pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Stockfresh Beginning Their Marketing Campaign?  (Read 18186 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #25 on: April 25, 2011, 10:55 »
0
But you just can't stop it though, there are too many of us already clambering in to try and get in to Stockfresh as it is. If some of us take your view point, it doesn't stop everyone else from piling in.


The fact that you're correct doesn't make it any less exasperating.  Just to keep getting the same pathetic dribble of money we're getting now, we'll have to submit to more and more sites, each paying less and less as they compete on nothing but price.  More uploading, keywording, categories, rejections.  At this point it's just insanity.  The only way it would start making sense would be if these agencies actually differentiated themselves in meaningful ways, such that the total market was growing.


Microstock, and 'crowdsourcing' in general, is a textbook example of what's called the "tragedy of the commons".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons


« Reply #26 on: April 25, 2011, 11:02 »
0
It's sensible to offer subscriptions, a lot of buyers will be asking for a subs account.  35 cents is more than most people will make with Shutterstock.  It's also more than StockXpert used to pay and a lot more than thinkstock currently pay non-exclusives.  I don't think a site offering more than most of the other subs sites is a bad thing.  In an ideal world, I would like all the sites to charge more for subs and pay us a fixed commission but that's not reality and there's no way we will get that now.

« Reply #27 on: April 25, 2011, 11:08 »
0
But you just can't stop it though, there are too many of us already clambering in to try and get in to Stockfresh as it is. If some of us take your view point, it doesn't stop everyone else from piling in.


The fact that you're correct doesn't make it any less exasperating.  Just to keep getting the same pathetic dribble of money we're getting now, we'll have to submit to more and more sites, each paying less and less as they compete on nothing but price.  More uploading, keywording, categories, rejections.  At this point it's just insanity.  The only way it would start making sense would be if these agencies actually differentiated themselves in meaningful ways, such that the total market was growing.


Microstock, and 'crowdsourcing' in general, is a textbook example of what's called the "tragedy of the commons".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons

haha they might as well copy paste this in to the wiki page on microstock. "multiple individuals, acting independently and rationally consulting their own self-interest, will ultimately deplete a shared limited resource even when it is clear that it is not in anyone's long-term interest for this to happen."

My mind boggles to what microstock will be like in 10 years time or even 5.

« Reply #28 on: April 25, 2011, 11:24 »
0
35 cents is more than most people will make with Shutterstock.  It's also more than StockXpert used to pay and a lot more than thinkstock currently pay non-exclusives.

I have to agree that 35 cents is more than 33 cents.  I can't wait to start uploading, keywording, and categorizing all my files on SF so I can begin seeing this increase!    :D

And of course SF guarantees never to lower this price, because then I'd have wasted all that time...

Excuse me while I do a few cartwheels around the room.
« Last Edit: April 25, 2011, 11:26 by stockastic »

« Reply #29 on: April 25, 2011, 11:33 »
0
^^^Why would you have to do keywording?  There aren't any categories.  It takes me a few seconds to get a big batch on their site.

« Reply #30 on: April 25, 2011, 11:49 »
0
^^^Why would you have to do keywording?  There aren't any categories.  It takes me a few seconds to get a big batch on their site.

I have no idea what it actually takes to submit to SF because I haven't looked.  It might be easy, it might be a pain, I'm not going to find out because I'm not going to spend any time chasing 2 cents.    I was making a general point about submitting to more and more sites which are just dividing up the same pie and driving prices ever lower.

Just offering my 2 cents worth :-)
« Last Edit: April 25, 2011, 12:00 by stockastic »

lisafx

« Reply #31 on: April 25, 2011, 12:58 »
0

Microstock, and 'crowdsourcing' in general, is a textbook example of what's called the "tragedy of the commons".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons


Thanks a lot for posting this link.  I had never heard of the Tragedy of the Commons, but it is a fascinating theory and can be seen in action all around us.  

As for SF and subscriptions - I was certainly disappointed when I saw the sub sales start.  I had thought this wasn't going to be a subs site.  But I understand why they felt they had to go that direction to compete.  .35 is at least a reasonable return for subs.
« Last Edit: April 25, 2011, 13:01 by lisafx »

« Reply #32 on: April 25, 2011, 13:10 »
0
  .35 is at least a reasonable return for subs.

How far we have come.

« Reply #33 on: April 25, 2011, 13:16 »
0
Seriously, the "Tragedy of the Commons" precisely describes our situation and the challenge we face is to reason our way out of that box, or try to envision how the market could evolve in a positive way. 

lisafx

« Reply #34 on: April 25, 2011, 13:20 »
0
 .35 is at least a reasonable return for subs.

How far we have come.

Far from when exactly?  

I'm not happy about subs, but what site has ever paid much more than .35 FOR SUBS?  Shutterstock pays .38.  If you are Rubis (one of maybe 5 people?) on Fotolia you get .35/.40 depending on the plan.  That's about it.  

I will repeat again, because you seem to have missed it or chosen to take me out of context, that I am NOT happy about subs.  However they seem to be a fact of life in microstock now.  If you completely refuse to sell subs, then micro is not the place for you.  

And to make my point perfectly clear, once more, .35 is "reasonable" for subs (not wonderful, not cause for popping open the champagne or dancing in the streets).  
« Last Edit: April 25, 2011, 13:31 by lisafx »

« Reply #35 on: April 25, 2011, 13:31 »
0
 .35 is at least a reasonable return for subs.

How far we have come.

Far from when exactly?  

I'm not happy about subs, but what site has ever paid much more than .35 FOR SUBS?  Shutterstock pays .38.  If you are Rubis on Fotolia you get .40.  That's about it.  

I will repeat again, because you seem to have missed it or chosen to take me out of context, that I am NOT happy about subs.  However they seem to be a fact of life in microstock now.  If you completely refuse to sell subs, then micro is not the place for you.  

And to make my point perfectly clear, once more, .35 is reasonable for subs (not wonderful, not cause for popping open the champagne or dancing in the streets).  

Yes I see your point.  Although, I can't agree that 35 cents is a 'reasonable' return for anything, even in the context of a subscription. It is certainly a typical return at at this point.

lisafx

« Reply #36 on: April 25, 2011, 13:35 »
0
Although, I can't agree that 35 cents is a 'reasonable' return for anything, even in the context of a subscription. It is certainly a typical return at at this point.

You're right.  "Typical" would have been a better choice of words  :).

« Reply #37 on: April 25, 2011, 13:57 »
0
Would I spend three months in the tundra for a 0.35 cent sale; NO; but for thousands of them, that is a different story.  I just wish I could live on the income I make now; it was no problem in the tundra but there was no car, no real food, no entertainment and no margaritas in the tundra.  On the flip side, there was plenty of ice if you wanted to make a margarita.


« Reply #39 on: April 26, 2011, 05:20 »
0
Please keep in mind that SUB downloads are limited up to M size.

Well that's better than the other agencies.  :)

« Reply #40 on: April 26, 2011, 07:17 »
0
Please keep in mind that SUB downloads are limited up to M size.
I didn't know that.  I wish the other agencies would do the same.

« Reply #41 on: April 26, 2011, 10:14 »
0
Please keep in mind that SUB downloads are limited up to M size.

yep, I like this policy! 

lisafx

« Reply #42 on: April 26, 2011, 11:01 »
0
Please keep in mind that SUB downloads are limited up to M size.

I didn't realize that.  Very good policy! 

Slovenian

« Reply #43 on: April 26, 2011, 16:54 »
0
So how are the sales compared to SS and IS?

« Reply #44 on: April 26, 2011, 17:04 »
0
^^^It really isn't fair to compare a new site to the two that have been around for years.  Compared to more recent sites, I think they are doing OK.  And they aren't in a hurry to get things going, they are being sensible and building slowly.

Xalanx

« Reply #45 on: April 26, 2011, 18:22 »
0
Yes, it's not fair to compare them with bigger / successful agencies.

My point of view about them at this moment, based on facts: I have $42 with them as all time earnings (which spans for quite a long time I must add) so they're basically a "no-earner" for me, with a portfolio of 4000+ images.
The upload process is simple and effective, I like the ease of adding MRs to multiple images. Would be even better if they get rid of the intermediate step when the thumbnails are generated, but that's surely stockxpert engine legacy.
Reviewing is ok-ish, they're particularly sensitive to buildings, architecture, they probably believe that every man made structure needs property release. I will try with some photos of sand castles built by my son years ago, maybe that'll fly.
Support is quite friendly, I even got solved some issues with images wrongfully rejected, pretty fast.
The simplicity of the website is really a plus. Everything looks easy and functional. However, the banner that displays selected images and the thumbnails below could use some refreshment every once in a while - they look the same for a long time now. Also the names of the "featured" contributors. I have one image in the thumbnail list and that is getting viewed and downloaded the most, for me.
They're on the good track, I believe. But I doubt that it's more than a handful of contributors that get payout every other month from them, let alone monthly.

lthn

    This user is banned.
« Reply #46 on: April 26, 2011, 21:26 »
0
Ok I'm trying to get excited about StockFresh.  I look at their site and see that it says "We believe in fair compensation and fair pricing."   And right next it that it says "subscription packages - 35 cents per download".

I couldn't find that...


http://stockfresh.com/info/contributors

Do we want to contribute to the success of yet another 35 cent subscription site?


Read buyers info too, you can only buy up to medium size with subscription. They can't skip subscription, or the buyers would skip them... at least this way they force them to pay more for serious print use basically.

lagereek

« Reply #47 on: April 27, 2011, 01:07 »
0
Blimey!  never heard of these people? and they are photographers?  sounds interesting enough. Is it worth looking into?

« Reply #48 on: April 27, 2011, 01:34 »
0
^^^They used to own Stockxpert.  That was my 3rd best selling site before those nice people at Getty closed it down.  Stockxpert used to have a lot of buyers that were moved over to istock or thinkstock or went to the other sites.  I think they might want to use Stockfresh, because it's a straightforward site that's like the old Stockxpert.  Hopefully the owners can take advantage of that and it wont be like other new sites that have struggled to get buyers.  They're also fair to contributors, with an easy upload procedure and 50% commission.

We will need a lot of patience, it's an upload and forget about it site, as they have told us that they want to build slowly.  That seems quite sensible when other sites have over spent and then had to close down.

lagereek

« Reply #49 on: April 27, 2011, 01:56 »
0
Not kidding!!  the old stockxpert???  I used to earn a hell of a lot with them!  was my third best site, only IS and Shutterstock, toppled them and now with IS pretty much a gonner they should be doing really well.
They had one of the best crews and all.

ging to look into this. I used to be known as "chris42"  there. loved the old stockxpert!
« Last Edit: April 27, 2011, 02:01 by lagereek »


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
1 Replies
2129 Views
Last post January 26, 2008, 07:51
by ParisEye
2 Replies
2426 Views
Last post September 09, 2009, 10:47
by Brian O'Shea
19 Replies
6863 Views
Last post February 01, 2011, 10:18
by mantonino
2 Replies
3179 Views
Last post January 10, 2011, 04:44
by madelaide
9 Replies
3113 Views
Last post June 12, 2011, 07:54
by kaycee

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors