MicrostockGroup

I notice that a growing proportion of my sales by number have been coming from the partner program over the last few months. This appears to have had a negative impact on my earnings.


Does anyone have any estimates of what proportion of my partner sales might be additional, and what proportion substitutes, at lower price, for regular iStockphoto sales?


Is there an optimal strategy for deciding which photos to opt in to the partner program and which to keep to iStockphoto?


For example, do cutouts do better on partner (in terms of attracting additional sales, rather than substituting for iStockphot sales)?


I have some photos that have good partner sales, but no iStockphoto sales. Should I take them off partner sales?

Good plan. The photos are selling on the partner sites, not on IS,  so you are going to remove them and continue to get no sales on IS. 

I don't think that the demand for anyone's specific image is so unique that someone buying won't or can't find something else to meet their needs at the price point they want. In other words, if your images are selling on the partner site and you take them away, customers will just buy someone else's shots on the partner site.

If your shots are one of a kind, then it might make a difference.

They won't in my opinion, since a lot of people are opted out. I am pretty sure that if I get a link on one of these agencies, I will LMAO at the poor results I get there

I agree. I hope no one would be tempted by a ridiculous 30 cents or so. After all, how long last a 20$ in 2010. The risk in loosing a credit sale is too high compared to what a sub gives

The problem still remains that thinkstock are offering most of us a much lower commission than other sites and if they succeed, it will probably hold all subs commissions back.  I wont be using them, I still think the number of portfolios missing from their site makes a difference.  It looks like SS and FT have some of the old StockXpert buyers and that suits me.

I think I'd have to agree. What's the difference to people who lost StockXpert for 30c and opted out of ThinkStock partner? A whole nickle?    Then others point out that they get more from SS, but I don't and until someone sells $500 at 25c a shot, they will be getting a crummy quarter, but I like the SS volume. So that led me to the conclusion that if I'm selling out for 25c on one site, and lost the 30c on another (which wasn't many sales) why shouldn't I "sell out" for 25c on ThinkStock? Some have complained that they lost the StockXpert income which they miss? That's 30c a download vs 25c a download?

I refuse to be a total hypocrite and send images to DepositPhotos which is doing nothing but adding one more sub site undercutting the already low priced sub sites.

I haven't had an EL on SS in so long that I can't remember what month it was. Those used to be the big difference for me that made it worth risking 25c downloads for an occasional $28! Haven't had one sale on the StockXpert images since January. That means those images can't possibly be competing with anything else, because no one is buying them. 

Whatever anyone decides for themselves, IMHO the sub sites are not really taking a bite out of the overall market for some of the reasons others have pointed out. It's cheaper to buy what you want on demand or a smaller credit package, instead of paying for a whole month of downloads, or more, when you only need a few images. Subs are a good deal for high volume buyers and collectors. Not so good for someone looking for one or five images for a project.

Oh yes, StockXpert accepted a small number of images that IS refused, and when they did the merge they are for sale on ThinkStock. If not for that, those same images would be for sale nowhere else except SS, where they are already subs for 25c. I'm not losing anything on that exchange.

My partner strategy is the same as people who sell on 25 agencies. Put the shots out there and let the buyers pay what they will. By the way funny thing, two shots that sell well on IS have never sold once anywhere else. My best seller on SS has one sale in two years on IS. I don't even get cross buying with my own images, subs vs packages and they are on four sites. I suspect different buyers look at different sites. IS still has the advantage with exclusives if I was a buyer looking for best quality images. After that the next 24 sites all have the same 5 million shots from the same 20,000 photographers.

If the same shot isn't on the top ten sites, then something like it is. Buyers don't really have to shop sites or prices to find common Micro images and concepts. They just buy from wherever they have an account.

@RacePhoto: completely agree!

in my experience, credits and subs serve two largely different markets which only slightly overlap. And most subs sales will simply not happen at credit price. I found out that the best way to maximise earnings is to spread pictures over a large number of sites -excluding non sellers of course- without caring *too much* about price. If we are earning more this way, then it means we are not competing with ourselves. This is true for me and probably for many photographers which are not recognisable as a "brand".

Things may be different for famous photographers - in which case buyers may actually shop around.

Agree, we must draw a line somewhere - $.25 is pretty much the limit for me (although it's worse than my current rate at SS).

I already renounced to my ideals when I joined microstock.

If I were to do what I like as a photographer -and I'm doing it as well- then I'd shoot obscure brutalist architecture on rainy days in remote locations in the UK (which would't result in a single sale), instead of objects on white and textures and famous landmarks with blue skies. It follows that I'm in here for the money.

I couldn't care less about what people do with the part of my portfolio which I shoot explicitly for microstock. They can buy at macro prices or (un)decent micro prices, or even steal my pictures if they don't care about legality.
When I scan a piece of cardboard just before throwing it away, and sell it for $.25, that's pretty much what it's worth. But $.25*n can result in a decent amount.  Then someone buys it at $30, and I can't help laughing. I don't feel I am competing with better photographers which shoot models and elaborate compositions and deserve better prices, I am competing (on these common pictures) with other thousands of similar textures and backgrounds so I don't feel guilty.

I am sure most employees are getting an even lower percentage of what their companies earn, yet they're fine with being part of a capitalistic system and having a "proper" job working full time at minimum wage. We microstockers are already luckier. As long as I can live - and support my real interest in photography besides microstock - I am happy with what I earn, I'm not looking to get rich.

For now, I don't think subs - and expecially partner programmes which take their pictures from a number of inconsistent sources - are damaging credit sales too much. Most subs sales simply wouldn't happen at credit price. Buyers looking for quality will stay with IS where they can find what they need without looking too much. Volume buyers will buy from TS. I don't even think buyers will switch from SS to TS to deliberately damage us, since the cost is the same for them. Should I notice a change, then I will stop submitting to TS.

Microstock is not about photography, it's about selling pixels by the pound.

Sorry if I sound harsh, but I'm just trying to be direct and sincere, it's my punk attitude. Feel free to disagree: I hear ya.

I'm sorry if I have hurt anyone's feelings with my post - it wasn't my intention.

First off, when I did a test upload of 500 images to Deposit Photos the promotion was already over, so I didn't get one cent for uploading. I don't know why you thought I did. 

Second, I opted into TS because they have massive resources in terms of cash and experience to get this thing off the ground. I have several hundreds of downloads with them each month which simply doesn't compare to Deposit Photos performance.

I can't and I don't want to convince anyone to opt into TS for any reason. I just post my experience with them so far.

I respect you opinion about TS. I'm just saying that as long as my IS earnings are going up month after month while my TS earnings go up, I see no issue. This could be just because of the type of images that I have.

My motto was: If you don't try, you'll never know. If I just wave my hands around about the fact that they only pay 25 cents per download I would never have started at SS in the first place. So what do i know?

Right or wrong but But I still haven't sales fromSXP in the Hemera collection ...
My photos are on the TS from the beginning of May

Right now as an independent I only have files with less than 5 sales opted into the partner program. However, within the next month I plan on finally going exclusive and may opt the rest in. I still haven't decided on that.

As for the different collections, I will make my top sellers E+ like most others.

You shouldn't


You definitely should and add some of them in the Vetta collection. Though I couldn't get any in Vetta, E+ give a earning jump

I agree with you. I think they have to open a new port for direct upload to TS, with different acceptance than IS. I wouldn't be surprised to see StockXpert start doing this.