The stock site you recommend to buyers

WarrenPrice

« Reply #25 on: February 11, 2010, 16:32 »

#link

Quote from: helix7 on February 11, 2010, 13:37

Quote from: cthoman on February 11, 2010, 13:11

I must of misunderstood the question too because I thought we were recommending sites to buyers for our OWN work. I get inquiries occasionally for images I've posted on my blog, so I usually direct them to a site that has that image and more...

If someone contacts me about one of my images, I'm handling the sale myself and not doing it through any stock agency. I'd prefer to keep 100% of the money than to give any agency a cut. Some of my stuff is available for sale on my website at prices lower than what many agencies charge but higher than the highest agency royalty rate. If someone wants an image I don't have for sale on my website, I'll handle the sale privately.

The point of the OP was more about directing someone who will likely become a regular buyer of all types of stock imagery (not just my own) to a stock site. Apologies for not wording the question better.

I see. So, in that case, I would have to ask the question, "What are you looking for?" And go take a picture for the buyer. Tongue

Or, just give the buyer a list and let the buyer make his/her own choice. Don't want to ruin my creditability. Grin


	Ignore \| Logged

Phil

« Reply #26 on: February 11, 2010, 17:23 »

#link

Quote from: elvinstar on February 11, 2010, 12:40

Since I buy photos too, I can't in good conscience recommend IS because of the "Did you mean..." syndrome. I would recommend DT. It seems much faster for me to find what I need and they have a great selection.

yep, looking at images last week try to find holes in offerings. Did you mean -> 3 options, I select one and obvisously my meaning of it is different to istocks as the search became totally irrelevant. I then spent 5-10 minutes trying to go back to those options so I could choose again. Even when I tried a new search or closing the tab and reopening it knew what I had selected last time and used the same option. The only way I could find to start again was to close the entire browser and reopen. * it was frustrating, with that and 20% commission, no way I'd recommend them.


	Ignore \| Logged

melastmohican

« Reply #27 on: February 11, 2010, 17:25 »

#link

Since I want to boost sales on my other sites I would not promote SS and I would recommend DT


	Ignore \| Logged

Vonkara

« Reply #28 on: February 11, 2010, 18:23 »

#link

I made myself over a thousand business cards with my Istock portfolio link, back when I was independant. I don't care much about what pourcentage I get. I just want sales and money and it's there I was getting the most for larger sizes mostly.

Though I did made youtube videos where I was linking StockXpert before they introduced subs. Since then, the links are changed for Istock


	Ignore \| Logged

elvinstar

« Reply #29 on: February 11, 2010, 19:41 »

#link

Quote

For a heavy buyer, I would pick IS, so he doesn't put his hands on cheap subs packages.

Don't forget that IS offers subs even if you are opted out of them.


	Ignore \| Logged

madelaide

Premium Member

« Reply #30 on: February 11, 2010, 20:12 »

#link

Quote from: elvinstar on February 11, 2010, 19:41

Quote

For a heavy buyer, I would pick IS, so he doesn't put his hands on cheap subs packages.

Don't forget that IS offers subs even if you are opted out of them.

But IS subs are not like in other sites, they are basicaly credits with a huge discount, aren't them? It's not that a buyer with get 750 high res images for a couple of hundred of dollars, right?


	Ignore \| Logged

Brandon Seidel

« Reply #31 on: February 11, 2010, 22:52 »

#link

Based on who it is and what they use, for me it's DT or SS. Mostly DT.


	Ignore \| Logged

photoshow

Premium Member

« Reply #32 on: February 12, 2010, 04:54 »

#link

Dreamstime


	Ignore \| Logged

hoi ha

« Reply #33 on: February 12, 2010, 06:09 »

#link

Dreamstime without hesitation - I am more of a buyer than seller and DT is where we buy all our images - the search on istock is a disaster - it's not so much the keywords per se as the the way the search function itself works (or doesn't as is my experience). Half the time I quit in frustration and ask myself "what am I doing here" ... What then would clients do who don;t know they way around as well as I might? Plus the prices at IS are just getting way to high for a lot of people's budgets ... so DT it is.


	Ignore \| Logged

gostwyck

« Reply #34 on: February 12, 2010, 06:22 »

#link

It's strange how virtually everyone here, mainly sellers of course, champions the virtues of DT. However, as we all know from our own sales, most of the the real buyers don't. Why is this?


	Ignore \| Logged

Eyedesign

« Reply #35 on: February 12, 2010, 06:54 »

#link

Quote from: gostwyck on February 11, 2010, 10:33

The problem that I'd have with recommending DT is that their 'Relevancy' often produces awful results with multiple near-identical crappy images from the same contributor.

Just took a look at DT and would agree with gostwyck.


	Ignore \| Logged

« Reply #36 on: February 12, 2010, 07:46 »

#link

Quote from: gostwyck on February 12, 2010, 06:22

It's strange how virtually everyone here, mainly sellers of course, champions the virtues of DT. However, as we all know from our own sales, most of the the real buyers don't. Why is this?

Perhaps because there are many types of buyers. I need the largest possible selection, editorial and raster graphics. Since I don't like to spend more than 30 mins per day for my 6 euro (3x2 euro commissions) and I also need to read the article in that time and email the suggestions, searching should be superfast. The best match of IS is slow and doesn't give the right relevance > longer searches. DT is just, well..., faster.
It's not a self-vested interest since 1 - SS makes me more, and 2 - I don't buy my own images, as a rule.
QC on IS might be better but for a 400-800px image, it doesn't matter whether the feathering is 1 or 2px; or there is some "distortion".
Different buyers, different needs.


	Ignore \| Logged

« Reply #37 on: February 12, 2010, 08:03 »

#link

Quote from: gostwyck on February 12, 2010, 06:22

It's strange how virtually everyone here, mainly sellers of course, champions the virtues of DT. However, as we all know from our own sales, most of the the real buyers don't. Why is this?

Because they don't do enough marketing, open any magazine to do with any part of the industry and you'll most probably find adverts from iStock, Shutterstock and Fotolia, I have never ever seen an advert from Dreamstime. If buyers don't know they exist how do Dreamstime expect to attract them to the site. Go into any design office and you'll see a stack of related magazines that everyone in the company reads. I also know that Fotolia has a very active sales team in the UK that constantly target potential customers.

Existing and having a great site, good database of quality images but relying on Google searches is not enough IMO, direct marketing works, it always has and always will. Look at all the sites that have tried and failed and you'll see a common denominator - bad marketing.


	Ignore \| Logged

massman

« Reply #38 on: February 12, 2010, 08:59 »

#link

Quote from: RT on February 12, 2010, 08:03

Quote from: gostwyck on February 12, 2010, 06:22

It's strange how virtually everyone here, mainly sellers of course, champions the virtues of DT. However, as we all know from our own sales, most of the the real buyers don't. Why is this?

I was also going to make this point. Thanks for saving me lots of typing.


	Ignore \| Logged

helix7

« Reply #39 on: February 12, 2010, 09:34 »

#link

Quote from: RT on February 12, 2010, 08:03

Totally true. I haven't seen a DT ad in an industry publication in a long time. I do remember seeing an ad once a while back, but not recently. istock and SS are good at maintaining a presence in magazines. If only to keep their names in minds of designers, it's worthwhile to run the ads. istock sometimes even runs multiple ads in one issue of a magazine.

Dreamstime would be wise to invest in some ad insertions.


	Logged

Kngkyle

« Reply #40 on: February 12, 2010, 09:41 »

#link

Lots of you are quick to praise some of the 'up and coming' sites like Featurepics and Cutcaster for being generous to contributors and talk big about how you hope they become more successful, yet not a single one of you would recommend them.

Interesting.


	Ignore \| Logged

helix7

« Reply #41 on: February 12, 2010, 10:01 »

#link

Quote from: Kngkyle on February 12, 2010, 09:41

Doesn't seem so odd. I do hope Cutcaster gets bigger, but I'm not going to recommend them to buyers. They just aren't that big of a site yet to fully endorse.

There's a big difference between hoping for a site to do well and throwing your support behind it by recommending it to friends, clients, colleagues, etc.


	Logged

Sign up with Shutterstock

madelaide

Premium Member

« Reply #42 on: February 12, 2010, 18:48 »

#link

Quote from: Kngkyle on February 12, 2010, 09:41

In fact, I mentioned them, and I would direct a buyer to my own portfolio there. However, for a general buyer, I don't know if FP is a good choice after the changes.


	Ignore \| Logged

Pages: 1 [2]

« previous next »

MicrostockGroup

Microstockgroup Sponsors

Topic: The stock site you recommend to buyers

Microstockgroup Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results