MicrostockGroup
Agency Based Discussion => General - Top Sites => Topic started by: joanne.watson on February 13, 2011, 22:55
-
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 http://www.123rf.com (http://www.123rf.com) with all the other sites. eg shutterstock, dreamtimes , canstockphoto, veer, bigstock
for example
<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
<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
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PageRank (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PageRank)
-
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.
-
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...
-
Don't forget those links to istock and ft here in the forums.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Some of us here are exclusives so damaging IS damages ourselves.
-
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.
-
Did that a week a go :)
-
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.
-
What a f...!? >:( >:( >:(
So I need to suffer these 16% to protect your profits???
We are removing links to our portfolios not yours...
-
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!
-
Remove my work at Istock and redirect as much traffic as possible to other sites simple!
-
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!
-
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!!!"
-
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...
-
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?
-
Do a search here about the semi-unified effort that was done against Istock a few months back.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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)
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.
-
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)
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?
-
^ You become a big fry if you're talented enough, IMHO.
-
^ 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. ;)
-
This OP, must surely qualify for the moron of the year award, lets not feed the troll.
-
I'm not sure why the ability to progress is dependent on having ever better equipment. And I'm not saying you have no talent.
-
Good Idea! I already removed many links from my HP!
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...
This is a complete loser mentallity. When you never fight injustice and bad behaviour it will continue, sure. But if a site treats me bad or tries to fuck me I treat them equally. …as long as they learn.
We are not Victims. We are the suppliers.
-
Hello , here are some simple steps we do to divert traffic from istock ...
Judging by the "Buyers Bailing ..." thread it seems to me that Istock are perfectly capable of diverting traffic away themselves. They don't need any help from us.
-
Hello , here are some simple steps we do to divert traffic from istock ...
Judging by the "Buyers Bailing ..." thread it seems to me that Istock are perfectly capable of diverting traffic away themselves. They don't need any help from us.
Amen to that.
-
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 ...
Being exclusive to istock these days is obviously not a good decision ;-)
-
Judging by the "Buyers Bailing ..." thread it seems to me that Istock are perfectly capable of diverting traffic away themselves. They don't need any help from us.
:-)
-
^ You become a big fry if you're talented enough, IMHO.
I sorta doubt that. Wouldn't you agree that hard work trumps talent?
-
Interesting idea and it is probably a good idea to link or refer the sites that you want "your customers" to shop at. Is there actually a consensus of what people think are the best sites though (not best earners, but most fair)? I remember when that thread about fair paying agencies got started, pretty much every agency got added to it or nominated. I mean are SS or DT really any better than IS or FT when it comes to fair pay?
-
Wouldn't you agree that hard work trumps talent?
Not a chance. True talent always beats hard work (e.g. you can work at your running as hard as you like but you're not going to beat Bolt).
-
Wouldn't you agree that hard work trumps talent?
Not a chance. True talent always beats hard work (e.g. you can work at your running as hard as you like but you're not going to beat Bolt).
I'm guessing Bolt puts in more work than most too.
-
^ You become a big fry if you're talented enough, IMHO.
I sorta doubt that. Wouldn't you agree that hard work trumps talent?
I think its both (pretty sure actually).
-
Being exclusive to istock these days is obviously not a good decision ;-)
Well I wouldn't mind betting I earn quite a bit more than you do. I could be wrong of course, but i'd still bet on it. So not a bad decision really.
-
IStock (done a long time ago):
1. Removed my port
2. Removed all links from my site
3. Whenever I read an IStock article or post on any other site, I always post how expensive it is and list out all the alternatives....lol
Recommend everyone do the same, and we can have an impact.
-
Recommend everyone do the same, and we can have an impact.
Don't kid yourself.
-
Don't kid yourself.
I wouldn't bet against anything at this point. Whether that be iStock being a raging success in the future or a complete failure or somewhere in between. They are a successful company, but they make a lot of boneheaded decisions that leave some of us scratching our heads.
-
what a stupid thread
-
I do agree they've been badly managed recently, but it always makes me laugh when a few small sellers come on here and suggest they can bring IS to its knees by them telling their clients ( ie. their mom and dad) not to buy there. It maybe that by their own mismanagement IS do the damage themselves, and I am certainly considering an exit strategy more seriously, but some people here do have a rather over inflated opinion of the damage they can do.
-
Good Idea! I already removed many links from my HP!
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...
This is a complete loser mentallity. When you never fight injustice and bad behaviour it will continue, sure. But if a site treats me bad or tries to me I treat them equally. …as long as they learn.
We are not Victims. We are the suppliers.
Changed the color for emphasis. This is where the problem is really. There is too much supply and not enough demand and it looks to get worse. Agencies knows this and in istocks case, they are purely focusing on contributors with more talent than the rest. Everyone has talent to some extent. Early in micro years, anyone made money. Currently, you have to have a lot of talent to be successful or you should really get out of the game and stop whining about a couple of dollars a month you make less. When the money isnt there for the super talented, the game really is over.
Business is all about profits and rarely cares for injustice.
-
I do agree they've been badly managed recently, but it always makes me laugh when a few small sellers come on here and suggest they can bring IS to its knees by them telling their clients ( ie. their mom and dad) not to buy there. It maybe that by their own mismanagement IS do the damage themselves, and I am certainly considering an exit strategy more seriously, but some people here do have a rather over inflated opinion of the damage they can do.
It always makes me laugh when an anonymous exclusive posts in thread obviously meant for non-exclusives telling people how they can't make a difference. If I'm such a small seller, reveal yourself, so we all can see your all mighty portfolio...lol..
-
Good Idea! I already removed many links from my HP!
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...
This is a complete loser mentallity. When you never fight injustice and bad behaviour it will continue, sure. But if a site treats me bad or tries to me I treat them equally. …as long as they learn.
We are not Victims. We are the suppliers.
Oh yes, I'm a total loser. Where shall I sign up for the winners club where I can join the crusade of a couple dozen sheeple throwing pebbles at battleships?
I'm not sure if you noticed, but the near riot level of fighting here about Istock's commission cut resulted in Istock doing almost nothing in response. Fotolia then right after added insult to injury by also dropping commissions. You need leverage before you can win a fight. And right now the agencies have most of the leverage. If another agency suddenly gets more leverage then they will cut commissions.
-
reveal yourself, so we all can see your all mighty portfolio.
Well obviously I'm not going to do that, I like the luxury of being able to post anonymously too much, but having looked at 'snappystock' I'm not too worried.
I fall, mainly due to my IS income, within the top 10% of earners in the European country I live in. How about you?
-
Not sure why everyone is jumping all over the OP?
This makes perfectly logical sense...wouldn't you rather on the rare occasion that we can influence a buyer where to purchase that we should send them to sites that have the highest Return Per Download for us. That is perfect business sense and I applaud your efforts to support sites with fair payouts for me it is not the percentage that matters but how much money I actually make per sale on average. If I send a buyer to Dreamstime or canstock I get the highest Return for the download. If I send a client to fotolia, I get one of the lowest payments in the industry. It makes perfect sense. We don't need to drop all big sites, we just need to start directing our clients to the places that will pay us the most for the purchase.
Not sure why everyone has a problem with such logical thinking. The argument that the mid sites will become big and lower their commissions doesn't make any sense...what would likely happen is that the big sites will see that people are flocking to other sites and try and adjust their business model to be more like the competition.
There is not a lot we can do to influence these sites but on the rare opportunity we have to direct someone we really should send them to places that benefit us the most...everyone needs to figure out there own statistics and do what works in their own best interest, Make a list of RPD and direct traffic to the site with the highest RPD. Percentages of commissions don't mean a whole lot and neither does which site has the highest overall earnings. what matters is who pays the most per download.
Here are my numbers in order of highest pay per download, I use this as my guide to direct buyers where to go.
dreamstime $1.69
canstock $1.42
bigstock $1.15
Istock $0.92*
123rf $0.65
Fotolia $0.64*
Shutterstock $0.55
*all numbers are an average of the past 12 months these are numbers not taking into account the recent commision cut since they just happened, so presumably fotolia and IS will have roughly 20% lower numbers in the coming year.
-
pissing matches aside, I see 2 separate questions here.
1. can we do anything to change the traffic IS and Fot get. (if so, what)
2. should we (obviously for exclusives, no).
as for 1, I am not sure anything we actually do will make any noticeable difference, but if we could, then I think we should - I'm willing to give it a try.
as for 2, I think we should. If nothing else it will make the greedy bean counters over there think a little longer about it when they plan to screw us again. Besides I'd much rather make $5 off of a 10$ sale than 3 something from a $20 sale.
Unfortunately we all are on the losing side of the supply/demand curve.
-
Not sure why everyone is jumping all over the OP?
This makes perfectly logical sense...wouldn't you rather on the rare occasion that we can influence a buyer where to purchase that we should send them to sites that have the highest Return Per Download for us. That is perfect business sense and I applaud your efforts to support sites with fair payouts for me it is not the percentage that matters but how much money I actually make per sale on average.
Exactly! I completly agree!
Lately I see the tendency of some People to defend an Company just because their emotional reactions to some posters and not because it makes sense. Not a surprise to me that many of the Agencies are just doing whatever they want if the chant is "we can`t change anything so lets do nothing"...(which is not true, we can make a difference IMHO)
-
She is a troll!!!! why do you insist on feeding this crettin??
-
Not sure why everyone is jumping all over the OP?
This makes perfectly logical sense...wouldn't you rather on the rare occasion that we can influence a buyer where to purchase that we should send them to sites that have the highest Return Per Download for us. That is perfect business sense and I applaud your efforts to support sites with fair payouts for me it is not the percentage that matters but how much money I actually make per sale on average.
Exactly! I completly agree!
Lately I see the tendency of some People to defend an Company just because their emotional reactions to some posters and not because it makes sense. Not a surprise to me that many of the Agencies are just doing whatever they want if the chant is "we can`t change anything so lets do nothing"...(which is not true, we can make a difference IMHO)
Agree wholeheartedly.
Wasn't the power of social networking just being touted as a big influence in the whole Egypt uprising? If they can topple a president, I don't see why people couldn't topple a corporation.
-
She is a troll!!!! why do you insist on feeding this crettin??
She might be a troll but as long as we are labelling people, I think I would label you an IS shill. ;)
-
She is a troll!!!! why do you insist on feeding this crettin??
She might be a troll but as long as we are labelling people, I think I would label you an IS shill. ;)
Great! whats a shill? never heard of it. Oh btw, Im an independant, if thats what you mean? :P
-
Wasn't the power of social networking just being touted as a big influence in the whole Egypt uprising?
And you genuinely believe that the political situation in Egypt is comparable with IS dropping it's rates of commission to some of its contributors? Sheesh.
-
Wasn't the power of social networking just being touted as a big influence in the whole Egypt uprising?
And you genuinely believe that the political situation in Egypt is comparable with IS dropping it's rates of commission to some of its contributors? Sheesh.
I don't believe I said that at all. I believe I was using the comparison of the power of social networking to do damage to a company. Sheesh. ::)
Shill...google it. :)
-
Wasn't the power of social networking just being touted as a big influence in the whole Egypt uprising?
And you genuinely believe that the political situation in Egypt is comparable with IS dropping it's rates of commission to some of its contributors? Sheesh.
No!
Homo Sapiens survived while Neanderthals became extinct, just because he had the gift of speech ... The key thing is "the information" at the right time ...
P.S.
Arab world is experiencing some kind of Internet revolution, because the Internet provides lot of information and examples how can be different from everything what surrounds you ...
They are not first in that or last...
-
:-X
-
Here are my numbers in order of highest pay per download, I use this as my guide to direct buyers where to go.
dreamstime $1.69
canstock $1.42
bigstock $1.15
Istock $0.92*
123rf $0.65
Fotolia $0.64*
Shutterstock $0.55
*all numbers are an average of the past 12 months these are numbers not taking into account the recent commision cut since they just happened, so presumably fotolia and IS will have roughly 20% lower numbers in the coming year.
I've seen more and more people promoting this idea and I totally agree with it. On a related note, are photographer RPD's really this low at all the sites. You guys seem to be getting the short end of the stick with higher operating costs and lower prices. Here's mine for reference.
Veer $13.15
my site $10.00
Clipartof $7.40
G Leftovers $5.20
iStock $2.67
Canstock $2.15
Bigstock $1.15
Fotolia $1.03
Stockfresh $1.00
Dreamstime $0.94
123RF $0.78
Crestock $0.76
Shutterstock $0.57
Vectorstock $0.42
-
Here are my numbers in order of highest pay per download, I use this as my guide to direct buyers where to go.
dreamstime $1.69
canstock $1.42
bigstock $1.15
Istock $0.92*
123rf $0.65
Fotolia $0.64*
Shutterstock $0.55
*all numbers are an average of the past 12 months these are numbers not taking into account the recent commision cut since they just happened, so presumably fotolia and IS will have roughly 20% lower numbers in the coming year.
I've seen more and more people promoting this idea and I totally agree with it. On a related note, are photographer RPD's really this low at all the sites. You guys seem to be getting the short end of the stick with higher operating costs and lower prices. Here's mine for reference.
Veer $13.15
my site $10.00
Clipartof $7.40
G Leftovers $5.20
iStock $2.67
Canstock $2.15
Bigstock $1.15
Fotolia $1.03
Stockfresh $1.00
Dreamstime $0.94
123RF $0.78
Crestock $0.76
Shutterstock $0.57
Vectorstock $0.42
wow, you are getting some awesome rpd's. yes, as a matter of fact we are getting the short end of the stick! :)
-
Cory sells vectors. There is a big difference in RPD for vectors than for photographs. Anyone thinks they can take a good photograph. People who can draw well are rarer, and most people who can't draw probably know it, so the illustrators benefit from less supply.
ETA: Not to take anything away from Cory's talent or success, BTW. Just trying to explain the difference in RPD :)
-
What lightscribe said.
Most certainly, if I'm ever asked where to find stock photos, I'm not going to mention IS, I'm going to suggest sites that sell my images for a fair price. Like lightscribe said, it's just logical, and I can't grasp why people are ridiculing this suggestion, unless they're so heavily invested in IS today that they don't want to think about alternative futures.
-
reveal yourself, so we all can see your all mighty portfolio.
Well obviously I'm not going to do that, I like the luxury of being able to post anonymously too much, but having looked at 'snappystock' I'm not too worried.
I fall, mainly due to my IS income, within the top 10% of earners in the European country I live in. How about you?
I could care less what you think about my work, just the fact you won't reveal your speaks volumes..lol..
-
Pulling links that point to the big guys (like iS and FT) will not hurt them that much if you look at the % of their traffic and marketing budget. They will not "feel" it like a smaller site would. It does make a difference with organic (search) traffic ranking and of course the small percentage of buyers one would send from their site.
BUT... who will feel it is the little site that you want to show support. Not only would it increase that smaller site's search ranking, your links in and buyer traffic would make up a larger % of the site's overall.
So, yes... IMO pulling any links to sites that you do not "support" (whatever that may mean to you) and putting links to sites you do will make a difference over time.
-
If anyone s till not getting paid for Partner Program or anything else, I would definitely recommend the BBB (Better Business Bureau) Canada. That's what I did when ISTock didn't take down my images after 6 months.
After that, I got an immediate reponse:
http://www.bbb.org/canada/ (http://www.bbb.org/canada/)
This post courtesy of vlad_the_imp
-
reveal yourself, so we all can see your all mighty portfolio.
Well obviously I'm not going to do that, I like the luxury of being able to post anonymously too much, but having looked at 'snappystock' I'm not too worried.
I fall, mainly due to my IS income, within the top 10% of earners in the European country I live in. How about you?
I could care less what you think about my work, just the fact you won't reveal your speaks volumes..lol.. BTW how is the weather in Moldova?
-
Pulling links that point to the big guys (like iS and FT) will not hurt them that much...
Maybe so, but I sent at least 20 new members and customers to iStock from links on my site. I have deleted those links. Every little bit hurts.
And I wonder: Are the anonymous IS cheerleaders here rudely deriding the OP's suggestions because they won't work, or because they might work? :-\
-
[/quote]
Well I wouldn't mind betting I earn quite a bit more than you do. I could be wrong of course, but i'd still bet on it. So not a bad decision really.
[/quote]
And I bet my genetic reproduction tool is longer than yours. Are you aware how stupid your argument is?
-
Much easier to criticize than to create. The OP offered a creative idea. What positive input can the critic offer?
Do Nothing is not positive nor creative. ::)
Or, is your talent limited to flaunting you massive income?
-
Much easier to criticize than to create. The OP offered a creative idea. What positive input can the critic offer?
Do Nothing is not positive nor creative. ::)
Or, is your talent limited to flaunting you massive income?
+1
-
Well I wouldn't mind betting I earn quite a bit more than you do. I could be wrong of course, but i'd still bet on it. So not a bad decision really.
[/quote]
And I bet my genetic reproduction tool is longer than yours. Are you aware how stupid your argument is?
[/quote]
LOL... but ..but but.. vlad_the_gimp makes the top 10% of earners in his European country. LOL
-
And I bet my genetic reproduction tool is longer than yours. Are you aware how stupid your argument is?
LOL!
-
And I bet my genetic reproduction tool is longer than yours. Are you aware how stupid your argument is?
LOL!
Absolutelty amazing how pompous this ass is without even putting up his portfolio for review.
-
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($$$)
They are too big and strong to beat them. You can join them or vanish. It's your choice.
-
This remind me on Microsoft story. Nobody likes Microsoft but still 90% of the people are using Windows and Linux is for free.
Why??? It's the same answer for iStock?
Well , whatever small fish do the big one will double the bait($$$)
They are too big and strong to beat them. You can join them or vanish. It's your choice.
Oh please, your saying the conversion between operating systems is the same as buying from a different stock site. Rubbish.
-
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($$$)
They are too big and strong to beat them. You can join them or vanish. It's your choice.
One more thing, who is the big fish?
http://siteanalytics.compete.com/istockphoto.com+shutterstock.com/ (http://siteanalytics.compete.com/istockphoto.com+shutterstock.com/)
-
This remind me on Microsoft story. Nobody likes Microsoft but still 90% of the people are using Windows and Linux is for free.
Why??? It's the same answer for iStock?
Well , whatever small fish do the big one will double the bait($$$)
They are too big and strong to beat them. You can join them or vanish. It's your choice.
Oh please, your saying the conversion between operating systems is the same as buying from a different stock site. Rubbish.
Read between lines
-
One more thing, who is the big fish?
[url]http://siteanalytics.compete.com/istockphoto.com+shutterstock.com/[/url] ([url]http://siteanalytics.compete.com/istockphoto.com+shutterstock.com/[/url])
I hope Shutterstock is really more successful than Istock, but if you add Dreamstime to that chart you will see that there is something amiss. It shows SS starting off well below DT in Jan 2010, and I don't think that was the case.
-
One more thing, who is the big fish?
[url]http://siteanalytics.compete.com/istockphoto.com+shutterstock.com/[/url] ([url]http://siteanalytics.compete.com/istockphoto.com+shutterstock.com/[/url])
GOOD NEWS !
-
thanks for the response guys. I've updated the article a little bit. I hope it's not too technical ! ;D
-
I made myself promise to stay out of this one no matter how funny some of the responses are!
-
thanks for the response guys. I've updated the article a little bit. I hope it's not too technical ! ;D
the gimp boy is definitely going to have problems with this, clearly you don't have enought sales to speak on this forum, he makes in the top 10% of his European country so please, feel inferior to the extreme talent that is the_gimp
-
I see a lot of angry posts here - and I understand it did make angry exclusives to IS. Im terribly sorry but this is the first really constructive idea how to respond to IS and FT single-part decision about taking OUR money. (btw. I still have 30% commision in FT agreement) If IS or FT cuts my commision (better say charges me more for selling my pictures), then of course Im not going to promote them for free.
Second - we PAY (yes, we pay) agencies up to 85% of retail price to promote and sell our pictures. And then we do promote their websites ourselves and in best case we get what - 2-3% of referral sales? Do you see how stupid circle this is?
Let see example - you have personal website with pictures. Client somehow enters your site (becauase your site has very good SEO rank) and instead of charging your client you did attract, you send her/him away to make (maybe!) few cents. And you provide backlink to agency for free, ahile usually ppl charge $2-5 just for text backlink. Do you think this is smart?!
-
^ You become a big fry if you're talented enough, IMHO.
^^ See how scary talented he is, he is a "big fry" at IStockphoto, yet for some reason he has his "Exit strategy planned".... hahhahaa LOL
He knows how far down he is on the totem pole, and has planned accordingly. He deosn't need to show his portfolio, I can see he's not cutting it. At IStock, the top talent know who they are and don't need a exit strategy, they will continue to do well.
-
Pulling links that point to the big guys (like iS and FT) will not hurt them that much...
Maybe so, but I sent at least 20 new members and customers to iStock from links on my site. I have deleted those links. Every little bit hurts.
And I wonder: Are the anonymous IS cheerleaders here rudely deriding the OP's suggestions because they won't work, or because they might work? :-\
I think small efforts could eventually have an impact. More through blog posts, twitter, etc. than removing links I think though.
The theory goes that somebody getting bad customer service is likely to tell 14 people, whereas they might not tell anybody about good service. I work for a very large company which has an informal intranet which everybody reads, including marketing people....there's also a photography area. For a fact if the chance arises I'll be nothing but negative about IStock and Fotolia. Bad news spreads. And I, for one, will do my little bit.
-
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($$$)
They are too big and strong to beat them. You can join them or vanish. It's your choice.
One more thing, who is the big fish?
[url]http://siteanalytics.compete.com/istockphoto.com+shutterstock.com/[/url] ([url]http://siteanalytics.compete.com/istockphoto.com+shutterstock.com/[/url])
Or you can look at alexa:
(http://www.lizworld.com/Alexa.jpg)
The last time this conflict of stats occurred, I asked if anyone could interpret the figures, and no-one offered.
Can I ask again, please? By which I mean how each site gathers their statistics, therefore why they are so different.
-
I made myself promise to stay out of this one no matter how funny some of the responses are!
I couldn't stop myself. I'm joining MSA - microstockers anonymous.
-
This remind me on Microsoft story. Nobody likes Microsoft but still 90% of the people are using Windows and Linux is for free.
Why??? It's the same answer for iStock?
Well , whatever small fish do the big one will double the bait($$$)
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?
[url]http://siteanalytics.compete.com/istockphoto.com+shutterstock.com/[/url] ([url]http://siteanalytics.compete.com/istockphoto.com+shutterstock.com/[/url])
Or you can look at alexa:
([url]http://www.lizworld.com/Alexa.jpg[/url])
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.
Statistics are gathered by using money, that would be my guess.
-
^^ Traffic does not always convert to sales. Just paying google to get people to the website is only the first step. Then they have to close the sale. In that regard, for me, SS is tops, and Istock a close second. I like dreamstime, but they are a distant third and fotolia has become a subs site without the volume of SS. I don't care how many people are looking, I only care who's buying.
-
The OP is going about this all wrong.
I actually know a woman, a housewife, bored, bought a Canon 40D because her husband makes a ton of money at his job and it was no big deal to buy a digital SLR to keep his wife happy. She started taking photos of her kids, flowers, you name it and as she looked at the pics on her computer thought:
"That's such a nice picture. It's just like the ones you see in magazine ads...HEY, I wonder if anyone would buy this?"
So off she went to iStock. She's on istock now, selling pictures of her kids. Does she make a fortune? no but then she doesn't care how much she makes, it's just sooooo THRILLING to see her pictures sell. "Ooooh," she thinks, "I wonder if I could get the designer to tell me where he's using my photos. That's professional right? They wouldn't mind cause it's just so thrilling!!!!"
That's the future of micro-stock. I've often said even a monkey can take a good photo, every once in a while, by accident. When you can shoot 10000 pics in a single day and it not cost you anything more than the electricity to recharge the battery, you're bound to get a good shot or two and entry level DSLRs cost very little these days.
So when you march off to iStock all pissed off about not making enough money they'll simply tell you to not let the door hit you on the ass on your way out as they welcome another bored housewife into the fold who doesn't care how much she makes.
Instead, you need to start the MSPA (Micro-stock Photographers Alliance) and require all photographers who want to sell photos be qualified first, then you get every stock agency on earth to agree to only sell from MSPA members THEN you can control your prices because the union will have the clout to enforce it. Otherwise, they just don't care.
Look, 10 more bored housewives just joined iStock.
-
I made myself promise to stay out of this one no matter how funny some of the responses are!
I couldn't stop myself. I'm joining MSA - microstockers anonymous.
ROLF +1
-
It might just be that enough crettins like this OP, sooner or later has a negative effect on just about everything, they spread a bad "karma" if you know what I mean and it backfires.
Might be a coincidence or whatever but IS, at the moment is not producing anywhere near what they used to do and ofcourse all this crap talks about doing this and that and the entire world can read about it: not clever at all, is it?
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.
-
It might just be that enough crettins like this OP, sooner or later has a negative effect on just about everything, they spread a bad "karma" if you know what I mean and it backfires.
Might be a coincidence or whatever but IS, at the moment is not producing anywhere near what they used to do and ofcourse all this crap talks about doing this and that and the entire world can read about it: not clever at all, is it?
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'd have thought Istock were the ones kicking off the bad karma...and small fry or not, I think it's entirely sensible and justified that people want to direct traffic to places they get a fair deal. No need to call people crettins [sic].
-
...wouldn't you rather on the rare occasion that we can influence a buyer where to purchase that we should send them to sites that have the highest Return Per Download for us. That is perfect business sense...
Absolutely. I wouldn't expect this sort of action to make much of a difference overall, but I'm certainly not going to actively promote sites that pay the lowest commissions. I'm not really going out of my way to persuade buyers to do anything, but it's no big deal to only include the better-paying sites in any link lists or promotions.
-
It might just be that enough crettins like this OP, sooner or later has a negative effect on just about everything, they spread a bad "karma" if you know what I mean and it backfires.
Might be a coincidence or whatever but IS, at the moment is not producing anywhere near what they used to do and ofcourse all this crap talks about doing this and that and the entire world can read about it: not clever at all, is it?
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.
Not sure if I qualify as small fry as well or not, but I'm in agreement with the OP. At least in their sentiment about not going out of our way to promote sites like IS.
And yes, I have a lot to lose if my sales at IS continue to slide downwards, but I have a lot more to gain if buyers really do start taking their business to sites that pay better.
-
I removed all the links I could find for istock back in September, when they announced the commission cuts. It might make a small difference but I think removing images or not uploading any will have more of an effect.
After fotolia also cut their commissions, I have lost the tiny bit of enthusiasm I had remaining for microstock,. Now I'm concentrating on other ways to make money.
-
It amazes me or maybe its down to experience?? business is business, its absoloutely naive, even down out stupidity to even think buyers would leave because x-amount of contributors, screaming and halloring, if any buyer leave, it will be down to the IS pricing, nothing else.
We here? fly in the ointment, thats all and replaceable within minutes. So whats this big deal thread all about then? sour grapes?
-
It amazes me or maybe its down to experience?? business is business, its absoloutely naive, even down out stupidity to even think buyers would leave because x-amount of contributors, screaming and halloring, if any buyer leave, it will be down to the IS pricing, nothing else.
We here? fly in the ointment, thats all and replaceable within minutes. So whats this big deal thread all about then? sour grapes?
Not everyone is saying that they expect buyers to leave because of anything we do. To me, it's more about just not doing istock and fotolia any favors. I'm not going to actively promote sites like that.
I don't expect that my deleting a few links will contribute to a buyer exodus. But I have a couple dozen buyer referrals at various sites so I know that my links have influenced some decisions for buyers to go with one site or another. It won't make much of a difference in the bigger picture, but I'm definitely not going to help buyers find their way to istock or ft regardless of how large or small an impact it has.
-
It amazes me or maybe its down to experience?? business is business, its absoloutely naive, even down out stupidity to even think buyers would leave because x-amount of contributors, screaming and halloring, if any buyer leave, it will be down to the IS pricing, nothing else.
We here? fly in the ointment, thats all and replaceable within minutes. So whats this big deal thread all about then? sour grapes?
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. I'm not trying to start a revolution. More of a suggestion like saying, "This is the best place to buy my work. It has the widest selection and affordable prices." Yeah, there's a vested interest, but that's the case almost anytime you're trying to sell somebody something.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
[url]http://siteanalytics.compete.com/istockphoto.com+shutterstock.com/[/url] ([url]http://siteanalytics.compete.com/istockphoto.com+shutterstock.com/[/url])
is the Alexa data of "reach" the same as "unique visitors" which is what the siteanalytics is showing.
Or you can look at alexa:
([url]http://www.lizworld.com/Alexa.jpg[/url])
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.
-
what else can we do? at least someone is doing something ....
-
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'?
-
This OP, must surely qualify for the moron of the year award, lets not feed the troll.
hi moron
-
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?
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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".
-
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?
-
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
-
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
-
... 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.
-
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?
-
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
-
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!!
-
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
-
I always wondered what Jesus's middle name was.
-
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.
-
I think many folks underestimate power of this. Lets see, there are 273 million of photographers (according to SS todays stats) and about 10% of them are really active contributors. If just half of them decide to pull their links from website, its 13000-14000 photographers. We can suppose that most of them will pull at least 2 links (personal website, phorum link etc.) but more likely each will pull 10 or even more links. So in the worst scenario, aprox 27000 links to IS and FT will disappear. Even this is a huge blow for them, imagine if most of us have much more links then just 2. This will be double hit - first lost referred buyers and photographers (whats worse for IS and FT, we can forward them to their competition!) and second it will make serious blow to SEO and ranking in search engines.
Eg. one photographer with several hundreds posts in this phorum and IS and FT links in his signature pulls it - suddenly several hundred links are gone from ONE SINGLE photographer. Many ppl will pull several links from their personal websites, facebook, twitter, local language phorums (most of us are worldwide) and so on - this could in fact result in up to several hundreds thousands links deleted. Not something FT or IS will be proud of and it will hurt them quite a bit.
-
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.
I use reading spectacles, a bit shortsighted so sometimes I get the spelling wrong but I tell you what, my spelling were not as bad as the guy mentioning Pandoras-Pox when it should have been Box!
The pox happens to be a fatal infection.
Gotswyck is in fact a teacher in English so I can understand his frustration over faulty spelling. ;)
-
..Gotswyck is in fact a teacher in English so I can understand his frustration over faulty spelling. ;)
I'm probably wrong but I also think he might just have a tiny anger management problem :) Whatever you do, don't get a word wrong or he will loose it :)
-
.
-
Here are my numbers in order of highest pay per download, I use this as my guide to direct buyers where to go.
dreamstime $1.69
canstock $1.42
bigstock $1.15
Istock $0.92*
123rf $0.65
Fotolia $0.64*
Shutterstock $0.55
*all numbers are an average of the past 12 months these are numbers not taking into account the recent commision cut since they just happened, so presumably fotolia and IS will have roughly 20% lower numbers in the coming year.
I've seen more and more people promoting this idea and I totally agree with it. On a related note, are photographer RPD's really this low at all the sites. You guys seem to be getting the short end of the stick with higher operating costs and lower prices. Here's mine for reference.
Veer $13.15
my site $10.00
Clipartof $7.40
G Leftovers $5.20
iStock $2.67
Canstock $2.15
Bigstock $1.15
Fotolia $1.03
Stockfresh $1.00
Dreamstime $0.94
123RF $0.78
Crestock $0.76
Shutterstock $0.57
Vectorstock $0.42
I've only read this thread up to this post. It's good to see independents trying to take control and drive the market. That's what you should always do. As for the exclusives bitching about this thread, it's no surprise that they're going to be a little upset if their buyers go elsewhere seeing that they're locked into these money-hungry agents. I do feel for them but at the same time they were never worried about the consequences to independents when they sold their souls to IS/FT so you shouldn't worry about how your decisions affect them either. The independents shouldn't have to walk on eggshells waiting for exclusives to implement their exit strategy. As soon as they leave IS/FT, they'll be following your footsteps. It makes no sense for independents to continue directing traffic to sites that continue to shaft them. Why on earth would an independent want their buyer to buy their product at the agent that gives them the lowest cut? No way!
Anyway back to this post... lightscribe and cthoman, you're both on the right track sending your buyers to the sites that have the highest RPD but you're forgetting one thing. You're not taking into account the percentage of downloads. It's fine to try and boost these low performing sites, but in the meantime, work with the ones that are putting the most money in your pockets. If DT is your number one site, don't go suddenly directing all your traffic to GL just because their two downloads gave you the highest RPD. The number of downloads have to be considered if you want to make good business decisions and that's why you need to make your decisions based on the weighted average RPD, not just the RPD. I know many of you aren't accountants so I want to help you out. There are a lot here that I've butted heads with in the past but just put that crap behind you for a second. Don't ignore this advice just because you don't like me. I'm genuinely trying to help.
To get the average weighted RPDs, list your revenue and downloads for each agent and total them. Then list your RPDs for each agent and the total. To assign weights to these, calculate the percentage of total downloads for each agent and then multiply your RPD with the assigned weight to get the weighted average. I've probably confused some of you so I've attached a copy of my own figures over a period of time below:
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5051/5450618196_4b9779c862_z.jpg)
You can see from my figures that the agent with the highest RPD is Graphic Leftovers but if you take downloads into account it's one of my worst performing agents. These agents take at least 50% of your earnings so they should do their own marketing to drive traffic to their sites. It's okay to promote them to some extent but you should promote your highest performers. Also because the microstock business is so volatile, I'd avoid making decisions based over long periods of time. Using 6 monthly data is plenty. I personally would be focusing on the last three months or look at both. So for me, I drive most of my traffic to DT and Canstock, having the highest weighted average RPDs but because GL has the highest RPD and has potential for future earnings, I promote them a little as well.
I hope I've helped some of you.
Cheers :)
-
..Gotswyck is in fact a teacher in English so I can understand his frustration over faulty spelling. ;)
I'm probably wrong but I also think he might just have a tiny anger management problem :) Whatever you do, don't get a word wrong or he will loose it :)
Are you sure its not LOSE it?? nah maybe your right it must be loost it. ;)
-
Not sure why there's any argument here. It's common sense that you don't direct buyers to sites with lower RPD.
No one should be sending buyers or linking to IStock or Fotolia anyway (unless their exclusive of course, but then again this thread clearly doesn't apply to them)
Some buyers will be leaving IS, but for the most part these will be ones that are also contributors unhappy with their treatment.
The biggest impact will be on new buyers that don't know microstock and will use the first site they are directed to, and are likely to stick to it when they realize the content across all the sites is pretty similar.
-
::)
-
Anyway back to this post... lightscribe and cthoman, you're both on the right track sending your buyers to the sites that have the highest RPD but you're forgetting one thing. You're not taking into account the percentage of downloads. It's fine to try and boost these low performing sites, but in the meantime, work with the ones that are putting the most money in your pockets.
I didn't quite understand this. Why does the sales part matter? It seems like if you factor in sales, you're back to promoting the status quo. Plus, sites with more downloads usually have a lower RPD because they sell volume (like SS subscriptions).
I'm only promoting my own site now, so the point is probably moot. But, I wouldn't mind hearing it because I didn't understand.
-
I don't get why the numbers of previous downloads are relevant either.
The new purchase is worth more to me on a site with better RPD, irrespective of which site has historically given me more downloads (even if that means that site has given me a bigger income overall in the past)
-
My RPD at istock (exclusive: 40% regular dl's and ELs, 28% Vetta and Agency) is around 5 dollars, and I'm sure that this a humble figure compared with the ones of others photographers, better and more successful than me. But RPD it isn't so important; you can have, for instance, 200 photos at some macro, sell one yearly by 100 $ and then your RPD there would be 100-- so you would had got less than 10$/month from your 200 photos. RPI --retour per image-- tells more but even so it doen't tell all the story: numbers of photos you're allowed to upload, acceptance levels, best match placement etc play a role too.
-
My RPD at istock (exclusive: 40% regular dl's and ELs, 28% Vetta and Agency) is around 5 dollars, and I'm sure that this a humble figure compared with the ones of others photographers, better and more successful than me. But RPD it isn't so important; you can have, for instance, 200 photos at some macro, sell one yearly by 100 $ and then your RPD there would be 100-- so you would had got less than 10$/month from your 200 photos. RPI --retour per image-- tells more but even so it doen't tell all the story: numbers of photos you're allowed to upload, acceptance levels, best match placement etc play a role too.
thank you for posting this. it amazes me how many 'facts' here are spun out of RPD extrapolations that mean essentially nothing in terms of actual income.
-
thank you for posting this. it amazes me how many 'facts' here are spun out of RPD extrapolations that mean essentially nothing in terms of actual income.
Actually, RPD has a lot to do with how much you make. If I sold the same number of images that I sold on iStock on a site like Graphic Leftovers, I'd make twice as much as I would on IS. IF I sold the same amount on my own site, I'd make 4 times as much as IS. The problem is you can't really change RPD unless you can adjust prices or hit a higher royalty level. Only a few sites let you adjust prices which I think is a good direction to move in for the industry. Many sites let you hit higher royalty levels, but that seems to be a stacked deck now a days.
-
I always wondered what Jesus's middle name was.
I thought it started with an F... ??? ;)
-
I always wondered what Jesus's middle name was.
I thought it started with an F... ??? ;)
LOL! me too!
-
Anyway back to this post... lightscribe and cthoman, you're both on the right track sending your buyers to the sites that have the highest RPD but you're forgetting one thing. You're not taking into account the percentage of downloads. It's fine to try and boost these low performing sites, but in the meantime, work with the ones that are putting the most money in your pockets.
I didn't quite understand this. Why does the sales part matter? It seems like if you factor in sales, you're back to promoting the status quo. Plus, sites with more downloads usually have a lower RPD because they sell volume (like SS subscriptions).
I'm only promoting my own site now, so the point is probably moot. But, I wouldn't mind hearing it because I didn't understand.
I'm not sure why you cannot see that the "sales part" matters. If you just consider RPD, it means nothing. If you sell one image at GL for $10 in one month, your RPD is $10 and your average income is $10/month. If you then sell nothing else all year on GL, your RPD is still $10, but now you've only averaged $0.83 per month. You should be looking at the weighted average because it takes into account the overall performance of the agents, not just their RPD. You can direct all the traffic you like to GL based on that $10 RPD but that doesn't mean buyers will flock to them. They're small fry compared to other sites and buyers may be avoiding them for many reasons, including the lack of confidence in them, overall reputation, userfriendliness, horror stories or whatever. You should be promoting the sites that are performing and who put the most amount of money in your pockets and that have a reasonable RPD. As I said, it's fine to also promote GL, but not at the expense of the ones that are making you money. If you do that, you're shooting yourself in the foot.
Hope it makes more sense now.
-
My RPD at istock (exclusive: 40% regular dl's and ELs, 28% Vetta and Agency) is around 5 dollars, and I'm sure that this a humble figure compared with the ones of others photographers, better and more successful than me. But RPD it isn't so important; you can have, for instance, 200 photos at some macro, sell one yearly by 100 $ and then your RPD there would be 100-- so you would had got less than 10$/month from your 200 photos. RPI --retour per image-- tells more but even so it doen't tell all the story: numbers of photos you're allowed to upload, acceptance levels, best match placement etc play a role too.
lol there you go. You get it!
-
thank you for posting this. it amazes me how many 'facts' here are spun out of RPD extrapolations that mean essentially nothing in terms of actual income.
Actually, RPD has a lot to do with how much you make. If I sold the same number of images that I sold on iStock on a site like Graphic Leftovers, I'd make twice as much as I would on IS. IF I sold the same amount on my own site, I'd make 4 times as much as IS. The problem is you can't really change RPD unless you can adjust prices or hit a higher royalty level. Only a few sites let you adjust prices which I think is a good direction to move in for the industry. Many sites let you hit higher royalty levels, but that seems to be a stacked deck now a days.
So here you're actually taking "potential" sales numbers into account with all the IFs, but you shouldn't be too concerned about all the IFs. You should be concerned about what's happening now because IF you promote GL at the expense of the ones who are performing for you now, GL could go bust in a few month and where does that leave you? If you're going to take IFs into account take that one too.
-
So here you're actually taking "potential" sales numbers into account with all the IFs, but you shouldn't be too concerned about all the IFs. You should be concerned about what's happening now because IF you promote GL at the expense of the ones who are performing for you now, GL could go bust in a few month and where does that leave you? If you're going to take IFs into account take that one too.
That's pretty much why I started a site to sell my own work. It's a contingency plan and may take a lot of the worry or guesswork out of what these agencies will do next. I don't see any need to promote any of these agencies. Especially the ones at the top. That's what those large percentages I'm paying them are for. That said, I'm still on most of those agencies because they do sell, but they are on their own for drumming up customers. I'd rather focus my energy on things that are going to have the most profit potential. Otherwise, I'm just doing the same thing and getting the same results. You know those results like declining royalties, upload arms races, questionable partner programs, etc.
-
So here you're actually taking "potential" sales numbers into account with all the IFs, but you shouldn't be too concerned about all the IFs. You should be concerned about what's happening now because IF you promote GL at the expense of the ones who are performing for you now, GL could go bust in a few month and where does that leave you? If you're going to take IFs into account take that one too.
That's pretty much why I started a site to sell my own work. It's a contingency plan and may take a lot of the worry or guesswork out of what these agencies will do next. I don't see any need to promote any of these agencies. Especially the ones at the top. That's what those large percentages I'm paying them are for. That said, I'm still on most of those agencies because they do sell, but they are on their own for drumming up customers. I'd rather focus my energy on things that are going to have the most profit potential. Otherwise, I'm just doing the same thing and getting the same results. You know those results like declining royalties, upload arms races, questionable partner programs, etc.
cthomas, I agree with you, but that's another issue. The point here is about driving our customers to the best performing agents. It's not about promoting the agencies as a whole but more about promoting our own portfolios and directing the customer to the site that will result in the best deal for us. Ofcourse, avoiding the middleman altogether and directing people to your own site is always going to make more sense than directing them to an agent but a lot don't have their own site and so when we display our work or galleries, it's still a question of which site to link to. Making this decision purely based on RPD, isn't always the best option.
When I create a new image and upload it to all the micros for instance, I'll chuck a refering link to that image on my facebook fan page. It becomes a question of which site should I link to? Right now it's either DT and canstock... ocassionally GL because I want to see them shoot up the charts. When my port grows, I'll probably create my own site like you have and link to that but for now, I have to choose the best performer.
By the way, you have an awesome portfolio and I love your vectors! It's great to see that you're selling from your own site and I hope you do really well.
-
I always wondered what Jesus's middle name was.
I just broke out laughing, my 9 year old is sitting beside me "show me show me" so I did. He said "Howard". So there you have it!!! It's Jesus Howard *.
Oh no, Im going to LOOSE it :P :P
-
I always wondered what Jesus's middle name was.
I just broke out laughing, my 9 year old is sitting beside me "show me show me" so I did. He said "Howard". So there you have it!!! It's Jesus Howard *.
Oh no, Im going to LOOSE it :P :P
Yep! you have totally looost it! byeee. :P
-
Number of sales are not relevant to this discussion. Neither is the total income a site brings in for you.
These are a product of the total number of buyers already buying from the sites.
This thread was about where to send new buyers or where to redirect the existing buyers to.
When you take a step back and actually think it through it's pretty clear we are talking about two different things.
If we were discussing where to upload to then all these things are very relevant, but when we are talking about where to send new buyers to they are not.
I can't actually explain it any more simply than that.
-
Number of sales are not relevant to this discussion. Neither is the total income a site brings in for you.
These are a product of the total number of buyers already buying from the sites.
This thread was about where to send new buyers or where to redirect the existing buyers to.
When you take a step back and actually think it through it's pretty clear we are talking about two different things.
If we were discussing where to upload to then all these things are very relevant, but when we are talking about where to send new buyers to they are not.
I can't actually explain it any more simply than that.
Microbius, we are definitely talking about the same thing. I don't understand why you would think that I'm not talking about where to send new buyers. I want to send new buyers (or any buyers) to the site that has a reasonable RPD but also one that is performing. If I link to an image, I will be linking to the image where I feel the buyer is more likely to buy from. The aim is to convert my views to sales and directing new buyers to a small site that's not well established, where they have to sign up and aren't confident about the site, probably won't get me the sale. I'm not saying to ignore RPD, I'm saying to consider the overall performance of that site by considering both RPD and sales and you can only do that by looking at the weighted average RPD. Most designers who buy stock have accounts with the big guys and if they're new to the game, they will follow other designers and go to a site that's popular among other designers so if I'm promoting one of my images and linking to a small agency, I probably won't get any new buyers wanting to sign up to the new agency and then I'd lose the sale. It makes more sense to continue to promote the site that has a good RPD and good sales. I will still promote the little guy but as I said, not at the expense of the ones that are actually making me some money. It would be nice to see GL climb up but I don't want to lose potential sales waiting for this to happen because it might never happen.
I have no idea why you would think I'm discussing anything about where to upload to. This is a thread about two sites (FT and IS who have the lowest RPDs in the industry) and where to redirect these buyers to. All I'm saying is that it would be great if they go to a site like GL who will make me the most money IF they actually signed up with them. But I have to factor in the chances of these buyers ACTUALLY signing up with them. I don't feel confident that they will so I will direct these buyers to a site that has a decent RPD but one that has a good reputation, is well established and is already performing for me.
lol I too can't explain it any more simpler than that.
-
As an independant I must say this, IS and FT and SS, are STILL producing good sales, lots of ELs, etc. So why on earth would anybody want to divert trafic away??
might as well put a gun to your head and pull the trigger. Its cheaper.
-
As an independant I must say this, IS and Fotolia and Shutterstock, are STILL producing good sales, lots of ELs, etc. So why on earth would anybody want to divert trafic away??
might as well put a gun to your head and pull the trigger. Its cheaper.
With microstock earnings it might take too long to afford to buy a gun.
-
Microbius, we are definitely talking about the same thing. I don't understand why you would think that I'm not talking about where to send new buyers. I want to send new buyers (or any buyers) to the site that has a reasonable RPD but also one that is performing. If I link to an image, I will be linking to the image where I feel the buyer is more likely to buy from. The aim is to convert my views to sales and directing new buyers to a small site that's not well established, where they have to sign up and aren't confident about the site, probably won't get me the sale. I'm not saying to ignore RPD, I'm saying to consider the overall performance of that site by considering both RPD and sales and you can only do that by looking at the weighted average RPD. Most designers who buy stock have accounts with the big guys and if they're new to the game, they will follow other designers and go to a site that's popular among other designers so if I'm promoting one of my images and linking to a small agency, I probably won't get any new buyers wanting to sign up to the new agency and then I'd lose the sale. It makes more sense to continue to promote the site that has a good RPD and good sales. I will still promote the little guy but as I said, not at the expense of the ones that are actually making me some money. It would be nice to see GL climb up but I don't want to lose potential sales waiting for this to happen because it might never happen.
I have no idea why you would think I'm discussing anything about where to upload to. This is a thread about two sites (Fotolia and IS who have the lowest RPDs in the industry) and where to redirect these buyers to. All I'm saying is that it would be great if they go to a site like GL who will make me the most money IF they actually signed up with them. But I have to factor in the chances of these buyers ACTUALLY signing up with them. I don't feel confident that they will so I will direct these buyers to a site that has a decent RPD but one that has a good reputation, is well established and is already performing for me.
lol I too can't explain it any more simpler than that.
Sorry, I somehow missed your 19:13 post when you stated the reasons above and went on the more recent ones which when taken in isolation seemed to imply that a new sale was somehow inherently better at an overall better performing site even though that sale was worth less in monetary terms.
I still disagree on the whole, I think that there are plenty of sites we could be confident that clients would be just as happy to sign up to that aren't IStock or Fotolia, but I apologize for implying you didn't understand why I felt RPD was the critical factor here.
I also think the argument falls down when you are saying that we should really be sending people to our own sites:
"directing people to your own site is always going to make more sense than directing them to an agent"
If you really think that the overall performance of the site and consumer confidence is key, what would make less sense than sending people to our own sites, where RPD is the only advantage?
-
Sorry, I somehow missed your 19:13 post when you stated the reasons above and went on the more recent ones which when taken in isolation seemed to imply that a new sale was somehow inherently better at an overall better performing site even though that sale was worth less in monetary terms.
I still disagree on the whole, I think that there are plenty of sites we could be confident that clients would be just as happy to sign up to that aren't IStock or Fotolia, but I apologize for implying you didn't understand why I felt RPD was the critical factor here.
I also think the argument falls down when you are saying that we should really be sending people to our own sites:
"directing people to your own site is always going to make more sense than directing them to an agent"
If you really think that the overall performance of the site and consumer confidence is key, what would make less sense than sending people to our own sites, where RPD is the only advantage?
Microbius, no worries, I miss posts sometimes and do the same thing.
Regarding confidence in smaller sites, I bet if you head off to a designer's forum and mention “Graphic Leftovers”, a good portion of them will say, “What? Who?”. You and I both know that GL is a good site and want to see it succeed for our own benefit, but what incentive is there for a customer to join a site that hardly no-one has heard of and that only has about 500,000 images. (I actually have no idea how many images they have but I'm just talking generally for all small sites.) Most buyers won't even bother to check them out if it's not a well known site in their little circle.
Nowhere did I say that clients would only be happy with IS or Fotolia (or the big 4 for that matter). There are plenty of mid level sites like Canstock that give us a very decent RPD, that performs well and that is well-known amongst buyers. Buyers generally don't care what commissions they pay their contributors. All they're concerned about is the price they pay, the quality of the images in the database and how user-friendly the site is. All other factors aren't really important enough to swing them around to another site. I've already mentioned this a few times but I'll mention it again... I still think it's important to promote the little guy to build him up, but while you're waiting around for that to happen, you still want to see your earnings grow at the sites that have been good to you, so you should keep promoting your best performers.*
With reference to directing buyers to our own sites, I also mentioned that I will only do it when I have a really large port. It's only when one has a large enough port that they will end up with a gallery that offers a variety of images but also a collection of images of the same concept that a buyer can choose from. If I had a huge port I would definitely promote my own site because 1) it would offer me the highest RPD and 2) it's worth promoting . out of it to build myself some loyal customers that will keep coming back. Besides, if I had a large enough port, I would probably already have a decent following and redirecting these buyers from micros to my own site wouldn't be as difficult. Also, anyone going through the trouble of building their own website is going to promote it like crazy anyway otherwise why do it at all?
*ETA: So I don't confuse you again, by "best performers" I'm refering to those sites that you have both a decent number of sales as well as a decent RPD.
-
As an independant I must say this, IS and Fotolia and Shutterstock, are STILL producing good sales, lots of ELs, etc. So why on earth would anybody want to divert trafic away??
might as well put a gun to your head and pull the trigger. Its cheaper.
Why on earth would I want to direct buyers to sites like IS that pay so poorly? The only thing keeping IS in my top 5 earning sites each month is the volume of sales they do and the fact that they are expensive. It's a tough sell to convince a buyer that they should go with the most expensive company, and even with those higher prices I still see better money per image sold at other agencies. I don't see the incentive to refer anyone to IS or Fotolia, and Shutterstock is sort of a unique situation. Subscriptions aren't for the casual image buyer who would be debating going with other sites like IS or Fotolia anyway.
Besides, my total monthly earnings at IS have been on the decline for months and the royalty cut resulted in even worse results recently. Not sure why I'd want to encourage any new customers to go in that direction.
-
I'm with CThoman. I have my own site up and running now, and that's where I will be referring anyone/everyone that I can.
If someone asked specifically which of the micros to buy from, I would probably send them to Dreamstime because it has the right combination of selection and price for the buyer, and a decent RPD for the artists.
-
As an independant I must say this, IS and Fotolia and Shutterstock, are STILL producing good sales, lots of ELs, etc. So why on earth would anybody want to divert trafic away??
might as well put a gun to your head and pull the trigger. Its cheaper.
Why on earth would I want to direct buyers to sites like IS that pay so poorly? The only thing keeping IS in my top 5 earning sites each month is the volume of sales they do and the fact that they are expensive. It's a tough sell to convince a buyer that they should go with the most expensive company, and even with those higher prices I still see better money per image sold at other agencies. I don't see the incentive to refer anyone to IS or Fotolia, and Shutterstock is sort of a unique situation. Subscriptions aren't for the casual image buyer who would be debating going with other sites like IS or Fotolia anyway.
Besides, my total monthly earnings at IS have been on the decline for months and the royalty cut resulted in even worse results recently. Not sure why I'd want to encourage any new customers to go in that direction.
Last year my RPD was around $1.30 at IS and now it's about .50 cents. Yesterday I had 15 dl's and 13 were 60 cents to 16 cents, 2 at 2.60. To me that is pure crap. I am down about $75-$100 per month as of Jan given the paycut and massive penny dl's that used to be far fewer, replaced by higher RPD. I also used to get 1-2 EL's a month but have had none is months. The way IS has changed their system, for me anyway, has had a very noticeable effect on my sales.
-
As an independant I must say this, IS and Fotolia and Shutterstock, are STILL producing good sales, lots of ELs, etc. So why on earth would anybody want to divert trafic away??
might as well put a gun to your head and pull the trigger. Its cheaper.
Maybe because it's not diverting traffic "away" but diverting traffic "somewhere else, somewhere where the pay is better"? Does this make more sense to you?
As to the whole talk about RPD: I think that's the wrong metric when thinking about where to direct buyers. Assuming everything else equal (i.e. well established site where buyers may already have accounts etc) I would (if I could) direct buyers to the site with the highest commission percentage.
Why?
Using RPD implicitely assumes that the number of images bought is a constant - it measures your revenue "per download".
Commission percentage measures your revenue "per budget spent".
And I would assume the majority of buyers works on a limited budget - higher prices may mean higher RPD, but also lower download numbers.
So in the long run we are better of if buyers go to sites with a higher share for us, even if these may have a lower RPD.
-
So in the long run we are better of if buyers go to sites with a higher share for us, even if these may have a lower RPD.
I think that makes sense. I'd like to see all sites with at least a $5 RPD and 50% royalty, but that's not getting any closer. Although, there are a couple.
As far as directing people to sites, shouldn't we direct people to the smaller sites. There are usually less files and less chance that buyer buys another persons work. ;D
-
Nah! you guys are barmy! youre on some sort ov revenge trail and for what? these guys will buy you with one cheque and turn you into oblivion. Majority here think they gonna get a fat pay-off from all the smaller agencies when the time is ripe, well say hallo to more cut rates, etc.
This thread has totally lost its alure and is going down the trail of crappy avengance, I want no part of that childish behaviour so Im bidding farewell.
cheers.
-
Nah! you guys are barmy! youre on some sort ov revenge trail and for what? these guys will buy you with one cheque and turn you into oblivion. Majority here think they gonna get a fat pay-off from all the smaller agencies when the time is ripe, well say hallo to more cut rates, etc.
This thread has totally lost its alure and is going down the trail of crappy avengance, I want no part of that childish behaviour so Im bidding farewell.
Another person totally missing the point of all this.
Some people are simply choosing not to actively promote certain agencies, partially because of recent action by these agencies. Revenge implies going out of your way to harm an agency, which I have yet to see anyone in this thread suggest, besides you. I'm just not linking to istock and FT anymore, while keeping links on my website to sites like SF and GL active. That's all.
And yes, those agencies certainly could cut their own rates someday, but keep in mind that even if SF and GL cut their rates in half, they'd still be paying better than istock.
If choosing not to promote sites that regularly cut rates or reduce rates to industry-low levels makes me childish, then call me a toddler.
-
Helix! Im sorry but it all looks like one giant massive revenge thingy, childish beyond belief. All the collectors to GM? they wanted GM to survive very badly! guess why?
-
I thought you were done with this thread. :)
It's been made pretty clear in this thread that this whole idea of shifting our referral links away from sites like IS and FT is done to better promote sites that we'd hope to see grow and thrive. You're choosing to just paint this all as a revenge plot, and I guess it's your right to see it that way. You're wrong about my intentions, but I guess I can't do much to convince you to see it any other way.
I'm not linking to istock and fotolia. I'd rather see buyers open accounts with SF and GL. That's all. You're reading a lot more into this than what is really there.
-
ill say it again, im an exclusive at istock. i give a big F U to istock for doing what they did to independants and exclusives alike. call me crazy but i welcome buyers leaving istock only if it means that somehow in the longrun we artists get higher commissions. I think the only way for istock to give better compensation is through competition and buyers leaving, which affects their bottom line. I would rather be selling some of my files 10 years from now at istock or none at all.
-
If I had the power (and I most definitely do not), I'd have stopped IS sales cold in the water the day they announced the commissions cuts and kept them that way 'til they rescinded (hopefully within a few days). Of course I don't have that power. If I did you can bet FT wouldn't have done it a few months later though.
Now If I was telling buyers to go get their stuff for free from Flickr because I was mad at IS, that would be for revenge and make no sense. Sending buyers somewhere that offer a better return to the artists makes a lot of sense for those artists. Of course you want to send them somewhere that has a decent site and reasonable search and isn't likely to go bust in the next month etc. etc. too. I somewhat doubt that anything we do will have much impact, but it seems nuts to do the marketing for a sites that take a huge percentage of each sale for marketing (or something), especially if the impact of most of that marketing is to take sales away from sites that pay us better returns.
-
2011 About.com Readers' Choice Awards has 2011 Best Source of Commercial Images poll (http://desktoppub.about.com/od/faq/ss/2011-Readers-Choice-Finalists_8.htm?utm_source=feb1711&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=artistCS), corbis, shutterstock, getty, istock are the finalists. Vote for corbis and shutterstock, don't let getty or istock win
-
2011 About.com Readers' Choice Awards has 2011 Best Source of Commercial Images poll ([url]http://desktoppub.about.com/od/faq/Shutterstock/2011-Readers-Choice-Finalists_8.htm?utm_source=feb1711&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=artistCS[/url]), corbis, shutterstock, getty, istock are the finalists. Vote for corbis and shutterstock, don't let getty or istock win
You put the right link in, but for some reason it doesn't go to the right page. I found it by typing ss in search.
Getty have 75% of the vote so far, with ss in last place.
-
2011 About.com Readers' Choice Awards has 2011 Best Source of Commercial Images poll ([url]http://desktoppub.about.com/od/faq/Shutterstock/2011-Readers-Choice-Finalists_8.htm?utm_source=feb1711&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=artistCS[/url]), corbis, shutterstock, getty, istock are the finalists. Vote for corbis and shutterstock, don't let getty or istock win
I don't want to steal your thunder so do you want to start a new thread about this so more members here know about it?