... is that, although downloads don't appear as often as at other places, they pay well when they come. Like today, I sold a $7 photo, generating $4.90 for me. And to make it even better, it was a photo that was found "not stockworthy" at all other agencies.

Quote from: epixx on February 08, 2008, 01:27
... is that, although downloads don't appear as often as at other places, they pay well when they come. Like today, I sold a $7 photo, generating $4.90 for me. And to make it even better, it was a photo that was found "not stockworthy" at all other agencies.

try alamy 6 sales my cut over $1000 on images that are "not stock"

I asked FP to remove my portfolio today after a dismal year of sales.  The first year was okay, but in 2007 I had several spurts where for several months at a time there wasn't a single sale.  That sucks on a portfolio of 1500.  I'm going the Rustyphil route instead..."non-stock" goes to Alamy, where my cut is 65% and I don't have to wait 14 months just to earn $50.

I keep thinking FP will start to sell and then a month goes by with nothing.  I am leaving my portfolio there but wont upload any more.  There are too many other sites to upload to that are making money.

Featurepics is a site that I always hope will thrive, but seems to be stagnating. The occasional sale keeps me vaguely interested, but they do not get priority when I am uploading. I got a payout in May 07, and think I will get another one this year!

They need to advertise more.  This board is the only place where I have ever heard of them. 

I only joined in December, so I'm not nearly ready to bail.  But I have hit the point where they are an afterthought when it comes to new uploads, and I don't check my $0 earnings balance nearly as often as I used to.

Yeah! sales are slow and very intermittent. Just when you think of maybe leaving a sale pops in with a decent commission.

Will hang on there for another while.
Wish it was more lively.

sales tick along for me, but I would happily take a cut in commission down to 50 or 60% if they were to put the extra in advertising

FP is increasing for me, but slowly. I upload micro images at micro prices there and macro images at macro prices. That's convenient, since it's the only place where I can have all my images.

epixx, have you sold any there at macro prices?  I have some RM images on alamy but haven't uploaded them to FP.

Quote from: rustyphil on February 08, 2008, 11:55
sales tick along for me, but I would happily take a cut in commission down to 50 or 60% if they were to put the extra in advertising

I accord to this. May be positive for all.

Quote from: sharpshot on February 08, 2008, 15:51
epixx, have you sold any there at macro prices?  I have some RM images on alamy but haven't uploaded them to FP.

I have macro and midstock images sold there (not too many of course and my portfolio is pretty large)

Quote from: rustyphil on February 08, 2008, 11:55
sales tick along for me, but I would happily take a cut in commission down to 50 or 60% if they were to put the extra in advertising

I agree with you

Quote from: Karimala on February 08, 2008, 07:13in 2007 I had several spurts where for several months at a time there wasn't a single sale.  That sucks on a portfolio of 1500.

It's just a mystery why some people sell good at site A and bad at site B, and other people vice-versa. I started at LO and at FP at the same time with almost the same port, and I had to quit LO with 15$ and at FP I'm on my way to 3-th payout. With a smaller port and inferior to yours.

Crazy, huh?     I've actually done better at Image Vortex $$$ wise with a mere 38 photos online in 6 months than I have at FP with 1500 photos in 2 years.  Oh well...my decision to leave FP will benefit everyone else who is sticking it out. 

Sorry folks, but I'll say it again - there ain't gonna be no progress at Featurepics while they pay 70% commission and retain only 30% for themselves.  By the time they've paid running costs there ain't no dosh left for advertising, marketing or promotional activities.

A dead parrot is always a dead parrot, and unless contributors start to realise that LOWER commission plus increased marketing equals better sales and more money, this parrot will remain dead.

Give me 20% at iStock and 2.7 million customers, or 30c at Shutterstock and 70 or 80 downloads a day.  But FP?  Sorry - doesn't make the slightest bit of business sense.

Quote from: hatman12 on February 08, 2008, 22:19
Sorry folks, but I'll say it again - there ain't gonna be no progress at Featurepics while they pay 70% commission and retain only 30% for themselves.  By the time they've paid running costs there ain't no dosh left for advertising, marketing or promotional activities.

As they sell images at much higher prices than istock, they should be able to make enough from the 30% to advertise.  People are selling some images at macro prices there.  I think they either didn't start out with enough money for marketing or they have been doing things wrong.

I like FP but I don't make any money. The same images on IS are selling hundreds per month.

20% of $$$$$ = $
70% of 0 = 0

If I need to invest time promoting a site, I might as well promote my own and make 100%.

FP 70% is a noble cause, but apparantly not a profitable one.

Quote from: sharpshot on February 08, 2008, 15:51
epixx, have you sold any there at macro prices?  I have some RM images on alamy but haven't uploaded them to FP.

No, not yet, but the average price of the photos sold is going up, as well as the sales volume.

Quote from: Karimala on February 08, 2008, 21:49
Crazy, huh?     I've actually done better at Image Vortex $$$ wise with a mere 38 photos online in 6 months than I have at FP with 1500 photos in 2 years.  Oh well...my decision to leave FP will benefit everyone else who is sticking it out. 

Amazing. I've had 60+ photos at Imagevortex for over two years, and haven't sold a single one, while sales are ticking happily along at FP. 2006 was extremely slow, 2007 was slow and now I'm seeing a very positive development.

I think it's important to point out, that in this business, if we don't include SS, time is on our side. Designers visit a portfolio, looking for an image, doesn't necessarily find it, but like s other things, and 6 months later, he may come back to buy an image that he saw the first time.

Writing off an agency after a year may be to early. I stop uploading after a year if I see no results, but I keep my portfolio there for at least another year, unless there are important reasons to remove it, just to see if there's any development. It doesn't cost me a dime, so why not.

Quote from: hatman12 on February 08, 2008, 22:19
Sorry folks, but I'll say it again - there ain't gonna be no progress at Featurepics while they pay 70% commission and retain only 30% for themselves.  By the time they've paid running costs there ain't no dosh left for advertising, marketing or promotional activities.

A dead parrot is always a dead parrot, and unless contributors start to realise that LOWER commission plus increased marketing equals better sales and more money, this parrot will remain dead.

Give me 20% at iStock and 2.7 million customers, or 30c at Shutterstock and 70 or 80 downloads a day.  But FP?  Sorry - doesn't make the slightest bit of business sense.

As long as they're alive, and sales are increasing, I disagree strongly. Traditionally, stock agencies have always paid around 70%, and anything less than 50% is really a rip-off. All the advertising done by IS and SS is very good for them and for their profit, but as long as that advertising gives them more momentum towards microstock agencies that pay more per image, we are the ones losing money on the advertising.

Advertising won't make designers buy more photos, since they only buy what they need, but it will make them try those agencies who advertises the most, diverting money into the pockets of IS and whoever makes their advertising.

Quote from: sharpshot on February 08, 2008, 15:51
epixx, have you sold any there at macro prices?  I have some RM images on alamy but haven't uploaded them to FP.

I have sold one RM image there.  Not much money though because of the alledged use.  Also one RF on the smallest size, got about US$14 if I remember it right.

Regards,
Adelaide

I think that it's important to remember that, even if a place like SS brings in much more money, a $10 sale at FP, generating a $7 profit, would still only generate $0.30 at SS. As long as I can have it both ways, volume at SS and higher profit per image at FP, I'll say: Yes please, I'll take both.

Quote from: hatman12 on February 08, 2008, 22:19
Sorry folks, but I'll say it again - there ain't gonna be no progress at Featurepics while they pay 70% commission and retain only 30% for themselves.  By the time they've paid running costs there ain't no dosh left for advertising, marketing or promotional activities.

A dead parrot is always a dead parrot, and unless contributors start to realise that LOWER commission plus increased marketing equals better sales and more money, this parrot will remain dead.

Give me 20% at iStock and 2.7 million customers, or 30c at Shutterstock and 70 or 80 downloads a day.  But FP?  Sorry - doesn't make the slightest bit of business sense.

I've been saying the same thing for over a year.  70% on photos with low prices just doesn't make sense, unless FP is actually expecting us to self-promote.  I've thought for a long time that their biggest mistake was not setting a minimum price that could justify and withstand 70%.  How do they expect to make enough profit to afford marketing when the majority of the images are priced at micro prices? 

Quote from: Karimala on February 09, 2008, 03:26

Quote from: hatman12 on February 08, 2008, 22:19
Sorry folks, but I'll say it again - there ain't gonna be no progress at Featurepics while they pay 70% commission and retain only 30% for themselves.  By the time they've paid running costs there ain't no dosh left for advertising, marketing or promotional activities.

A dead parrot is always a dead parrot, and unless contributors start to realise that LOWER commission plus increased marketing equals better sales and more money, this parrot will remain dead.

Give me 20% at iStock and 2.7 million customers, or 30c at Shutterstock and 70 or 80 downloads a day.  But FP?  Sorry - doesn't make the slightest bit of business sense.

I've been saying the same thing for over a year.  70% on photos with low prices just doesn't make sense, unless FP is actually expecting us to self-promote.  I've thought for a long time that their biggest mistake was not setting a minimum price that could justify and withstand 70%.  How do they expect to make enough profit to afford marketing when the majority of the images are priced at micro prices? 

That's a valid question. I believe many photographers set their prices low at FP because the 70% will give a "decent" pay anyway. In reality, it doesn't make sense, neither for the photographer nor for FP. If a customer has found a photo at FP, the fact that it costs the same there as it would have cost at IS or DT won't make him not buy it.

A minimum price of at least $5, but preferably $10, would work much better.