MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: My first month with Freepik !  (Read 7381 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: April 20, 2022, 07:03 »
+1
Hello,
I want to share with you my experience with Freepik
I now a lot of people here don't like Freepik ..  so I decide to try freepik and it's a great idea, I upload 100 vector file and it's Almost exactly what I got from Shutterstock this days
Here is My first Month Data with less than 50 files



So I think it is worth a try
Link to sign up as contributor (Referral Link)
https://cutt.ly/1F45vjw


« Reply #1 on: April 20, 2022, 07:42 »
+13
Weird how everyone with anything positive to say about these POS sites follows up with a referral link.

EDIT: wasn't this you? https://www.microstockgroup.com/general-big-6/freepik-steals-designs/msg570385/#msg570385
"Someone stole my logo design and put it on Freepik
I sent an email to [email protected] and it's more than 20 days ago and I didn't get an answer ?? (every days I send an email)
this is the worst support service 🤢
be careful. "


Why would you trust a site like that with your work? Not even mentioning their long list of other sins.

« Last Edit: April 20, 2022, 07:51 by Justanotherphotographer »

« Reply #2 on: April 20, 2022, 08:06 »
+1
Weird how everyone with anything positive to say about these POS sites follows up with a referral link.

EDIT: wasn't this you? https://www.microstockgroup.com/general-big-6/freepik-steals-designs/msg570385/#msg570385
"Someone stole my logo design and put it on Freepik
I sent an email to [email protected] and it's more than 20 days ago and I didn't get an answer ?? (every days I send an email)
this is the worst support service 🤢
be careful. "


Why would you trust a site like that with your work? Not even mentioning their long list of other sins.

The CCO of Freepik Company sends me an apology and explains the reasons for being late. They delete the stolen file as well.

« Reply #3 on: April 20, 2022, 10:02 »
+20
You're right that many people here despise Freepik - for good reason.

And even if I were to ignore their sordid history, you're trying to suggest that getting a return per download of 0.0639 Euros is a great deal???

If I were to get 336 downloads at Adobe Stock royalties, I'd make roughly $268.80 - how is 21 Euros so great?

If you were sent here to recruit contributors, no sale...

« Reply #4 on: April 20, 2022, 11:11 »
+10
Microstock is full of snake oil salesmen  ;D

Brasilnut

  • Author Brutally Honest Guide to Microstock & Blog

« Reply #5 on: April 20, 2022, 13:13 »
0
Love or hate them, just this week we managed to get some exclusive inside-info from their Product Manager via an interview:

https://brutallyhonestmicrostock.com/2022/04/18/interview-with-esmeralda-banos-product-manager-at-freepik/

Alex & Elijah

JaenStock

  • Bad images can sell.
« Reply #6 on: April 20, 2022, 13:23 »
+12
 wow!!...More than 20 dollars!! Why i will pay 10 dollar in creative market for one of your vectors when i can download all your portfolio for this amount in freepik??

« Reply #7 on: April 21, 2022, 07:42 »
+6
There's a reason for new images getting downloads right away, A giant vacuum * every new image and saving them. Next year you will have no new downloads. US members have to pay $85 a year to give away work for free.

« Reply #8 on: April 21, 2022, 09:15 »
+3
$0.07 per download. Cool.  ::)

Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #9 on: April 21, 2022, 09:23 »
+2
Love or hate them, just this week we managed to get some exclusive inside-info from their Product Manager via an interview:

https://brutallyhonestmicrostock.com/2022/04/18/interview-with-esmeralda-banos-product-manager-at-freepik/

Alex & Elijah

Worth repeating, it's nice to have the reviews and interviews and I don't see this as promoting, but rather as informing us.

There's a reason for new images getting downloads right away, A giant vacuum * every new image and saving them. Next year you will have no new downloads. US members have to pay $85 a year to give away work for free.

Yes the sound of someone draining every image off the site and making their own giant collection. Then we get nothing as they are shared and redistributed and who really monitors illegal uses.

But really? I have to get a new form every year and pay for that? Sounds like a negative expense. I mean, suppose it's a business deduction, but to make a profit, I'd have to make $85 a year on FreePik and then keep in mind that I have to pay taxes on that $85, or itemize on a Schedule C, which means the same thing = zero money earned for the first $85.

Pay to sell stock is coming to a site near you.

Just so many details about this sound wrong as far as income is concerned.

Also I don't see the free people as the same people who would download from a pay site. But anyone who would pay $119 a year, might be the same people who would pay at SS or AS or IS? This is difficult?

$0.07 per download. Cool.  ::)

Yeah, lets see, 10c at SS, 2c at IS, nothing at many others that are dead, 123RF is going negative taking back commissions.  :o I don't know if 7 is a good alternative or a terrible sign of the times? But you're right with the low number. I still can't see paying to give away my work for free?

Now lets see the AS detractors put down the 36 minimum? Small wonder why people are happy with Adobe.

« Reply #10 on: April 23, 2022, 08:11 »
+5
Love or hate them, just this week we managed to get some exclusive inside-info from their Product Manager via an interview:

https://brutallyhonestmicrostock.com/2022/04/18/interview-with-esmeralda-banos-product-manager-at-freepik/

Alex & Elijah

Alex, why do you look into the cheapest of the cheap? Why aren't you investigating premium and boutique agencies that are actually respectable and that actually sell image licenses instead of using images to make money from advertising?
The only useful information about "freepik" and all those similar scumbags is "Stay Away". (And I'm giving it for free)

Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #11 on: April 23, 2022, 09:31 »
+4
Love or hate them, just this week we managed to get some exclusive inside-info from their Product Manager via an interview:

https://brutallyhonestmicrostock.com/2022/04/18/interview-with-esmeralda-banos-product-manager-at-freepik/

Alex & Elijah

Alex, why do you look into the cheapest of the cheap? Why aren't you investigating premium and boutique agencies that are actually respectable and that actually sell image licenses instead of using images to make money from advertising?
The only useful information about "freepik" and all those similar scumbags is "Stay Away". (And I'm giving it for free)

The article was informative and I learned why I would never pay to upload anything to Freepik.

Look at it as a public service announcement? Or maybe educational for people who are looking at the site and can see that paying $85 a year for a permit or 25% to Spain, is just an unreasonable overhead expense.

« Reply #12 on: April 23, 2022, 11:53 »
+4
I could understand why people had issues with Freepik a couple of years ago (it never occurred to me to upload there) but at this point of the game, I can't see much of a difference. SS sells videos for 25 cents, IS sells images for 1 cent, EM sells images for 1 cent, * Alamy goes on promotional sales galore and sells images for 3 cents gross - and everyone agrees that this is absolutely bad. Of course, it is. Yet when Freepik sells images for 6 cents... it is unacceptable? Kinda defies the logic.

I don't have a 100% formed opinion about Freepik yet but what I see so far makes them as acceptable earner as any other stock agency.
I made 180USD on 2000 images in the first month; this month I'm on track to make 120-130USD.
I see no problem having this money, especially in my current state where money doesn't come easy at all and I'm generally struggling.

I will be posting a review on https://brutallyhonestmicrostock.com/ about Freepik- in the spirit of Alex's approach, it will be unbiased and will contain both - negative things that encountered so far that really bug me and positive things.

I also uploaded some files to another unlimited download site - Vecteezy, nothing encouraging so far, but the average sales there is 9 cents. Again, pretty bad, but what's the difference between this and other agencies...


JaenStock

  • Bad images can sell.
« Reply #13 on: April 23, 2022, 12:09 »
+5
Currently, according to contributors who post their numbers, freepik pays 0.075 cents per download.
The monthly fee is 7.50 euros for the buyer if you contract for a whole year.
If they pay 50%, to make it round, let's say the unit price per download must be 0.15 to balance the accounts.
7.50 divided by 0.15 $ is 50 monthly downloads on average, which is what paying users must download to maintain these payments (66 downloads if they pay the monthly fee of 10 Dollars)
If the average number of downloads of the average registered user is higher, I am afraid that Freepik hides downloads or limits them in some way.
It is very easy to download more than 50/66 photos in a month.
Giving life to any agency that is a small supplement to the income of the 3 or 4 big ones favors that the competition is always lowering prices and commissions.
We are selfish and we get what we deserve.

Brasilnut

  • Author Brutally Honest Guide to Microstock & Blog

« Reply #14 on: April 23, 2022, 12:33 »
0
Love or hate them, just this week we managed to get some exclusive inside-info from their Product Manager via an interview:

https://brutallyhonestmicrostock.com/2022/04/18/interview-with-esmeralda-banos-product-manager-at-freepik/

Alex & Elijah

Alex, why do you look into the cheapest of the cheap? Why aren't you investigating premium and boutique agencies that are actually respectable and that actually sell image licenses instead of using images to make money from advertising?
The only useful information about "freepik" and all those similar scumbags is "Stay Away". (And I'm giving it for free)

Hi, I'm both a contributor and journalist. As a contributor, hell yea I'm upset about this growing trend of agencies pushing contributors towards giving away images for free. Together with the loosening of licensing standards and of course lower prices.

As a journalist, my aim is to be unbiased and ask the right probing questions to the right people, which includes those on the inside of agencies which promote such practices. I don't pick favorites and if I can I'll interview decision-makers within all the agencies, including Unsplash of which I'm looking to send an invite out (whether they will accept is another question). The ultimate aim is for the "Market-Wizards" interview section of the blog to be even more of a premium source of exclusive information from those on the inside of the industry.

As for interviews of those within "premium and boutique agencies", so far I've interviewed:

- Peter Chigmaroff, Director at OverFlightStock Niche Aerial Photography/Footage Agency;
- Mat Hayward, Adobe Stock Artist Evangelist;
- Luke Nester, Account Manager at Robert Harding;
- Nash Mascaro, Sales Director at Arcangel Images - no interview but plenty of insight at various blog posts.

The above decision-makers work within agencies that encourage a fair return to contributors.

As for Freepiks (which has a regular microstock licensing program), as Elijah has posted, he's indicating positive early results and will publish a full review soon on the blog.

Alex

« Reply #15 on: April 23, 2022, 12:40 »
+10
Love or hate them, just this week we managed to get some exclusive inside-info from their Product Manager via an interview:

https://brutallyhonestmicrostock.com/2022/04/18/interview-with-esmeralda-banos-product-manager-at-freepik/

Alex & Elijah

Alex, why do you look into the cheapest of the cheap? Why aren't you investigating premium and boutique agencies that are actually respectable and that actually sell image licenses instead of using images to make money from advertising?
The only useful information about "freepik" and all those similar scumbags is "Stay Away". (And I'm giving it for free)

Hi, I'm both a contributor and journalist. As a contributor, hell yea I'm upset about this growing trend of agencies pushing contributors towards giving away images for free. Together with the loosening of licensing standards and of course lower prices.

As a journalist, my aim is to be unbiased and ask the right probing questions to the right people, which includes those on the inside of agencies which promote such practices. I don't pick favorites and if I can I'll interview decision-makers within all the agencies, including Unsplash of which I'm looking to send an invite out (whether they will accept is another question). The ultimate aim is for the "Market-Wizards" interview section of the blog to be even more of a premium source of exclusive information from those on the inside of the industry.

As for interviews of those within "premium and boutique agencies", so far I've interviewed:

- Peter Chigmaroff, Director at OverFlightStock Niche Aerial Photography/Footage Agency;
- Mat Hayward, Adobe Stock Artist Evangelist;
- Luke Nester, Account Manager at Robert Harding;
- Nash Mascaro, Sales Director at Arcangel Images - no interview but plenty of insight at various blog posts.

The above decision-makers work within agencies that encourage a fair return to contributors.

As for Freepiks (which has a regular microstock licensing program), as Elijah has posted, he's indicating positive early results and will publish a full review soon on the blog.

Alex

Really? Didn't Adobe just go subscription for video? And Shutterstock not that long ago?  There are plenty of people now getting $3 to $6 for an HD vid now (sometimes pennies), when the standard across most agencies WAS $28. How in the heck is that looking out for contributors? It is looking to generate more revenue for the agencies but the caveat is that contributors net less.  Yes, they lie and say you will make it up in volume. BS and you know it.  If these agencies looked out for contributors they would revenue share with those packages with which the total downloads weren't used. They happen to hang on to that chunk.  Freepik? Trying to be objective? How? You as a "journalist" should reflect on their history of what they are, not hang your hat on what someone says they will be in the future. There's plenty of evidence out there. Go find it.
« Last Edit: April 23, 2022, 19:35 by Mantis »

« Reply #16 on: April 23, 2022, 17:22 »
+7
Brasilnut, I've read every single post on your blog, but I will never visit it again.
Promoting the worst "agencies" is a BAD decision!

« Reply #17 on: April 23, 2022, 21:52 »
+2
Let's face it. There are no new microstock customers out there, any more. One of the most effective ways for both snatching customers from competitors and stabilizing customer retention is lowering the pricing.

And now those lower paying agencies are viewed as OK. Moreover, contributors even start promoting them. May be to prove their decision right or something. But why they do that are not very important.

The important question is why should AS keep paying the $0.33 minimum when now it can be much, much lower and some contributors will probably come in to defend with comments like "AS is just doing it like other agencies"?

Yeah, we get what we deserve.

« Reply #18 on: April 24, 2022, 02:53 »
+4
...And now those lower paying agencies are viewed as OK. Moreover, contributors even start promoting them. May be to prove their decision right or something...
Three types seem to promote them:

    1. Employees (ambassadors)
    2. People who make cash via referral money (these people will promote literally anything that pays tham to)
    3. People who may be contributors but are mainly focused on side hustles (blogs, books etc.) looking for clicks.

Its hard to imagine a worse offering than Freepik or Vecteezy so I dont know why a legitimate contributor who actually looks into it would fall for it.

« Reply #19 on: April 24, 2022, 02:58 »
+6
...in the spirit of Alex's approach, it will be unbiased ...
In the spirit of Alex's will it also end in a referral link?

EDIT ooof, looked into it, 10% of earnings for a year, no wonder they are suddenly finding it in their hearts to write up these sites. Alex: maybe also let readers know it is a referral link. You even have a "Disclaimer" section, but don't even mention there you will be earning money if people sign up. Journalist lol.

EDIT 2: Holy molly, even the link in this paragraph, the actual "disclaimer", claiming that you arent promoting them is a referral link:

"Disclaimer: As someone who has been consistently critical of the free-download model, this interview is an opportunity to try to better-understand the benefits, if any, of such models from someone on the inside the industry. Therefore, my intention is neither to promote or dis-promote Freepik."

No hint of irony there? Do you not think this presents a clear conflict of interest and could cause unconscious bias?  Was this not covered in your journalism course? I am assuming you have been on one as you claim authority as a journalist.
« Last Edit: April 24, 2022, 03:15 by Justanotherphotographer »

« Reply #20 on: April 24, 2022, 03:26 »
+8
Youre not a journalist, youre a blogger. This referral business neatly illustrates the difference between the two. Journalists are generally held to a much higher standard which your referral links negate.

« Reply #21 on: April 24, 2022, 03:34 »
+3
Youre not a journalist, youre a blogger. This referral business neatly illustrates the difference between the two. Journalists are generally held to a much higher standard which your referral links negate.

Strongly agree, I wouldn't have bought this up if he hadnt very explicitly leant on being a journalist to add authority to the blog:

... I'm both a contributor and journalist...As a journalist, my aim is to be unbiased and ask the right probing questions to the right people...

This is no more journalism than a YouTuber review making cash from links.

There are people on here who regularly do what I would consider much, much closer to in depth unbiased journalistic reporting and would never think to call themselves journalists (Jo Ann Snover, looking at you).
« Last Edit: April 24, 2022, 03:37 by Justanotherphotographer »

« Reply #22 on: April 24, 2022, 03:37 »
+2
It doesn't matter whether someone is a blogger or a journalist in regards to this.

Bloggers are held to the same standart, actually even laws - whenever a link is used on a website results in a commission, the information must be discloses to site visitors. But bloggers often just chose to ignore this.  I know there is such a law in the US, though I don't know the details. In the EU you have to disclose affiliate links according to the General Data Protection Regulation law. Being a journalist or a blogger makes no difference.

« Reply #23 on: April 24, 2022, 04:30 »
+3

...in the spirit of Alex's approach, it will be unbiased ...
In the spirit of Alex's will it also end in a referral link?

EDIT ooof, looked into it, 10% of earnings for a year, no wonder they are suddenly finding it in their hearts to write up these sites. Alex: maybe also let readers know it is a referral link. You even have a "Disclaimer" section, but don't even mention there you will be earning money if people sign up. Journalist lol.

EDIT 2: Holy molly, even the link in this paragraph, the actual "disclaimer", claiming that you arent promoting them is a referral link:

"Disclaimer: As someone who has been consistently critical of the free-download model, this interview is an opportunity to try to better-understand the benefits, if any, of such models from someone on the inside the industry. Therefore, my intention is neither to promote or dis-promote Freepik."

No hint of irony there? Do you not think this presents a clear conflict of interest and could cause unconscious bias?  Was this not covered in your journalism course? I am assuming you have been on one as you claim authority as a journalist.

Exactly. The referral link:
" If you feel the information provided in the interview is helpful enough, you can take the next step and sign up here."
That's just a bait for anyone new to stock to start selling their work for peanuts and start earning you $$$.

Alex, this is sick.

« Reply #24 on: April 24, 2022, 04:55 »
+6
As much as we like to blame corporate greed for the current situation we as a group are much more to blame. The majority of microstockers are ok with any price above zero and don't care about anything other than their bottom line. Nevermind the bigger picture or moral principles or even basic common sense. Agencies are only taking advantage of this. Why wouldn't they?

« Reply #25 on: April 24, 2022, 05:00 »
+4
I could understand why people had issues with Freepik a couple of years ago (it never occurred to me to upload there) but at this point of the game, I can't see much of a difference. SS sells videos for 25 cents, IS sells images for 1 cent, EM sells images for 1 cent, * Alamy goes on promotional sales galore and sells images for 3 cents gross - and everyone agrees that this is absolutely bad. Of course, it is. Yet when Freepik sells images for 6 cents... it is unacceptable? Kinda defies the logic.

I don't have a 100% formed opinion about Freepik yet but what I see so far makes them as acceptable earner as any other stock agency.
I made 180USD on 2000 images in the first month; this month I'm on track to make 120-130USD.
I see no problem having this money, especially in my current state where money doesn't come easy at all and I'm generally struggling.

I will be posting a review on https://brutallyhonestmicrostock.com/ about Freepik- in the spirit of Alex's approach, it will be unbiased and will contain both - negative things that encountered so far that really bug me and positive things.

I also uploaded some files to another unlimited download site - Vecteezy, nothing encouraging so far, but the average sales there is 9 cents. Again, pretty bad, but what's the difference between this and other agencies...

This is the kind of thing I'm talking about, if you want to write articles shouldnt you be a bit less biased? Reports are that RPD is usually around 7c but lets go with your 9c.

I will go with vectors as that seems to be mainly what Freepik has a history in and still mainly trades in. Some of these sites I no longer upload new work to because of poor RPD (BS, DP, IS, SS) but as a comparison all approx based on last year and so far this year:

Bigstock RPD: 45c
Depositphos RPD: 48c
123RF RPD: 90c
DT RPD: 75c
AS RPD: 95c
IS RPD: 70c
SS RPD: 68c

So whats the difference you ask? The answer is HUGE, VAST, an order of magnitude in some cases. Is this the sort of journalistic integrity we can buy too?

« Reply #26 on: April 24, 2022, 05:02 »
+2
As much as we like to blame corporate greed for the current situation we as a group are much more to blame. The majority of microstockers are ok with any price above zero and don't care about anything other than their bottom line. Nevermind the bigger picture or moral principles or even basic common sense. Agencies are only taking advantage of this. Why wouldn't they?
Not the majority. Just the majority of the ones being paid to write about it. Most of the people on this and other forums, for example, know enough about the history of these sites and the industry not to fall for this stuff.

« Reply #27 on: April 24, 2022, 05:43 »
0
As much as we like to blame corporate greed for the current situation we as a group are much more to blame. The majority of microstockers are ok with any price above zero and don't care about anything other than their bottom line. Nevermind the bigger picture or moral principles or even basic common sense. Agencies are only taking advantage of this. Why wouldn't they?
Not the majority. Just the majority of the ones being paid to write about it. Most of the people on this and other forums, for example, know enough about the history of these sites and the industry not to fall for this stuff.
The majority I'm talking about is the one who didn't even flinch after all the changes the big agencies introduced. The one who eagerly submits to freepik and istock. They are plenty of stockers still submitting to 123rf ! The bloggers are just the face of the all these people, the tip of the iceberg. Trying to claim some moral integrity and pose as a "journalist" is just ridiculous btw

Brasilnut

  • Author Brutally Honest Guide to Microstock & Blog

« Reply #28 on: April 24, 2022, 05:50 »
+3
Good morning all,

In regards to the referral link(s), further to reading the above valid comments and having a good think about everything, I've decided to remove them from the interview. Should anyone have signed up in the time between publishing the interview and removing the link (and I do eventually earn anything) I'll refuse the payment.

Within the past two months or so, Elijah uploaded a large batch to them. Let's give it a bit of time for those images to mature and start selling and, as mentioned earlier, he'll then be publishing a full comprehensive and unbiased review. Should be interesting to compare average RPI between all the agencies.

Alex

« Reply #29 on: April 24, 2022, 05:55 »
+2
I could understand why people had issues with Freepik a couple of years ago (it never occurred to me to upload there) but at this point of the game, I can't see much of a difference. SS sells videos for 25 cents, IS sells images for 1 cent, EM sells images for 1 cent, * Alamy goes on promotional sales galore and sells images for 3 cents gross - and everyone agrees that this is absolutely bad. Of course, it is. Yet when Freepik sells images for 6 cents... it is unacceptable? Kinda defies the logic.

I don't have a 100% formed opinion about Freepik yet but what I see so far makes them as acceptable earner as any other stock agency.
I made 180USD on 2000 images in the first month; this month I'm on track to make 120-130USD.
I see no problem having this money, especially in my current state where money doesn't come easy at all and I'm generally struggling.

I will be posting a review on https://brutallyhonestmicrostock.com/ about Freepik- in the spirit of Alex's approach, it will be unbiased and will contain both - negative things that encountered so far that really bug me and positive things.

I also uploaded some files to another unlimited download site - Vecteezy, nothing encouraging so far, but the average sales there is 9 cents. Again, pretty bad, but what's the difference between this and other agencies...

This is the kind of thing I'm talking about, if you want to write articles shouldnt you be a bit less biased? Reports are that RPD is usually around 7c but lets go with your 9c.

I will go with vectors as that seems to be mainly what Freepik has a history in and still mainly trades in. Some of these sites I no longer upload new work to because of poor RPD (BS, DP, IS, SS) but as a comparison all approx based on last year and so far this year:

Bigstock RPD: 45c
Depositphos RPD: 48c
123RF RPD: 90c
DT RPD: 75c
AS RPD: 95c
IS RPD: 70c
SS RPD: 68c

So whats the difference you ask? The answer is HUGE, VAST, an order of magnitude in some cases. Is this the sort of journalistic integrity we can buy too?

We look differently at it. You look at RPD, I look at the bottom line and care only about the bottom line.
As an example:

My 10k+ Alamy port gives me very decent RPD - around 10$ per image. But the sales are minuscule.
My Freepik port gives me crappy RPD but better earnings than Alamy.
The choice here seems pretty obvious to me.

I'm not doing art photography, and as painful as it can sound for some - none of us do - it is microstock. I upload to have an income that helps me. I see no shame in saying 'I'm in it for the money. If your approach is different, it's totally fine.



« Reply #30 on: April 24, 2022, 06:26 »
+1

We look differently at it. You look at RPD, I look at the bottom line and care only about the bottom line.
As an example:

My 10k+ Alamy port gives me very decent RPD - around 10$ per image. But the sales are minuscule.
My Freepik port gives me crappy RPD but better earnings than Alamy.
The choice here seems pretty obvious to me.

I'm not doing art photography, and as painful as it can sound for some - none of us do - it is microstock. I upload to have an income that helps me. I see no shame in saying 'I'm in it for the money. If your approach is different, it's totally fine.

I can actually fully agree with the statement. I will, for example, prefer istock a 100x over Alamy and I am not afraid to say so. They earn me much more money than Alamy, for the exact same work, so why should I look at RPD first and disregard earnings when one is obviously rewarding me much better for my work?
However, with Freepick I feel like there is a different factor to be considered and that is, whether offering support to a site that gives away countless images for free, thus devaluing our work and training people to be more and more used to everything on the internet being free, is not hurting all our incomes, including yours, in the end. With iStock their low commissions come from the fact that they only pay contributors 15%, but on customers' side they don't really ask for less than their competion agencies. I think this topic has been discussed a lot when Adobe started their free gallery as well - The overall problem of how it devalues our work. Now, every agency has free images to some extend - The "sign up and get X images for free" model is pretty common, and, as mentioned, Adobe is offering a free gallery as well (that in my opinion is offering way too many images. I tried searching for images there multiple times, and whatever I was searching for - I could in almost all cases find something suitable for free), but with Freepick, as the name suggest, the free images are the big basic concept of the whole site and that's what I find problematic. (Yes, I am aware that there are more images you have to pay for than free ones, but the "LOOK, I AM FREE!-Concept is still what draws in the customers and, even if they have more paid images than free ones, I am 100% convinced  that way more "costomers" go there for the free images than the paid ones.)
« Last Edit: April 24, 2022, 10:35 by Firn »

« Reply #31 on: April 24, 2022, 07:02 »
+2
For all the talk about Alamy, that was the only agency so far I requested my account be closed. Pathetic with not a single sale for over a year.

Anyway, besides that, I am reminded of the time contributors were falling over themselves to sign up for the $5 payment from Adobe (I didn't) for use of selected images for 12 months in whatever capacity it was (I think free offers). I said it then that this exercise was more than just acquiring images for more liberal use by the agency... imo it was a good bit of research and testing contributors' willingness to surrender, and lookie now ┌( ಠ_ಠ)┘ the cut to commissions for videos.   

« Reply #32 on: April 24, 2022, 07:06 »
+1
I could understand why people had issues with Freepik a couple of years ago (it never occurred to me to upload there) but at this point of the game, I can't see much of a difference. SS sells videos for 25 cents, IS sells images for 1 cent, EM sells images for 1 cent, * Alamy goes on promotional sales galore and sells images for 3 cents gross - and everyone agrees that this is absolutely bad. Of course, it is. Yet when Freepik sells images for 6 cents... it is unacceptable? Kinda defies the logic.

I don't have a 100% formed opinion about Freepik yet but what I see so far makes them as acceptable earner as any other stock agency.
I made 180USD on 2000 images in the first month; this month I'm on track to make 120-130USD.
I see no problem having this money, especially in my current state where money doesn't come easy at all and I'm generally struggling.

I will be posting a review on https://brutallyhonestmicrostock.com/ about Freepik- in the spirit of Alex's approach, it will be unbiased and will contain both - negative things that encountered so far that really bug me and positive things.

I also uploaded some files to another unlimited download site - Vecteezy, nothing encouraging so far, but the average sales there is 9 cents. Again, pretty bad, but what's the difference between this and other agencies...

This is the kind of thing I'm talking about, if you want to write articles shouldnt you be a bit less biased? Reports are that RPD is usually around 7c but lets go with your 9c.

I will go with vectors as that seems to be mainly what Freepik has a history in and still mainly trades in. Some of these sites I no longer upload new work to because of poor RPD (BS, DP, IS, SS) but as a comparison all approx based on last year and so far this year:

Bigstock RPD: 45c
Depositphos RPD: 48c
123RF RPD: 90c
DT RPD: 75c
AS RPD: 95c
IS RPD: 70c
SS RPD: 68c

So whats the difference you ask? The answer is HUGE, VAST, an order of magnitude in some cases. Is this the sort of journalistic integrity we can buy too?

We look differently at it. You look at RPD, I look at the bottom line and care only about the bottom line.
As an example:

My 10k+ Alamy port gives me very decent RPD - around 10$ per image. But the sales are minuscule.
My Freepik port gives me crappy RPD but better earnings than Alamy.
The choice here seems pretty obvious to me.

I'm not doing art photography, and as painful as it can sound for some - none of us do - it is microstock. I upload to have an income that helps me. I see no shame in saying 'I'm in it for the money. If your approach is different, it's totally fine.
Your whole post was justifying uploading to these sites based on sales at other sites now having similar RPDs? It's right there; "what's the difference followed by a list of low return sales on other sites. Now you've shifted the goal posts.

« Reply #33 on: April 24, 2022, 07:08 »
0
.
« Last Edit: April 24, 2022, 07:11 by Justanotherphotographer »

« Reply #34 on: April 24, 2022, 07:43 »
+2
I could understand why people had issues with Freepik a couple of years ago (it never occurred to me to upload there) but at this point of the game, I can't see much of a difference. SS sells videos for 25 cents, IS sells images for 1 cent, EM sells images for 1 cent, * Alamy goes on promotional sales galore and sells images for 3 cents gross - and everyone agrees that this is absolutely bad. Of course, it is. Yet when Freepik sells images for 6 cents... it is unacceptable? Kinda defies the logic.

I don't have a 100% formed opinion about Freepik yet but what I see so far makes them as acceptable earner as any other stock agency.
I made 180USD on 2000 images in the first month; this month I'm on track to make 120-130USD.
I see no problem having this money, especially in my current state where money doesn't come easy at all and I'm generally struggling.

I will be posting a review on https://brutallyhonestmicrostock.com/ about Freepik- in the spirit of Alex's approach, it will be unbiased and will contain both - negative things that encountered so far that really bug me and positive things.

I also uploaded some files to another unlimited download site - Vecteezy, nothing encouraging so far, but the average sales there is 9 cents. Again, pretty bad, but what's the difference between this and other agencies...

This is the kind of thing I'm talking about, if you want to write articles shouldnt you be a bit less biased? Reports are that RPD is usually around 7c but lets go with your 9c.

I will go with vectors as that seems to be mainly what Freepik has a history in and still mainly trades in. Some of these sites I no longer upload new work to because of poor RPD (BS, DP, IS, SS) but as a comparison all approx based on last year and so far this year:

Bigstock RPD: 45c
Depositphos RPD: 48c
123RF RPD: 90c
DT RPD: 75c
AS RPD: 95c
IS RPD: 70c
SS RPD: 68c

So whats the difference you ask? The answer is HUGE, VAST, an order of magnitude in some cases. Is this the sort of journalistic integrity we can buy too?

We look differently at it. You look at RPD, I look at the bottom line and care only about the bottom line.
As an example:

My 10k+ Alamy port gives me very decent RPD - around 10$ per image. But the sales are minuscule.
My Freepik port gives me crappy RPD but better earnings than Alamy.
The choice here seems pretty obvious to me.

I'm not doing art photography, and as painful as it can sound for some - none of us do - it is microstock. I upload to have an income that helps me. I see no shame in saying 'I'm in it for the money. If your approach is different, it's totally fine.
Your whole post was justifying uploading to these sites based on sales at other sites now having similar RPDs? It's right there; "what's the difference followed by a list of low return sales on other sites. Now you've shifted the goal posts.

Sure, whatever rocks your boat. I thought my point is quite clearly articulated, if you are not satisfied - have it your way, I'm not really into holly wars.
« Last Edit: April 24, 2022, 07:47 by Elijah »

« Reply #35 on: April 24, 2022, 12:35 »
+5
...In regards to the referral link(s), further to reading the above valid comments and having a good think about everything, I've decided to remove them from the interview. ...

Just wanted to say that I think you've done the right thing and kudos for acknowledging a mistake. Not easy to do, but we all make them from time to time and being straight about that is important.

« Reply #36 on: April 24, 2022, 14:36 »
+3
...

Anyway, besides that, I am reminded of the time contributors were falling over themselves to sign up for the $5 payment from Adobe (I didn't) for use of selected images for 12 months in whatever capacity it was (I think free offers). I said it then that this exercise was more than just acquiring images for more liberal use by the agency......

how many of your images (that qualified for AS program) earn $5 from adobe in a year? that's the actual decision artist made when choosing which images they'd submit



« Reply #37 on: April 24, 2022, 23:58 »
+3
...

Anyway, besides that, I am reminded of the time contributors were falling over themselves to sign up for the $5 payment from Adobe (I didn't) for use of selected images for 12 months in whatever capacity it was (I think free offers). I said it then that this exercise was more than just acquiring images for more liberal use by the agency......

how many of your images (that qualified for AS program) earn $5 from adobe in a year? that's the actual decision artist made when choosing which images they'd submit

Yeh sure, that's probably a similar decision as to why the contributor above uploads to Freepik, not that I would upload there either. I was approached by Vecteezy and similarly didn't respond to their invite to upload.

Just a more general observation, for all the price cuts happening I'm not seeing more sales. Perhaps others are. Just the same sales for less. Actually it is less sales for less earnings.   

Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #38 on: April 25, 2022, 08:39 »
+2
...

Anyway, besides that, I am reminded of the time contributors were falling over themselves to sign up for the $5 payment from Adobe (I didn't) for use of selected images for 12 months in whatever capacity it was (I think free offers). I said it then that this exercise was more than just acquiring images for more liberal use by the agency......

how many of your images (that qualified for AS program) earn $5 from adobe in a year? that's the actual decision artist made when choosing which images they'd submit

None, and not a year, but never earned $5 in their lifetime on Adobe.

One has earned $5.30 on SS since 2008. Another 72 cents on SS. Most have no downloads anywhere else and the best on Adobe, before it became free for a year, had 3 DLS. That's the same image as the one that made 72 on SS. Two others had 3 DLS before being accepted as free. A different accepted image has earned 48 on iStock.

Every image that Adobe accepted for the free program, earned more, each at $5, than the total of all of them have ever earned lifetime on AS.

Thanks for the money Adobe. Nothing in that is hurting my sales or my income.

« Reply #39 on: April 25, 2022, 08:45 »
+3
I just signed up at freepik. I'm not too concerned with RPD, there are several metrics worth looking at when it comes to choosing which sites to work with. For me it's more about how much money am I making overall, for how much effort, and does contributing to that site devalue my work elsewhere. On the last point, I don't think it does. The freepik audience isn't the same as the SS audience or other typical microstock marketplaces. At least that's my impression of it.

Not everything is so black and white in this business. I can be a contributor at a place that isn't exactly great in terms of RPD and still get something out if it without selling my soul to the company. I can curate what i upload there, send just older work or less popular images. I can drop 100 images there and just see what happens. Don't have to go all-in right away.

At this point, is anything really not worth a try? It's not like things have been trending in a great direction anyway. Freepik isn't going to be the thing that breaks this business. It was being broken years ago by the companies that so many folks here still sing the praises of.

« Reply #40 on: April 25, 2022, 12:13 »
0
I just signed up at freepik. I'm not too concerned with RPD, there are several metrics worth looking at when it comes to choosing which sites to work with. For me it's more about how much money am I making overall, for how much effort, and does contributing to that site devalue my work elsewhere. On the last point, I don't think it does. The freepik audience isn't the same as the SS audience or other typical microstock marketplaces. At least that's my impression of it.

Not everything is so black and white in this business. I can be a contributor at a place that isn't exactly great in terms of RPD and still get something out if it without selling my soul to the company. I can curate what i upload there, send just older work or less popular images. I can drop 100 images there and just see what happens. Don't have to go all-in right away.

At this point, is anything really not worth a try? It's not like things have been trending in a great direction anyway. Freepik isn't going to be the thing that breaks this business. It was being broken years ago by the companies that so many folks here still sing the praises of.

I completely agree with you

« Reply #41 on: April 25, 2022, 13:28 »
+3

lol...

agencies must be stupid not to further decrease your royalties to zero

« Reply #42 on: April 25, 2022, 15:45 »
0
anyone using Freepik:

have you found problems with their req:  "titles of the photos have to be unique." a lot more work for a set of non-similars of the same subject


Milleflore

« Reply #43 on: April 25, 2022, 17:09 »
+5
and does contributing to that site devalue my work elsewhere.

The problem is it's devaluing the value of photography across the whole market.

Is earning an extra 20 bucks a month worth it? If you were earning $2,000 a month from microstock agencies, would you still be doing this?

But it's not your fault. The whole perception of the value of photography started a while ago. It started with Getty, then free sites started with Unsplash, and so forth. And the latest assets to be hit are now videos.

This whole perception that cheap = more, is not working. It just means cheap = cheap.  Agencies are just trying to grab existing buyers from other agencies.

(And btw, if you are getting a kickback for promoting these sites, can you please state so?)






« Last Edit: April 25, 2022, 17:21 by Annie »

Milleflore

« Reply #44 on: April 25, 2022, 17:38 »
+6
Good morning all,

In regards to the referral link(s), further to reading the above valid comments and having a good think about everything, I've decided to remove them from the interview. Should anyone have signed up in the time between publishing the interview and removing the link (and I do eventually earn anything) I'll refuse the payment.

Within the past two months or so, Elijah uploaded a large batch to them. Let's give it a bit of time for those images to mature and start selling and, as mentioned earlier, he'll then be publishing a full comprehensive and unbiased review. Should be interesting to compare average RPI between all the agencies.

Alex

Alex, I'm kind of a bit disappointed that you have taken this route. You have a very interesting and helpful blog and I know you have promoted other avenues for increasing one's income, such as the book covers - which was really interesting and informative. But there are still other ways that do not devalue a person's work.

There are lots of places where creatives can set their own price. POD sites, designer resources agencies, direct selling, etc. (As an example, after putting a bit of time into researching what other type of buyers are out there, and changing what I shoot, I am now earning an additional $500 a month from these places, on top of my microstock earnings. Plus there is potential for even more growth.)

I have even put my prices up recently on some of these sites and increased my buyers. So, it can be done.

« Last Edit: April 25, 2022, 17:47 by Annie »

« Reply #45 on: April 25, 2022, 18:11 »
+3
and does contributing to that site devalue my work elsewhere.

The problem is it's devaluing the value of photography across the whole market.

Is earning an extra 20 bucks a month worth it? If you were earning $2,000 a month from microstock agencies, would you still be doing this?

But it's not your fault. The whole perception of the value of photography started a while ago. It started with Getty, then free sites started with Unsplash, and so forth. And the latest assets to be hit are now videos.

This whole perception that cheap = more, is not working. It just means cheap = cheap.  Agencies are just trying to grab existing buyers from other agencies.

(And btw, if you are getting a kickback for promoting these sites, can you please state so?)

Yes very well said Annie and great to read your thoughts on this.

« Reply #46 on: April 25, 2022, 19:29 »
0

The problem is it's devaluing the value of photography across the whole market.

Is earning an extra 20 bucks a month worth it? If you were earning $2,000 a month from microstock agencies, would you still be doing this?

But it's not your fault. The whole perception of the value of photography started a while ago. It started with Getty, then free sites started with Unsplash, and so forth. And the latest assets to be hit are now videos...

Exactly, it started with the sites that for so many years everyone believed to be the good guys. Getty, istock, Shutterstock, etc. Freepik isn't any worse. They just don't have the history to leverage their reputation. Other companies did the work of devaluing images over many years. Freepik just joined the party.

I'll try anything that is an avenue of selling images to new sets of buyers. I'm not putting all of my work into it, but I'll try it and see for myself if it's worth the effort or not.


...(And btw, if you are getting a kickback for promoting these sites, can you please state so?)

I am not promoting them, nor would I benefit if I were. I just added an opinion to the conversation.

« Reply #47 on: April 26, 2022, 01:11 »
+1
Good morning all,

In regards to the referral link(s), further to reading the above valid comments and having a good think about everything, I've decided to remove them from the interview. Should anyone have signed up in the time between publishing the interview and removing the link (and I do eventually earn anything) I'll refuse the payment.

Within the past two months or so, Elijah uploaded a large batch to them. Let's give it a bit of time for those images to mature and start selling and, as mentioned earlier, he'll then be publishing a full comprehensive and unbiased review. Should be interesting to compare average RPI between all the agencies.

Alex

Alex, I'm kind of a bit disappointed that you have taken this route. You have a very interesting and helpful blog and I know you have promoted other avenues for increasing one's income, such as the book covers - which was really interesting and informative. But there are still other ways that do not devalue a person's work.

There are lots of places where creatives can set their own price. POD sites, designer resources agencies, direct selling, etc. (As an example, after putting a bit of time into researching what other type of buyers are out there, and changing what I shoot, I am now earning an additional $500 a month from these places, on top of my microstock earnings. Plus there is potential for even more growth.)

I have even put my prices up recently on some of these sites and increased my buyers. So, it can be done.

Well said, Annie!

Alex, Annie just gave you great ideas for your blog.

Most photographers are ambitious folk. As we shoot more, we learn more and our work becomes better over the years.
As our content improves, we want to earn more. We don't want to earn less.
THIS is where photographers need your help. We don't want to hear about "Stock wizards" who are the blood-suckers of this industry.

How about getting Photographer's Market Guide 2022 for better agencies to review?

« Reply #48 on: April 26, 2022, 01:15 »
+1
and does contributing to that site devalue my work elsewhere.

The problem is it's devaluing the value of photography across the whole market.

Is earning an extra 20 bucks a month worth it? If you were earning $2,000 a month from microstock agencies, would you still be doing this?

That's how I see it, too. Even if I take in significantly less per month than you.

« Reply #49 on: April 26, 2022, 02:15 »
+5
...Freepik isn't any worse. They just don't have the history to leverage their reputation. Other companies did the work of devaluing images over many years. Freepik just joined the party.
...

They are over 10 years old though, and played a major part in the devaluation themselves. A lot of the moves by SS etc. have been in response to the growth of sites like Freepik.

Freepik spent years as a warez site search engine selling stolen goods in exchange for a fee to remove their attribution to images they never had the rights to in the first place (including mine and I'm sure yours).

They have a very long history indeed.

Milleflore

« Reply #50 on: April 26, 2022, 02:16 »
+4
Thanks Pacesetter, Ravens & Wilm

Yes, I am actually making more this year than last year, but only by diversifying.

I keep being reminded of a economics model where a new industry with lots of potential starts out and all goes very well for awhile because demand exceeds supply. However, as more and more suppliers start to join in to make a quick buck, or cash in on those profits, eventually supply far exceeds demand. This is where we are at the moment. The bottom far end of the bell curve.

What happens next is that there are usually the same suppliers (both agencies and contributors, in this regard) still trying to hold on, and fighting and squabbling over what profits remain, but unless they diversify or provide a better product (not necessarily a cheaper one), most will eventually be gone in a year or so. The model usually predicts that in the end, the market is finally taken over by only a small number of suppliers who outperform everyone else.

I am just talking off the top of my head at the moment, and I hope that makes sense. But the point I am trying to make is this Freepik thing is one of the symptoms of the end of the cycle, where everyone's trying to clutch at straws within a diminishing market, rather than thinking outside the square and producing a better product. Price cutting, freebies, etc, is definitely not the answer. 
« Last Edit: April 26, 2022, 02:38 by Annie »

« Reply #51 on: April 26, 2022, 02:38 »
0
I have also seen my rolling 12 month total steadily increase over the last 16 years. The only dips really have been when I have had to take prolonged time off or work less for personal reasons. You do have to work at it and look for other legitimate sources of income in the industry. The same sites wont always be on top. Im approaching another milestone and thought about posting a thread but I dont think people would be interested.

I wonder if the people disappointed and dumping work on Freepik etc. bought into the passive income shtick from youtubers and bloggers (again, making their living from clicks/ referral programs). It isnt really passive income so much as deferred payment.

It makes sense to listen to those who have made a success of it (like Annie) more than those who are struggling surely?

« Reply #52 on: April 26, 2022, 03:50 »
+1
Im approaching another milestone and thought about posting a thread but I dont think people would be interested.

I would be very interested! Milestones always are interesting.

Milleflore

« Reply #53 on: April 26, 2022, 04:52 »
+1
Im approaching another milestone and thought about posting a thread but I dont think people would be interested.

I would be very interested! Milestones always are interesting.

Yes, we love Milestone threads, don't we, Wilm :-)

« Reply #54 on: April 26, 2022, 05:02 »
+1
Im approaching another milestone and thought about posting a thread but I dont think people would be interested.

I would be very interested! Milestones always are interesting.

Yes, we love Milestone threads, don't we, Wilm :-)

Yes! :-)

« Reply #55 on: April 26, 2022, 05:02 »
+3
Thank you, I will consider it, I am always a bit reluctant to share income details especially as Im anonymous. At the same time it could help with motivating me to hit the target!

Milleflore

« Reply #56 on: April 26, 2022, 05:07 »
+1
Good morning all,

In regards to the referral link(s), further to reading the above valid comments and having a good think about everything, I've decided to remove them from the interview. Should anyone have signed up in the time between publishing the interview and removing the link (and I do eventually earn anything) I'll refuse the payment.

Within the past two months or so, Elijah uploaded a large batch to them. Let's give it a bit of time for those images to mature and start selling and, as mentioned earlier, he'll then be publishing a full comprehensive and unbiased review. Should be interesting to compare average RPI between all the agencies.

Alex

Alex, I'm kind of a bit disappointed that you have taken this route. You have a very interesting and helpful blog and I know you have promoted other avenues for increasing one's income, such as the book covers - which was really interesting and informative. But there are still other ways that do not devalue a person's work.

There are lots of places where creatives can set their own price. POD sites, designer resources agencies, direct selling, etc. (As an example, after putting a bit of time into researching what other type of buyers are out there, and changing what I shoot, I am now earning an additional $500 a month from these places, on top of my microstock earnings. Plus there is potential for even more growth.)

I have even put my prices up recently on some of these sites and increased my buyers. So, it can be done.

Well said, Annie!

Alex, Annie just gave you great ideas for your blog.

Most photographers are ambitious folk. As we shoot more, we learn more and our work becomes better over the years.
As our content improves, we want to earn more. We don't want to earn less.
THIS is where photographers need your help. We don't want to hear about "Stock wizards" who are the blood-suckers of this industry.

How about getting Photographer's Market Guide 2022 for better agencies to review?

Sounds like a great idea.

« Last Edit: April 26, 2022, 07:35 by Annie »

Brasilnut

  • Author Brutally Honest Guide to Microstock & Blog

« Reply #57 on: April 26, 2022, 06:02 »
0
Good morning all,

In regards to the referral link(s), further to reading the above valid comments and having a good think about everything, I've decided to remove them from the interview. Should anyone have signed up in the time between publishing the interview and removing the link (and I do eventually earn anything) I'll refuse the payment.

Within the past two months or so, Elijah uploaded a large batch to them. Let's give it a bit of time for those images to mature and start selling and, as mentioned earlier, he'll then be publishing a full comprehensive and unbiased review. Should be interesting to compare average RPI between all the agencies.

Alex

Alex, I'm kind of a bit disappointed that you have taken this route. You have a very interesting and helpful blog and I know you have promoted other avenues for increasing one's income, such as the book covers - which was really interesting and informative. But there are still other ways that do not devalue a person's work.

There are lots of places where creatives can set their own price. POD sites, designer resources agencies, direct selling, etc. (As an example, after putting a bit of time into researching what other type of buyers are out there, and changing what I shoot, I am now earning an additional $500 a month from these places, on top of my microstock earnings. Plus there is potential for even more growth.)

I have even put my prices up recently on some of these sites and increased my buyers. So, it can be done.

Hi Annie,

I hear you. I admit that sometimes I get frustrated and instead of looking at different revenue streams I'll just look for more agencies (I will submit a smallish batch to Freepiks and Vecteezy as a trial to later add some insight into the reviews)...my thinking is that if they're already keyworded, what's the harm? But there's not much point in earning an extra $20-30 a month on another 5,000 images. The industry is broken and it's only going to get worse imo in terms of returns for the time/investment put in.

As I've heard many times from those on the inside, many buyers don't mind paying a bit extra for quality work so it makes sense to price our work correct when we have the option to do so. Or, what I'm doing more and more is submitting my work to premium agencies, Arcangel for book covers and recently signed up to Overflightstock for my drone stuff.

One of my yearly goals has been to try to get my (paid) FAA up and running again to add more images / curate the portfolio. I do have sales on there every few months but I want to push it more, plus better ways to promote my work. I've done OK at Photo4me and will keep adding on that. The drone aerial shots add to my arsenal and I'm only getting started.

Alex

Milleflore

« Reply #58 on: April 26, 2022, 06:13 »
+1
Sounds great, Alex. I am looking forward to reading about these other sites.

« Reply #59 on: April 26, 2022, 08:55 »
0

They are over 10 years old though, and played a major part in the devaluation themselves. A lot of the moves by SS etc. have been in response to the growth of sites like Freepik...

... They have a very long history indeed.

As I understand it, the version of freepik as we know it today was built in 2016. So to your point, there is some history there. But by 2016 a lot of other companies were already in their own "race to the bottom" in terms of pricing. I don't think that in 2016 any new company was influencing what istock, SS, and others were doing.


Freepik spent years as a warez site search engine selling stolen goods in exchange for a fee to remove their attribution to images they never had the rights to in the first place (including mine and I'm sure yours).


Honestly, I don't care. They're not the only one that started out that way. You might be a contributor at one of them.

« Reply #60 on: April 26, 2022, 09:01 »
0
Founded around 2010 ish, started producing their own images around 2014.

Edit: still run by the same people too.

Also would like to know which other sites strated the same way
« Last Edit: April 26, 2022, 09:10 by Justanotherphotographer »

« Reply #61 on: April 26, 2022, 14:13 »
+2
Well, at least Alex' post triggered a discussion, and probably informed contributors who were not very familiar with Freepik up to now.
Mission accomplished. And food for follow-up.

Milleflore

« Reply #62 on: April 26, 2022, 16:01 »
+2
Good morning all,

In regards to the referral link(s), further to reading the above valid comments and having a good think about everything, I've decided to remove them from the interview. Should anyone have signed up in the time between publishing the interview and removing the link (and I do eventually earn anything) I'll refuse the payment.

Within the past two months or so, Elijah uploaded a large batch to them. Let's give it a bit of time for those images to mature and start selling and, as mentioned earlier, he'll then be publishing a full comprehensive and unbiased review. Should be interesting to compare average RPI between all the agencies.

Alex

Alex, I'm kind of a bit disappointed that you have taken this route. You have a very interesting and helpful blog and I know you have promoted other avenues for increasing one's income, such as the book covers - which was really interesting and informative. But there are still other ways that do not devalue a person's work.

There are lots of places where creatives can set their own price. POD sites, designer resources agencies, direct selling, etc. (As an example, after putting a bit of time into researching what other type of buyers are out there, and changing what I shoot, I am now earning an additional $500 a month from these places, on top of my microstock earnings. Plus there is potential for even more growth.)

I have even put my prices up recently on some of these sites and increased my buyers. So, it can be done.

Hi Annie,

I hear you. I admit that sometimes I get frustrated and instead of looking at different revenue streams I'll just look for more agencies (I will submit a smallish batch to Freepiks and Vecteezy as a trial to later add some insight into the reviews)...my thinking is that if they're already keyworded, what's the harm? But there's not much point in earning an extra $20-30 a month on another 5,000 images. The industry is broken and it's only going to get worse imo in terms of returns for the time/investment put in.

As I've heard many times from those on the inside, many buyers don't mind paying a bit extra for quality work so it makes sense to price our work correct when we have the option to do so. Or, what I'm doing more and more is submitting my work to premium agencies, Arcangel for book covers and recently signed up to Overflightstock for my drone stuff.

One of my yearly goals has been to try to get my (paid) FAA up and running again to add more images / curate the portfolio. I do have sales on there every few months but I want to push it more, plus better ways to promote my work. I've done OK at Photo4me and will keep adding on that. The drone aerial shots add to my arsenal and I'm only getting started.

Alex

Alex, I forgot to say that if you do have 5,000 pre-keyworded commercial photos then you would do better on FAA. Yes, definitely pay the $30/annum fee. It has lots of advantages.

First of all, if you pay the annual fee, you will receive a free website via their other site, Pixels.com. Its a nice looking website where you can orderly sort your photos in collections (via the FAA site - everything is done on FAA. Pixels just mirrors what you have on FAA). And for those who don't want to pay much for their own website, $30 a year is much cheaper than $30/month. This has the extra advantage then of enabling you to show your work to those asking to see your portfolio.

Once you are on Pixels, you will also have a wider range of print on demand products. Its a lot more commercial than just putting up your best 'artistic' work for prints and wall art. As I said to a friend the other day, I am always surprised what people print on shower curtains. lol

With that in mind, don't curate your work too much. Let the buyers decide. I've had lots of things sell that I wouldn't have thought would - if I curated my own work too much.

I also sell a lot of greeting cards, but also surprised at how often someone will come along and place a bulk order. For example, a recent sale where a buyer purchased 6 packs of 25. Total commission for me = $150. And this was when they were having a statewide sale. So, money can be made from just selling greeting cards, not just large wall prints.

And of course, don't price your work too cheaply! I always add a little extra than their recommended markup.

Uploading (at only 5 at a time) does take a while. I uploaded 4,000 there, a little bit every day while I was working on something else, and noticed all these sales coming through. The algorithm seems to favor new uploads. So, regular uploading seems to help. 

« Last Edit: April 26, 2022, 16:34 by Annie »

« Reply #63 on: April 27, 2022, 00:18 »
0
Im approaching another milestone and thought about posting a thread but I dont think people would be interested.

I would be very interested! Milestones always are interesting.

Justanotherphotographer, I would be very interested too!

« Reply #64 on: April 27, 2022, 00:32 »
+1


As I've heard many times from those on the inside, many buyers don't mind paying a bit extra for quality work so it makes sense to price our work correct when we have the option to do so. Or, what I'm doing more and more is submitting my work to premium agencies, Arcangel for book covers and recently signed up to Overflightstock for my drone stuff.

One of my yearly goals has been to try to get my (paid) FAA up and running again to add more images / curate the portfolio. I do have sales on there every few months but I want to push it more, plus better ways to promote my work. I've done OK at Photo4me and will keep adding on that. The drone aerial shots add to my arsenal and I'm only getting started.

Alex

THIS sounds tons better, Alex. :)
Are there any other agencies for book covers in addition to Arcangel and Trevillion?
Best of luck with the drone shots!

« Reply #65 on: April 27, 2022, 00:58 »
0
Good morning all,

In regards to the referral link(s), further to reading the above valid comments and having a good think about everything, I've decided to remove them from the interview. Should anyone have signed up in the time between publishing the interview and removing the link (and I do eventually earn anything) I'll refuse the payment.

Within the past two months or so, Elijah uploaded a large batch to them. Let's give it a bit of time for those images to mature and start selling and, as mentioned earlier, he'll then be publishing a full comprehensive and unbiased review. Should be interesting to compare average RPI between all the agencies.

Alex

Alex, I'm kind of a bit disappointed that you have taken this route. You have a very interesting and helpful blog and I know you have promoted other avenues for increasing one's income, such as the book covers - which was really interesting and informative. But there are still other ways that do not devalue a person's work.

There are lots of places where creatives can set their own price. POD sites, designer resources agencies, direct selling, etc. (As an example, after putting a bit of time into researching what other type of buyers are out there, and changing what I shoot, I am now earning an additional $500 a month from these places, on top of my microstock earnings. Plus there is potential for even more growth.)

I have even put my prices up recently on some of these sites and increased my buyers. So, it can be done.

Hi Annie,

I hear you. I admit that sometimes I get frustrated and instead of looking at different revenue streams I'll just look for more agencies (I will submit a smallish batch to Freepiks and Vecteezy as a trial to later add some insight into the reviews)...my thinking is that if they're already keyworded, what's the harm? But there's not much point in earning an extra $20-30 a month on another 5,000 images. The industry is broken and it's only going to get worse imo in terms of returns for the time/investment put in.

As I've heard many times from those on the inside, many buyers don't mind paying a bit extra for quality work so it makes sense to price our work correct when we have the option to do so. Or, what I'm doing more and more is submitting my work to premium agencies, Arcangel for book covers and recently signed up to Overflightstock for my drone stuff.

One of my yearly goals has been to try to get my (paid) FAA up and running again to add more images / curate the portfolio. I do have sales on there every few months but I want to push it more, plus better ways to promote my work. I've done OK at Photo4me and will keep adding on that. The drone aerial shots add to my arsenal and I'm only getting started.

Alex

Alex, I forgot to say that if you do have 5,000 pre-keyworded commercial photos then you would do better on FAA. Yes, definitely pay the $30/annum fee. It has lots of advantages.

First of all, if you pay the annual fee, you will receive a free website via their other site, Pixels.com. Its a nice looking website where you can orderly sort your photos in collections (via the FAA site - everything is done on FAA. Pixels just mirrors what you have on FAA). And for those who don't want to pay much for their own website, $30 a year is much cheaper than $30/month. This has the extra advantage then of enabling you to show your work to those asking to see your portfolio.

Once you are on Pixels, you will also have a wider range of print on demand products. Its a lot more commercial than just putting up your best 'artistic' work for prints and wall art. As I said to a friend the other day, I am always surprised what people print on shower curtains. lol

With that in mind, don't curate your work too much. Let the buyers decide. I've had lots of things sell that I wouldn't have thought would - if I curated my own work too much.

I also sell a lot of greeting cards, but also surprised at how often someone will come along and place a bulk order. For example, a recent sale where a buyer purchased 6 packs of 25. Total commission for me = $150. And this was when they were having a statewide sale. So, money can be made from just selling greeting cards, not just large wall prints.

And of course, don't price your work too cheaply! I always add a little extra than their recommended markup.

Uploading (at only 5 at a time) does take a while. I uploaded 4,000 there, a little bit every day while I was working on something else, and noticed all these sales coming through. The algorithm seems to favor new uploads. So, regular uploading seems to help.

Thank you, Annie. This is valuable information.
You are doing great on FAA. Do you promote your images much?
I'm on FAA also, and I'm rather happy with the sales, but my port is still small-ish. Uploading takes some time, but it's not too tedious (like on some other sites, Redbubble for example). The annual fee is small compared to the fact that you get your own site.
There are many POD sites out there, and everyone will surely find the best fit for their work by searching on Google. Different type of images do better on different sites, just like on stock.

Brasilnut

  • Author Brutally Honest Guide to Microstock & Blog

« Reply #66 on: April 27, 2022, 05:38 »
0


As I've heard many times from those on the inside, many buyers don't mind paying a bit extra for quality work so it makes sense to price our work correct when we have the option to do so. Or, what I'm doing more and more is submitting my work to premium agencies, Arcangel for book covers and recently signed up to Overflightstock for my drone stuff.

One of my yearly goals has been to try to get my (paid) FAA up and running again to add more images / curate the portfolio. I do have sales on there every few months but I want to push it more, plus better ways to promote my work. I've done OK at Photo4me and will keep adding on that. The drone aerial shots add to my arsenal and I'm only getting started.

Alex

THIS sounds tons better, Alex. :)
Are there any other agencies for book covers in addition to Arcangel and Trevillion?
Best of luck with the drone shots!

Thanks! Nope, Arcangel and Trevillion have got that segment of the market covered, although on my rounds at bookshops when I'm looking at various book covers, I often photo composites of Shutterstock/Adobe/Getty + Arcangel and Shutterstock/Adobe/Getty + Trevillion.

Generally, Trevillion seems to be more picky about who they take on (without offering much in terms of feedback) and the type of work that goes on there. Seems like they want more of a finished product than Arcangel.

« Reply #67 on: April 27, 2022, 11:01 »
+3
I, for one, appreciate the content on freepik and vecteezy, Alex. I'm never going to join freebie sites but it's educational to know what that side of the industry thinks and how they justify doing what they do.

I think most of cheap microstock is headed in that direction. But, like Annie said, if you make great quality content that's unique and useful and refuse to give it away for free, there'll always be takers for it and they likely will have to pay more for that content in the future on the more premium sites than they do now. 3-4 years down the line I see pretty much all of the ordinary microstock being given away for free.

« Reply #68 on: April 28, 2022, 07:53 »
0

But, like Annie said, if you make great quality content that's unique and useful and refuse to give it away for free, there'll always be takers for it and they likely will have to pay more for that content in the future on the more premium sites than they do now. 3-4 years down the line I see pretty much all of the ordinary microstock being given away for free.

Premium sites were there but no one buys high-priced stock photos anymore. You don't make a salary with Getty Images or Offset ...

Read this from Jim Pickerell "Selling Stock":

https://www.selling-stock.com/Article/stock-photography-is-volume-the-answer

"In 2006, the last time Getty Images provided a detailed earnings breakdown to the public, their Creative Images division (RM and RF) generated $634.1 million. The average license fees were $536.25 for an RM image and $242.50 for RF. They licensed a total of 1,767,214 uses of which 973,933 were RM and 787,281 were RF. The average Return per Image in the collection was $327.

In 2018 Gettys gross revenue for its Creative Collection had dropped to about $280 million and the average price per image licensed was down to about $29. One third of the licenses were for fees under $5.00.

As of the beginning of 2020 Getty stopped selling RM. Photographers tell me that Getty is licensing a significant number of uses for $0.17. Photographers get a 20% royalty share or $0.03 per use."

--------------------------

I have always taken high quality photos. It usually takes me one hour or two for post production.

I upload about 400-500 photos a year and with a portfolio of 4000-5000 photos I was earning 2500/3000 $ a month ... today 2000/2500 $ for the drop in RPD due to SS and Alamy.

I did some testing by sending lower quality photos without post production ... but unfortunately they don't sell or sell very little.

And if you want to sell on POD sites or through your website and do well, it takes a lot of marketing, otherwise you have to settle for $ 200-500 per month (if you have an high quality portfolio of 1-2K images).
« Last Edit: April 28, 2022, 08:08 by Bauman »

Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #69 on: April 28, 2022, 08:54 »
+1

But, like Annie said, if you make great quality content that's unique and useful and refuse to give it away for free, there'll always be takers for it and they likely will have to pay more for that content in the future on the more premium sites than they do now. 3-4 years down the line I see pretty much all of the ordinary microstock being given away for free.

And if you want to sell on POD sites or through your website and do well, it takes a lot of marketing, otherwise you have to settle for $ 200-500 per month (if you have an high quality portfolio of 1-2K images).

iStock is 15%, and minimum is 2 also connect use is fractions of a cent, but at 15%. SS Level 1 15% Level 2  20% Level 3  25% Level 4  30% Level 5  35% Level 6  40% - but if they only charge pennies for sub downloads, that mostly means the minimum 10 and into the teens for commissions for most downloads. Since SS is primarily subs and API and other partners, most of our rewards will be sub-20 per image. Adobe is better minimum with few exceptions is 34 and there are many 99 downloads for everyone. That's the big three?

This is for both of you. How do you do marketing? Say FAA or a personal site or Shopify? What sound someone do?

The guy suing SS has thousands of images up on Flickr. That's where they came from. Thieves go to Pexels, copy images for free use or upload them as their own.

I mean, what's the answer? How do I market safely and where?

« Reply #70 on: April 28, 2022, 10:51 »
0
...
In 2018 Gettys gross revenue for its Creative Collection had dropped to about $280 million and the average price per image licensed was down to about $29. One third of the licenses were for fees under $5.00.
....

which really means the median price is less than $29 (a few $100+ sales distort the mean) [bill gates walks into a bar and the average net worth is millions]

Milleflore

« Reply #71 on: April 29, 2022, 02:21 »
0

But, like Annie said, if you make great quality content that's unique and useful and refuse to give it away for free, there'll always be takers for it and they likely will have to pay more for that content in the future on the more premium sites than they do now. 3-4 years down the line I see pretty much all of the ordinary microstock being given away for free.

And if you want to sell on POD sites or through your website and do well, it takes a lot of marketing, otherwise you have to settle for $ 200-500 per month (if you have an high quality portfolio of 1-2K images).

I think you just answered the question on everyone's mind, 'how do I make up for losses with microstock price-cutting WITHOUT any marketing'. I believe an additional $500/month is very feasible, and very welcome to most contributors.

Pete and Ravens and others who asked about marketing: I don't do any additional marketing. On FAA, I don't join any groups, or do any of that social stuff. When I get some time - after I finish building my ports on these other sites - I want to develop my marketing through social media, but at the moment, I haven't had the time.
« Last Edit: April 29, 2022, 02:25 by Annie »

Milleflore

« Reply #72 on: April 29, 2022, 02:50 »
+1
I also want to add that people used to only upload their best 'artistic' work to Fine Art America, hoping to sell these as wall art.

However, since I've paid the annual fee and have access to their Pixels.com site - a lot more commercial work is selling. Yes, they have to be good quality photos, but they don't have to be 'artistic' or just landscapes or similar.
« Last Edit: April 29, 2022, 21:21 by Annie »

Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #73 on: April 29, 2022, 09:21 »
+1
For anyone who knows, or at least have some ideas, because I really don't have any good ones? IF someone wanted to do some marketing for a better exposure and possibly getting noticed by buyers, what would they do? How would someone proceed to get noticed?

Does that cost money, or some investment besides time or posting to social media? I can't see spamming all my friends, who aren't image buyers, with "Here's my latest upload to FAA" or some Twitter announcement that's sent to everyone. Second account, and then how do I get the right kind of friends, the ones who buy things.  :)

Thanks Annie, interesting from someone who makes some sales on FAA. Mine are fulfillment for sales and that works well. I get an occasional Pixels sale. Last month I sold a tapestry of all things. Someone has one of mine hanging on a wall someplace 51x60 inches.

But this is about Freepik and my answer is, no way. Not just because of the 25% default tax from Spain, or the $85 a year proof from the IRS, but just for the overall value and undermining that they could do.

I don't think my buyers would even look at Freepik, but somewhere I think the value and impression of my work as what I do, would be diminished and degraded into, perceived values dropping to phone snapshot levels. I like to think that I work and make specific images, using higher quality equipment, taking time and effort to edit and produce something of greater value.

The impression of giving away my photos for free is, a sign of desperation and personally degrading. Free? Don't people have any self respect for what they create?



« Reply #74 on: April 29, 2022, 11:50 »
0

The impression of giving away my photos for free is, a sign of desperation and personally degrading. Free? Don't people have any self respect for what they create?

Well, flickr was (at one point in time) the most popular photographer's network on the internet. People had no issues putting their high resolutions images up without watermarks for free there. All you had to do was right-click-save to steal those shots. The whole idea of hitting the "Explore" page and getting thousands of likes and comments was too hard to resist for a lot of people.

Most of freestock is just that. People who do photography as a hobby and have a day job who just want to put up their images somewhere for likes and downloads. I don't believe most of them are even aware they can make some money off this. Just like people (like myself) during the earlier days of flickr had no idea you could make money off stock photography. It has very little to do with self respect because if you're a mere hobbyist taking snapshots (or even very good pictures), you don't think of your images as "work" anyway.

Milleflore

« Reply #75 on: April 29, 2022, 13:47 »
+1
For anyone who knows, or at least have some ideas, because I really don't have any good ones? IF someone wanted to do some marketing for a better exposure and possibly getting noticed by buyers, what would they do? How would someone proceed to get noticed?

Does that cost money, or some investment besides time or posting to social media? I can't see spamming all my friends, who aren't image buyers, with "Here's my latest upload to FAA" or some Twitter announcement that's sent to everyone. Second account, and then how do I get the right kind of friends, the ones who buy things.  :)

Thanks Annie, interesting from someone who makes some sales on FAA. Mine are fulfillment for sales and that works well. I get an occasional Pixels sale. Last month I sold a tapestry of all things. Someone has one of mine hanging on a wall someplace 51x60 inches.




Start a new thread for this, Pete, and I will add some of my thoughts and hopefully others will too.

« Reply #76 on: April 30, 2022, 07:31 »
+2
I used goigle ads, amazon ads and Facebook ads in the past to sell POD stuff and also to drive traffic to my site (when I sold stock direct). You can pretty much set your own revenue if you spend enough on ads. That's what informs my view of how important search placement is on the micros. If you get enough eyeballs you will sell. The problem is I was spending $12 for every $10 to me. Also don't ever give fb your money, much worse results than the others and exposed as BSing ads customers more than once.

Milleflore

« Reply #77 on: April 30, 2022, 15:22 »
+2
I used goigle ads, amazon ads and Facebook ads in the past to sell POD stuff and also to drive traffic to my site (when I sold stock direct). You can pretty much set your own revenue if you spend enough on ads. That's what informs my view of how important search placement is on the micros. If you get enough eyeballs you will sell. The problem is I was spending $12 for every $10 to me. Also don't ever give fb your money, much worse results than the others and exposed as BSing ads customers more than once.

Thanks! Very interesting, especially the part about: "The problem is I was spending $12 for every $10 to me."

...

I've used social media for free marketing before and plan to get back into it, possibly next month, and to answer Pete's questions above, this is what I've learnt:

Quote
Does that cost money, or some investment besides time or posting to social media? I can't see spamming all my friends, who aren't image buyers, with "Here's my latest upload to FAA" or some Twitter announcement that's sent to everyone. Second account, and then how do I get the right kind of friends, the ones who buy things.  :)

Free Social Media Marketing: just requires 15 to 30 minutes a day on the big 4: Facebook, Twitter, Pinterest, and Instagram. But my recommendation is to just choose 2 at a time and build those up, otherwise it becomes just too time consuming, and your attention may get too scattered.

There are 2 ways you can do this. The first, the easy way, is just to increase click throughs and therefore views on your products, which will help with their search placement. I've had up to 40 views on a new FAA product from just doing this.  I used to regularly get about 20 to 30 views on products listed on DesignBundles, which really helped with their search placement. Here you just need to regularly post links to your product/website/blog. I recommend that you do this for new listings/uploads especially, because lots of interest on a new product seems to really help with the algorithm.
 
The second is to really go full-on to develop a dedicated audience. And that takes a lot more time and you need to understand how to use hashtags, or write interesting blog posts, create some lead magnets (freebies), or even go as far as developing an email marketing list.

I have separate business social media accounts to my personal ones. It just works much better that way, and yes, you are not then spamming family and friends. Its also best to keep your own political or social views out of your business account. You dont want to alienate anyone. I was starting to use my business Twitter for personal interests, and then decided to stop.

If youre starting out and dont know what to do, then just go on Pinterest and type in a search question for what you need to know. For example: how to get followers on Instagram?, and there should be hundreds of blog posts and quick tips. Some are just click-baits, and some actually have some good answers. For example:

https://www.pinterest.com.au/search/pins/?rs=ac&len=2&q=how%20to%20get%20followers%20on%20instagram&eq=how%20to%20get%20followers%20on%20ins&etslf=9447&term_meta[]=how%7Cautocomplete%7C0&term_meta[]=to%7Cautocomplete%7C0&term_meta[]=get%7Cautocomplete%7C0&term_meta[]=followers%7Cautocomplete%7C0&term_meta[]=on%7Cautocomplete%7C0&term_meta[]=instagram%7Cautocomplete%7C0

 
I found that you dont necessarily need thousands of followers if you use the right hashtags. So, understanding how to best use hashtags is a good place to start. Once again, just type that into Pinterest search and you should get hundreds of blog articles about that.

If you can work out who is your target audience, then you can hone in on those by following these people, and often they will follow you back. The other way is to join social media groups. (People who like vintage postcards? Racing cars? Racing Sports?). For example, my husband joined a FB group who were interested in what he was selling on Shopify and now he gets lots of regular sales and return buyers from there. On Pinterest I found a specific group in my target audience range, and used to just post there because I got far better response than just posting to everyone.

But like anything, just start small and learn as you go. Just post links to your products, and hashtag, hashtag, hashtag. Hashtags will open you up to a greater audience than just your followers. And also perhaps consider joining some groups.

If you start to feel that your account is becoming too sell/sell/sell and starting to put people off then write some interesting (related) blog posts. Maybe something in your area of expertise (vintage racing cars?? Where you find your vintage postcards??) and post those. Or post some interesting articles (from other sources) in that area as well. Think of interesting or helpful things that your audience would like to know more of.


« Last Edit: April 30, 2022, 15:57 by Annie »

Dee

« Reply #78 on: May 01, 2022, 11:02 »
+3
I made the mistake of uploading some of my photographs to Freepik in 2018, around 130 files, and I have still not reached the 100 eur payment threshold. I expect to reach it maybe next year. Ridiculous.

« Reply #79 on: May 02, 2022, 08:55 »
+1

Thanks! Very interesting, especially the part about: "The problem is I was spending $12 for every $10 to me."

...


With the POD sites I could never quite make it work for any length of time. It would look like I was turning a profit for a certain period but a couple of weeks later I would be in the red again. Frustrating when the difference was often small enough that a slightly bigger cut from the agency would put me in the green.

With my own site I was doing okay, like the amount I make at a mid tier agency, but I shut it down when the EU rules regarding getting VAT registered came in. I couldnt be bothered with the extra paperwork; I like to keep things simple!

JaenStock

  • Bad images can sell.
« Reply #80 on: May 02, 2022, 13:21 »
+1
I made the mistake of uploading some of my photographs to Freepik in 2018, around 130 files, and I have still not reached the 100 eur payment threshold. I expect to reach it maybe next year. Ridiculous.

Remember that when you close your account with them, the photos will remain in their agency for a year without you seeing a penny

Milleflore

« Reply #81 on: May 02, 2022, 15:09 »
+1

Thanks! Very interesting, especially the part about: "The problem is I was spending $12 for every $10 to me."

...


With the POD sites I could never quite make it work for any length of time. It would look like I was turning a profit for a certain period but a couple of weeks later I would be in the red again. Frustrating when the difference was often small enough that a slightly bigger cut from the agency would put me in the green.

With my own site I was doing okay, like the amount I make at a mid tier agency, but I shut it down when the EU rules regarding getting VAT registered came in. I couldnt be bothered with the extra paperwork; I like to keep things simple!

With the PODs, I don't think I would bother marketing them anymore, its not really worth my time. Mainly because my target buyers could be anyone. But promoting sites, blogs and targeted products who have a specific audience (like the examples I used for Pete above) can definitely be advantageous. And yes, I too am finding that my non-microstock sites can out-perform the mid-tier agencies.
 

Is there any way, we can move these marketing comments onto its own thread? They are getting lost on here - plus people are still posting some very useful comments about Freepik, which are getting drowned out.


MOVED TO "SOCIAL MEDIA AND OTHER MARKETING' THREAD ....


« Last Edit: May 02, 2022, 15:16 by Annie »


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
2 Replies
16618 Views
Last post September 23, 2015, 07:57
by elsystudio
5 Replies
4857 Views
Last post May 11, 2020, 16:15
by charged
15 Replies
4696 Views
Last post January 08, 2020, 15:14
by georgep7
5 Replies
2411 Views
Last post May 21, 2020, 14:11
by medveh
6 Replies
2759 Views
Last post August 29, 2020, 09:52
by Uncle Pete

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle