Author Topic: How to divert traffics away from istock and fotolia (Read 45564 times)

nruboc · « **Reply #75 on:** February 14, 2011, 19:53 »

Quote from: alexmk on February 14, 2011, 19:48

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/

fritz · « **Reply #76 on:** February 14, 2011, 19:57 »

Quote from: nruboc on February 14, 2011, 19:51

Quote from: alexmk on February 14, 2011, 19:48
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

lisafx · « **Reply #77 on:** February 14, 2011, 20:17 »

Quote from: nruboc on February 14, 2011, 19:53

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

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.

picomatic · « **Reply #78 on:** February 14, 2011, 20:32 »

Quote from: nruboc on February 14, 2011, 19:53

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

GOOD NEWS !

joanne.watson · « **Reply #79 on:** February 14, 2011, 23:34 »

thanks for the response guys. I've updated the article a little bit. I hope it's not too technical !

RacePhoto · « **Reply #80 on:** February 15, 2011, 00:35 »

I made myself promise to stay out of this one no matter how funny some of the responses are!

nruboc · « **Reply #81 on:** February 15, 2011, 02:47 »

Quote from: joanne.watson on February 14, 2011, 23:34

thanks for the response guys. I've updated the article a little bit. I hope it's not too technical !

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

basti · « **Reply #82 on:** February 15, 2011, 02:50 »

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?!

nruboc · « **Reply #83 on:** February 15, 2011, 02:51 »

Quote from: vlad_the_imp on February 14, 2011, 10:34

^ 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.

briciola · « **Reply #84 on:** February 15, 2011, 05:16 »

Quote from: michaeldb on February 14, 2011, 18:19

Quote from: Brandon Seidel on February 14, 2011, 17:35
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.

ShadySue · « **Reply #85 on:** February 15, 2011, 06:09 »

Quote from: nruboc on February 14, 2011, 19:53

Quote from: alexmk on February 14, 2011, 19:48
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/

Or you can look at alexa:

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

PaulieWalnuts · « **Reply #86 on:** February 15, 2011, 06:49 »

Quote from: RacePhoto on February 15, 2011, 00:35

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.

cathyslife · « **Reply #87 on:** February 15, 2011, 07:38 »

Quote from: ShadySue on February 15, 2011, 06:09

Quote from: nruboc on February 14, 2011, 19:53
Quote from: alexmk on February 14, 2011, 19:48
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/

Or you can look at alexa:

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

Statistics are gathered by using money, that would be my guess.

jbarber873 · « **Reply #88 on:** February 15, 2011, 08:41 »

^^ 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.

digitalexpressionimages · « **Reply #89 on:** February 15, 2011, 09:50 »

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.

Blufish · « **Reply #90 on:** February 15, 2011, 10:00 »

Quote from: PaulieWalnuts on February 15, 2011, 06:49

Quote from: RacePhoto on February 15, 2011, 00:35
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

lagereek · « **Reply #91 on:** February 15, 2011, 10:04 »

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.

briciola · « **Reply #92 on:** February 15, 2011, 10:30 »

Quote from: lagereek on February 15, 2011, 10:04

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].

helix7 · « **Reply #93 on:** February 15, 2011, 10:43 »

Quote from: lightscribe on February 14, 2011, 13:45

...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.

helix7 · « **Reply #94 on:** February 15, 2011, 10:46 »

Quote from: lagereek on February 15, 2011, 10:04

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.

sharpshot · « **Reply #95 on:** February 15, 2011, 11:05 »

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.

lagereek · « **Reply #96 on:** February 15, 2011, 11:23 »

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?

helix7 · « **Reply #97 on:** February 15, 2011, 11:43 »

Quote from: lagereek on February 15, 2011, 11:23

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.

cthoman · « **Reply #98 on:** February 15, 2011, 12:05 »

Quote from: lagereek on February 15, 2011, 11:23

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.

lagereek · « **Reply #99 on:** February 15, 2011, 12:19 »

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.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: How to divert traffics away from istock and fotolia (Read 45564 times)

nruboc

fritz

lisafx

picomatic

joanne.watson

RacePhoto

nruboc

basti

nruboc

briciola

ShadySue

PaulieWalnuts

cathyslife

jbarber873

digitalexpressionimages

Blufish

lagereek

briciola

helix7

helix7

sharpshot

lagereek

helix7

cthoman

lagereek

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors