MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Anyone selling at Featurepics?  (Read 90239 times)

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

« Reply #100 on: February 02, 2008, 19:14 »
0
About a month there 32 images and my first SALE!
 I have all images at $ 10.00 RF extended
The first sale today left me with 2.10 which is not too bad for just one sale. Now I will try to upload my whole small port too see if this keeps up.  ;D  Thanks Flemishdreams for the push to upload to them.


« Reply #101 on: February 02, 2008, 19:29 »
0
I have about 300 images at featurepics (about a month there), and three sales. My price strategie is the next: the price is smaller than others microstock sites because the comission is bigger, so I obtain the same amount. I think this is fairy for buyer and for seller.

Mi prices are from 1 to 4 $

Excuse me my bad english.
« Last Edit: February 02, 2008, 19:38 by lumina »

gbcimages

« Reply #102 on: February 02, 2008, 19:32 »
0
going on 4  months 2 sales all priced at 4 and 5at 4 and 5 dollars. not good!

« Reply #103 on: February 02, 2008, 19:37 »
0
Repeat

« Reply #104 on: February 02, 2008, 19:39 »
0
I have about 300 images at featurepics (about a month there), and three sales. My price strategie is the next: the price is smaller than others microstock sites because the comission is bigger, so I obtain the same amount. I think this is fairy for buyer and for seller.

Excuse me my bad english.

But if there is less traffic on this site why would you just settle for the same
amount? would it not benefit you to obtain a bit more to justify the lack of
sales? that image that just sold for me would take more than eight sales at
SS! IMHO less than 5.00 before rezise would simply not cover the trouble of having another place to submitt.

I just checked SS and I have had that image there since July. Earned only
.65 cents more there.
« Last Edit: February 02, 2008, 19:47 by jorgeinthewater »

« Reply #105 on: February 02, 2008, 19:58 »
0
But if there is less traffic on this site why would you just settle for the same
amount? would it not benefit you to obtain a bit more to justify the lack of
sales? that image that just sold for me would take more than eight sales at
SS! IMHO less than 5.00 before rezise would simply not cover the trouble of having another place to submitt.

I just checked SS and I have had that image there since July. Earned only
.65 cents more there.

Is very easy upload images to featurepics. I loss a litte amount of time.

I think that cheaper prices will allow a featurepics momentum.

« Reply #106 on: February 02, 2008, 21:57 »
0
Update

- I had a second payout in the mean time, but of course, FP is a minor player (5% for me) compared to giants (income-wise) like SS, DT, BigStock, IS.

- Don't play with low pricing. As can be read in some threads here on the MSG, designers really don't care whether a shot is 1$ or 10$, as long as they find the right one. My minimum now for 10MP at FP is 6$, but I allow resizing. So web-size is around 1.3$. It's a bit hilarious hearing people complain about low prices at traditional microstock, - and, when given the chance, they ask the same low price at FP. In market economy terms, demand seems to be very price-elastic.

- Me thinks FP attracts first-time or occasional buyers. The seasoned designers are already buying at the big microstock agencies. In this respect, FP is no real competition for our portfolio at DT,SS,BigStock etc...
FP seems to be the duster that collects the long tail of the market.

- I always said that you have to do your own marketing for your FP portfolio but that doesn't mean your own website. Flickr is the worlds largest photo sharing site with 2 billion photos and with an Alexa rank of 38. Unlike Google Images, images on Flickr-Yahoo are fed into the search engines with full tags. That means your portfolio on Flickr works as a huge marketing funnel into whatever agency you want. Why not chose FP (without neglecting your other agents) by preference since they give you the highest yield per sale?

- Like MostPhotos, FP almost accepts anything so you have an unique chance to upload here what you think that sells, not Atilla the Reviewer ;-). Last but not least, the upload process at FP is blazing fast and doesn't take any time.

------------------
My January sales:

   Image      Size      Date sold   Price   Net yield

   I1069689    3888 x 2592   1/26/2008    $5.00    $3.50
   I1454848   3250 x 2027   1/17/2008    $4.00    $2.80
   I1555055   2008 x 3000   1/9/2008    $4.50    $3.15
   I1146683   3888 x 2592   1/4/2008    $5.00    $3.50


« Last Edit: February 02, 2008, 22:13 by FlemishDreams »

« Reply #107 on: February 02, 2008, 23:16 »
0
Early in the month, I put price up from $2 to $5 based on (yours?) comments on this forum and the fact that istock put price up 50% and I had BME on there (so pricing is too cheap). Anyway FP is not a bigger seller for but I still ended with BME (by $2) for fp for Jan. So going from $2 to $5 didn't do me any harm.  In another month or so, I'll take it $10 and see what that does :)

« Reply #108 on: February 02, 2008, 23:28 »
0
$12 (8.40) sale today. Nice start to the new month. ;)

« Reply #109 on: February 03, 2008, 03:48 »
0
I am starting to lose patience with FP.  The problem with doing my own marketing with them is it takes time away from my other sites.  This doesn't makes sense if FP is still going to be a low seller.

If I could make $100 a month there it might be worth it but at the moment it doesn't look like that is possible.  FP should be able to do more with the 30% they make from us.  They still make more per sale than several sites I upload to as most of us have higher prices there.  It is in their own interest to get the site moving and bring in some money.

« Reply #110 on: February 03, 2008, 06:37 »
0
But if there is less traffic on this site why would you just settle for the same
amount? would it not benefit you to obtain a bit more to justify the lack of
sales? that image that just sold for me would take more than eight sales at
SS! IMHO less than 5.00 before rezise would simply not cover the trouble of having another place to submitt.

I just checked SS and I have had that image there since July. Earned only
.65 cents more there.

Is very easy upload images to featurepics. I loss a litte amount of time.

I think that cheaper prices will allow a featurepics momentum.

You should try offering money with your pictures. I think buyers would love the idea ! That would be a hit !

 ;D

« Reply #111 on: February 03, 2008, 11:07 »
0
Pariseye, if you think so, I believe your market is macrostock.

Maybe microstock market is as ikea, low prices with great sells.

« Reply #112 on: February 03, 2008, 12:29 »
0
Pariseye, if you think so, I believe your market is macrostock.

Maybe microstock market is as ikea, low prices with great sells.

Problem is: Featurepics won't get more momentum with lower prices. They get more momentum with better marketing. Designers don't care if an image costs 1 or 5 or 10 dollars. The price is so low anyway, so the difference doesn't impact the project cost in any significant way.

However, the difference has big impact on the photographers, who need money for cameras and food, and Featurepics, who need money for marketing.

There's an ocean of difference between the microstock price of 10$ and a typical macrostock price of several hundred dollars. That's where the savings are for the designers.

« Reply #113 on: February 03, 2008, 12:43 »
0
Pariseye, if you think so, I believe your market is macrostock.

Maybe microstock market is as ikea, low prices with great sells.

Problem is: Featurepics won't get more momentum with lower prices. They get more momentum with better marketing. Designers don't care if an image costs 1 or 5 or 10 dollars. The price is so low anyway, so the difference doesn't impact the project cost in any significant way.

However, the difference has big impact on the photographers, who need money for cameras and food, and Featurepics, who need money for marketing.

There's an ocean of difference between the microstock price of 10$ and a typical macrostock price of several hundred dollars. That's where the savings are for the designers.

But they download images at small size (and less price). Why? I think they are price-sensitive.

gbcimages

« Reply #114 on: February 03, 2008, 12:47 »
0
agree,  and believe me the buyers do thing of prices.

« Reply #115 on: February 03, 2008, 13:03 »
0
Of course they look at the price, but why ? Because they can have the same thing for less. When they buy through subscription, they take the maximum size. When they pay according to the size, they choose the size according to what they really need. It doesn't mean they won't pay 10 or 100 or 1000 $ if the picture they need is as that price and their budget can afford it. Otherwise all the macrostock agencies would be closed now. But, if you offer that 1000 $ picture for peanuts just because that's the price it would be sold in microstock, the buyer will be glad to pay peanuts. The ultimate client will still be asked for 1000 $ because he won't know the real price of the picture. Now, it's up to you to decide if you are willing to sell for less than nothing (and leave the middle user grab the margin) or try to raise the level. I don't think that a few dollars or ten of dollars in Featurepics is such an obstacle for 90% of the needs (publication, calendar, mug, posters...) and if it is, there is always the resizing option... or microstock.

« Reply #116 on: February 03, 2008, 13:25 »
0
Is not the same thing. A 1500x1000 pixels image is not equal to a 3000x2000 px one. They save less than 1 $ when they download small images, but they do it. Thats means they are price-sensitive.
« Last Edit: February 03, 2008, 13:34 by lumina »

« Reply #117 on: February 03, 2008, 14:26 »
0
Is not the same thing. A 1500x1000 pixels image is not equal to a 3000x2000 px one. They save less than 1 $ when they download small images, but they do it. Thats means they are price-sensitive.

Idon't know how price sensitive they really are considering that the image
they bought for 3.00 could had been aquired for much less somewhere else, like SS. I think is like Pariseye suggest is the size they really need. If I had not placed the image to be resized would they have bought for 10.00?
I believe they would have. I just gave them more options and still earned from the sale. A similar image at SV sold for like .30 before I changed most of my images there to non subscription.  I believe  because of my more narrow portfolio (subjects) I need an agency like Featurepics to really see
a increase in earnings not just sales. Once again I repeat myself lowering the prices too much just makes it harder to earn in a site like FP. SS is great
because of volume but at .30 cents per week at FP it just becomes more work with less returns. Yes they are easy to upload to but why not take advantage of a situation where you have control of pricing?
Just my opinion,
Regards Jorge

« Reply #118 on: February 03, 2008, 17:16 »
0
I now have 93 approved images at FP without a sale.

I previously had my pricing set a $6.00 RF+Extension allowing resizing and have now lowered to $4.00 with resizing in order to try and prime the pump on this site for me ...

I have also put some snippets on a blog of mine and we'll see if that drives any traffic there.

I really like this site so I hope to make some sales soon :)

Mark


« Reply #119 on: February 03, 2008, 17:17 »
0
You can make a simple experiment in order to optimize your portfolio. You can prize a part of it at low and other part at high, and to observe the results.

dbvirago

« Reply #120 on: February 03, 2008, 18:33 »
0
I spent a good part of last year pricing all over the place. Gross didn't vary much. Jan 1, I have settled on a minimum of $6 with no resizing. Good sellers are priced higher, some significantly so. January was my BME there, but still not enough sales to track any patterns.

« Reply #121 on: February 03, 2008, 19:44 »
0
I set my price litle lower than fotolia but give me same ammount or even higher of commission.
Sales not much but better than 123rf for me.

« Reply #122 on: February 03, 2008, 22:04 »
0
Of course they look at the price, but why ? Because they can have the same thing for less. When they buy through subscription, they take the maximum size. When they pay according to the size, they choose the size according to what they really need. It doesn't mean they won't pay 10 or 100 or 1000 $ if the picture they need is as that price and their budget can afford it. Otherwise all the macrostock agencies would be closed now. But, if you offer that 1000 $ picture for peanuts just because that's the price it would be sold in microstock, the buyer will be glad to pay peanuts. The ultimate client will still be asked for 1000 $ because he won't know the real price of the picture. Now, it's up to you to decide if you are willing to sell for less than nothing (and leave the middle user grab the margin) or try to raise the level. I don't think that a few dollars or ten of dollars in Featurepics is such an obstacle for 90% of the needs (publication, calendar, mug, posters...) and if it is, there is always the resizing option... or microstock.

You are right. As a designer, I buy much more photos now, than I did before microstock was available. But as long as the price is less than $20, I can't really be bothered to look for a better photo or a lower price all over the net. My time costs money as well.

When I uploaded to SV, I put some photos at $25 that are available at other micro agencies. I had my first sale of one of those yesterday. Could the buyer have saved a couple of bucks, looking for it elsewhere? Yes, he could. Did he? No, he didn't, because he apparently found the image that he needed, for a price that he thought was reasonable.

« Reply #123 on: February 04, 2008, 00:11 »
0
I would also presume that designers are courted to and are members at certain sites that appeal to them for whatever differentiating reasons are important to them. Every site is trying to carve out its own niche for both photographers AND designers / buyers.

I have often tried finding my own pictures (and I know what I'm looking for ...) through the various search engines and it can be difficult to sort through hundreds if not thousands of similar images to find exactly what you are looking for on the larger sites. Once you find it (no matter what site your on ...) what are the odds that your going to search again? You might if you have multiple accounts. I imagine you would if you have a subscription account somewhere ... but what if you don't?

Oh ... by the way ... how many images are on other sites that have never been approved by the likes of IS or Shutterstock ?

All of these are reasons as to why it makes sense to be on Featurepics for the long term ...

Mark




« Reply #124 on: February 04, 2008, 00:19 »
0
Oh ... by the way ... how many images are on other sites that have never been approved by the likes of IS or Shutterstock ?

This is a very important point: if a buyer finds a photo at FP that hasn't been approved anywhere else, and if that is the exact photo that he needs, he'll pay more. The fact that a photo has been rejected be SS and IS doesn't mean that it's any point selling it cheaper at FP.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
81 Replies
31981 Views
Last post December 14, 2006, 03:57
by takestock
4 Replies
4292 Views
Last post August 10, 2006, 18:30
by IRCrockett
10 Replies
5296 Views
Last post August 04, 2007, 05:08
by null
5 Replies
5780 Views
Last post September 23, 2008, 16:19
by madelaide
14 Replies
8214 Views
Last post May 29, 2009, 17:37
by donding

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors