Author Topic: Small niche portfolio or large ot top earners? (Read 10951 times)

chess1master · « **on:** January 17, 2017, 06:37 »

In my portfolio are 6000 pics in SS, Fotolia. I plan reduce the size to best earner 1000 pics, others, unsoldable, low earners, delete. Is it good idea?

qunamax · « **Reply #1 on:** January 17, 2017, 09:36 »

I'm not sure why would you do that? Is there any harm that those photos are doing?

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #2 on:** January 17, 2017, 09:38 »

Quote from: chess1master on January 17, 2017, 06:37

In my portfolio are 6000 pics in SS, Fotolia. I plan reduce the size to best earner 1000 pics, others, unsoldable, low earners, delete. Is it good idea?

Nobody shopping those sites cares about your "portfolio". They're only looking for the image they need.

SpaceStockFootage · « **Reply #3 on:** January 17, 2017, 09:48 »

Agree with the other guys... what's not in your portfolio isn't going to sell, and what isn't in your portfolio, isn't going to make people want to buy your other stuff more!

chess1master · « **Reply #4 on:** January 17, 2017, 13:28 »

Quote from: Sean Locke Photography on January 17, 2017, 09:38

Quote from: chess1master on January 17, 2017, 06:37
In my portfolio are 6000 pics in SS, Fotolia. I plan reduce the size to best earner 1000 pics, others, unsoldable, low earners, delete. Is it good idea?

Nobody shopping those sites cares about your "portfolio". They're only looking for the image they need.

As my viewpoint is not true. I know some of my buyers, one of them said the following: Everytime I look after photographers porfolio, and its judgement (buy or not) depends on the WORST image in portfolio.

Quote from: qunamax on January 17, 2017, 09:36

I'm not sure why would you do that? Is there any harm that those photos are doing?

1., Smaller database for statistics better keywording - I plan reduce keywords maximum 35-38.
2., better variablity in portfolio
3., up to date and trends for 2017 (green)

pancaketom · « **Reply #5 on:** January 17, 2017, 13:46 »

I am not sure why the buyer wouldn't choose to buy an image based on that image, but I suppose there are some stupid enough to buy an inferior image because the portfolio it comes from doesn't contain any horrible images.

I think your time would be better spent working on new images and getting the metadata right for them (and if your metadata for the existing images is horrible fix them - starting with what you think are your better images).

Unless the search takes sales / image into account I don't think it would help much to delete 80% of your images.

ravens · « **Reply #6 on:** January 17, 2017, 15:47 »

If you do have "bad" images in your portfolio that disturb you, then by all means do a small clean up within your portfolio. But do not delete 5000 images unless you have other plans to use them! I agree what's been said here - What buyer will look at 6000 images, judge which is worst, and then decide if they buy or not? And if just one buyer among 100000 other buyers is like that, why should you care? Truth is, no one really looks at your port as a whole. People find an image from the search, hopefully buy, and go.

SpaceStockFootage · « **Reply #7 on:** January 17, 2017, 18:59 »

If I was on Tinder then I'd take the worst photo in the 'portfolio' into consideration, but there's a good reason for that. The worst photo in a photographers portfolio isn't of interest to me, unless I'm hiring them for custom work and want a realistic picture of what I'm going to get. Otherwise, why would something I have no interest in buying, influence something I do have an interest in buying?

I appreciate what your client says, but I think he's probably in the minority. I'm sure there are buyers out there that take into account the photographer's country, religion, the football team they support and their star sign... but none of them affect the quality of the image.

unnonimus · « **Reply #8 on:** January 18, 2017, 00:46 »

some web sites will penalize your portfolio in search engine rankings if you have a low ratio of earnings per upload.

for some web sites, you can improve your search engines rankings by removing uploads that never sell.

I recommend you contact the contributor support of each site and ask them if they penalize people with large portfolios and unsold content, and ask if you can improve your rankings by reducing your portfolio size.

MxR · « **Reply #9 on:** January 18, 2017, 03:19 »

Sometimes is best not upload too similar images (example Still life at 50mm and them zoom at 70mm pic)

too similar images stolen one to other the sales and lost relevance in searches. Sometimes i see portfolios like stop and motion movie. This dont work.

Dont delete crappy images, sometimes a designer needs this crappy image

Dumc · « **Reply #10 on:** January 18, 2017, 12:30 »

Deleting images is just stupid thing to do. I had 60$ SOD for a file, that was never sold before. I had EL sale on bigstock, that was never sold before, etc...You just never know

scandurica · « **Reply #11 on:** January 19, 2017, 03:54 »

Quote from: chess1master on January 17, 2017, 06:37

In my portfolio are 6000 pics in SS, Fotolia. I plan reduce the size to best earner 1000 pics, others, unsoldable, low earners, delete. Is it good idea?

Not a good idea. Why would you want to do that? I have garbage(in my opinion) in my port from the beginning which still make sales. I have sold the rights for a simple piece of sh*t on CS for 700$ (350$ my cut). Don't delete them!

chess1master · « **Reply #12 on:** January 19, 2017, 05:41 »

Quote from: MxR on January 18, 2017, 03:19

Sometimes is best not upload too similar images (example Still life at 50mm and them zoom at 70mm pic)

too similar images stolen one to other the sales and lost relevance in searches. Sometimes i see portfolios like stop and motion movie. This dont work.

Dont delete crappy images, sometimes a designer needs this crappy image

I was't clear. I have variable portfolio, but now I am seeing the future in small niche portfolios, or in very large. In my opinion I need in my portfolio the very best pics, the other 68-95% (statisticaly 1-2 standard deviation interval, sellings probably copying normal distribution - delete them. In every minute I am losing many USD with care with my database, uploads, feedbacks, statistics, kw, etc.).

Quote from: Dumc on January 18, 2017, 12:30

Deleting images is just stupid thing to do. I had 60$ SOD for a file, that was never sold before. I had EL sale on bigstock, that was never sold before, etc...You just never know

I am losing much more money waiting with SODs, and Jesus come from Heaven, caring with statistics, kw, etc, then focusing on new hard to copy content... but this is only my opinion.

chess1master · « **Reply #13 on:** January 19, 2017, 05:46 »

Quote from: SpaceStockFootage on January 17, 2017, 18:59

If I was on Tinder then I'd take the worst photo in the 'portfolio' into consideration, but there's a good reason for that. The worst photo in a photographers portfolio isn't of interest to me, unless I'm hiring them for custom work and want a realistic picture of what I'm going to get. Otherwise, why would something I have no interest in buying, influence something I do have an interest in buying?

I appreciate what your client says, but I think he's probably in the minority. I'm sure there are buyers out there that take into account the photographer's country, religion, the football team they support and their star sign... but none of them affect the quality of the image.

I've been many years in fashion industry, them matters quality almost all. In microstock is other, 90% you have true what you say.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #14 on:** January 19, 2017, 07:40 »

Quote from: chess1master on January 19, 2017, 05:41

I was't clear. I have variable portfolio, but now I am seeing the future in small niche portfolios, or in very large. In my opinion I need in my portfolio the very best pics, the other 68-95% (statisticaly 1-2 standard deviation interval, sellings probably copying normal distribution - delete them. In every minute I am losing many USD with care with my database, uploads, feedbacks, statistics, kw, etc.).

No, you were clear. There's no need to delete work from the micros to make your port smaller. It won't result in any more sales.

Justanotherphotographer · « **Reply #15 on:** January 19, 2017, 09:41 »

You should delete as much work as possible. I would reommend starting with your best sellers in any niche that competes with me.

trek · « **Reply #16 on:** January 19, 2017, 10:28 »

I love to edit. I love to edit so much I made a rule in Jan 2015 allowing me delete one upload for every two that get accepted. It's not a radical as it sounds when you factor in agencies that go out of business (Veer, Revostock), agencies deserving of the edit (middle) finger and removal of low earners with little to no sales. The good news is my overall return per upload stat is going up after a multi-year decline.

YadaYadaYada · « **Reply #17 on:** January 19, 2017, 20:59 »

Quote from: Sean Locke Photography on January 19, 2017, 07:40

Quote from: chess1master on January 19, 2017, 05:41
I was't clear. I have variable portfolio, but now I am seeing the future in small niche portfolios, or in very large. In my opinion I need in my portfolio the very best pics, the other 68-95% (statisticaly 1-2 standard deviation interval, sellings probably copying normal distribution - delete them. In every minute I am losing many USD with care with my database, uploads, feedbacks, statistics, kw, etc.).

No, you were clear. There's no need to delete work from the micros to make your port smaller. It won't result in any more sales.

I don't know why people think removing product from the market will increase exposure or sales?

I don't know of any buyers who look at the rest of my portfolio of sliced vegetables when they are buying a shot of a flying duck or an isolated pickle.

YadaYadaYada · « **Reply #18 on:** January 19, 2017, 21:02 »

Quote from: Justanotherphotographer on January 19, 2017, 09:41

You should delete as much work as possible. I would reommend starting with your best sellers in any niche that competes with me.

Exactly. Please tell me what areas you shoot chess1master, and I'll match against mine. Delete all competing images would be the best plan. Asking this question makes me doubt that you are a chess anything.

SpaceStockFootage · « **Reply #19 on:** January 19, 2017, 21:18 »

Quote from: trek on January 19, 2017, 10:28

The good news is my overall return per upload stat is going up after a multi-year decline.

Of course it is! If you're deleting low sellers then for it to stay the same or go down would be very strange. Yes, overall return per upload is great, but not if your overall earnings are the same or less.

FlowerPower · « **Reply #20 on:** January 20, 2017, 11:47 »

Quote from: SpaceStockFootage on January 19, 2017, 21:18

Quote from: trek on January 19, 2017, 10:28
The good news is my overall return per upload stat is going up after a multi-year decline.

Of course it is! If you're deleting low sellers then for it to stay the same or go down would be very strange. Yes, overall return per upload is great, but not if your overall earnings are the same or less.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Small niche portfolio or large ot top earners? (Read 10951 times)

chess1master

qunamax

Sean Locke Photography

SpaceStockFootage

chess1master

pancaketom

ravens

SpaceStockFootage

unnonimus

MxR

Dumc

scandurica

chess1master

chess1master

Sean Locke Photography

Justanotherphotographer

trek

YadaYadaYada

YadaYadaYada

SpaceStockFootage

FlowerPower

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors