pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: How to divert traffics away from istock and fotolia  (Read 45402 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

« on: February 13, 2011, 22:55 »
0
Hello

Here are some simple steps we do to divert traffic from istock and fotolia to smaller sites.  Basically everyone has some kind of website or blogs. Backlinks are very important for search engine rankings. If we can get a few thousands backlinks removed , it would make a lot of difference. I think this is the only way for unhappy contributors to show displeasure of the commission cut


1. Remove all links to istock and fotolia from your website.

2. Remove all your istock and fotolia profile,badge links on forums

3. Remove all refferal links that you spread on the internet.  Stop using refferal links from these sites




Create new links on your blog/website all the other middle tier sites. If you don't have one just register a blogspot or wordpress and write a 300 words post write something nice about stock photography, then create links to these sites. Basically search engines eg. google likes good content.


Replace with the keywords below newbielink:http://www.123rf.com [nonactive] with all the other sites. eg shutterstock, dreamtimes , canstockphoto, veer, bigstock

for example

Code: newbielink:javascript:void(0); [nonactive]
<a href="http://www.123rf.com">stock photos</a>
<a href="http://www.shutterstock.com">stock photos</a>
<a href="http://www.dreamstime.com">stock photos</a>
<a href="http://www.canstockphoto.com/">stock photos</a>
The list goes on

....


You may also use the following keywords as href tag description





Code: newbielink:javascript:void(0); [nonactive]
<a href="http://www.123rf.com">royalty free images</a>
<a href="http://www.shutterstock.com">royalty free images</a>
<a href="http://www.dreamstime.com">royalty free images</a>
<a href="http://www.canstockphoto.com/">royalty free images</a>
The list goes on
....

Keywords by traffic monthly


stock photos           110000
iphoto                   90500
free images           74000
free photos           60500
free stock photos        60500
stock photo           60500
free pictures         40500
royalty free images   40500
i stock                   33100


and spread this to 5 unhappy microstock photographers.

Cheers!


reference

newbielink:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PageRank [nonactive]
« Last Edit: February 14, 2011, 23:33 by joanne.watson »


« Reply #1 on: February 14, 2011, 01:23 »
0
Well,judging by the arrows for the earnings ratings to the right, all the big 4 are down, all but one middle tier is down and many of the lower tier are up.  I would say we are beginning to see a slow shift of buyers to other sites.

« Reply #2 on: February 14, 2011, 01:37 »
0
Well, I think it works itself pretty good. Firstly major of sales occur on photographer-client basis, not agency-client. Second, from agencies micro is just tiny part. Third - did you see microstock images in Google images results? Me not...

helix7

« Reply #3 on: February 14, 2011, 01:54 »
0
Don't forget those links to istock and ft here in the forums.

« Reply #4 on: February 14, 2011, 02:12 »
0
Well,judging by the arrows for the earnings ratings to the right, all the big 4 are down, all but one middle tier is down and many of the lower tier are up.  I would say we are beginning to see a slow shift of buyers to other sites.

Don't rely on the figures on the right. They represent a small proportion of microstock contributors.

lagereek

« Reply #5 on: February 14, 2011, 02:18 »
0
Stupid post!. Who in ., in their right frame of mind have got the time to divert anything to anything. Im a photographer!
Smaller sites??  well when they get bigger,  what do you think? they gonna serve you on a gold-plate?
Sure buddy ! five minutes later they will cut your commisions.

There are no freebies in this business.
« Last Edit: February 14, 2011, 02:21 by lagereek »

« Reply #6 on: February 14, 2011, 03:10 »
0
Some of us here are exclusives so damaging IS damages ourselves.

RT


« Reply #7 on: February 14, 2011, 05:01 »
0
Hello , here are some simple steps we do to divert traffic from istock and fotolia to smaller sites. 

Thanks, have you got any more tips to help me lose money.

« Reply #8 on: February 14, 2011, 05:17 »
0
Did that a week a go  :)

vlad_the_imp

« Reply #9 on: February 14, 2011, 05:57 »
0
Quote
Some of us here are exclusives so damaging IS damages ourselves.

Exactly, what an idiot. Probably has about 200 sales in 5 years and an over inflated idea of the influence a few dozen people how might follow her steps might have, ie. zero.

« Reply #10 on: February 14, 2011, 06:13 »
0
What a f...!? >:( >:( >:(

So I need to suffer these 16% to protect your profits???

We are removing links to our portfolios not yours...
« Last Edit: February 14, 2011, 06:15 by borg »

vlad_the_imp

« Reply #11 on: February 14, 2011, 06:32 »
0
Quote
So I need to suffer these 16% to protect your profits???

Of course you don't have to suffer 16%, just remove your work from istock-simple!

« Reply #12 on: February 14, 2011, 06:40 »
0
Remove my work at Istock and redirect as much traffic as possible to other sites simple!

« Reply #13 on: February 14, 2011, 06:50 »
0
Hello , here are some simple steps we do to divert traffic from istock and fotolia to smaller sites.  Basically everyone has some kind of website or blogs. Backlinks are very important for search engine rankings. If we can get a few thousands backlinks removed , it would make a lot of difference. I think this is the only way for unhappy contributors to show displeasure of the commission cut

Earthshattering first post!

« Reply #14 on: February 14, 2011, 07:03 »
0
Quote
So I need to suffer these 16% to protect your profits???

Of course you don't have to suffer 16%, just remove your work from istock-simple!

So, where is the problem? We are talking about OUR portfolios and OUR promotion not about IS or FT complete portfolio...
If I remove my photos from iStock, probably I will make all 3 steps in first post... There is no reason to leave these links on my site, blog, etc (only if you want to leave those links for you :P)...
What is wrong if I am making campaign to bring buyers to better sites for me...?

You can doing that for your iStock portfolio...
I don't want and I can't to prohibit that to you,  it is your right and of course, this is market competition...

P.S.

I do not see No# 4 in the first post: "Customers please do not buy from Istock exclusives, because of me!!!"
« Last Edit: February 14, 2011, 07:20 by borg »

PaulieWalnuts

  • We Have Exciting News For You
« Reply #15 on: February 14, 2011, 07:30 »
0
Brilliant. Divert traffic to smaller sites. And then they'll become one of the big sites. Oh wait a minute. The big sites are cutting commissions...

« Reply #16 on: February 14, 2011, 08:16 »
0
So trying to send a semi unified statement, by removing the traffic that we can control is a bad thing ? what if by some miracle enough unhappy contributer makes an effort, and it actually made an impact wouldn't that maybe make the other stock reconsider pulling the same lame greedy decisions?

PaulieWalnuts

  • We Have Exciting News For You
« Reply #17 on: February 14, 2011, 08:27 »
0
Do a search here about the semi-unified effort that was done against Istock a few months back.

« Reply #18 on: February 14, 2011, 08:29 »
0
Brilliant. Divert traffic to smaller sites. And then they'll become one of the big sites. Oh wait a minute. The big sites are cutting commissions...

Then again, we will advertise some new small sites ... Sorry because "Robin Hood" syndrome .... ;D ;D ;D

vlad_the_imp

« Reply #19 on: February 14, 2011, 09:08 »
0
Quote
by removing the traffic that we can control is a bad thing

Attempting the remove potential buyers from a site at which a number of contributors here are exclusive is obviously not a good decision from the point of view of the exclusives, no. However, most of the people who try and involve themselves in such campaigns are usually such small fry that any success would be so minimal that it would likely to be absorbed in the general ebb and flow of buyers to the site.

« Reply #20 on: February 14, 2011, 10:07 »
0
Quote
by removing the traffic that we can control is a bad thing

Attempting the remove potential buyers from a site at which a number of contributors here are exclusive is obviously not a good decision from the point of view of the exclusives, no. However, most of the people who try and involve themselves in such campaigns are usually such small fry that any success would be so minimal that it would likely to be absorbed in the general ebb and flow of buyers to the site.

Well, some of us here are willing to take a chance and do any kind of small thing to make a difference, instead of throwing our hands up in the air and giving up.

I appreciate Joanne's post, and in fact had already taken some of the steps she talks about. Sorry about you exclusives, you will have to make up your own minds about what is good for you. And if you choose to stay with those greedy agencies, you don't have to berate others for trying to do something constructive for themselves.

And some of us who are small fries might become big fries if it weren't for the constant greediness and taking of our royalties.

vlad_the_imp

« Reply #21 on: February 14, 2011, 10:12 »
0
Quote
instead of throwing our hands up in the air and giving up.

I haven't 'thrown my hands up and given up'. Firstly my percentage for my main collection hasn't been cut. Secondly I have more useful things to do to improve my income than 'diverting traffic to smaller sites', whatever that will do ( hint-nothing)

Quote
And some of us who are small fries might become big fries

It's nothing to do with greediness of agencies, more to do with talent.

WarrenPrice

« Reply #22 on: February 14, 2011, 10:21 »
0
Quote
instead of throwing our hands up in the air and giving up.

I haven't 'thrown my hands up and given up'. Firstly my percentage for my main collection hasn't been cut. Secondly I have more useful things to do to improve my income than 'diverting traffic to smaller sites', whatever that will do ( hint-nothing)

Quote
And some of us who are small fries might become big fries

It's nothing to do with greediness of agencies, more to do with talent.

I don't get the part about talent?

vlad_the_imp

« Reply #23 on: February 14, 2011, 10:34 »
0
^ You become a big fry if you're talented enough, IMHO.

« Reply #24 on: February 14, 2011, 10:40 »
0
^ You become a big fry if you're talented enough, IMHO.

That is just your opinion, which I totally disagree with. But you are certainly entitled to your opinion.

If it weren't for IS's greediness, I would still be shooting, still be improving. Since I was already at the gold level, I would be working my way towards the next little icon, whatever that was. Diamond? The talent must have been there, otherwise I wouldn't have made it to gold, would I have? And to advance any further, I either 1. needed more money to buy bigger and better equipment and hire models or 2. join your club and become an exclusive. Neither was a reality for me, and it has nothing to do with talent.  ;)


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
36 Replies
26353 Views
Last post April 02, 2008, 11:57
by Waldo4
4 Replies
4796 Views
Last post May 30, 2008, 07:24
by Adeptris
35 Replies
13786 Views
Last post January 15, 2009, 17:19
by Whiz
20 Replies
7551 Views
Last post April 30, 2009, 05:23
by OM
7 Replies
5126 Views
Last post June 18, 2010, 20:24
by Phil

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors