pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: How to divert traffics away from istock and fotolia  (Read 45389 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #100 on: February 15, 2011, 12:23 »
0
This is really a discussion for independent photographers...obviously you would be against it if you were exclusive, and I am not sure why anyone is still exclusive, we've seen the numbers comparisons so many times and you just don't make more money as exclusive but thats another discussion, people seem to get emotionally entrenched in a stock site not sure why but if you simply look at your spread sheets you would make better decisions if you only took into account the numbers. Thats what the OP did, simply stop promoting sites that cause you to lose money, it is simple basic business sense detached from how you feel about a company. Anyway it seems the negative comments are all from exclusive photographers, it is not even worth de-railing this very useful and constructive thread to explain to those Negative-Nancys the simple logic of why one would chose to tell a buyer to buy an image from a site where they would earn more money rather than sending buyers to a site you know you will earn less at.  I like to compare the exclusives and Wooyayers to Patty Hearst and the Stockholm Syndrome thing.  There is a real psychological disorder where people will begin protecting and befriending their captors, it's a mechanism to help us reduce the emotional pain from being stripped of our dignity (15% commisions) it makes us feel like we are in control of the situation.  Stop protecting sites that kidnap and abuse you...there is hope out there in the rest of the stock world and thankfully it has not been completely monopolized yet as long as there are choices for buyers we won't get totally screwed but as soon as only istock is left you can be sure our commission will drop to 5%. Support a competitive free market while it lasts.


« Reply #101 on: February 15, 2011, 12:44 »
0
This remind me on Microsoft story. Nobody likes Microsoft but still 90% of the people are using Windows and Linux is for free.
 Why??? It's the same answer for iStock?
Well , whatever small fish do the big one will double the bait($$$)
They are too big and strong to beat them. You can join them or vanish.  It's your choice.


One more thing, who is the big fish?
http://siteanalytics.compete.com/istockphoto.com+shutterstock.com/


is the Alexa data of "reach" the same as "unique visitors" which is what the siteanalytics is showing.
Or you can look at alexa:

The last time this conflict of stats occurred, I asked if anyone could interpret the figures, and no-one offered.
Can I ask again, please? By which I mean how each site gathers their statistics, therefore why they are so different.

« Reply #102 on: February 15, 2011, 12:56 »
0
what else can we do? at least someone is doing something ....
« Last Edit: February 15, 2011, 12:59 by yuliang11 »

« Reply #103 on: February 15, 2011, 13:08 »
0
Quote
and you just don't make more money as exclusive but thats another discussion

Well let's add it to the discussion here, as you've made such a definitive statement. How do you know that? What figures do you use in your 'spread sheets'?

« Reply #104 on: February 15, 2011, 13:10 »
0
This OP, must surely qualify for the moron of the year award, lets not feed the troll.

hi moron

WarrenPrice

« Reply #105 on: February 15, 2011, 13:17 »
0
This OP, must surely qualify for the moron of the year award, lets not feed the troll.

hi moron

Feed the troll?  You seem to be the one doing all the feeding (trolling).  Have you anything positive to offer?

« Reply #106 on: February 15, 2011, 13:20 »
0
This is really a discussion for independent photographers...obviously you would be against it if you were exclusive, and I am not sure why anyone is still exclusive, we've seen the numbers comparisons so many times and you just don't make more money as exclusive but thats another discussion, people seem to get emotionally entrenched in a stock site not sure why but if you simply look at your spread sheets you would make better decisions if you only took into account the numbers.

Replace "photographers" with artists or contributors and you will be more accurate in your statement. Im an exclusive and not entirely against driving buyers away from istock if it means in the long run that they will increase commission percentages to the artists.
Where is the numbers comparisons that your talking about?? I somehow doubt this to be true now. I  think some of the most talented are exclusive but that just my biased opinion  ::) time is money for us

« Reply #107 on: February 15, 2011, 13:52 »
0
This really is a major de-railment to this thread. I made my decision to go independent based on the RPIs which have been posted many times in forums by exclusives from istock/fotolia as compared to independents.  Note: I have only been tracking photography numbers, vector artists will have significantly different numbers. What I have determined and the reason why most people who do stock photography are not exclusive (only 14% of istock is exclusive) is that if you submit to the top 9 micro sites (plus alamy) you will earn around twice the RPI (hence twice the overall earnings). for independents with 9 sites plus alamy it seems to be between $1-1.50 RPI (I earn $1.35) if you add up RPIs for all sites. If you are earning in that RPI range as exclusive after recent cuts than there is no reason to go independent, but most aren't. And after the recent cuts I am very happy i did not lock myself into an exclusive contract.  While I feel confident in the numbers I have been working with, as soon as leaf publishes a more complete breakdown of earnings for his 2010 survey we will once and for all have definitive RPI averages....that will be much more scientific than my piecing together of various peoples RPIs posted over the years. I look forward to seeing some real hard data. Perhaps I will just create an RPI poll myself, that might be interesting. I understand there are other reasons than the money to not go independent... some people simply don't want to spend the time to upload to 10 sites which is a totally valid argument.

Out of respect for the original poster I really am not trying to open up pandoras pox here in this thread. We can further this discussion in another thread if needed.
« Last Edit: February 15, 2011, 14:02 by lightscribe »

« Reply #108 on: February 15, 2011, 14:05 »
0
OK, I was just curious on what your figures are based. I'd say the majority of top sellers are exclusive because the benefits are strong and most are happy with their income and, judging by the experience of those who've given up exclusivity, feel dropping exclusivity would not be a good move at the moment.

« Reply #109 on: February 15, 2011, 14:09 »
0
OK, I was just curious on what your figures are based. I'd say the majority of top sellers are exclusive because the benefits are strong and most are happy with their income and, judging by the experience of those who've given up exclusivity, feel dropping exclusivity would not be a good move at the moment.

The majority of top sellers are not exclusive....Yuri and most of the other big names are all independents there are a few exceptions of course.

helix7

« Reply #110 on: February 15, 2011, 14:11 »
0
Oh well, blimey, I must be stupid??  I have always been under the impression we uploaded our shots to earn money NOT for doing favors. "favours" is not exactly something that works in our cut-throat business.

You're completely misinterpreting what I wrote. I'm not looking to do anyone any favors. I'm certainly not going to actively help out any microstock agency with their promotional efforts or go out of my way to drive traffic to any particular site. I am only choosing to use the referral options at my disposal (this site, my own personal website, etc) to provide links only to sites that I feel are operating fairly with artists. I'm not doing StockFresh or GL any favors by promoting them over anyone else. I'm just opting not to promote istock and FT. That's all.

You are correct, I upload images to earn money. The cut-throat nature of our business you mention is exactly why I don't offer buyers who visit my website any links to istock or fotolia.

« Reply #111 on: February 15, 2011, 14:14 »
0
This really is a major de-railment to this thread. I made my decision to go independent based on the RPIs which have been posted many times in forums by exclusives from istock/fotolia as compared to independents.  Note: I have only been tracking photography numbers, vector artists will have significantly different numbers. What I have determined and the reason why most people who do stock photography are not exclusive (only 14% of istock is exclusive) is that if you submit to the top 9 micro sites (plus alamy) you will earn around twice the RPI (hence twice the overall earnings). for independents with 9 sites plus alamy it seems to be between $1-1.50 RPI (I earn $1.35) if you add up RPIs for all sites. If you are earning in that RPI range as exclusive after recent cuts than there is no reason to go independent, but most aren't. And after the recent cuts I am very happy i did not lock myself into an exclusive contract.  While I feel confident in the numbers I have been working with, as soon as leaf publishes a more complete breakdown of earnings for his 2010 survey we will once and for all have definitive RPI averages....that will be much more scientific than my piecing together of various peoples RPIs posted over the years. I look forward to seeing some real hard data. Perhaps I will just create an RPI poll myself, that might be interesting. I understand there are other reasons than the money to not go independent... some people simply don't want to spend the time to upload to 10 sites which is a totally valid argument.

Out of respect for the original poster I really am not trying to open up pandoras pox here in this thread. We can further this discussion in another thread if needed.

lightscribe you have no idea of what you're talking about, but keep it up it's funny stuff.

« Reply #112 on: February 15, 2011, 14:19 »
0
Quote
The majority of top sellers are not exclusive.

I've just looked at the IS contributors chart, I'd say ( although more have hidden their identities now and I agree not all members are on there) the majority are exclusive, the large majority I've always understood too.

lagereek

« Reply #113 on: February 15, 2011, 14:30 »
0
This really is a major de-railment to this thread. I made my decision to go independent based on the RPIs which have been posted many times in forums by exclusives from istock/fotolia as compared to independents.  Note: I have only been tracking photography numbers, vector artists will have significantly different numbers. What I have determined and the reason why most people who do stock photography are not exclusive (only 14% of istock is exclusive) is that if you submit to the top 9 micro sites (plus alamy) you will earn around twice the RPI (hence twice the overall earnings). for independents with 9 sites plus alamy it seems to be between $1-1.50 RPI (I earn $1.35) if you add up RPIs for all sites. If you are earning in that RPI range as exclusive after recent cuts than there is no reason to go independent, but most aren't. And after the recent cuts I am very happy i did not lock myself into an exclusive contract.  While I feel confident in the numbers I have been working with, as soon as leaf publishes a more complete breakdown of earnings for his 2010 survey we will once and for all have definitive RPI averages....that will be much more scientific than my piecing together of various peoples RPIs posted over the years. I look forward to seeing some real hard data. Perhaps I will just create an RPI poll myself, that might be interesting. I understand there are other reasons than the money to not go independent... some people simply don't want to spend the time to upload to 10 sites which is a totally valid argument.


Agree 100%,  what the poor sods dont realize is: theyre not hurting anybody but themselves!  all the other agencies, etc, will know exactly whom to look out for IF theyre getting bigger and when the time comes for them to start slashing rates, etc.
Boy oh boy how stupid, talk about backfiring!

Out of respect for the original poster I really am not trying to open up pandoras pox here in this thread. We can further this discussion in another thread if needed.

lightscribe you have no idea of what you're talking about, but keep it up it's funny stuff.

« Reply #114 on: February 15, 2011, 14:43 »
0
This really is a major de-railment to this thread. I made my decision to go independent based on the RPIs which have been posted many times in forums by exclusives from istock/fotolia as compared to independents.  Note: I have only been tracking photography numbers, vector artists will have significantly different numbers. What I have determined and the reason why most people who do stock photography are not exclusive (only 14% of istock is exclusive) is that if you submit to the top 9 micro sites (plus alamy) you will earn around twice the RPI (hence twice the overall earnings). for independents with 9 sites plus alamy it seems to be between $1-1.50 RPI (I earn $1.35) if you add up RPIs for all sites. If you are earning in that RPI range as exclusive after recent cuts than there is no reason to go independent, but most aren't. And after the recent cuts I am very happy i did not lock myself into an exclusive contract.  While I feel confident in the numbers I have been working with, as soon as leaf publishes a more complete breakdown of earnings for his 2010 survey we will once and for all have definitive RPI averages....that will be much more scientific than my piecing together of various peoples RPIs posted over the years. I look forward to seeing some real hard data. Perhaps I will just create an RPI poll myself, that might be interesting. I understand there are other reasons than the money to not go independent... some people simply don't want to spend the time to upload to 10 sites which is a totally valid argument.

Out of respect for the original poster I really am not trying to open up pandoras pox here in this thread. We can further this discussion in another thread if needed.

lightscribe you have no idea of what you're talking about, but keep it up it's funny stuff.

Eyedesign,  All I know about other people's numbers is what I've read in forums, I am always happy to take back anything I have said that is wrong, and apologize if my information is wrong, I can see from your beautiful website that you are extremely talented and most likely in the upper realms of the microstock photography talent. From leafs microstock poll it looks like the average contributor has a port around 700. I would expect your RPI to be in a whole other category that is not quite in tune with your average non-pro microstocker. I do not shoot people or business or any other popular category I have a shoot budget of next to zero dollars and simply shoot nature/landscape and manage to earn $1.35 rpi per month per image with a port of around 400 images.  Would love to hear your experience and opinion as I am sure you have something more positive to contribute than pointing out that you find my misinformed rantings "funny".  

« Reply #115 on: February 15, 2011, 14:44 »
0
This Op and hers alike, they got nothing to loose but a few DLs per month but some of us have got a hell of a lot more to loose.
We shouldnt encourage these idiot-threads and especially not with people that are small fry.

* * __ I just can't stand it any more. THE WORD IS LOSE, not loose, LOSE. If you are setting something free (or referring to 'loose change') you can use the word 'loose'. Otherwise the word is LOSE. Got it?

nruboc

« Reply #116 on: February 15, 2011, 15:21 »
0
This Op and hers alike, they got nothing to loose but a few DLs per month but some of us have got a hell of a lot more to loose.
We shouldnt encourage these idiot-threads and especially not with people that are small fry.

* * __ I just can't stand it any more. THE WORD IS LOSE, not loose, LOSE. If you are setting something free (or referring to 'loose change') you can use the word 'loose'. Otherwise the word is LOSE. Got it?

LOL... in conjunction with the comment about "idiot threads", that post was comedic gold

lagereek

« Reply #117 on: February 15, 2011, 15:25 »
0
This Op and hers alike, they got nothing to loose but a few DLs per month but some of us have got a hell of a lot more to loose.
We shouldnt encourage these idiot-threads and especially not with people that are small fry.

* * __ I just can't stand it any more. THE WORD IS LOSE, not loose, LOSE. If you are setting something free (or referring to 'loose change') you can use the word 'loose'. Otherwise the word is LOSE. Got it?


*???  dont call on him mate, he aint gonna give you youre rates back, not even if you pay him and the word is LOOSE ;D
« Last Edit: February 15, 2011, 15:29 by lagereek »

helix7

« Reply #118 on: February 15, 2011, 15:41 »
0
Quote
... what the poor sods dont realize is: theyre not hurting anybody but themselves!  all the other agencies, etc, will know exactly whom to look out for IF theyre getting bigger and when the time comes for them to start slashing rates, etc.
Boy oh boy how stupid, talk about backfiring!

Some of the other agencies could cut their rates in half and still pay better than istock.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #119 on: February 15, 2011, 16:01 »
0
I don't expect buyers to leave in mass exodus, but if someone contacts me or inquires about my work, I'm going to refer them to where I want them to shop.
If someone contacted you directly, why wouldn't you sell to them directly, rather than pay commission to a site that hadn't found the customer?

lisafx

« Reply #120 on: February 15, 2011, 17:09 »
0

Some of the other agencies could cut their rates in half and still pay better than istock.

Eeep!!  Don't give anybody any ideas!!   :o

« Reply #121 on: February 15, 2011, 21:07 »
0

Some of the other agencies could cut their rates in half and still pay better than istock.

Eeep!!  Don't give anybody any ideas!!   :o
+Eeep!!

« Reply #122 on: February 15, 2011, 23:07 »
0
This Op and hers alike, they got nothing to loose but a few DLs per month but some of us have got a hell of a lot more to loose.
We shouldnt encourage these idiot-threads and especially not with people that are small fry.

* * __ I just can't stand it any more. THE WORD IS LOSE, not loose, LOSE. If you are setting something free (or referring to 'loose change') you can use the word 'loose'. Otherwise the word is LOSE. Got it?

ROTFLMAO: I am at a restaurant doing my microstock work; they ask me to leave because I was laughing so hard

PaulieWalnuts

  • We Have Exciting News For You
« Reply #123 on: February 15, 2011, 23:13 »
0
I always wondered what Jesus's middle name was.

SNP

  • Canadian Photographer
« Reply #124 on: February 16, 2011, 00:11 »
0
This Op and hers alike, they got nothing to loose but a few DLs per month but some of us have got a hell of a lot more to loose.
We shouldnt encourage these idiot-threads and especially not with people that are small fry.

* * __ I just can't stand it any more. THE WORD IS LOSE, not loose, LOSE. If you are setting something free (or referring to 'loose change') you can use the word 'loose'. Otherwise the word is LOSE. Got it?

lol. please repeat your post on every other forum on the internet too....

though in lagereek's case, I believe English is not his first language so he gets a pass.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
36 Replies
26348 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
13783 Views
Last post January 15, 2009, 17:19
by Whiz
20 Replies
7547 Views
Last post April 30, 2009, 05:23
by OM
7 Replies
5125 Views
Last post June 18, 2010, 20:24
by Phil

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors