pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Does it worth to upload to low earners agencies?  (Read 10683 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #25 on: September 03, 2012, 11:00 »
+1
I'd say no, I stopped ULing to the non top 4 sites after a few months. Not only you're wasting your time, but also support agencies that compete only with the lowest prices and lead the race to the bottom. And that is bad for all of us. They also never earned me more than 10-15% and I'm talking about 10 agencies or so, not just a couple. Besides most of those agencies put your files on dozens of partner sites, you can't even track where your content sells and there is often a problem with deleting those files. OTOH FT do that as well.



I'm glad I didn't follow this advice^^.  I have seen my income at two of the top 4 agencies drop by more that 50% in the past year, thanks to search engine changes that penalize top selling (read expensive) contributors.  Thank goodness I am on some of those "low sellers" because they are the only thing keeping my numbers to a tolerable level.
Totally agree, the smaller sites are at least helping to plug the gap left by the other 2.


stan

    This user is banned.
« Reply #26 on: September 03, 2012, 11:28 »
0
I'd say no, I stopped ULing to the non top 4 sites after a few months. Not only you're wasting your time, but also support agencies that compete only with the lowest prices and lead the race to the bottom. And that is bad for all of us. They also never earned me more than 10-15% and I'm talking about 10 agencies or so, not just a couple. Besides most of those agencies put your files on dozens of partner sites, you can't even track where your content sells and there is often a problem with deleting those files. OTOH FT do that as well.


I'm glad I didn't follow this advice^^.  I have seen my income at two of the top 4 agencies drop by more that 50% in the past year, thanks to search engine changes that penalize top selling (read expensive) contributors.  Thank goodness I am on some of those "low sellers" because they are the only thing keeping my numbers to a tolerable level.

But you can lower your prices at FT. DT aside, the prices are the same. And DT doesn't seem to sell much for anyone, so you're not the only one hurt.

« Reply #27 on: September 03, 2012, 11:37 »
0


But you can lower your prices at FT.
I doubt that would work for me as most of my images that sell are level 2 so I would risk the possibility of halving my earnings.

stan

    This user is banned.
« Reply #28 on: September 03, 2012, 11:42 »
0


But you can lower your prices at FT.
I doubt that would work for me as most of my images that sell are level 2 so I would risk the possibility of halving my earnings.

Well then the theory that your images are too expensive just doesn't hold water, now does it? ;)

« Reply #29 on: September 03, 2012, 12:19 »
+1
If low earners provide 15% of your total microstock income:

15% of $100 = $15
15% of $1000 = $150
15% of $10000 = $1500 ...

Now, you just need to estimate the value of 1 hour of your time spent on microstock and it is pretty clear if it is worth to upload there.

It is worth for me.

http://microstock.pixelsaway.com/payout-structure-from-microstock-agencies-in-2012/

lisafx

« Reply #30 on: September 03, 2012, 12:35 »
0


But you can lower your prices at FT.
I doubt that would work for me as most of my images that sell are level 2 so I would risk the possibility of halving my earnings.

Well then the theory that your images are too expensive just doesn't hold water, now does it? ;)

Right.  Nobody's saying that the images don't sell because the IMAGES are too expensive.  We are saying the images are deliberately buried in the search because the CONTRIBUTORS are too expensive.  If I make 37% and someone else makes 25%, who provides the bigger profit margin for the site? 

stan

    This user is banned.
« Reply #31 on: September 03, 2012, 15:10 »
0


But you can lower your prices at FT.
I doubt that would work for me as most of my images that sell are level 2 so I would risk the possibility of halving my earnings.

Well then the theory that your images are too expensive just doesn't hold water, now does it? ;)

Right.  Nobody's saying that the images don't sell because the IMAGES are too expensive.  We are saying the images are deliberately buried in the search because the CONTRIBUTORS are too expensive.  If I make 37% and someone else makes 25%, who provides the bigger profit margin for the site?

That indeed makes sense. But without this explanation of yours there's room for a couple of interpretations.

It looks like that's the case at IS and especially FT. However looking at Aug sales thread at IS, it seems that things improved for many diamonds, a few had BMEs or 2nd BMEs. Still, some top contributors like Sean are down, but not as much as they were in some of the prevoius months (30% instead of 10).

lisafx

« Reply #32 on: September 03, 2012, 15:41 »
0

It looks like that's the case at IS and especially FT. However looking at Aug sales thread at IS, it seems that things improved for many diamonds, a few had BMEs or 2nd BMEs. Still, some top contributors like Sean are down, but not as much as they were in some of the prevoius months (30% instead of 10).

I hope that is a trend and that it continues.  Sites need to wake up to the fact that they are actually hurting themselves by burying some of their best content in favor of short term boosts in profits. 

stan

    This user is banned.
« Reply #33 on: September 03, 2012, 15:57 »
0

It looks like that's the case at IS and especially FT. However looking at Aug sales thread at IS, it seems that things improved for many diamonds, a few had BMEs or 2nd BMEs. Still, some top contributors like Sean are down, but not as much as they were in some of the prevoius months (30% instead of 10).

I hope that is a trend and that it continues.  Sites need to wake up to the fact that they are actually hurting themselves by burying some of their best content in favor of short term boosts in profits.

But if you put yourself in our (small fry) shoes, then you'd see that it's just fair for us to get a chance of getting some premium search positions as well. For a long period of time there was a lot of old files with a ton of DLs, that just weren't up to today's standards anymore, getting all the sales. That's not fair either, after all it's 2012, not 2005. Everybody should get a fair chance. It's gonna be a small window of opportunity anyway, given how saturated the market is

lisafx

« Reply #34 on: September 03, 2012, 16:17 »
0

But if you put yourself in our (small fry) shoes, then you'd see that it's just fair for us to get a chance of getting some premium search positions as well. For a long period of time there was a lot of old files with a ton of DLs, that just weren't up to today's standards anymore, getting all the sales. That's not fair either, after all it's 2012, not 2005. Everybody should get a fair chance. It's gonna be a small window of opportunity anyway, given how saturated the market is

Stan, I am not advocating only putting old best sellers in front of searches.  I am suggesting that PENALIZING successful contributors as a group is the agencies shooting themselves in the foot. 

Bottom line is the search should never be about what's "fair" to contributors, nor about padding agency profits.  It should be about getting the best content in front of the buyers.  A good mix of new stuff AND best sellers would accomplish that, and the sites that consistently do it, like SS, are the ones that have not seen either buyers or contributors leaving in frustration. 

stan

    This user is banned.
« Reply #35 on: September 03, 2012, 16:27 »
0

But if you put yourself in our (small fry) shoes, then you'd see that it's just fair for us to get a chance of getting some premium search positions as well. For a long period of time there was a lot of old files with a ton of DLs, that just weren't up to today's standards anymore, getting all the sales. That's not fair either, after all it's 2012, not 2005. Everybody should get a fair chance. It's gonna be a small window of opportunity anyway, given how saturated the market is

Stan, I am not advocating only putting old best sellers in front of searches.  I am suggesting that PENALIZING successful contributors as a group is the agencies shooting themselves in the foot. 

Bottom line is the search should never be about what's "fair" to contributors, nor about padding agency profits.  It should be about getting the best content in front of the buyers.  A good mix of new stuff AND best sellers would accomplish that, and the sites that consistently do it, like SS, are the ones that have not seen either buyers or contributors leaving in frustration.

I wasn't saying you were. But sometimes you top seller sound like conspiracy theorists ;)

Indeed, that's what I've been saying all the time. It's just that if there's 19 mio crappy images out of 20, it's hard for the search engines to deliver.

lisafx

« Reply #36 on: September 03, 2012, 21:55 »
0
But sometimes you top seller sound like conspiracy theorists ;)


LOL.  I can't argue with you on that one.  Give it a year or two and you may find yourself joining the rest of us wearing our tinfoil hats ;D

« Reply #37 on: September 04, 2012, 02:20 »
+1
A part of the Big 4, I submit to other low earners, but drop by drop, every month is a good amount of money. I contribute with low (medium) earners such as 123RF, Deposit, Photodune and Canstock.

If you are not exclusive to one agency, I think the best idea is submitting to as many agencies you can.

EmberMike

« Reply #38 on: September 04, 2012, 08:26 »
0

I make over 30% of my income each month from middle and low tier sites. I'd say that 30% is worth the effort to upload to smaller sites.

My #2 site last month was on the low tier list.

I couldn't imagine choosing sites to participate in based solely on the poll results. Sure it's a good starting point, and the Big 4 are generally good earners for just about everyone. No doubt everyone should be on SS, and at least try istock, DT, and FT. But beyond that, I'd hate to leave it up to other people's results to define my roster of sites I contribute to. If I did that, I know for sure that I'd be missing out on some good earners that may not be great sites for everyone but happen to work well for me.

As much as it's a pain to have a really long list of sites to check and maintain, I'd still say that it's good to start with a long list and then cut back based on your own personal results. Who knows if one of those middle or low tier sites could be one of your Big 4. You'll never know unless you try them.


tab62

« Reply #39 on: September 04, 2012, 10:51 »
0
my lower earners banged in 22% of my total revenue in the month of August and currently are the highest percentage this month. The few sales that I do get have av very high RPD compared to the top tier companies where they have the volume. It sort is like dinner- the steak is the main course (SS, iStock) where the side dishes are the lower earners.  ;)



« Reply #40 on: September 05, 2012, 00:41 »
0
Hi ... and hi to everyone (this is my first post here, I've discoved only now this big community!)

Ok so... before start I'm just telling you that microstock is my main job and I create everyday something and I used to upload every week from 10 to 20 new vectors and I have a big portfolio now.. considering that this is my 4th year in this business.

I can tell you that at the beginning (for the first 2 years) the low earner sites used to earn so low (Compared to SS)that I didn't want to spend too much time about uploading on such sites...
After 2 year.. I've started to produce much more quality works and at the same time I've decided to upload my vectors almost everywhere ... so TODAY I can tell you that low earner agencies all together can earn something that you wouldn't like to lose.... So even if a website earn as low as 200 or 300 dollar a month ... if you think about 3 or 4 low earners .. they can go over a 1 thousand and it's not a bad number to add to the best seller agencies...
Of course if on a low earner you earn only 5  10 or 20 dollars ....maybe you are not sure if deserve you effort ..BUT .. trust me ..if one day you'll have on your best agencies 3000 or 4000 and then you'll decide to upload your files in other agencies.. you're gonna be crazy to upload such a number of images...

So my suggestion is start TODAY to upload everywhere, even if you earn the money to go one or two times to a good restaurant then do it! Something is better than nothing....

And we should be honest, once you attach the keywords to your images and you upload by FTP your images on all agencies then you only have to submit the images on site... It's nothing so paintful and complicated:

For example if you upload 20 images a week then in 20 minutes you can keyword all the images (you have also the microstock keywording tool...). Then open the FTP client and setup the uplaod in all agencies, time for this? almost 20 minutes.. do it before go to sleep and the pc will work for you at the night.
The day after you only have to do the submit after the categories selections..if you have 10 agencies... 1 or 2 hours are enough for sure...so.

At the end ... My advise is: find 1,5 or 2 hours every monday (for example) and submit everywhere..

Set up a work flow... at the end you'll do it automatically even without think about it!! :-D
:-D


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
11 Replies
3833 Views
Last post March 29, 2008, 10:49
by mantonino
13 Replies
4212 Views
Last post August 24, 2011, 11:41
by PixelsAway
3 Replies
2201 Views
Last post February 19, 2012, 09:56
by Eireann
67 Replies
21936 Views
Last post May 02, 2016, 01:38
by Zalee
12 Replies
5528 Views
Last post March 14, 2017, 09:04
by AquaticImages

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results