Author Topic: Free photos locked in for 5 years at Fotolia (Read 23140 times)

lisafx · « **Reply #25 on:** December 15, 2009, 18:01 »

Quote from: xposurepro on December 14, 2009, 21:34

5 days or 5 years .. this shouldn't even be a discussion .. give your pictures away for free and you are not going to make more sales .. only encourage the social/business acceptance of free stock photos in the industry ... this is a business people .. don't screw it up for serious photographers because you just think it's a fun hobby .. go start a personal blog and give your stuff away for free there.

FWIW, I am no hobbyist. I do this FT. It is my business. And it is a successful one.

You don't have to agree, but giving away a few free samples to attract customers and boost overall sales is a time honored tradition in business.

Giving a few freebies on various sites has not hurt my bottom line at all. It can be argued that it has upped my visibility, at least on DT and possibly 123.

I had hoped it would do the same on Fotolia, but the way their free program is structured it doesn't help the photographer at all. I just got done buying back all my free images at FT. Well worth it to not have my images locked in there.

RT · « **Reply #26 on:** December 15, 2009, 18:39 »

Quote from: lisafx on December 15, 2009, 18:01

You don't have to agree, but giving away a few free samples to attract customers and boost overall sales is a time honored tradition in business.

I agree with this, it's an old retail trick that microstock sites have adopted, but in typical fashion they've adopted it with a few twists.

In retail it's generally the retailer that takes the hit not the supplier because the idea of loss leaders is to introduce the consumer to more profitable lines irrelevant of the supplier and thus boost the retailers nett profit. The microstock version still enables the retailer (or agency in this case) to introduce buyers to a more profitable line the main difference is they expect the supplier (i.e. us) to take the hit whilst they take none.

Here's something that anybody considering offering free images in order to boost their sales should try and it will help reinforce my point, go onto any site offering free images and download one, you will get the image and the title will be the agency name followed by the file number, in the exif data will be the creators name which in 8 out of the 10 examples I tried were different to their username on the site, now wait a week and go back to buy an image from the person who's free image you downloaded, you'll know which agency it was because their name is the first part of the title, good luck finding the contributor!

Don't get me wrong I'm no saint and did offer a few images when I started out, I didn't notice any boost whatsoever but I accept that some may have.

Edited to add: I would go for the iStock (not that I'd ever get it) or Shutterstock free image deal where it's featured on the front page, that to me is like good value for money advertising.

gostwyck · « **Reply #27 on:** December 15, 2009, 19:15 »

Quote from: RT on December 15, 2009, 18:39

In retail it's generally the retailer that takes the hit not the supplier because the idea of loss leaders is to introduce the consumer to more profitable lines irrelevant of the supplier and thus boost the retailers nett profit.

Being as we almost invariably get less than 50% commission from the agencies that offer free images then surely the 'retailer' is taking a bigger hit than us from these free downloads? They also have to pay for the marketing and the bandwidth to supply them in the first place. FT is even offering to pay us for our proven non-sellers __ something that obviously no other buyer has done for the couple of years they've been online.

Having said that I've personally never given any free images to those agencies as I just feel too removed from the transaction. I've given occasional freebies to the few regular commercial clients I have but that's on a much more personal level.

lisafx · « **Reply #28 on:** December 15, 2009, 19:23 »

Quote from: RT on December 15, 2009, 18:39

In retail it's generally the retailer that takes the hit not the supplier because the idea of loss leaders is to introduce the consumer to more profitable lines irrelevant of the supplier and thus boost the retailers nett profit. The microstock version still enables the retailer (or agency in this case) to introduce buyers to a more profitable line the main difference is they expect the supplier (i.e. us) to take the hit whilst they take none.

Excellent point Richard, about the supplier taking the hit in the micro free image model.

The (hypothetical, I admit) extra exposure on 123 and DT is that when you click on the free image to download it you also see a variety of, much better, paid images from that contributor's portfolio which hopefully will entice you to buy something

Also, on Dreamstime rumor has it that donating free images helps boost your overall search position. I don't know if that is true for sure, but since my search positions are pretty strong it could be having an influence.

FWIW, though, I stopped donating freebies at 123 a few months back and haven't seen any change at all in my downloads. So maybe you guys are right and it doesn't work.

I just wanted to let Xposurepro know it isn't only hobbyists who have tried donating.

stockastic · « **Reply #29 on:** December 15, 2009, 19:32 »

These are web startups. They have no concept of a future beyond next month and they're trying anything and everything they can think of to make more money today, without any thought of a "next year". That doesn't make them bad people, but they certainly don't care about the success of their contributors, who after all are just a bunch of faceless records in a database as far as they're concerned.

disorderly · « **Reply #30 on:** December 15, 2009, 19:41 »

Quote from: stockastic on December 15, 2009, 19:32

These are web startups. They have no concept of a future beyond next month and they're trying anything and everything they can think of to make more money today, without any thought of a "next year".

You're wrong, Stockastic. I've been contributing for four years now and have seen strong signs that many of these agencies are serious about creating successful and sustainable businesses. I lived through the dotcom era, and was likely a lot closer to the insanity than you. And I'll tell you that I don't see the sort of shortsighted management decisions that led to so many failures, both dramatic and barely noticed.

In fact, I'd say the successful micros are far more like traditional businesses than like dotcom era startups. I doubt any of them are running at a loss, burning through millions of VC dollars. They're trying to find a balance between their investors, suppliers and customers. Some are doing better at that than others.

stockastic · « **Reply #31 on:** December 15, 2009, 20:24 »

Quote from: disorderly on December 15, 2009, 19:41

I lived through the dotcom era, and was likely a lot closer to the insanity than you.

Or maybe not. I'm a software developer and once worked for a startup that went through $70 million before folding.

I have no inside contacts in microstock so I don't know what the owners are really thinking. I do seem to be seeing new marketing schemes, subscription plans, commission structures and supplier rules being introduced every other week, which is somewhat familiar.

Only time will tell, of course.

disorderly · « **Reply #32 on:** December 15, 2009, 21:01 »

Quote from: stockastic on December 15, 2009, 20:24

Quote from: disorderly on December 15, 2009, 19:41
I lived through the dotcom era, and was likely a lot closer to the insanity than you.

Or maybe not. I'm a software developer and once worked for a startup that went through $70 million before folding.

I suspect I had a better view of management, having worked in senior roles at four startups, as well as four very large and well known computer firms. Having been in sales or marketing at each firm, I worked closely with both product development and the corporate decision makers. Three of the four startups never showed a profit, spending furiously to get the attention of customers well in advance of having anything those customers could use. I also had connections to a lot more Silicon Valley firms where the patter was repeated ad nauseum.

That's generally not true of the micros, which have a handle on their expenses, know what business they're in and can see how much they're making. The big question is how much to spend on infrastructure, on marketing and on paying suppliers (i.e. us). Where a tech startup expects to lose money in search of market share, for a while at least, someone like Getty expects their micro investments to make money, and a lot of it. They see it as a cash cow, and they'll milk that baby until it runs dry. On the other hand, some of the micros seem more interested in a long term game. They're still learning the rules of the game, including how much they can change them before we do more than squawk, but their goals are both to grow and make money.

stockastic · « **Reply #33 on:** December 15, 2009, 21:10 »

It's been an impressive first 4 years for these companies. They've reduced the price of a quality stock photo to 25 cents.

Tomboy2290 · « **Reply #34 on:** December 15, 2009, 23:25 »

Quote from: Freedom on December 14, 2009, 09:56

I just looked again, there is no drop down menu at "add to free section" both at the middle and bottom of the page. If someone else finds the feature, please post. Thanks.

On the unsold files page, check (select the box on the left) the donated pics.
Then the "add to free section" list drops down and you can select "remove from free section"

Yes this works, I have just removed all the images I had in the free section. And 50 cents was deducted from my earnings for each image.

lisafx · « **Reply #35 on:** December 16, 2009, 11:05 »

Quote from: stockastic on December 15, 2009, 21:10

It's been an impressive first 4 years for these companies. They've reduced the price of a quality stock photo to 25 cents.

I get your point about the micros reducing the price of stock, but although the .25 number gets tossed out there a lot, most micro images sell for considerably more these days.

When I started shooting micro 5 years ago my average sale was around .32. It has gradually increased to where it is around a dollar now.

And yes, that is still really, really low, I admit. But back in the day when stock sold for hundreds or thousands of dollars it was a pretty closed club and most of us here would never have been allowed in.

stockastic · « **Reply #36 on:** December 16, 2009, 11:22 »

Quote from: lisafx on December 16, 2009, 11:05

And yes, that is still really, really low, I admit. But back in the day when stock sold for hundreds or thousands of dollars it was a pretty closed club and most of us here would never have been allowed in.

Those are all good points. But at this point, things have gone too far. A perfect 'buyers' market has been created where contributors have no leverage . It's all been said here before - the micros intially took in enormous quantities of junk, buyers lost their sense of quality, if it's on the web it should be free, etc. Somehow the pendulum has to start swinging back in the other direction. There has to be a new kind of market where people producing unique, high quality imagery can somehow get it in front of buyers who will see the difference and pay a few dollars for it.

Like I said, the owners of these microstocks aren't necessarily bad people. I just think they've created a big mess that's going to take quite a while to unwind itself.

PeterChigmaroff · « **Reply #37 on:** December 16, 2009, 12:10 »

Quote from: stockastic on December 16, 2009, 11:22

Quote from: lisafx on December 16, 2009, 11:05
And yes, that is still really, really low, I admit. But back in the day when stock sold for hundreds or thousands of dollars it was a pretty closed club and most of us here would never have been allowed in.

Those are all good points. But at this point, things have gone too far. A perfect 'buyers' market has been created where contributors have no leverage . It's all been said here before - the micros intially took in enormous quantities of junk, buyers lost their sense of quality, if it's on the web it should be free, etc. Somehow the pendulum has to start swinging back in the other direction. There has to be a new kind of market where people producing unique, high quality imagery can somehow get it in front of buyers who will see the difference and pay a few dollars for it.

Like I said, the owners of these microstocks aren't necessarily bad people. I just think they've created a big mess that's going to take quite a while to unwind itself.

I have to agree with stockastic. There is so much room for higher prices. Submitting free images on the off chance someone might like your portfolio seems a waste of time. After all there is no other reason to do this. Who trolls for free images anyway? Make enough available and fewer and fewer images will sell even for the current pathetic rates. Unfortunately there has never been much of distinction on who easy or difficult an image is to create and how much you could sell if for. You could almost literally die making an image, like that woeful couple with their kid did for Fotolia, or you can shoot it while driving to work in 3 seconds. Your child eating lunch or 15 paid models in a unique setting. All sell for the same price. You can argue the shot with models will sell more but not necessarily at all. It should sell for more though. Should... hmmph, there's an overused word.

elvinstar · « **Reply #38 on:** December 16, 2009, 12:14 »

Quote

When I started shooting micro 5 years ago my average sale was around .32. It has gradually increased to where it is around a dollar now.

I would be much more upset about things if we could only sell our images ONCE at the mentioned prices! The bottom line is that whether you get .25 or $2, it's how often an image sells that is the real number to watch.

Just my two cents.

PeterChigmaroff · « **Reply #39 on:** December 16, 2009, 12:35 »

Quote from: elvinstar on December 16, 2009, 12:14

Quote
When I started shooting micro 5 years ago my average sale was around .32. It has gradually increased to where it is around a dollar now.

I would be much more upset about things if we could only sell our images ONCE at the mentioned prices! The bottom line is that whether you get .25 or $2, it's how often an image sells that is the real number to watch.

Just my two cents.

Not really, simple math dictates that you get the same money whether your image sells 4 times as many times or for 4 times as much. You want both to peak for a given market.

stockastic · « **Reply #40 on:** December 16, 2009, 13:01 »

Quote from: elvinstar on December 16, 2009, 12:14

The bottom line is that whether you get .25 or $2, it's how often an image sells that is the real number to watch.

That's a big part of what's wrong. In this market the only products that make money are those that sell in mass quantities. There's no place for photos that appeal to a small number of buyers who would gladly pay a few dollars instead of 25 cents. No one will produce those photos for microstock so that entire portion of the market is left to macro, I guess. Take a walk through the next "Everything's $1" store you pass by in the mall. What sort of things do you see in there?

elvinstar · « **Reply #41 on:** December 16, 2009, 15:30 »

Then why do you guys submit?

stockastic · « **Reply #42 on:** December 16, 2009, 16:06 »

Actually I haven't been submitting for weeks, I got bummed out after about 10 months. All my images sell, but not in enough quantity to make it worth doing more at these miserable prices. The things I shoot tend to be unusual objects. Maybe macro would pay off, but it's a PITA compared to micro. That's what I'm complaining about - I want something in the middle, where I can charge a little more for my 'niche' images. There is no good reason micro should be leaving all that money on the table - they've just gotten themselves locked into a one-size-fits-all pricing model. Give me some pricing tiers and some choice.

ap · « **Reply #43 on:** December 16, 2009, 16:12 »

Quote from: stockastic on December 16, 2009, 16:06

Actually I haven't been submitting for weeks, I got bummed out after about 10 months. All my images sell, but not in enough quantity to make it worth doing more at these miserable prices. The things I shoot tend to be unusual objects. Maybe macro would pay off, but it's a PITA compared to micro. That's what I'm complaining about - I want something in the middle, where I can charge a little more for my 'niche' images. There is no good reason micro should be leaving all that money on the table - they've just gotten themselves locked into a one-size-fits-all pricing model. Give me some pricing tiers and some choice.

there seem to be a lot of viable options available to you, but you don't seem to be making an effort since it's such a 'PITA'. i'd say alamy is great for niche images, cutcaster for setting your own prices, etc. the turnover is not that great, but that just reflect the buyers market place, not what agencies are trying to offer.

if ever there is an agency that offers both high prices and high turnover, you'll probably be trampled under by all the competition trying to get into the door.

stockastic · « **Reply #44 on:** December 16, 2009, 16:22 »

I tried CutCaster, and set everything at $5, and have yet to make a single sale. I don't even get any views. In theory CutCaster is exactly what I want, but it's not happening yet.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Free photos locked in for 5 years at Fotolia (Read 23140 times)

lisafx

RT

gostwyck

lisafx

stockastic

disorderly

stockastic

disorderly

stockastic

Tomboy2290

lisafx

stockastic

PeterChigmaroff

elvinstar

PeterChigmaroff

stockastic

elvinstar

stockastic

ap

stockastic

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors