pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Poll

how to increase the number potential buyers?

1
2

Author Topic: Can't Sell  (Read 12183 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: October 11, 2011, 04:23 »
0
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!


« Reply #1 on: October 11, 2011, 04:30 »
0
If you provide a link to your website then m'learned friends here might be able to help.

« Reply #2 on: October 11, 2011, 04:33 »
0
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.

Carl

  • Carl Stewart, CS Productions
« Reply #3 on: October 11, 2011, 05:57 »
0
Your situation is precisely the reason I chose not to have my own stock site.  It would put me in competition with the well-established big boys - not something I care to do.  I'd rather do what I do (create photographs) while they do what they do (create and maintain a web site, do all the marketing, handle the payment gateways, etc.).  That way, I don't have to be a web master and marketing expert.  I can just be a photographer.  I don't envy you.  But if you want to increase sales, I recommend that you learn from the big boys.  I see their ads all the time on other web sites and occasionally in print media, so you'd have to invest some significant sums in advertising and marketing.  If you don't have a large budget, you'll have to target your ads with your demographics very carefully.  I wish you every success.

michealo

« Reply #4 on: October 11, 2011, 06:18 »
0
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!

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

« Reply #5 on: October 11, 2011, 06:46 »
0
Thanks for your quick responses.

My website: Download Free Photos [nofollow]

I thought about selling through agencies... This way my photos will be one of millions of others...

Quote
Increase your conversion rate

Do you know any method to do it?

Thanks!

michealo

« Reply #6 on: October 11, 2011, 07:42 »
0
Thanks for your quick responses.

My website: Download Free Photos

I thought about selling through agencies... This way my photos will be one of millions of others...

Quote
Increase your conversion rate

Do you know any method to do it?

Thanks!


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

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #7 on: October 11, 2011, 07:52 »
0
Thanks for your quick responses.

My website: Download Free Photos

I thought about selling through agencies... This way my photos will be one of millions of others...

Quote
Increase your conversion rate

Do you know any method to do it?

Thanks!


If you call your website 'Download Free Photos', why would you expect your visitors to visit it in a 'buying' frame of mind? Seems like a con or a bait-and-switch.

« Reply #8 on: October 11, 2011, 08:14 »
0
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.

« Reply #9 on: October 11, 2011, 09:53 »
0
once it was free website, but since no one put credit link I changed it to non free.

Thank for your comments!

« Reply #10 on: October 11, 2011, 11:51 »
0
Your situation is precisely the reason I chose not to have my own stock site.  It would put me in competition with the well-established big boys - not something I care to do.  I'd rather do what I do (create photographs) while they do what they do (create and maintain a web site, do all the marketing, handle the payment gateways, etc.).  That way, I don't have to be a web master and marketing expert.  I can just be a photographer.  I don't envy you.  But if you want to increase sales, I recommend that you learn from the big boys.  I see their ads all the time on other web sites and occasionally in print media, so you'd have to invest some significant sums in advertising and marketing.  If you don't have a large budget, you'll have to target your ads with your demographics very carefully.  I wish you every success.

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!

« Reply #11 on: October 13, 2011, 04:31 »
0
Thanks guys, your input was really helpful.

Quote
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 hosting photo blog [nofollow] at my website, it translated to 13 languages. Probably the search engines likes my blog more than my website.

Is there report who buys rf images, what for, etc. ?

Thanks again.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #12 on: October 13, 2011, 08:39 »
0
Selling them as RF stock could get you in trouble over the use of identifiable people in commercial adverts without having model releases.
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 ...
« Last Edit: October 13, 2011, 08:46 by ShadySue »

« Reply #13 on: October 13, 2011, 08:53 »
0
ShadySue,

What wrong with music photos?
The musical score? There is no names...

« Reply #14 on: October 13, 2011, 08:55 »
0

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #15 on: October 13, 2011, 09:17 »
0
Everyone should read this:
http://danheller.blogspot.com/2011/09/busting-myths-about-model-releases.html

That of course is under US Law, so not relevant to 'everyone'. In France, for example, you could be in trouble for shooting strangers in public, if they should object.
Many of the OP's photos were taken furth of the US.
By reading it, there is no hint that even in the USA you can sell unreleased people in images other than for editorial use.
If Dan Heller is correct about property releases in the US, why did this 'tog settle out of court for an 'undisclosed sum'?
http://www.pdnonline.com/pdn/news/Photographer-Settles-3142.shtml
« Last Edit: October 13, 2011, 09:31 by ShadySue »

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #16 on: October 13, 2011, 09:21 »
0
ShadySue,
What wrong with music photos?
The musical score? There is no names...
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.


« Reply #17 on: October 13, 2011, 09:34 »
0
By reading it, there is no hint that even in the USA you can sell unreleased people in images other than for editorial use.

You can sell images of unreleased people.  The usage is up to the buyer.  That is his point.  They are two separate things.

« Reply #18 on: October 13, 2011, 09:52 »
0
Even more relevant is the first page of Dan Helller's blog, September 30th, 2011. http://danheller.blogspot.com/ Great example and explanation.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #19 on: October 13, 2011, 10:05 »
0
By reading it, there is no hint that even in the USA you can sell unreleased people in images other than for editorial use.

You can sell images of unreleased people.  The usage is up to the buyer.  That is his point.  They are two separate things.
Indeed, but you'd have throught the 'tog in the Seattle dance steps would have taken legal advice, and if Dan Heller's assertions were solid, he wouldn't have had to settle for an 'undisclosed sum'.
Also, again, DH is only talking about the USA.

RacePhoto

« Reply #20 on: October 13, 2011, 10:09 »
0
Everyone should read this:
http://danheller.blogspot.com/2011/09/busting-myths-about-model-releases.html


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)(8) 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.
« Last Edit: October 13, 2011, 10:18 by RacePhoto »

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #21 on: October 13, 2011, 10:45 »
0
It's totally irrelevant  to quote US Law for photos that weren't taken in the US.
The 'steps' would have been fair game for editorial in the UK, provided the tog was standing on public property when he took the photo. What I realised via the BBC Scotland news report about that Braehead incident (http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-photography-discussion/over-zealous-security-police-in-scottish-shopping-centre/msg223049/?topicseen#new) is that some property we might have 'reasonably assumed' to be public property isn't necessarily so.
Also in the UK, there is something in copyright law that a photo of a sculpture doesn't break its copyright, it's only if I copy a sculpture or other product as the same product that it breaks copyright.
Anyway UK law is also irrelevant to most/all of the OP's images.
« Last Edit: October 13, 2011, 11:08 by ShadySue »

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #22 on: October 13, 2011, 11:11 »
0
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.

RacePhoto

« Reply #23 on: October 13, 2011, 12:23 »
0
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.

Ha Ha, because they make the rules and decide anything they want. That was one important point I was trying to make. Just because the agency says so and has rules, that doesn't mean it's the law. We need to recognize that. There might be no legislation that prohibits anything, just like the sports issues that both of us have encountered. It's just the rule... because they say so!  :(

As to your question why did I wrote about the USA, I was responding to the article (from and about the USA) and your question about the dance steps (case in the USA), and that was ALL USA. Not GB or Canada. That's why!

Funny that you found this from IS because I had an artwork photo, painting is from 1500's, photo from the early 1900s. none of it copyrighted and all of it is PD. Was pending supervisor review. I bet I'll find it refused now. LOL No big deal, they just keep putting up more walls and barriers to sales and wonder why people are leaving and they are losing business. The answer is, they are running an inside deal agency where their own Getty images (like EdStock) get special rules and exceptions and new work from contributors is forbidden.

This stinks, but will make leaving IS easier.

You left out this happy note at the bottom:  We will be reviewing our content an removing files that longer meet our guidelines. More eactivated files for some people.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #24 on: October 13, 2011, 12:42 »
0
This stinks, but will make leaving IS easier.
You left out this happy note at the bottom:  We will be reviewing our content an removing files that longer meet our guidelines. More eactivated files for some people.
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.

RacePhoto

« Reply #25 on: October 13, 2011, 12:50 »
0
This stinks, but will make leaving IS easier.
You left out this happy note at the bottom:  We will be reviewing our content an removing files that longer meet our guidelines. More eactivated files for some people.
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.

Oh I have the answer: Because we said so!   :-\ (sad but true)

I had car pictures and some other things removed from IS and StockXpert when they were doing reviews. Back to the same old complaint, even if I don't really care for myself, it's not that important to me, some people have the same images that break those rules, still active and selling. Great that the IS double standards never take a break from insulting our intelligence slapping us in the face.

We're getting way off the topic... maybe a new thread for New IS Rules?

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #26 on: October 13, 2011, 13:00 »
0
Thanks Sean for pressing for a proper explanation, even if you get an evasive answer.
Oh I have the answer: Because we said so!   :-\ (sad but true)
For sure, but presumably someone has rattled their cage.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
67 Replies
36598 Views
Last post May 20, 2022, 00:57
by TonyD
8 Replies
5083 Views
Last post April 23, 2009, 12:57
by goldenangel
5 Replies
3736 Views
Last post July 26, 2011, 04:21
by lagereek
6 Replies
2324 Views
Last post May 24, 2012, 10:03
by cthoman
8 Replies
5896 Views
Last post April 24, 2015, 04:04
by PressFoto

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors