MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: How to Close Account  (Read 12705 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

DanP68

« on: April 17, 2008, 06:54 »
0
In light of the recent LO closure, I'm cutting out the very small players without sales.  In the case of LO, at least I had a few sales per month.  At FP, never a single sale.  So I can assume I'm wasting my time before the doors close.

Is there an easy way to close my account that I am missing?  Or do I need to write to support?

Thanks
Dan


PaulieWalnuts

  • On the Wrong Side of the Business
« Reply #1 on: April 17, 2008, 07:06 »
0
I'd like how to do this too since each deletion must be done individually and require an explanation . I'm predicting they're the next of the more popular sites to go under.

RT


« Reply #2 on: April 17, 2008, 13:24 »
0
I closed my account at Featurepics two days ago, I had been very close to a payout for three months but no further sales, so rather than lose $46 I bought one of my own images and requested a payout, I then sent their support an email asking for all my images to be deleted.

Within a couple of hours I had my payout and they had refunded me the amount I had paid for my own image, then my account was deleted.

Quite easy and the refund was pretty decent of them I think.

Nice bunch of people but just not enough sales for me and I made a commitment at the beginning of the year to get rid of all the sites that I believe aren't going anywhere or one's that don't market our work.

I've also left Crestock but that was due to the subscription commission, sales were good but 25c ain't enough for an XL IMO, however I believe at the end of the year they might restructure the commissions in which case I'll reconsider.

« Reply #3 on: April 17, 2008, 17:21 »
0
Dan,

I'm pretty sure they will delete your account if you ask them.  When I split my original account in two, I asked them to move some images from the original account to the new one and they did that within a couple of days.  They've been always very responsive.

They are very nice people.  FP is less fancy than LO, and I do hope they succeed.  I've just reached my second pay-out with them.

Regards,
Adelaide
« Last Edit: April 17, 2008, 17:24 by madelaide »

« Reply #4 on: April 18, 2008, 10:29 »
0
I closed mine at FP just recently - even my views seemed to stop there. I just sent an email to their support address saying I no longer had time to maintain. It was taken care of the next day.

DanP68

« Reply #5 on: April 20, 2008, 23:38 »
0
They closed my account for me 1-2 days after an email request.  I wish them well, but my prediction is they will be gone soon.  Then again, considering the lack of spending on advertising, perhaps they will survive longer than expected.

« Reply #6 on: April 21, 2008, 09:35 »
0
There's one thing I don't understand: why close the account? If you've spent time and effort uploading photos, it can't hurt to have them there, or can it?

I don't sell large volumes on FP either, but last Saturday, I sold 3 photos, generating around the same amount as during well over a year at LO. Individual pricing and the 70% commission rate makes slow sales bearable, and I've started looking at FP as a combined micro, midi and macro agency. That means I upload my Alamy portfolio there as well, with prices lower than at Alamy, but far above microstock level.

DanP68

« Reply #7 on: April 21, 2008, 23:12 »
0
Very simple.  The LO closure went exactly as I thought it would when some of these smaller players started to fall off.  Whatever money contributors have accumulated prior to payout go to the company when it closes.  It's a matter of principle for me.  If a site cannot deliver decent earnings for me, they don't get to keep what earnings I have accumulated when they close.  Why should I give them a 100% commission on anything I shoot?

In the case of FeaturePics and the lack of advertising going on, I felt I was due to get a "lucky sale" within the next few months, and that would be the only one I would get.  Which would be worth about $2-$7 in my account, none of which I would ever see.  So my 70% commission becomes 0%.

I think there is also a point to be made in pulling a portfolio from a non-performing site.  If you keep things there regardless of performance, you are basically telling the agency that you accept their method of business and will support it even if there is no good reason to.  I feel you need to give incentive to agencies to compete for your services.  They shouldn't expect that "If we build it, they will come."

« Reply #8 on: April 22, 2008, 01:34 »
0
Oh, but I absolutely support FP's business model. They pay me a 70% commission, as opposed to 20% at some other agencies. No marketing in the world can change that. In addition, they accept the photos that I think are stock-worthy, they let me decide the price of those photos, and they let me upload the number of images that I want to upload.

I earn much more money on IS and SS, and will continue to do so for many years. But if the short term earnings were the only thing that dictated my photographic work, I would not be a photographer anymore, but merely a supplier of photographic images, with no other interest than counting my earnings.

PaulieWalnuts

  • On the Wrong Side of the Business
« Reply #9 on: April 22, 2008, 05:35 »
0
I'm really confused by this mindset of "they pay me 70% and that's really what counts". To me, earnings, earnings growth, and a sustainable business model count.  For the gazillionith time, 70% of 0 = 0 which is exactly what I've earned there. I haven't seen one post saying they're doing well at FP. It's horrible to so-so.

It could take me years to reach payout. I don't want to support sites that look like they're circling the drain. At least Bryan at LO is trying to shut down with some professionalism. Will these other sites that appear to be struggling handle a shutdown professionally or will they just disappear with your money?

I like FP but my gut says it's time to go. I wish them the best of luck.

michealo

« Reply #10 on: April 22, 2008, 06:09 »
0
I think the value in Featurepics is if you can drive traffic to the FP site to buy your image there rather than somewhere else.

« Reply #11 on: April 22, 2008, 06:28 »
0
I look at the microstock sites much like I look at the stock market (ie: Wall Street). The big players are established and make one a profit. The smaller sites are an investment. If one only deals with the biggest players, one will make a profit, but if any one thing is a constant in business, it is change. Big players stumble and someone else comes along to take their place. Or maybe the real innovation comes from a small company that then becomes a player. Now, not all small sites will be successful. Most of them will fail - miserably. I think albumo is an example of this. Other site will fight, but will just never catch on. LO is an example of this.

Now, I can take my business to the top 5 or 6 agencies and leave it there. However, what happens if one or two of those suddenly crash. No matter how big you are it can happen. Take Home Depot, K-Mart, or Montgomery Wards for example - at one time all were major players, all have stumbled or crashed in the last ten years or so. Home Depot is a good example since some smaller, regional suppliers have definitely gained momentum since their severe stumble (here in Michigan, Menards has become a stronger entity because of this). Or even better, look at "Fast and Friendly", they were a major player in optical recording devices (ie: cd burners) about 13 years ago. They were making money hand over fist. Then one day, the owner burned out and closed shop. No explanation. No selling out to another company. He just closed the doors. Strange things happen, eh?

Dealing with the smaller microstock sites is much the same. IF SS or IS falters, will DT or FT take their place? If DT or FT stumbles, will it be 123RF, BigStock, SV, or FP that moves upwards? It is something of a gamble and not everyone is suited to gambling much, and your tolerance for risk is something you have to assess. IMO, FP has the best chance of moving up in the microstock world. It is gut instinct, but it has lead me in the right direction as often as not.

With FP, it is a slow, managed growth. They do not look at contributors as "contributors", but as partners. It is with that concept they intend to grow. Like any partnership, it takes hard work from both sides. They pay us more because they expect us to do a little more than submit photos. They allow us to decide what work to submit and what it is worth. They are giving us the tools to be responsible for our work. In the long run, their success is up to us being responsible with what we submit and at what price points we offer our work. IMO it is our job to let people know the FP is more than a simple "stock photo agency", but one that photographers and artists prefer - not just among photographers and artists, but among the end-users of our products.

Will they succeed? I don't know. But I, for one, am willing to take a chance. If they do, great for all of us. If not, well, I lost a little time - that's all.

Okay, I've rambled enough.

Jeff
« Last Edit: April 22, 2008, 06:31 by Pywrit »

RT


« Reply #12 on: April 22, 2008, 06:40 »
0
Oh, but I absolutely support FP's business model. They pay me a 70% commission, as opposed to 20% at some other agencies.

I'll arrange for you to upload all of your images onto my website, then you will need to do all the marketing of those images yourself, I'm not going to do anything other than maintain the website, but on the rare off chance that someone buys one of your images I'll take a 30% cut.
I'll take all your images because storage costs nothing these days, and you can price them how you want, after all what do I care how that makes the site appear to potential (miracle) buyers, I'll tell you what I'll even let you sell them as RM or RF at any price, lets make it a real minefield for anybody that may stubble upon the place.
Don't expect many sales because I'm doing bugger all to get them, however the more work you put into promoting your images the happier we'll all be.

So in summary:

You take all the photos at your own cost.
You upload and keyword all the photos in your own time.
You decide how best to confuse buyers by pricing and licensing them how you want. **
You do all the marketing and promotion of your photos at your own cost.

I'll look after the server in my kitchen cupboard.
I'll take 30% of anything you sell (not that you're likely to).
I'll be very nice to everybody because thats what stock is all about.

I mean nothing personal against you, many people have the same attitude, so I appologise if you think I'm targeting you - I'm not.
But I'd rather have 20% of 2000 sales per month against 70% of 6 sales in 18 months.

But the most important thing is that we have a choice.

** Apart from the lack of marketing, this option is why (IMHO) Featurepics will never ever be successful.

« Last Edit: April 22, 2008, 06:49 by RT »

« Reply #13 on: April 22, 2008, 07:02 »
0
Well , I'm not promoting myself nowhere at no cost, I don't have a personal site as a matter effects. I do the keywording  anyway , the images are uploading trough ftp and I never had a problem with that in opposite with some "big ones", so only thing I have to do is to price the images one by one , in a site that has one of the easiest uploading process.

I'm getting payouts from there every month , so they must be doing something.

« Last Edit: April 22, 2008, 07:12 by Lizard »

« Reply #14 on: April 22, 2008, 07:25 »
0
But I'd rather have 20% of 2000 sales per month against 70% of 6 sales in 18 months.


Who said you have to choose? I do both, and it costs me next to nothing.

I had a payout at FP yesterday. If I didn't have my portfolio there, I wouldn't had that payout. If they start flying, I have a healthy portfolio with increasing value, if they go down the drain, I've lost a few hours clicking on their website. No big deal.

I don't have anything against you either. I just don't understand your logic.

RT


« Reply #15 on: April 22, 2008, 14:27 »
0
I don't have anything against you either. I just don't understand your logic.

For me it's simple time=money, I like to try and get the best value return for my work, there's over 200 stock sites, 40 of them are microsites and more opening each day, I don't submit to them all, I submit to the ones that either I know will give me high yield sales or one's that I think may be worth the investment ( like Snapvillage once FTP is sorted), for me Featurepics doesn't offer either.

Like everyone else I make mistakes, I thought LuckyOliver was a winner and I'm sure under different management it could have been because it had a USP like no other I've ever seen, but at least I made some money there, running the way it is I can never see Featurepics ever making the cut, if it does and you prove me wrong I'll buy the beers  :D

PaulieWalnuts

  • On the Wrong Side of the Business
« Reply #16 on: April 22, 2008, 18:07 »
0
I had a payout at FP yesterday. If I didn't have my portfolio there, I wouldn't had that payout. If they start flying, I have a healthy portfolio with increasing value, if they go down the drain, I've lost a few hours clicking on their website. No big deal.

You have 1268 pictures there and had a payout yesterday. So are you saying that's $100 (FP minimum payout) so far this month and you're earning about $150 per month there?


« Reply #17 on: April 22, 2008, 18:51 »
0
I had a payout at FP yesterday. If I didn't have my portfolio there, I wouldn't had that payout. If they start flying, I have a healthy portfolio with increasing value, if they go down the drain, I've lost a few hours clicking on their website. No big deal.

You have 1268 pictures there and had a payout yesterday. So are you saying that's $100 (FP minimum payout) so far this month and you're earning about $150 per month there?




Sorry if I'm jumping in,  but FP minimal payout is 50$

« Reply #18 on: April 22, 2008, 19:05 »
0
I had a payout at FP yesterday. If I didn't have my portfolio there, I wouldn't had that payout. If they start flying, I have a healthy portfolio with increasing value, if they go down the drain, I've lost a few hours clicking on their website. No big deal.

You have 1268 pictures there and had a payout yesterday. So are you saying that's $100 (FP minimum payout) so far this month and you're earning about $150 per month there?

No, I'm not. I don't have payouts every month there, but there are others, with better portfolios than mine, who have. It's also interesting to see, that of all the small earners, FP is one of the very few who have shown consistent growth for me. They are past Crestock and past Canstock. Slightly more sales, and they are on 123rf numbers.

Another clear advantage is, that whenever somebody asks me where he can buy my photos, I send him to FP. That's the place where my complete portfolio can be found, and every time I do that, I earn 2-3 times as much as if I sent people to other micro agencies. If that doesn't make economic sense, I don't know what does.

« Reply #19 on: April 22, 2008, 19:21 »
0
Got my second payout there, less than 24h after requesting.  Previous pay-out was about 1 year ago.  398 images online.  Made more there than in CanStockPhoto and LO together, and almost the same as in 123RF.

I stay.

Regards,
Adelaide

vonkara

« Reply #20 on: April 22, 2008, 19:31 »
0
Got my second payout there, less than 24h after requesting.  Previous pay-out was about 1 year ago.  398 images online.  Made more there than in CanStockPhoto and LO together, and almost the same as in 123RF.

I stay.

Regards,
Adelaide
Thanks for sharing...maybe I will upload again. That make a while I didn't go see what going on there
« Last Edit: April 22, 2008, 19:33 by Vonkara »

PaulieWalnuts

  • On the Wrong Side of the Business
« Reply #21 on: April 22, 2008, 22:48 »
0
I had a payout at FP yesterday. If I didn't have my portfolio there, I wouldn't had that payout. If they start flying, I have a healthy portfolio with increasing value, if they go down the drain, I've lost a few hours clicking on their website. No big deal.

You have 1268 pictures there and had a payout yesterday. So are you saying that's $100 (FP minimum payout) so far this month and you're earning about $150 per month there?

No, I'm not. I don't have payouts every month there, but there are others, with better portfolios than mine, who have. It's also interesting to see, that of all the small earners, FP is one of the very few who have shown consistent growth for me. They are past Crestock and past Canstock. Slightly more sales, and they are on 123rf numbers.

Another clear advantage is, that whenever somebody asks me where he can buy my photos, I send him to FP. That's the place where my complete portfolio can be found, and every time I do that, I earn 2-3 times as much as if I sent people to other micro agencies. If that doesn't make economic sense, I don't know what does.
So without additional detail I can only assume you're getting a $50 payout every 1-2 months with 1200+ images. While this may not be a big deal for you it's pretty poor return and not worth the time for me. I'd rather take that time and invest it where I'm getting better performance which is pretty much everywhere else including the heavily-bashed SnapVillage. 

While I'm beginning to understand FP business model of being marketed by contributors, I don't see the value in it. I can set up my own site with only my images, market it and keep 100%. I don't have the resources to market someone else's site.

« Reply #22 on: April 22, 2008, 23:40 »
0
While I'm beginning to understand FP business model of being marketed by contributors, I don't see the value in it. I can set up my own site with only my images, market it and keep 100%. I don't have the resources to market someone else's site.

If I was going to set up my own website with a similar functionality to FP, I would have to pay for web-design, programming, I would need a proper database system, hosting of the whole thing, marketing, invoicing and maintenance would all be my responsibility, and nobody but those customers that I manage to haul in by myself would ever visit it.

With FP, I don't do any of the above, I have regular sales, and I can assure you: as long as I'm not Ansel Adams or Henri Cartier Bresson (and I'm not), I have much more profit and much more free time available by uploading to FP and working for increased sales both for myself and my fellow photographers.

Uploading to FP is so easy and so trivial, particularly compared to a place like IS, that the time "wasted" doesn't really count.

But by all means, there are photographers who do start their own online business, some of them successfully so. But for me: I'm simply not good enough, neither as a photographer nor as a marketer to count only on my own abilities.

DanP68

« Reply #23 on: April 23, 2008, 00:09 »
0

I'll arrange for you to upload all of your images onto my website, then you will need to do all the marketing of those images yourself, I'm not going to do anything other than maintain the website, but on the rare off chance that someone buys one of your images I'll take a 30% cut.



Absolutely RT, absolutely!!!

And while I am at it, I will build a microstock site to compete with yours.  I will offer AndresR, Yuri, Lev Dolgachov, and a handful of others to upload to my site with the agreement that no other uploaders will be allowed.  They can have full run of the image library.  I will make sure the website continues to function, tell them to advertise their images, and then take 30% of their earnings.

Sounds like a deal!   8)

DanP68

« Reply #24 on: April 23, 2008, 00:21 »
0

No, I'm not. I don't have payouts every month there, but there are others, with better portfolios than mine, who have. It's also interesting to see, that of all the small earners, FP is one of the very few who have shown consistent growth for me. They are past Crestock and past Canstock. Slightly more sales, and they are on 123rf numbers.



That's interesting.  I joined 123RF in late December, the same time I joined FeaturePics.  In that time I had 60 sales at 123RF, and 0 at FeaturePics.  60 to 0.  I cannot even put them in the same conversation.

I joined Crestock a few days ago on a personal invitation from Josh.  He seems like a sincere guy who believes in the future of Crestock.  They also have been advertising lately, which at least gives me some hope.  I will keep them on a short leash though.  If the sales aren't coming in 6 months from now, I probably won't stick around.  I agree with RT in that I am only interested in companies which can deliver earnings off my (albeit small) portfolio.



If I was going to set up my own website with a similar functionality to FP, I would have to pay for web-design, programming, I would need a proper database system, hosting of the whole thing, marketing, invoicing and maintenance would all be my responsibility, and nobody but those customers that I manage to haul in by myself would ever visit it.


I totally agree with you here.  The 30% is worth it if the company is handling all of the programming, design, credit card payments, etc.  But I would expect some marketing along with that 30%, as it benefits both the contributor and the agency.
« Last Edit: April 23, 2008, 00:25 by DanP68 »

« Reply #25 on: April 23, 2008, 04:38 »
0
Dan,
When I compare 123rf with FP, I don't compare number of downloads, but earnings. I need 20 subscription DLs at 123 to match one sale (most of my photos are priced at $10) at FP.

FP has been a very slow starter, but time seem to work well for me there. I compare it a bit to macrostock, where sales are even less frequent, but pay better still.

Crestock sold a bit for me to start with, but now, it's just the occasional subscription sale. Ytd 2008, they haven't even generated half of what FP has generated for me. The other Norwegian agency, Scanstockphoto, is doing much, much better for me.

It must be added though, that these things are very dependent upon portfolio. I don't have many "isolated on white" photos, but lots of industrial, travel etc., and a growing editorial portfolio. "Unique" photos are rather pointless at places like Shutterstock if they only sell once in their lifetime, while one sale at FP (or a macrostock agency) changes the picture dramatically.

DanP68

« Reply #26 on: April 23, 2008, 05:28 »
0
Dan,
When I compare 123rf with FP, I don't compare number of downloads, but earnings. I need 20 subscription DLs at 123 to match one sale (most of my photos are priced at $10) at FP.

Agreed, although in fairness I tend to get a 2:1 credit to subscription sales ratio at 123RF.  Looking at earnings only, it was $35 to $0 between 123 and FP.  Again, no contest.  What I found even more telling however was that my 123 earnings were showing a little growth, whereas my FP Views barely budged.

It must be added though, that these things are very dependent upon portfolio.

So true.  Even in the little time I have been around, I am amazed at the differences in performance contributors experience at various sites.  For the life of me, I cannot get the wheels to move at Stockxpert.  They are always at 2% to 5% for me.  Others claim they are their fastest grower, and put them in the Top 3.  Fotolia is solid for me, but not nearly as spectacular as some experience.  It took an EL sale from them to nudge up to #4 this month.

And despite so many people listing IS as their clear #1, this is the 4th consecutive month SS is clobbering them in my portfolio.  It's not even close, and the gap is widening.  Weird.   ???

« Reply #27 on: April 23, 2008, 16:41 »
0
While I'm beginning to understand FP business model of being marketed by contributors, I don't see the value in it.

It's a way to do it, but I don't currently market myself (except for soem eventual link in my website, but I don't get much traffic).  I intend to, however, once I have a decent amount of my travel images there.

Regards,
Adelaide

RacePhoto

« Reply #28 on: May 06, 2008, 13:33 »
0
While I'm beginning to understand FP business model of being marketed by contributors, I don't see the value in it.

It's a way to do it, but I don't currently market myself (except for soem eventual link in my website, but I don't get much traffic).  I intend to, however, once I have a decent amount of my travel images there.

Regards,
Adelaide

The value I can see in FP holding my images for me, for free, is that I don't have a website for selling my photos, or the format to take payments or all the extras. They get 30% as a handling fee and percentage for taking care of payments..

Also since there are other people who have photos up there, and a search engine, there's also the potential for sales when someone comes to look for something else. Small but possible. Otherwise I'd only have them on some personal site, lost in the morass of other personal sites, which makes them nearly impossible to find. FP is a marketing advantage.

As far as marketing my own photos, one way I could do it would be have a link on my website (which I have a few) that offers "buy photos here" with a link to my FeaturePics portfolio. This is the direction I'm going with FP photos.

Smugmug charges to store and sell pictures. Of course they offer much more, including prints and other items. But the point is, they charge the photographer $150 a year, to enable this service and individual pricing for profit. FP charges nothing except a percentage of the sales.

By the way, I only offer feature/editorial/news photos on FP. I have no RF photos up there. That's my plan for how to best use their service. I also have the images priced the same as small publications already pay me for their use, which is $20 an image. I'm not price cutting or competing with myself by selling the same photos for a dollar on some Micro site. They are only on FP.

RT can you help me understand this? You decide how best to confuse buyers by pricing and licensing them how you want. Since you listed it as your major objection?

Am I avoiding this objection by only selling editorial and always selling at a set price.

BTW I agree with the point that numerous people have made. 70% of nothing is still nothing! The standard phrase I like to use is, 20% of something is much more than 100% of nothing!  ;D

Then there's another point of work and profit, and why I price my pictures the way I do. I'd rather sit for nothing than work for nothing! So I won't sell out and reduce the prices of my work, down to nothing. If someone can't pay a fair price for a photo, I'd rather not sell it at all.
« Last Edit: May 06, 2008, 13:45 by RacePhoto »

RT


« Reply #29 on: May 06, 2008, 18:03 »
0

RT can you help me understand this? You decide how best to confuse buyers by pricing and licensing them how you want. Since you listed it as your major objection?


Hi Pete,

Where do I start:

Firstly, the actions of one have a reaction on the appearence of others, so for example and without wanting to insult anybody else, you and I may understand the difference in image licensing but as Featurepics is a site that attracts a lot of amatuers there are many that don't, and as a result of this there are images on Featurepics being sold as RM that are also on offer at other sites as RF.

Secondly, take the position of a potential buyer who is sourcing images for a client, like on any other site they go through the search results and put some desirable images in a lightbox to show the client, the client picks a few and the discussion comes round to pricing, "Well Mr..... if you choose this image it will be X amount, if you choose this one it will be Y amount" etc etc, or you can go to 99% of any other site and be able to give one quote, which site do you think a buyer would choose?

Thirdly, there's the competition amongst fellow contributors trying to undercut each other, and even themselves by pricing images above other sites where they sell the same stuff. This wouldn't be a problem for a long established agency with a loyal customer base because people will pay extra for known reliability, but Featurepics is a nobody in the stock world trying to attract customers from other agencies ( by telepathy I presume ) or first time buyers through the self marketed leads of the contributors.

I compare their whole pricing system to going into a shop and selecting six Oranges, then getting to the checkout to be told 'that one is 50cents, that one is $12 those two are $4.50 and the last two are $100 each and can only be eaten indoors on a Sunday'! Would I buy them there or go next door where Oranges are $1 each?

Obviously I've generalised in my examples and there are exceptions to the rules, but that is/was my fundamental objection and reason for leaving Featurepics, IMO they will never be a success but will probably continue at the rate they are now and have been since they started because they don't appear to have much in the way of overheads and the small amount of sales probably cover that nicely.

You asked my opinion and I gave it, I'm not saying it's right or wrong and no doubt others will disagree, good luck whatever you decide to do there.

Richard



« Last Edit: May 06, 2008, 18:06 by RT »

RacePhoto

« Reply #30 on: May 06, 2008, 21:36 »
0
I love a good analogy, even if it is about oranges.  ;)  But it does explain what you meant.

I was looking at the site from my own perspective, and not watching what others may be doing, or thinking from a buyers viewpoint.

I don't sell anything RF that I sell RM elsewhere. (or visa versa)

All my photos are the same price, and if they are on FeaturePics, they are not anywhere else. If they are larger and meet the higher standards, they go to Alamy, where nothing that's on Alamy RM is anywhere else on the web. (I have one RF photo up there from my member application photos)

It's a nice way to separate my first tier editorial from the smaller size and possibly not as high quality. That makes FeaturePics and outlet for one part of the market, that I wouldn't have up for sale otherwise.

I'm sometimes teased by the thought of going to SS for the same photos, which would mean close the FP account, and then I'd have to have 56 sales to get the same profit. I'm not sure I want to sell out my work yet for a quarter.

For the stock, that I enjoy and produce just for stock, that's fine. I know coming in that it's going up on Microstock.

For motorsports, or automotive, I'm not going to do that. They are a smaller selective market, with limited access. I'm not going to get into a price war in that area.  ;D

RT


« Reply #31 on: May 07, 2008, 01:18 »
0
Pete,

The way that you describe Featurepics for selling your images sounds right, however not everybody has the same idea.



 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
5 Replies
5195 Views
Last post December 29, 2008, 06:22
by galanter
4 Replies
3137 Views
Last post January 30, 2009, 02:47
by josh_crestock
0 Replies
3189 Views
Last post April 08, 2010, 12:20
by ason
10 Replies
6275 Views
Last post April 30, 2010, 19:20
by louoates
6 Replies
4424 Views
Last post March 16, 2011, 14:14
by cathyslife

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results