Author Topic: How to divert traffics away from istock and fotolia (Read 50796 times)

PaulieWalnuts · « **Reply #150 on:** February 17, 2011, 06:39 »

Quote from: lagereek on February 17, 2011, 06:36

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 · « **Reply #151 on:** February 17, 2011, 07:29 »

Quote from: pseudonymous on February 17, 2011, 05:33

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?

TheSmilingAssassin · « **Reply #152 on:** February 17, 2011, 08:23 »

Quote from: Microbius on February 17, 2011, 07:29

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.

helix7 · « **Reply #153 on:** February 17, 2011, 09:23 »

Quote from: lagereek on February 17, 2011, 06:36

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.

lisafx · « **Reply #154 on:** February 17, 2011, 09:41 »

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.

Mantis · « **Reply #155 on:** February 17, 2011, 10:13 »

Quote from: helix7 on February 17, 2011, 09:23

Quote from: lagereek on February 17, 2011, 06:36
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.

dirkr · « **Reply #156 on:** February 17, 2011, 10:29 »

Quote from: lagereek on February 17, 2011, 06:36

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.

cthoman · « **Reply #157 on:** February 17, 2011, 10:37 »

Quote from: dirkr on February 17, 2011, 10:29

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.

lagereek · « **Reply #158 on:** February 17, 2011, 11:11 »

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.

helix7 · « **Reply #159 on:** February 17, 2011, 11:37 »

Quote from: lagereek on February 17, 2011, 11:11

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.

lagereek · « **Reply #160 on:** February 17, 2011, 11:43 »

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?

helix7 · « **Reply #161 on:** February 17, 2011, 12:13 »

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.

VB inc · « **Reply #162 on:** February 17, 2011, 12:41 »

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.

pancaketom · « **Reply #163 on:** February 17, 2011, 13:13 »

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.

f9photos · « **Reply #164 on:** February 18, 2011, 00:47 »

2011 About.com Readers' Choice Awards has 2011 Best Source of Commercial Images poll, corbis, shutterstock, getty, istock are the finalists. Vote for corbis and shutterstock, don't let getty or istock win

Microstock Posts · « **Reply #165 on:** February 18, 2011, 02:06 »

Quote from: dimol on February 18, 2011, 00:47

2011 About.com Readers' Choice Awards has 2011 Best Source of Commercial Images poll, 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.

Microbius · « **Reply #166 on:** February 18, 2011, 04:21 »

Quote from: dimol on February 18, 2011, 00:47

2011 About.com Readers' Choice Awards has 2011 Best Source of Commercial Images poll, 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?

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: How to divert traffics away from istock and fotolia (Read 50796 times)

PaulieWalnuts

Microbius

TheSmilingAssassin

helix7

lisafx

Mantis

dirkr

cthoman

lagereek

helix7

lagereek

helix7

VB inc

pancaketom

f9photos

Microstock Posts

Microbius

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors