales.  But there has been a sustained trend for me from Feb 15 through today. 

Feb 1 - 14 : 12 downloads
Feb 15 - 24: 40 downloads
[/quote

Lucky you
For me they oscillate in a nonstatistically same low pattern from 1-5 dl/month

« Reply #9 on: February 26, 2012, 02:56 »
0
A lot less pathetic than Photodune overhere, now THAT site is overrated to me... granted, its still weekly sales here at SF but the times in between are definitly decreasing, PD is just dead for me.

« Reply #10 on: February 26, 2012, 03:21 »
0
It's a completely dead site for me with 2500 images.  I think Peter is good at heart but in my humble opinion the site will be gone in the not too distant future.

If costs are kept low it can easily keep going along.

At a buck or two a month yes.  Cost isn't everything, there are basic things called revenue, margins, etc.
Featurepics has kept going all through the economic downturn with low sales.  They sell more for me now than they used to.  Mostphotos must have higher costs because they accept everything.  Sales completely stopped there for over a year for me but they are now going in the right direction.

Having a lot of patience with sites that you like usually pays off in the long term.  I think impatient contributors hinder sites that entered the market late.  It must be hard for them to get buyers when there are established sites that have bigger collections and pay much lower commissions, giving them more money for marketing.  They could borrow lots of money but I can understand not wanting to gamble.  Several sites that overspent are no longer with us.

« Reply #11 on: February 26, 2012, 05:14 »
0
It's a completely dead site for me with 2500 images.  I think Peter is good at heart but in my humble opinion the site will be gone in the not too distant future.

If costs are kept low it can easily keep going along.

At a buck or two a month yes.  Cost isn't everything, there are basic things called revenue, margins, etc.
Featurepics has kept going all through the economic downturn with low sales.  They sell more for me now than they used to.  Mostphotos must have higher costs because they accept everything.  Sales completely stopped there for over a year for me but they are now going in the right direction.

Having a lot of patience with sites that you like usually pays off in the long term.  I think impatient contributors hinder sites that entered the market late.  It must be hard for them to get buyers when there are established sites that have bigger collections and pay much lower commissions, giving them more money for marketing.  They could borrow lots of money but I can understand not wanting to gamble.  Several sites that overspent are no longer with us.

I agree with what you said, except the part about Mostphotos. They except everything but their collection is not huge considering this, they have 2.2 million images right now. They don't need reviewers which would be cost saving.

I agree that so many contributors are impatient, they want to see results quickly and a year or 2 seems like forever to them. An agency may not perform great after a year or 2, but it may start to pick up after 4 or 5 or even 10 years and when/if it does you will get rewarded.

Also I think a lot of people search for images via Google. I've done it on occasions, just type in a search term (better with 2 words) and add the word stock. At least the first couple of pages, but sometimes up to 10 pages, show images from various stock agencies and images from smaller agencies can be seen too (not as often). The person might not buy the image from where he discovered it, but the contributor gets the sale anyway albeit at another agency. I never get why people say "I'm deleting my files from an agency because of the lack of sales", this neither helps the agency and probably won't do any favours for the contributor too.

« Reply #12 on: February 26, 2012, 05:32 »
0
I haven't paid much attention to StockFresh lately.  I typically just check my sales once every few days, and see a handful of sales a week.

But today (a Saturday, no less) I had a nice surprise at SF.  Nearly $10 today alone.  Looking back over the past few weeks, it appears that the site is picking up steam.  I've seen close to $30 in earnings since Feb 15, which seems to be about where the trend begins.

Anyone else experiencing this?  I wonder if SF has been stepping up its marketing these past few weeks?

Same here - still only few sales but February is definitely my best month at SF.

helix7

« Reply #13 on: February 26, 2012, 10:59 »
0

I picked up a few sales last week, after months of nothing. Not sure if it was just coincidence, something happening at SF, or my recent efforts to drive some traffic to my SF portfolio (links in Flickr image descriptions, Twitter posts, etc).

Also picked up a referral and got a few bucks for that. Too soon to tell if things are picking up overall, but this is certainly a welcome surprise.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
13 Replies
4108 Views
Last post December 30, 2010, 04:17
by alfonsodetomas
19 Replies
4817 Views
Last post February 01, 2011, 10:18
by mantonino
2 Replies
1976 Views
Last post January 10, 2011, 04:44
by madelaide
Wow Stockfresh!

Started by cidepix « 1 2 3  All » StockFresh

57 Replies
11722 Views
Last post August 24, 2011, 17:33
by admin
A call to arms - Support StockFresh

Started by helix7 « 1 2 ... 6 7 » StockFresh

169 Replies
13053 Views
Last post July 12, 2012, 16:03
by djpadavona

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors