pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Stockfresh Beginning Their Marketing Campaign?  (Read 31701 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: March 16, 2011, 14:10 »
0
Just wanted to report that I was surfing my hometown's newspaper for an article about a relative, and noticed that a huge vertical banner ad for StockFresh was present along the left side of the content. Maybe they have started their marketing campaign? Seems like a great time to do so, that's for sure!


nruboc

« Reply #1 on: March 16, 2011, 14:17 »
0
Just wanted to report that I was surfing my hometown's newspaper for an article about a relative, and noticed that a huge vertical banner ad for StockFresh was present along the left side of the content. Maybe they have started their marketing campaign? Seems like a great time to do so, that's for sure!

Saw some web ads as well, they looked nice!

« Reply #2 on: March 16, 2011, 14:25 »
0
seen a few too


« Reply #4 on: March 21, 2011, 07:43 »
0
Great news. I'd love to see Stockfresh make it. Neat looking site, fair commission and the fact that StockXpert kept their 50% commission till the end (as far as I remember - correct me if I'm wrong) makes me want to support this site.

« Reply #5 on: March 21, 2011, 12:11 »
0
I also noticed a large Stockfresh banner on failblog.org, a site I check almost daily.
Nice to see this and hopefully sales will pick up finally!

« Reply #6 on: March 21, 2011, 13:24 »
0
I also noticed a large Stockfresh banner on failblog.org, a site I check almost daily.
Nice to see this and hopefully sales will pick up finally!
I see Dreamstime adverts there everytime I go to the site which like yourself is practically daily :)

« Reply #7 on: March 21, 2011, 13:35 »
0
Curious :)), those Dreamstime banners I didn't see..

« Reply #8 on: March 22, 2011, 18:51 »
0
Woo hoo!  My first StockFresh sale.   Only $1 - but that's the equivalent of 4 downloads at Shutterstock. (And it is was an image SS rejected for potential copyright issues).  Plus, they just accepted 100% of my 24 uploaded images - all within an hour after uploading.   I agree - would love this site to make it.

« Reply #9 on: March 23, 2011, 00:08 »
0
Whooot! Sold my first image too  ;D

« Reply #10 on: March 23, 2011, 21:15 »
0
Ditto, a $1 sale for me also

« Reply #11 on: March 24, 2011, 07:01 »
0
A stockfresh banner on http://howjsay.com/ as well

lisafx

« Reply #12 on: March 24, 2011, 14:38 »
0
Sales picking up for me too.  Whatever you guys are doing, Peter, keep it up!  :D

« Reply #13 on: March 25, 2011, 04:59 »
0
Yeah, here too :)

I have a suspicion that the Stockfresh banner is targeted towards people like me who browse microstock sites and forums 90% of the time. Because the Stockfresh banner is everywhere now, most recently I saw it on garfield.com. Yes, it's on GARFIELD.COM. I guess for people not involved with or interested in microstock the banner shows something else

« Reply #14 on: April 24, 2011, 10:39 »
0
seems like great new site - will upload some stuff there :D

Thumbs up

« Reply #15 on: April 24, 2011, 13:32 »
0
the banner has been following me everywhere, although I think it's taken a break for the Easter weekend. Nice to see it though.

« Reply #16 on: April 24, 2011, 19:37 »
0
i am still waiting for my approval to be reviewed, guess it had been like 6 months or more? have sent them an email..

« Reply #17 on: April 24, 2011, 19:47 »
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".
« Last Edit: April 24, 2011, 20:04 by stockastic »

« Reply #18 on: April 24, 2011, 23:18 »
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..but there are a lot of pages and I just went to the homepage. I did find in the 'why shop with us' widget, "We take pride in the fact that our photographer commissions are among the highest in the industry. If you shop with us, your money goes to the right place to those who work hard to deliver these great images."

Which sounds good. I should really start submitting more to them (I managed to sneak in somehow), as it may be a good investment for the future, the only thing is they don't accept much of what I send, I've sent 92, but only 27 accepted. They have gone in to the Big agency philosophy on accepting images, I guess you have to think big to be successful, but new agencies need images. I was shopping on DepositPhotos recently, they have 3 million images now and I can pretty much find everything I need, but on agencies with 500,000 to a million photos, I don't know why buyers would go there instead of the others.

edit: replaced wrong word
« Last Edit: April 25, 2011, 02:32 by Microstock Posts »

« Reply #19 on: April 25, 2011, 02:17 »
0
^^^They're far more lenient than the big sites.  I really don't think they should lower their standards any more just to get a bigger collection.  I just upload my best and they usually accept over 95%.

« Reply #20 on: April 25, 2011, 09:31 »
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?

« Reply #21 on: April 25, 2011, 10:24 »
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?

We could always just submit to macros. All the microstock agencies are becoming more about subscriptions. They all want a piece of ss's pie. It wouldn't be wise for an agency not to have subs, when the other agencies have them.

WarrenPrice

« Reply #22 on: April 25, 2011, 10:33 »
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?


I like success.

« Reply #23 on: April 25, 2011, 10:34 »
0

We could always just submit to macros. All the microstock agencies are becoming more about subscriptions. They all want a piece of Shutterstock's pie. It wouldn't be wise for an agency not to have subs, when the other agencies have them.

Well, that's what I'm wondering.  We all complain about IS driving it down to 22 cents, and wonder if SS is steadily herding all their buyers to subscriptions, and talk about how subscriptions are the nail in the coffin.  Should we be getting behind StockFresh if it's just going to be a clone of SS?  What's the point in helping them siphon off some small portion of SS's business, just so we have the hassle of submitting to more sites and can start getting our 35 cents from another source?

« Reply #24 on: April 25, 2011, 10:48 »
0

We could always just submit to macros. All the microstock agencies are becoming more about subscriptions. They all want a piece of Shutterstock's pie. It wouldn't be wise for an agency not to have subs, when the other agencies have them.

Well, that's what I'm wondering.  We all complain about IS driving it down to 22 cents, and wonder if Shutterstock is steadily herding all their buyers to subscriptions, and talk about how subscriptions are the nail in the coffin.  Should we be getting behind StockFresh if it's just going to be a clone of Shutterstock?  What's the point in helping them siphon off some small portion of Shutterstock's business, just so we have the hassle of submitting to more sites and can start getting our 35 cents from another source?

Yes, u make a convincing argument actually. 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. I know some people who refuse to upload to ss because it's mostly a sub site, however they only lose revenue because of it. It's all going to get siphoned off eventually and we'll be blaming the sites, when it was actually us who nailed the coffin because of uploading. It's catch 22 in a way though.

« 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 »

« Reply #50 on: April 27, 2011, 02:00 »
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.

haha where have u been lagereek?  :)

Slovenian

« Reply #51 on: April 27, 2011, 04:01 »
0
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.

Everything else you wrote after that doesn't matter (and I didn't read on), this result is incredibly pathetic, I would never even bother with such a site. If it takes a single minute for a photo to be uploaded, keyworded etc it's 4000 hours, so I guess you can expect to earn 1c/h during a long period :o . PATHETIC!

« Reply #52 on: April 27, 2011, 04:21 »
0
^^^I think it's pathetic when people expect too much from new sites.  This happens all the time, a new site can't instantly attract buyers.  We have to have some patience.  Unfortunately it looks like most new sites get killed off by contributors expecting too much too soon instead of being sensible and giving them a lot of time to build their collection and attract buyers.

Slovenian

« Reply #53 on: April 27, 2011, 04:36 »
0
^^^^yeah right, I'd rather go out and shoot more, think about stock photography, plan shoots and retouch&keywords photos better. That will make a change. Earning 0,5% instead of 0.1% of what either IS or Shutterstock bring me is idiotic IMO. I did the same thing with Fotolia and Dreamstime, ULed 100+ photos on both sites at the same time as I did on IS and SS, and when I saw that they are constantly making just around 3% (each) of what Shutterstock brings me I started uploading there altogether. And NOTHING has changed in the last7 months, except that the percentage dropped to 1,5% compared to Shutterstock. They stayed the same, while Shutterstock earning doubled. with IS there was another story. It used to make just around 40% of what Shutterstock made me, but has now almost caught up. If the RC didn't happen it would surpass it.

I don't really care if those new sites don't make it. They're just taking a piece of the pie before they get shut down, meaning making me earn less. Sure, competition is also good for us, if there were no competition, say just IS and Shutterstock, we'd probably get 50% lower commissions. But OTOH if a site has a good concept, advertises a lot it will make it, and I hope it does happen, so I'll have a chance of earning more than on IS and Shutterstock, where a lot of old files sell best.

Slovenian

« Reply #54 on: April 27, 2011, 04:37 »
0
^^^^yeah right, I'd rather go out and shoot more, think about stock photography, plan shoots and retouch&keywords photos better. That will make a change. Earning 0,5% instead of 0.1% of what either IS or Shutterstock bring me is idiotic IMO. I did the same thing with Fotolia and Dreamstime, ULed 100+ photos on both sites at the same time as I did on IS and Shutterstock, and when I saw that they are constantly making just around 3% (each) of what Shutterstock brings me I started uploading there altogether. And NOTHING has changed in the last7 months, except that the percentage dropped to 1,5% compared to Shutterstock. They stayed the same, while Shutterstock's earnings doubled. With IS there was another story. It used to make just around 40% of what Shutterstock made me, but has now almost caught up. If the RC didn't happen it would surpass SS.

I don't really care if those new sites don't make it. They're just taking a piece of the pie before they get shut down, meaning making me earn less. Sure, competition is also good for us, if there were no competition, say just IS and Shutterstock, we'd probably get 50% lower commissions. But OTOH if a site has a good concept, content and advertises a lot it will make it, and I hope it does happen, so I'll have a chance of earning more than on IS and Shutterstock, where a lot of old files sell best.

Xalanx

« Reply #55 on: April 27, 2011, 05:10 »
0
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.

Everything else you wrote after that doesn't matter (and I didn't read on), this result is incredibly pathetic, I would never even bother with such a site. If it takes a single minute for a photo to be uploaded, keyworded etc it's 4000 hours, so I guess you can expect to earn 1c/h during a long period :o . PATHETIC!

So you keyword for every site in particular? That really is pathetic. For stockfresh what you do is drop files to ftp, batch assign MRs and send them to review, it all takes about 1 minute (except for the time of transfer). I don't get your point.

Slovenian

« Reply #56 on: April 27, 2011, 05:22 »
0
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.

Everything else you wrote after that doesn't matter (and I didn't read on), this result is incredibly pathetic, I would never even bother with such a site. If it takes a single minute for a photo to be uploaded, keyworded etc it's 4000 hours, so I guess you can expect to earn 1c/h during a long period :o . PATHETIC!

So you keyword for every site in particular? That really is pathetic. For stockfresh what you do is drop files to ftp, batch assign MRs and send them to review, it all takes about 1 minute (except for the time of transfer). I don't get your point.

So the tile, description etc fits perfectly in all the right boxes? I'm sorry my friend, but with the RPI of 1c you'll need an eternity to have the right to call anyone pathetic ;)

lagereek

« Reply #57 on: April 27, 2011, 05:24 »
0
There is quite another aspect here then just the same old banal and naive money question. IS, has without doubt crashed for independants and in a years time, they wont even want to know independants.
So its also a matter of supporting new sites but ONLY if they are good and have the "know-how".  I have joined 3 new sites in the last 2 months and already they are beginning to make up a large chunk of what is lost at IS  and in my position, the 20-30% loss at IS, believe me thats quite a bit of lolly.

people shouldnt "lock" themselves with the question of money and earnings, its superficial and stops you from thinking straight.

Xalanx

« Reply #58 on: April 27, 2011, 05:27 »
0
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.

Everything else you wrote after that doesn't matter (and I didn't read on), this result is incredibly pathetic, I would never even bother with such a site. If it takes a single minute for a photo to be uploaded, keyworded etc it's 4000 hours, so I guess you can expect to earn 1c/h during a long period :o . PATHETIC!

So you keyword for every site in particular? That really is pathetic. For stockfresh what you do is drop files to ftp, batch assign MRs and send them to review, it all takes about 1 minute (except for the time of transfer). I don't get your point.

So the tile, description etc fits perfectly in all the right boxes? I'm sorry my friend, but with the RPI of 1c you'll need an eternity to have the right to call anyone pathetic ;)
How long have you been at this? Or rather - have you heard of IPTC? And how do you know what my RPI is? FYI, I'm at $0.38 at Shutterstock. Do your homework.

Slovenian

« Reply #59 on: April 27, 2011, 05:33 »
0
Almost a year. It looks like long enough to not pull stupid stunts like that. AS I said been there&done that on Fotolia and Dreamstime, at least my RPI was almost 0.5$, which of course, is pathetic as well. Just around 50x less pathetic than submitting to SC.I have heard of IPTC. You told us ur RPI;) (when it comes to SC, that's what we were talking about)). If you're earning that much on Shutterstock, than I really can't understand the course of actions you take with lousy sites like SC (if everyone is making such, well beyond pathetic earnings).
« Last Edit: April 27, 2011, 05:38 by Slovenian »

Xalanx

« Reply #60 on: April 27, 2011, 05:39 »
0
Almost a year. It looks like long enough to not pull stupid stunts like that. AS I said been there&done that on Fotolia and Dreamstime, at least my RPI was almost 0.5$, which of course, is pathetic as well. Just around 50x less pathetic than submitting to SC.I have heard of IPTC. You told us ur RPI;). If you're earning that much on Shutterstock, than I really can't understand that course of actions you take with lousy sites like SC (if everyone is making such, well beyond pathetic earnings).

It's your choice of not having more than 2-3 outlets for your work, buddy. Everyone started small and you'll be surprised to what interesting numbers some second tier agencies can reach, if given time.
I decided to give SF a year to see how things are going. If there is no improvement I'll just stop uploading and that's all. You don't actually work anything.

Slovenian

« Reply #61 on: April 27, 2011, 05:45 »
0
You said long period in your (first?) post. So if you're not over a year there you should be soon and I doubt you'll get from 42$ to 4,2k (which would still be just around a dollar of RPI). However, I wish you luck mate;). I'll just sick to the top 2 for now, I really don't have the nerves or the time for more (I just tried Alamy, but it's too time consuming and doesn't look promising at all)

Xalanx

« Reply #62 on: April 27, 2011, 05:52 »
0
You're too young in this. Give time to Alamy and if your port is good you'll earn. It earns me several hundreds per month normally, the drawback is that they take a lot of time until they actually pay for each photo sold.
Best of luck.
Oh and I wouldn't pay too much attention to RPI. It's how much you get in fact, that's what matters.

Slovenian

« Reply #63 on: April 27, 2011, 06:06 »
0
OK just how much is that (alamy) compared to your top earners (SS and IS I presume)? I only have 31 images on sale so far on Alamy (ULed 40+ more which are not finished), but I get close to 100 views, but no zooms (which really are views). That kinda made me think, how long it's gonna take for the first sale and then for the first payout. And it really takes a lot of time to fill 3 fields of keywords, put them in correct order add parenthesis (which I didn't but probably should have) and the choose all the other stuff necessary (Licence type, releases etc). It's kind of hard to not give the advantage to SS and IS which really make money and are faster to process images (especially SS).

Xalanx

« Reply #64 on: April 27, 2011, 06:12 »
0
Not much, of course. SS uber alles, IS is not one of the greatest for me, I only have 400 files with them. But they do produce good income.
Views & zooms are as irrelevant as the BHZ game, in my experience. There are topics here about Alamy which uncover enough, I would say.

« Reply #65 on: April 27, 2011, 06:14 »
0
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.

Everything else you wrote after that doesn't matter (and I didn't read on), this result is incredibly pathetic, I would never even bother with such a site. If it takes a single minute for a photo to be uploaded, keyworded etc it's 4000 hours, so I guess you can expect to earn 1c/h during a long period :o . PATHETIC!

umm I think your over reacting here. 1 minute per photo is 4000 minutes not 4000 hours.  (which is about 67 hours worth.)
I think its not unreasonable to spend 10 minutes a day uploading you best sellers. (upload limit is around 25 per day)

Personally I'm supporting Stockfresh because they are at the moment paying a fair % royality and it very easy to upload.

Each to their own.

lisafx

« Reply #66 on: April 27, 2011, 11:28 »
0

Personally I'm supporting Stockfresh because they are at the moment paying a fair % royality and it very easy to upload.

Each to their own.

Yeah, exactly.  I am supporting Stockfresh.  Others are free not to if that's their choice.

@ Slovenian, don't know why the need for name calling and insults?  Nobody's forcing you to upload there, so what do you care if Xalanx or I or anybody else wants to?   


« Reply #68 on: April 27, 2011, 11:47 »
0
why not contributing there? I only had 4 sales but it looks so nice online, everything is working and after all easy easy to build your portfolio there.. keep up the good work

microstockphoto.co.uk

« Reply #69 on: April 27, 2011, 12:20 »
0
There's no reason not to try, as long as:
- a site is reputable (i.e., it's a real site in a real place with real people behind it, which seem to know what they are doing);
- it's very easy to upload to (i.e., IPCT+FTP and nothing else to fill online);
- % is acceptable;

Stockfresh definitely meets these criteria.

Especially in the current situation when things are rapidly changing - often for the worse - at some of the major sites.

There's always time to abandon a site later if it turns out to be useless - but not before giving a decent amount of time
« Last Edit: April 27, 2011, 12:22 by microstockphoto.co.uk »

rubyroo

« Reply #70 on: April 27, 2011, 12:25 »
0
It's interesting to read here that StockXpert was the third best-selling site after SS and iStock for others.  It was the same for me too.

With a proven track record like that, I feel it's well worth investing some faith and patience in a new venture by the same people.

lagereek

« Reply #71 on: April 27, 2011, 13:24 »
0
Exactly!!  these guys have a proven track record which is a hell of a lot more then many of the others!

I signed up with them today! no fear!  but not as chris42  but as lagereek and if I make a 10th as much as I did with Stockxpert, I will be more then happy.

suck on that one!  best.

lthn

    This user is banned.
« Reply #72 on: April 27, 2011, 13:39 »
0
Also when was the last time you saw the owners of IS or SS f.e. talking directly to contributors here (or anywhere)?

Slovenian

« Reply #73 on: April 27, 2011, 14:50 »
0
@ Slovenian, don't know why the need for name calling and insults?  Nobody's forcing you to upload there, so what do you care if Xalanx or I or anybody else wants to?   

Can you please point out where I was calling names? Because nothing like that happened

Slovenian

« Reply #74 on: April 27, 2011, 14:52 »
0
@Slovenian
Although it probably doesn't make sense to bother with all the smaller agencies, it definitely doesn't make sense to put all your eggs into one basket in the long run. Just a little tweak to the search engine on any of your preferred sites can make your earnings hit the floor if you're unlucky. It might be wise to have a plan B for tougher times and spend some time building portfolios elsewhere.

I completely agree with you, that's what happened to some at IS. But I'm also submitting to SS and I'm just trying out Alamy. Will post to your site as soon as I hear some good news about earnings;)

« Reply #75 on: April 27, 2011, 14:53 »
0
@Peter

A lot of us (including myself) have been waiting since last June to be reviewed.  Is there a timeline (rough guesstimate) about when that process will start up again?

Thanks,

Anita

lisafx

« Reply #76 on: April 27, 2011, 17:10 »
0
@ Slovenian, don't know why the need for name calling and insults?  Nobody's forcing you to upload there, so what do you care if Xalanx or I or anybody else wants to?    

Can you please point out where I was calling names? Because nothing like that happened
Quote
"Everything else you wrote after that doesn't matter (and I didn't read on), this result is incredibly pathetic, I would never even bother with such a site. If it takes a single minute for a photo to be uploaded, keyworded etc it's 4000 hours, so I guess you can expect to earn 1c/h during a long period Shocked . PATHETIC!"

It isn't exactly clear to me whether you are calling Stockfresh "PATHETIC" or Xalanx, after saying that what they wrote didn't matter and you didn't bother reading it.  Either way, it seems insulting and over the top IMO.  

« Reply #77 on: April 27, 2011, 17:14 »
0
Do we want to contribute to the success of yet another 35 cent subscription site?

I'll rather have 35 cents for a M sized download than 25 cents for an XL download...

Slovenian

« Reply #78 on: April 27, 2011, 17:30 »
0
@ Slovenian, don't know why the need for name calling and insults?  Nobody's forcing you to upload there, so what do you care if Xalanx or I or anybody else wants to?    

Can you please point out where I was calling names? Because nothing like that happened
Quote
"Everything else you wrote after that doesn't matter (and I didn't read on), this result is incredibly pathetic, I would never even bother with such a site. If it takes a single minute for a photo to be uploaded, keyworded etc it's 4000 hours, so I guess you can expect to earn 1c/h during a long period Shocked . PATHETIC!"

It isn't exactly clear to me whether you are calling Stockfresh "PATHETIC" or Xalanx, after saying that what they wrote didn't matter and you didn't bother reading it.  Either way, it seems insulting and over the top IMO.  

"this result is incredibly pathetic". You must be American, so sensitive to everything, always calling to political correctness. Nah, I'll just stop right here, it's not worth loosing my time over defending myself against someone who can't even read properly. I'm over&out, what matters is that Xalanx and I have worked it out;)

lisafx

« Reply #79 on: April 27, 2011, 17:40 »
0

"this result is incredibly pathetic". You must be American, so sensitive to everything, always calling to political correctness. Nah, I'll just stop right here, it's not worth loosing my time over defending myself against someone who can't even read properly. I'm over&out, what matters is that Xalanx and I have worked it out;)

So now you are insulting an entire nationality.  Classy.  

Thanks for proving my point.   ::)

Slovenian

« Reply #80 on: April 27, 2011, 17:58 »
0

"this result is incredibly pathetic". You must be American, so sensitive to everything, always calling to political correctness. Nah, I'll just stop right here, it's not worth loosing my time over defending myself against someone who can't even read properly. I'm over&out, what matters is that Xalanx and I have worked it out;)

So now you are insulting an entire nationality.  Classy.  

Thanks for proving my point.   ::)

No, thank you for proving my point;). I love being right, it feels so * good :D

lisafx

« Reply #81 on: April 27, 2011, 18:11 »
0
Nah, I'll just stop right here, it's not worth loosing my time over defending myself against someone who can't even read properly. I'm over&out, what matters is that Xalanx and I have worked it out;)

I thought you were done here.  

Must be another example of my not being able to read properly...  :-\

« Reply #82 on: April 27, 2011, 19:47 »
0
Back to our regularly scheduled programming.

Ok, so it's blindingly easy to submit to new site X, and they're nice guys, they answer their email, and by submitting all our images we can help them succeed.   But there's no advantage to me in just helping to create a bunch of new little Shutterstocks, all sharing the same pie, all paying me the same.  A new site has to show me how it's going to be significantly different, and better, that what we already have. 

There's also the harsh reality that maybe 1 out of 10 of these new sites will actually succeed and produce some sales.  That means I have to submit to 10 new sites, I guess.

And even that might be ok, until I think about the other 9 new sites that didn't make it, folding up in the future, all holding copies of my images - and all of a sudden they stop answering email...

I'm sure SF is fine, and maybe the subscriptions being limited to 'M' do in fact make it different, and better.  It's just that I already have my images sitting at a couple "fantasy" sites where I never make a sale.  There is a point where contributor fatigue sets in.

« Reply #83 on: April 27, 2011, 20:00 »
0
50% royalties!!!!!

« Reply #84 on: April 27, 2011, 20:28 »
0
50% royalties!!!!!

Well yeah that's great unless all they ever end up selling is subscriptions. 

This is all just my usual doom, gloom and sour grapes.

« Reply #85 on: April 27, 2011, 20:48 »
0
50% royalties!!!!!

Well yeah that's great unless all they ever end up selling is subscriptions. 

This is all just my usual doom, gloom and sour grapes.

right but as I said, the upload is seriously EASY, upload like 300 or so FTP, then everyday but a click on IMPORT, then add releases if it is your case.. I have actually waited 8 months to join them but I am quite happy, portfolio growing quite good a very nice approval ratio around 80% (which I didnt had for other agencies for older files) and have 4 sales, 3 for 2.5$ and 1 for 0.5$.. give them a try

WarrenPrice

« Reply #86 on: April 27, 2011, 21:46 »
0
This is almost funny but really more silly.  Why should anyone give a big rat's ass which sites someone else chooses to sell images through?
The point of the thread was supposed to be that Stockfresh feels they are in a position to start a serious marketing campaign. 
I'm still in "wait and see mode" but think that these are some people who have a lot of experience in microstock and seem to be applying that business sense favorably.

Now, back to minding my own business.   ::)

lagereek

« Reply #87 on: April 27, 2011, 23:52 »
0
This is almost funny but really more silly.  Why should anyone give a big rat's ass which sites someone else chooses to sell images through?
The point of the thread was supposed to be that Stockfresh feels they are in a position to start a serious marketing campaign. 
I'm still in "wait and see mode" but think that these are some people who have a lot of experience in microstock and seem to be applying that business sense favorably.

Now, back to minding my own business.   ::)


Youre right!  Im in too!  whats the harm in trying out? 

« Reply #88 on: April 28, 2011, 02:25 »
0
Back to our regularly scheduled programming.

Ok, so it's blindingly easy to submit to new site X, and they're nice guys, they answer their email, and by submitting all our images we can help them succeed.   But there's no advantage to me in just helping to create a bunch of new little Shutterstocks, all sharing the same pie, all paying me the same.  A new site has to show me how it's going to be significantly different, and better, that what we already have.  

There's also the harsh reality that maybe 1 out of 10 of these new sites will actually succeed and produce some sales.  That means I have to submit to 10 new sites, I guess.

And even that might be ok, until I think about the other 9 new sites that didn't make it, folding up in the future, all holding copies of my images - and all of a sudden they stop answering email...

I'm sure SF is fine, and maybe the subscriptions being limited to 'M' do in fact make it different, and better.  It's just that I already have my images sitting at a couple "fantasy" sites where I never make a sale.  There is a point where contributor fatigue sets in.
I just concentrated on the big sites until I had a really big portfolio that was doing well.  Then I spread my portfolio to lots of sites, as long as it's easy to upload.  It makes a big difference in the long term.  The smaller sites might be similar but they all have different buyers.  Just sticking with the big sites means that a significant number of buyers will never buy your images.  Most of them seem to stick with one site.

I think a lot of the people that complain about low sales with smaller sites have less than 1,000 images or they don't have a portfolio that's good for stock sites.  Get a big portfolio with lots of images that buyers like and it really is worth spreading it around.  I see most of the biggest earning independents have their portfolio on lots of sites.  It must make good business sense, as they are the best in this business.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
1 Replies
4279 Views
Last post January 26, 2008, 07:51
by ParisEye
2 Replies
3346 Views
Last post September 09, 2009, 10:47
by Brian O'Shea
9 Replies
5663 Views
Last post June 12, 2011, 07:54
by kaycee
25 Replies
8066 Views
Last post February 18, 2019, 19:17
by Uncle Pete
1 Replies
2373 Views
Last post March 27, 2020, 22:31
by marthamarks

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors