MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: creativemarket.com Any thoughts ?  (Read 35489 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: July 22, 2014, 03:55 »
0
Hi,

Is anybody on creativemarket.com ? How do photos sell ? Is it worth uploading ?

Thanks


« Reply #1 on: July 22, 2014, 10:02 »
+2
Alright, folks, this is going to be a long one, but bear with me.

My comments on Creative Market are from the perspective of a vector artist, and I think that vectors are currently the leading products at CM so my opinions may be somewhat influenced by the fact that vectors and related graphics do well there.

Lets put it this way: I like Creative Market enough that Ive started to put some stuff on there exclusively, even though I have no direct incentive to do so (there's no exclusivity program). I just really like their setup enough that it makes me want to give them more of my work to the extent that Id actually hold some work back from other places.

Ive been at CM for a year, and my perception is that they do a lot of things really well. 70% commission across the board (no exclusivity) and "set-your-own" pricing is fantastic. Theyre a small company, 13 employees last I heard, but theyre incredibly good at what they do. There are features and functions built in to the CM system that few (if any) other companies have pulled off as nicely. For example, they have a followers system. I know, big deal, SS has that too. But the version of it that CM implemented is actually useful. Your followers get emails when you release a new product. Buyers also get notifications when an update to a product they purchased is released. For example if I decide to add more items to a set of graphics or add an additional file format, I can check a box to notify customers that an update is available and they can get it without having to re-purchase the product.

I think the tools theyve built to allow customers and contributors to connect are really nice. There is some cool social integration, a likes function for each product, and a commenting system.

There is no image review process at CM. Once youre approved to sell there, you can upload whatever you want and it is immediately available for sale. But that means that the initial review is more strict than your typical microstock application process. I expect that the rejection rate is higher than most other places. Ive already heard from a few frustrated vector artists who sell elsewhere but were rejected at CM. And honestly, I dont have a problem with this. I know thats easy to say when Im already in, but Id feel the same way even if I was rejected. I think its good that we have places with higher standards, and Id be supportive of any of these companies even if Im not able to be a part of them myself. 

Regarding vectors specifically: For vectors and graphics templates that use text, it is expected that you include files that are fully editable. I know this can seem like a hassle, but honestly Ive grown to embrace this part of the kind of work I do. I consider this an added incentive for people to get my stuff at CM, vs. other stock sites where I cant even upload a fully editable vector file. I also include PSDs of a few of my vector sets, which again is sort of an exclusive to CM thing. And again, added incentive for people to get my work there, where I choose the price and get 70%. Id love to see more and more of my sales come from CM at the expense of the places that dont pay as well.

One other note for vector folks: If youre going to give CM a try, be prepared to spend some time building your store and product previews. Youre really going to want to create interesting preview images (which, by the way, you can include several of, not just one) to help sell your work. Just browse the site and see how people create their thumbnails and previews, youll see what I mean.

Where I think CM struggles a little is in perceived value. They come across as a premium marketplace, and in a lot of respects I think they uphold that value. But there will always be people who price their stuff too low and make it a little harder for others to justify higher prices. Where I think this is most apparent right now is in the photos category, unfortunately. Browsing the Photos section I see a lot of $3 - 5 images. Which, mind you, isnt terrible when youre getting 70%. Thats $2.10 - 3.50 royalties on those sales. But the problem of perceived value by pricing images at $3 is troublesome.

Still, at the end of the day artists decide their own prices. And even though right now the trend at CM is for low prices on photos, that doesnt mean it has to stay that way. What Ive found is that people will pay higher prices for stuff if they really want it. My lowest-priced product is one of my worst sellers there. And my highest-priced product, one of my better sellers. My average royalty over the past year per sale is $8.10, which puts my average sale price at around $11.50. Sure there are people who undercut me on price. But my stuff still sells, so to me it looks like buyers are willing to spend more if the product is what they really want/need.

Bottom line, I think Creative Market is an interesting company with a good setup and huge potential. They do a lot with a small team and pay well, which is very much what a lot of people (myself included) have been looking for in this business for years now. Theyre the opposite of microstock in a lot of ways, running a lean company with less bloat, a robust system, a variety of products, and royalties that are truly the opposite of what a lot of other places offer. But I also think that CM may be an acquired taste for a lot of contributors. I have no idea how photos are doing and if its worth getting into CM for that. And even on the vector side, although I really like CM, I know its not for everyone. Just the investment in time needed to set up a shop and putting your products together will be a complete turn-off for many people.

But what Creative Market does well, I think they do very well. And the positives far outweigh the negatives.

« Reply #2 on: July 22, 2014, 11:26 »
+4
I'm moving my comments on what I saw when I checked out Creative Market the other day (from the thread about Envato). I was looking at photos to try and see if it looked like a potentially interesting place to sell licenses:

Creative Market looks an awful lot like Fiverr to me (where that isn't a good thing). Some examples - 256 stock photos for $9

https://creativemarket.com/cmartinez_es/22295-256-Hi-Res-Image-Pack-BONUS

40 holiday images for $9

https://creativemarket.com/truemitra/28903-40-Holidays-Backgrounds

78 indochina images for $5

https://creativemarket.com/cmartinez_es/26909-78-Hi-Res-Image-Pack-Indochine

50 grunge textures for $9

https://creativemarket.com/truemitra/56115-50-Seamless-Grunge-Texture-Tile

90 textures plus a handbook for $17

https://creativemarket.com/dustinlee/56134-Standard-Issue-Vector-Texture-Pack

Even if all the stuff is the creation of the sellers (and I wonder at Amber Mueller's portfolio of Zoom Team's images - which are at Dreamstime, Shutterstock, Deposit Photos; plus those holiday photos look like so many others popular on SS) it's just not all that appealing to try and sell fairly priced goods in a marketplace that's hosting this type of content. Another post in the Envato thread had pointed out that a Creative Market contributor appeared to be selling someone else's work

http://www.microstockgroup.com/graphicriver/time-to-step-it-up-envato/msg387827/#msg387827

Their "Simple License" doesn't really appear to be appropriate for licensing photos - there's nothing preventing sensitive use, endorsements and it isn't clear that you can't make and sell prints of the photos. No print run limitations.

https://creativemarket.com/licenses/simple

With no image review process, I can't imagine how there won't be trouble down the road with content that shouldn't be offered for sale - if not because of unscrupulous contributors, then inexperienced ones.

They have no editorial license, yet I see an image of the Walt Disney Concert Hall in LA which you can't license commercially

https://creativemarket.com/GraphicWallace/59175-Lo-fi-Walt-Disney-Concert-Hall-Tower

And back to the content that appears suspect, a google image search on this item

https://creativemarket.com/truemitra/23810-modern-living-room

has many hits in use, but it's offered for free here (credited to someone called Sunny Kapoor, India, the same name as on the Creative Market account)

http://designozy.com/stock-photo/modern-living-room-8396.html

The web site the CM contributor lists has packs of vectors and images at dirt cheap prices

http://designersfolder.com/

This pack, as an example, has lots of familiar looking items in it (but nothing I could quickly locate as being clearly someone else's work)

http://designersfolder.com/1500-photoshop-designer-kit/

From the photos perspective, the site looks like bad news to me.

« Reply #3 on: July 22, 2014, 12:36 »
0
Jo Ann, I think some of your concerns are valid, but the comparison to Fiverr isn't accurate. Fiverr is an entirely different thing. Everything at Fiverr is cheap, and they don't care at all about copyright. Whereas Creative Market is a legit marketplace, and although I have no first-hand experience with dealing with infringements there, but from what I've seen in the CM forums, they respond to infringements fairly quickly. In one case the offending products were gone before anyone even replied.

Copyright infringement is an issue everywhere, and I've had to deal with it more at Shutterstock than anywhere else. That doesn't stop me from uploading to SS, though. And I'm not sure why it would prevent anyone from uploading to Creative Market.

Unlike most stock sites, Creative Market has actually pursued piracy of contributor content on other sites. I don't know how often they do it or how aggressively, but they try, which is more than most companies can say.

You missed a good bundle selling for really cheap:

45 vector textures for $10

https://creativemarket.com/emberstudio/57975-Vector-Texture-Pack

;)

In all seriousness, I'm not sure why you'd be so adverse to looking at Creative Market for your own work just because of what other people are doing. You can set your own prices and get 70% of each sale. I'm not sure how that qualifies as "bad news" just because a few people might be using the site for nefarious purposes. I haven't had anything of mine infringed on in the year I've been on CM, and although that doesn't mean it can't happen, it seems to happen far more often to me elsewhere.

With all of the shenanigans we deal with in this business on a regular basis from companies trying to cut our pay and screw us out of every last cent and in every way imaginable, a company offering what CM offers is refreshing news if you ask me.

« Reply #4 on: July 22, 2014, 13:12 »
+4
... I'm not sure why you'd be so adverse to looking at Creative Market for your own work just because of what other people are doing.

My work has my name on it and if I associate it with a site that's of poor quality or has work that shouldn't be licensed commercially, I think I'm tarnished by association if I sell there.

It's not that other sites don't make mistakes and allow stolen work or have commercial items that should be editorial - that does happen everywhere - but that at least they attempt to offer a legitimate marketplace where buyers can have confidence in what they buy, with licenses that spell out the rights purchased.

I find those "hundreds of photos" packages tacky and even more devaluing than the cheap (but high volume) bundles at other stock sites. I don't want to sell side by side with that stuff.

« Reply #5 on: July 22, 2014, 14:13 »
0
My work has my name on it and if I associate it with a site that's of poor quality or has work that shouldn't be licensed commercially, I think I'm tarnished by association if I sell there...

I'd attribute the lax enforcement of images that shouldn't be sold commercially as more of a fault of a young company than anything else. There was a time when a lot of that same stuff was allowed at the big sites, too. And also like them, it's probably just a matter of time before Creative Market gets one of the very same letters from the legal team at some company/organization and forces them to put a stop to allowing commercial licensing of such images.

It doesn't make it right, I know. But it's also just one of those growing pains that a lot of companies, including many that you and I both work with, have had to go through and fix. It wasn't a deal-breaker for any of us then, and I don't consider it to be one today. 

...It's not that other sites don't make mistakes and allow stolen work or have commercial items that should be editorial - that does happen everywhere - but that at least they attempt to offer a legitimate marketplace where buyers can have confidence in what they buy, with licenses that spell out the rights purchased...

I think CM is offering a legitimate marketplace. I see no reason why buyers shouldn't have confidence in what they're getting. And although the license does have some flaws, it covers most of the basics that we want to see. Commercial or personal use, no resale, no products for resale where the image constitutes the core value of the product, etc. It's not a perfect license, but for 99% of the typical use cases of a stock image, it covers the buyer. Anything else can be addressed by contacting the company, and there is also talk that an EL option is in the works for additional use cases.

...I find those "hundreds of photos" packages tacky and even more devaluing than the cheap (but high volume) bundles at other stock sites. I don't want to sell side by side with that stuff.

There are far more individual photos for sale than there are bundles/packs. And the collection is currently divided such that single photos usually don't show up in the same searches as individual photos. Bundles photos are not prominent in any of the searches I tried. And currently those bundles are usually categorized as "graphics". So someone doing a photo search for "beach" for example, would find your Turks & Caicos images prominently, probably not side-by-side with cheap bundles. A search for "pink eraser" brings up zero results, BTW.

As long as you're not bundling photos yourself, your work wouldn't be seen alongside any bundles.
« Last Edit: July 22, 2014, 14:17 by EmberMike »

« Reply #6 on: July 22, 2014, 14:39 »
+1
I buy a lot of their bundles, it's a bit of a bad addiction because I often buy these things and don't actually use them.  I think if a seller is included they must get a boost in rankings as I can see my fave fonts right on top.  (Selling for $20-$60 more individually than I paid for the bundles).

They do a good job of promoting - maybe too good, pretty frequent - because if you are not interested you might blacklist as spam.  I love the Envato bundles, but they only come around once in a while and perhaps have too many categories included (but isn't their purpose to give you a "taste" of what their market offers).

I've posted this before, but I am quite surprised there are not more marketplaces like these.  Evolve or die, right?

« Reply #7 on: July 22, 2014, 15:04 »
+1
...I love the Envato bundles, but they only come around once in a while and perhaps have too many categories included (but isn't their purpose to give you a "taste" of what their market offers)...

There are different types of bundles. Some are individual contributor bundles (Joe Artist bundles a bunch of his own stuff and sells it together as a single product), site bundles (Envato, Creative Market, etc., bundle a bunch of stuff from their own sites, comprising a collection of work from multiple contributors), and 3rd party bundles (Company XYZ is in the business of organizing and distributing bundled work from multiple artists who come from different agencies, companies, solo artists, etc).

What we've been talking about here is individual contributors bundling their own work and selling that as a single product on Creative Market. The concern that Jo Ann points out is that some of these bundles might be made up of work that the person selling the bundle doesn't have the rights to sell.

And also that these bundles are too cheap. Which, personally, I don't always agree with. I sell a bundle of 45 vector textures at CM for $10 and I think that's fair. It's mostly old stuff I created years ago, but even if I sat down and created all new textures, it wouldn't take long to get 45 new ones and the time spent creating them would be less than other stuff I also sell for $10.

Like you said, Pixart, these bundles are sometimes about giving people a taste of what is available. Some contributors at CM release bundles for a limited time. Not all of these bundles are fire sale products, they're often short-lived promotions intended to generate interest, followers, and customers of other products at full-price.

...I've posted this before, but I am quite surprised there are not more marketplaces like these.  Evolve or die, right?

"Evolve or die" is a fair statement when it comes to these new marketplaces. And I don't think many of the old companies are evolving. I can't tell you how many angry/frustrated/confused emails I've gotten from SS buyers wondering why they can't easily edit text in my vectors. And I have to explain to them that SS doesn't let me sell EPS files with editable text. The evolution of vector stock for me has been to provide more useful files. And that evolution has brought me to sites like Creative Market where I offer editable EPS and AI files, and in some cases fully-editable PSDs as well. Buyers want this stuff, and I'm happy to provide it at places who will pay me a fair royalty.
« Last Edit: July 22, 2014, 20:45 by EmberMike »

« Reply #8 on: July 22, 2014, 16:40 »
0
The personal bundles kinda go with the "Surviving in the New Economy" post about common photos being a commodity.  If I was offering a bundle, I wouldn't place a lot of value on skies, or wood textures... but a bundle of something more niche - let's say a released prima ballerina in a $2000 tutu using killer technique  - I would ask a much higher price.   

« Reply #9 on: July 23, 2014, 00:18 »
0
I put a few images up there to test it out.  I do like the site and percentage paid.  I have had a few likes but no sales.

No IPTC as far as I can tell so you have to re-keyword.  Makes it a slow process.  I will add some more when I get time but it is not a priority, unless I start to see sales.

« Reply #10 on: July 23, 2014, 09:36 »
+9
No IPTC as far as I can tell so you have to re-keyword.  Makes it a slow process.  I will add some more when I get time but it is not a priority, unless I start to see sales.

That kind of thing makes it a non-starter for me.  I don't have time to mess around with sites that can't add the simplest function like that.

« Reply #11 on: July 23, 2014, 09:41 »
0
No IPTC as far as I can tell so you have to re-keyword.  Makes it a slow process.  I will add some more when I get time but it is not a priority, unless I start to see sales.
Agree.  I do not think they are set up to handle images like a stock site.  Based on what I see most contributors have far fewer items for sale than a microstock site would have.  It seems to be a digital market rather than a stock site.

That kind of thing makes it a non-starter for me.  I don't have time to mess around with sites that can't add the simplest function like that.

« Reply #12 on: July 23, 2014, 12:51 »
+1
That kind of thing makes it a non-starter for me.  I don't have time to mess around with sites that can't add the simplest function like that.

Normally I'd say I totally agree with you. But I'm also just reading some stuff in here about how photographers don't have as many options as illustrators, so if a good option comes along, maybe for some folks the chore of pasting in keywords isn't so bad.

I guess this one will depend on where each of us is at with the companies we work with. If someone is looking for a new company to try, maybe some heavy copy-and-paste action is worth it.

Personally, I think that if the worst thing about Creative Market is their lack of IPTC, that's still a win by comparison to what we typically have to deal with around here lately.

« Reply #13 on: July 23, 2014, 13:12 »
+3
One comment. I applied and they didn't like my style. That's Ok. Actually I think that makes them a more viable option to be successful. They know their target market and are seeking artists who cater to that market. Odds are my sales would be slow there anyway because their customers aren't looking for images like mine. These are the types of new agencies that are likely to be successful. It makes marketing easier because they are reaching a specific type of customer and offering them precisely what they want to buy.

« Reply #14 on: July 23, 2014, 15:28 »
0
One comment. I applied and they didn't like my style. That's Ok. Actually I think that makes them a more viable option to be successful. They know their target market and are seeking artists who cater to that market. Odds are my sales would be slow there anyway because their customers aren't looking for images like mine. These are the types of new agencies that are likely to be successful. It makes marketing easier because they are reaching a specific type of customer and offering them precisely what they want to buy.

I agree. In that regard I sort of liken them to Stocksy. I've always figured that if Stocksy ever took illustrations, I probably wouldn't get in. But I wouldn't hold it against them, and in fact I think it's a good thing that they have a more clear idea of what they want and how to go about shaping their collection around that idea.

We need more companies like these.

« Reply #15 on: July 23, 2014, 20:08 »
0
70% sounds good to me. Setting your own prices was number one on my wish list at iS.

« Reply #16 on: July 23, 2014, 21:08 »
+2
I'm moving my comments on what I saw when I checked out Creative Market the other day (from the thread about Envato). I was looking at photos to try and see if it looked like a potentially interesting place to sell licenses:.....

From the photos perspective, the site looks like bad news to me.

JO ANN SNOVER, still the only or one of the few survivors here on MSQ whose opinion i have always taken seriously.
Tyler, you should award Jo Ann the "Honourable MSG VIP".


« Reply #17 on: July 23, 2014, 21:14 »
+4
I applied to sell photos and got rejected, although I was invited as a founding contributor to Envato and quite a few other new good places with similar setup.  So... not sure what kind of content Creative Market is really after - I know I have a lot of stuff that graphic designers need and buy. The "review" was very fast, too - I got "no thanks" email the very next day. Makes me wonder if anyone really looked at my portfolio. This reminds me of other new site that rejected my content saying they don't need "generic business images like handshakes and business meetings" - hmm... the problem is I don't do business and handshakes!:) (Ok I may have maybe 50 images like that in my 14,000 images portfolio).

« Reply #18 on: July 24, 2014, 18:02 »
+1
I'm with 'EmberMike' all the way. I think it's a good site. They contacted me a while back about joining them and I'm glad I did. I've been selling steady on there each month, not massive but not bad.

I'm a vector illustrator, mainly doing cartoon characters.

« Reply #19 on: July 24, 2014, 18:31 »
+3
I have a problem with the very large previews, and the weakest watermarks I've ever seen.

« Reply #20 on: July 25, 2014, 02:34 »
0
I have a problem with the very large previews, and the weakest watermarks I've ever seen.

You have a good point, maybe I/you could add your own watermarks. I think I'll give that a try and see what happens.

« Reply #21 on: July 25, 2014, 09:56 »
+1

I think if anyone has any specific technical concerns that would prevent them from trying Creative Market, it might be worth contacting them and asking if they can add things like IPTC, better watermarking, etc. One thing I can say for sure that makes CM a bit different than other companies is that they are very technically proficient. If you want something changed/added, they might be wiling to do it if someone asks. They are very easy to contact, and you can send direct messages to specific staff members though the site.

Personally I wouldn't let any of the things mentioned here be deal-breakers on a site that pays very fair rates and lets you set your own prices.

Honestly I'm really surprised that the general tone here has been mostly negative regarding CM. On pricing and pay alone this is the best deal I've got going right now. Is the site perfect? Of course not. But it's far better than most of what is out there. And best of all, they've got customers, the missing piece that most young companies fail to deliver. Within the first year of business, CM paid out over $1,000,000 to contributors. Sure that pales in comparison to companies like SS, but it's really impressive for a startup.

I don't expect everyone to be all-in like I probably seem to be. CM fits my type of work well and I'm not bothered by any of the concerns mentioned so far. But even if I were bothered by any of these things, they wouldn't stop me from still being excited about the prospect of a company that maybe could be doing a few small things a little better but nevertheless has huge potential.

« Reply #22 on: July 25, 2014, 13:59 »
+1
I hadn't heard from them before this thread, but I do agree, the basics (pricing, commissions) do sound appealing.
So I thought I give them a try. They accepted me, I started to upload a few images.
Yes, missing IPTC is a PITA, but to try out with a few images that is ok.
I wonder if they are strong on photo sales as well, it would be a nice alternative to the existing agencies.

« Reply #23 on: July 25, 2014, 16:14 »
+1
Just a few months ago they were acquired by Autodesk. Here is the article: http://techcrunch.com/2014/03/19/autodesk-buys-creative-market-jumping-into-maker-marketplace/






« Reply #24 on: July 25, 2014, 17:42 »
0
I didn't know about Autodesk buying them - other than articles on a few other sites from March, I didn't see anything else about what the acquisition will mean.

However, with a larger parent company, I have to believe they'll start to be concerned about the photos that show brand names and protected designs that can't be licensed commercially. They could offer an editorial license to make this work, but it seems the photo section has no one ensuring that the work is safe for a buyer to license. I'm guessing that as they began as "mousemade deisgns" they just don't know enough about licensing photos.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
118 Replies
30659 Views
Last post September 25, 2015, 03:41
by Deyan Georgiev
1 Replies
1498 Views
Last post March 23, 2016, 21:08
by goober
17 Replies
6360 Views
Last post May 09, 2018, 13:19
by TommyBoy
2 Replies
2621 Views
Last post April 13, 2017, 09:20
by Justanotherphotographer
0 Replies
1766 Views
Last post April 10, 2018, 12:25
by Peruphotoart

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results