MicrostockGroup
Microstock Photography Forum - General => General Stock Discussion => Topic started by: stockmarketer on June 15, 2012, 06:53
-
The biggest and most disturbing trend when I look at my numbers right now is that things are going along just great everywhere -- except at DT and FT, where sales are dramatically plunging. My sales at both are about half what they were in June 2011. Incredibly frustrating since these are my #2 and #4 agencies, and my plunging sales are NOT the result of me no longer knowing what sells or producing bad work. No, I'm being punished because my work sells too well.
It's pretty clear that both sites are punishing top sellers because they make too much money when their best selling images sell. DT and FT must figure they profit more when a brand new image by a newbie is bought by someone who may have otherwise bought a best seller from a top contributor.
But does this provide a better experience for the customer? By default, any given search will bring up a dearth of brand new images, mainly from newer, unproven contributors. No offense... some of the work will be good, some OK, and some garbage. A real grab-bag of quality. Before the changes, customers would have seen images that have proven to be popular... images that have served customers well in the past and would likely continue to do well if they weren't buried.
What is better for the customer? I am very curious to know how DT's and FT's overall revenue is these days. I have to think that their strategy is backfiring, and customers now think the overall quality of their stuff is very scattershot, and are leaving in droves for SS and maybe some smaller players (I'm guessing BigStock or 123RF, since both those sites have posted solid gains for me in recent months.)
-
What makes you think that a graphic artist -and the customer he/she is workig for- would be happier with a shot / face that has already been plastered all over the place? It's contrary to what advertising, gaining attention is about. That's what they want to avoid.
-
I have to think that the average buyer's first thought is "find something good" as opposed to "find something new."
The first priority is to find an effective, powerful image that best communicates a particular message. Best sellers are best sellers because they do this very well. If a buyer does a search and sees a variety of images that have proven that they meet the immediate goal very well, isn't that going to be more compelling than a mix of unproven pictures that may or may not get a message across effectively?
I see what you're saying about the importance of something fresh, but I just don't buy that this is the #1 priority of the average customer. I'm also a customer, and when I have to quickly find something, I'm not first thinking "I must get something that hasn't been used before." I just want the best image for my needs as quickly as possible.
FT and DT are putting short term profit over the needs of its customers. I believe it is backfiring. For instance, my overall FT rank is much higher than it was one year ago, yet my earnings are about half what they were a year ago. This suggests most or all the biggest sellers are also down about 50% since last year. FT can't be coming out ahead with this strategy.
-
I think it's about time new contributors get a fair chance and not just those riding on the fact the fact they become big fast and get better search placements just because of their reputation. Lots of high ranked contributors were and still are selling garbage and that's just wrong (and I'm talking about diamond or even BD rank of contributors). They wouldn't earn even 500$ a month if they started a couple of years ago. That being said both are and always wefe pathetic for me, although I'm getting BMEs lately
-
I see what you're saying about the importance of something fresh, but I just don't buy that this is the #1 priority of the average customer. I'm also a customer, and when I have to quickly find something, I'm not first thinking "I must get something that hasn't been used before." I just want the best image for my needs as quickly as possible.
How could any search system second-guess what your needs are? The fact that 1000 people have bought an image doesn't mean that image would match your needs.
Clearly, I'm not a buyer, though, as I'd always choose a newer image, or one with fewer downloads (if that info was available) unless there was a clear reason not to.
-
how can they profit more with a newbie/low contributor until gold ranking? they just cannot!
I am not questioning the best match around FT and DT which have certainly changed, havent affected me but I am a small corner (silver), that said emerald contributors can increase their pricing and that is making sure FT will earn more money too even with higher % royalties
SILVER (25%)
XS - 1 - 0.25$ (FT 0.75$)
S - 3 - 0.75$ (FT 2.25$)
M - 5 - 1.25$ (FT 3.75$)
L - 7 - 1.75$ (FT 5.25$)
XL - 8 - 2$ (FT 6$)
XXL - 10 - 2.5$ (FT 7.5$)
EL - 100 - 25$ (FT 75$)
EMERALD (37%)
XS - 2 - 0.74$ (FT 1.26$)
S - 6 - 2.22$ (FT 3.78$)
M - 12 - 4.44$ (FT 7.56$)
L - 16 - 5.92$ (FT 10.08$)
XL - 20 - 7.4$ (FT 12.60$)
XXL - 24 - 8.88$ (FT 15.12$)
EL - 100 - 37$ (FT 63$)
(1$ per credit)
IMO I think FT just noticed that those high priced files arenīt selling as much as they want and think that lower files will cover that lose, I donīt think they are doing it to be more fair with newbie or lower contributors, are they losing money? looks like...!
I also know that there are many top contributors having a big part of their portfolio at the lowest price so this move is kind of confusing and risky
-
See, one has got to remember, there is a massive differance between running a business long-term and short-term. The old trad agencies worked on long term goals, they planed to be in business for years and years.
Micro, with all its ups and downs, this concept lends itself most superbly to a fast kill, fast buck, here today sold tomorrow and then you get 300 mil! they are not doing too bad, are they?
Wish I had stumbled on this most brillant idea some year back. Robbing Peter to pay Paul.
-
I've just checked a couple of searches on DT and my images are appearing high up in them. That doesn't seem to be translating into many sales at the moment but I see no reason to suppose they are hiding my work.
I've no idea what FT is doing.
-
I see what you're saying about the importance of something fresh, but I just don't buy that this is the #1 priority of the average customer. I'm also a customer, and when I have to quickly find something, I'm not first thinking "I must get something that hasn't been used before." I just want the best image for my needs as quickly as possible.
How could any search system second-guess what your needs are? The fact that 1000 people have bought an image doesn't mean that image would match your needs.
Clearly, I'm not a buyer, though, as I'd always choose a newer image, or one with fewer downloads (if that info was available) unless there was a clear reason not to.
+1, why would anyone want to have a photo for his project that has been in hundreds if not thousands of other projects
-
I have to think that the average buyer's first thought is "find something good" as opposed to "find something new."
The first priority is to find an effective, powerful image that best communicates a particular message. Best sellers are best sellers because they do this very well. If a buyer does a search and sees a variety of images that have proven that they meet the immediate goal very well, isn't that going to be more compelling than a mix of unproven pictures that may or may not get a message across effectively?
I see what you're saying about the importance of something fresh, but I just don't buy that this is the #1 priority of the average customer. I'm also a customer, and when I have to quickly find something, I'm not first thinking "I must get something that hasn't been used before." I just want the best image for my needs as quickly as possible.
FT and DT are putting short term profit over the needs of its customers. I believe it is backfiring. For instance, my overall FT rank is much higher than it was one year ago, yet my earnings are about half what they were a year ago. This suggests most or all the biggest sellers are also down about 50% since last year. FT can't be coming out ahead with this strategy.
The first priority is to stand out, to be very-very-very easily recognized and told apart form the competition, at a glance. That's what branding is all about, this is the most basic principal of identity and ad design. I worked for years and years as an art director, and this was The Code to live by and it's perfectly logical too. We always avoided commonly used shots as far as possible. You get the same smiling blonde pop up on different brand ads, it's enough to confuse would-be-costumers on who's who, and the client might even deny paying for the work, saying it's useless coz everbody thinks the ad he paid for is from the 'other guy'. Very embarrassing.
Thats why you need a real 'relevant' sorting order, otherwise real designers gonna be pissed, beleive me. I remember years ago I saw that 'relevant' was pretty much the same as download / popular on many sites, so I had to go thru 50+ 80+, 100+ pages of search results, just waaaasting my time.
-
DT has problems - this week has been awful - but I think they're broader than just pushing cop contributors to the back. As BaldricksTrousers noted, I too have images that show up high in searches but aren't selling any more.
To give you an idea of how pitiful this week has been, Thursday's take was twice Wednesday's even though both were only one sale each - a 70 cent sub vs. 35. That's just pathetic
I think it's about time new contributors get a fair chance and not just those riding on the fact the fact they become big fast and get better search placements just because of their reputation. Lots of high ranked contributors were and still are selling garbage and that's just wrong (and I'm talking about diamond or even BD rank of contributors). They wouldn't earn even 500$ a month if they started a couple of years ago. That being said both are and always wefe pathetic for me, although I'm getting BMEs lately
This is just bollocks.
It's important to have a good search algorithm that gives new work a decent chance to be seen amidst the old best sellers. This has nothing to do with new contributors vs. old. I'm a new contributor to DT, in effect, because I only came back last June after a stint as an exclusive. Things were going fine for a while until they broke search trying to improve it and started messing with prices.
And as far as people selling garbage, there's a ton of it on the micros - lots from new contributors as well as older files from an earlier era.
Can't comment on FT as they wouldn't have me back :)
-
This is just bollocks.
Why?
You can see it for yourself, that it's not that easy as it was back in the days. Compare your sales from 2005/2006 to those from 2011/12 on all sites except IS. Imagine what would have happened to your sales at IS if you had to start from scratch. No way you'd reach diamond again. And it's not because you sell garbage, like some are and sell more than you, it's about stiffer competition, everybody getting a lot less DLs and also you loosing good search positions on many files with flames, that wouldn't get nearly as much attention today as they did back then and still do today, because of that
-
The first priority is to stand out, to be very-very-very easily recognized and told apart form the competition, at a glance. That's what branding is all about, this is the most basic principal of identity and ad design. I worked for years and years as an art director, and this was The Code to live by and it's perfectly logical too. We always avoided commonly used shots as far as possible. You get the same smiling blonde pop up on different brand ads, it's enough to confuse would-be-costumers on who's who, and the client might even deny paying for the work, saying it's useless coz everbody thinks the ad he paid for is from the 'other guy'. Very embarrassing.
This is a fairly narrow view of how buyers are using microstock. In fact, I'd say any company or agency turning to microstock for branding is foolish, for exactly the reasons you point out. Even if you bought a new image and used it to brand your company or client, that image could soon be bought by hundreds or thousands of others. Truly professional agencies and clients instead turn to RM or shoot their own stuff for all the reasons you describe.
The people buying my stuff are not big companies using it for branding. They're small businesses, consultants, bloggers, publishers, etc., using my images to help them make important points, to give them an extra punch. They appear in sales presentations, brochures, web and print articles, etc. I believe this is the type of use that makes up the bulk of microstock usage for all of us. And I'll make the point again... these folks care first about an image with "punch"... something that effectively drives the point home... by and large they're not concerned about whether the image has been used before.
The proof is in my overall sales. They've been rising steadily everywhere for the past four years, even at DT and FT up until the last few months when they implemented best match changes. The market was not asking for these changes, at least according to my data.
-
DT is pretty "democratic" as it's more about high performing individual images than contributors so I think it's unlikely that the big guns are disproportionally affected by the slump which seems to be hitting most people, big and small. On FT, is it not the case that higher ranks can set higher prices (the punter pays more as well as / instead of just a higher cut for the contributor)? If so, is it not just possible that buyers are simply taking cost into account thus favouring the small timer?
-
I haven't had any problems at DT. Sales seem fairly normal. A little lower volume since they changed the prices, but the total revenue is around the same.
-
On FT, is it not the case that higher ranks can set higher prices (the punter pays more as well as / instead of just a higher cut for the contributor)? If so, is it not just possible that buyers are simply taking cost into account thus favouring the small timer?
No, at least not in my case. When I raised my prices, my number of sales did not fall at all. My sales at FT did not fall until they messed with search results.
I guess it depends on whether your work is a "commodity"... are there dozens or hundreds more just like it? If so, then maybe a buyer would say "Why would I buy this one for $5 when I could get a virtually identical one for $3?" But if your work has a unique style and has not been duplicated effectively by copycats, then the price difference between your $5 image and the next closest image at $3 should not really sway a buyer. Imagine if you're a buyer and you see the perfect image for $5... you see others on the page at $3, but if they're not quite as effective as the $5 shot, does that extra $2 matter to you? And to the original point, do you wonder, "That one seems more popular, maybe I shouldn't use it because it may have been used elsewhere?" My buyers have kept on buying, that is, until FT and DT started burying my shots a few months ago.
-
The first priority is to stand out, to be very-very-very easily recognized and told apart form the competition, at a glance. That's what branding is all about, this is the most basic principal of identity and ad design. I worked for years and years as an art director, and this was The Code to live by and it's perfectly logical too. We always avoided commonly used shots as far as possible. You get the same smiling blonde pop up on different brand ads, it's enough to confuse would-be-costumers on who's who, and the client might even deny paying for the work, saying it's useless coz everbody thinks the ad he paid for is from the 'other guy'. Very embarrassing.
This is a fairly narrow view of how buyers are using microstock. In fact, I'd say any company or agency turning to microstock for branding is foolish, for exactly the reasons you point out. Even if you bought a new image and used it to brand your company or client, that image could soon be bought by hundreds or thousands of others. Truly professional agencies and clients instead turn to RM or shoot their own stuff for all the reasons you describe.
The people buying my stuff are not big companies using it for branding. They're small businesses, consultants, bloggers, publishers, etc., using my images to help them make important points, to give them an extra punch. They appear in sales presentations, brochures, web and print articles, etc. I believe this is the type of use that makes up the bulk of microstock usage for all of us. And I'll make the point again... these folks care first about an image with "punch"... something that effectively drives the point home... by and large they're not concerned about whether the image has been used before.
The proof is in my overall sales. They've been rising steadily everywhere for the past four years, even at DT and FT up until the last few months when they implemented best match changes. The market was not asking for these changes, at least according to my data.
Exactly. Dribble misses who the original micro buyers were/are. Churches, schools, mom and pop places, etc. they don't care how often something has been used.
-
The first priority is to stand out, to be very-very-very easily recognized and told apart form the competition, at a glance. That's what branding is all about, this is the most basic principal of identity and ad design. I worked for years and years as an art director, and this was The Code to live by and it's perfectly logical too. We always avoided commonly used shots as far as possible. You get the same smiling blonde pop up on different brand ads, it's enough to confuse would-be-costumers on who's who, and the client might even deny paying for the work, saying it's useless coz everbody thinks the ad he paid for is from the 'other guy'. Very embarrassing.
This is a fairly narrow view of how buyers are using microstock. In fact, I'd say any company or agency turning to microstock for branding is foolish, for exactly the reasons you point out. Even if you bought a new image and used it to brand your company or client, that image could soon be bought by hundreds or thousands of others. Truly professional agencies and clients instead turn to RM or shoot their own stuff for all the reasons you describe.
The people buying my stuff are not big companies using it for branding. They're small businesses, consultants, bloggers, publishers, etc., using my images to help them make important points, to give them an extra punch. They appear in sales presentations, brochures, web and print articles, etc. I believe this is the type of use that makes up the bulk of microstock usage for all of us. And I'll make the point again... these folks care first about an image with "punch"... something that effectively drives the point home... by and large they're not concerned about whether the image has been used before.
The proof is in my overall sales. They've been rising steadily everywhere for the past four years, even at DT and FT up until the last few months when they implemented best match changes. The market was not asking for these changes, at least according to my data.
Exactly! micro buyers are like fruitcakes in search of a brain. They havent got a clue of whats creative or not, you could just as well sell them a Big-Mac and they chose a Fillet-of-fish instead. If they by any chance put their trousers on back to front they would probably walk backwards the rest of the day.
Their infernal motto is, cheap, cheaper, cheapest and the cheapest must ofcourse be the best, thats why its so cheap.
-
[How could any search system second-guess what your needs are? The fact that 1000 people have bought an image doesn't mean that image would match your needs.
Clearly, I'm not a buyer, though, as I'd always choose a newer image, or one with fewer downloads (if that info was available) unless there was a clear reason not to.
As a (sometime) buyer, I have 2 priorities: 1. the best photo for the job 2. a reasonably priced photo, one that fits the clients budget. However, I did always consider how many downloads an image had. I would not buy one that had sold thousands of times (too much exposure), but I would never necessarily buy the cheapest image just because it was cheap. I usually found images within the clients budget that had NOT sold thousands of times.
-
Exactly! micro buyers are like fruitcakes in search of a brain. They havent got a clue of whats creative or not, you could just as well sell them a Big-Mac and they chose a Fillet-of-fish instead. If they by any chance put their trousers on back to front they would probably walk backwards the rest of the day.
Their infernal motto is, cheap, cheaper, cheapest and the cheapest must ofcourse be the best, thats why its so cheap.
That's a bit insulting. I don't think you can generalize what a micro buyer is. That's sort of the point of micro. You are trying to hit the widest segment of the image buying population. Some of them are seasoned professionals and others are just having fun making a family newsletter.
-
The biggest and most disturbing trend when I look at my numbers right now is that things are going along just great everywhere -- except at DT and FT, where sales are dramatically plunging. My sales at both are about half what they were in June 2011. Incredibly frustrating since these are my #2 and #4 agencies, and my plunging sales are NOT the result of me no longer knowing what sells or producing bad work. No, I'm being punished because my work sells too well.
It's pretty clear that both sites are punishing top sellers because they make too much money when their best selling images sell. DT and FT must figure they profit more when a brand new image by a newbie is bought by someone who may have otherwise bought a best seller from a top contributor.
But does this provide a better experience for the customer? By default, any given search will bring up a dearth of brand new images, mainly from newer, unproven contributors. No offense... some of the work will be good, some OK, and some garbage. A real grab-bag of quality. Before the changes, customers would have seen images that have proven to be popular... images that have served customers well in the past and would likely continue to do well if they weren't buried.
What is better for the customer? I am very curious to know how DT's and FT's overall revenue is these days. I have to think that their strategy is backfiring, and customers now think the overall quality of their stuff is very scattershot, and are leaving in droves for SS and maybe some smaller players (I'm guessing BigStock or 123RF, since both those sites have posted solid gains for me in recent months.)
As a buyer I can tell you NO it does not make a better experience for the buyer. It makes it harder to find the images we need.
You forgot to mention the trend of also accepting sub par work from new submitters while rejecting superior work from members who have helped make the company successful and whose work is know to sell well. The crap we have to wade through on ALL agencies including SS is a real time killer.
-
The first priority is to stand out, to be very-very-very easily recognized and told apart form the competition, at a glance. That's what branding is all about, this is the most basic principal of identity and ad design. I worked for years and years as an art director, and this was The Code to live by and it's perfectly logical too. We always avoided commonly used shots as far as possible. You get the same smiling blonde pop up on different brand ads, it's enough to confuse would-be-costumers on who's who, and the client might even deny paying for the work, saying it's useless coz everbody thinks the ad he paid for is from the 'other guy'. Very embarrassing.
This is a fairly narrow view of how buyers are using microstock. In fact, I'd say any company or agency turning to microstock for branding is foolish, for exactly the reasons you point out. Even if you bought a new image and used it to brand your company or client, that image could soon be bought by hundreds or thousands of others. Truly professional agencies and clients instead turn to RM or shoot their own stuff for all the reasons you describe.
The people buying my stuff are not big companies using it for branding. They're small businesses, consultants, bloggers, publishers, etc., using my images to help them make important points, to give them an extra punch. They appear in sales presentations, brochures, web and print articles, etc. I believe this is the type of use that makes up the bulk of microstock usage for all of us. And I'll make the point again... these folks care first about an image with "punch"... something that effectively drives the point home... by and large they're not concerned about whether the image has been used before.
The proof is in my overall sales. They've been rising steadily everywhere for the past four years, even at DT and FT up until the last few months when they implemented best match changes. The market was not asking for these changes, at least according to my data.
You don't seem to understand (and I don't understand why this is so hard) that any kind of advertising is branding, even your local plumber's. I mean... isn't it kinda obvious that he wants attention for his stuff, wants ppl to remember his service offer, not somebody else... duh? :) For the rest: we used to buy RM, and guess what, as micro started to take off, clients directed us there. I didn't even know about istock for years after it existed, untill a marketing manager several years ago (wizz air) started sending over thumbails and links for pictures to use in layouts. You have no idea how frugal even giant companies are. Their corporate trained marketing ppl are told to push everyone to the edge for every penny. If they could charge you for working, they would do it (actually they are doing that more and more...) + as economy collapses and budgets shrink even more.
-
You don't seem to understand (and I don't understand why this is so hard) that any kind of advertising is branding, even your local plumber's.
A brand is a "Name, term, design, symbol, or any other feature that identifies one seller's good or service as distinct from those of other sellers. Branding began as a way to tell one person's cattle from another by means of a hot iron stamp. A modern example of a brand is Coca Cola which belongs to the Coca-Cola Company. - Wikipedia
By definition, RF stock art isn't exclusive or unique to a single buyer and can't really be branded because anybody and everybody can buy it and use it. That's not to say that people aren't using stock images in those capacities like Simon Oxley's original Twiiter bird. But, it isn't really designed to be branded as a logo, mascot or unique element.
-
We shouldn't generalize and say, 'buyers are this' or 'buyers are that'. The market is broken down into many types of buyers. Even individual buyers will make different decisions each time depending on the project they're working on. Sometimes they'll be looking for something fresh and unique and price isn't too much of a factor for them. Sometimes they'll be looking for something relevant, fast and reasonably priced, while other times they just want something that's good enough and cheap.
The problem with DT is that they seem to be slowly turning away all sorts of buyers. The two recent price rises have to have turned off a good majority of them.
"Why would I buy this one for $5 when I could get a virtually identical one for $3?"
Exactly, why would you, especially within the same site? The difference in price is more than double. DT buyers pay 5 credits for a brand new level 1 XS image on DT and 11 credits for a level 5 XS. If they're looking for something cheap they'll sift through the level 0 images and buy an XS for 1 credit. There are gems to found at all levels. Even Yuri has level 1 and level 0 images and none of his work is garbage. It doesn't take much work for price sensitive buyers to find lower priced decent images so DT has killed it for best sellers.
"Why would I buy this one for $5 when I could get a virtually identical one for $3?"
The two recent price rises at DT has been significant enough for buyers to also ask Why should I buy this one for $5 when I can get an exact identical image for $1 on another micro site?" $4 isn't much, but saving $4 on every image is huge. So not only has DT killed it for best sellers by effecting price sensitive buyers, they've also killed it by effecting those looking for fresh, original content, since they can buy the exact same fresh original image on another site at a fraction of the cost.
I really dont understand DT's way of thinking. Their system now favors new images which will bring down everyone's RPI. We're already working hard for little return and this discourages us to upload there. Why would I upload a high quality image there to make just a few bucks on it and watch it go stale after it goes up a level or two? The level system used to be the best thing about DT but that was back in the day when there wasn't such a vast difference in price between the levels. Unless a level 5 images is extraordinarily different and superior to anything else, it has no chance of enjoying the same success that it used to.
I foresee things becoming worse for DT. Much worse.
-
I've just checked a couple of searches on DT and my images are appearing high up in them. That doesn't seem to be translating into many sales at the moment but I see no reason to suppose they are hiding my work.
I've no idea what FT is doing.
I must agree. My sales at DT are a bit soft, but nothing particularly unusual for this time of year. They are still pretty average, and my images seem to have similar placement to what they've always had, give or take. And I am high ranked there, so I don't think there's any bias based on rank at DT. JMHO.
FT, on the other hand, continues its slide into oblivion for me. Really depressing as they were a strong #2 for me for quite a long time. Now my sales there are more like the other kind of number two.
-
This is a fairly narrow view of how buyers are using microstock. In fact, I'd say any company or agency turning to microstock for branding is foolish, for exactly the reasons you point out. Even if you bought a new image and used it to brand your company or client, that image could soon be bought by hundreds or thousands of others. Truly professional agencies and clients instead turn to RM or shoot their own stuff for all the reasons you describe.
The people buying my stuff are not big companies using it for branding. They're small businesses, consultants, bloggers, publishers, etc., using my images to help them make important points, to give them an extra punch. They appear in sales presentations, brochures, web and print articles, etc. I believe this is the type of use that makes up the bulk of microstock usage for all of us. And I'll make the point again... these folks care first about an image with "punch"... something that effectively drives the point home... by and large they're not concerned about whether the image has been used before.
The proof is in my overall sales. They've been rising steadily everywhere for the past four years, even at DT and FT up until the last few months when they implemented best match changes. The market was not asking for these changes, at least according to my data.
You don't seem to understand (and I don't understand why this is so hard) that any kind of advertising is branding, even your local plumber's. I mean... isn't it kinda obvious that he wants attention for his stuff, wants ppl to remember his service offer, not somebody else... duh? :) For the rest: we used to buy RM, and guess what, as micro started to take off, clients directed us there. I didn't even know about istock for years after it existed, untill a marketing manager several years ago (wizz air) started sending over thumbails and links for pictures to use in layouts. You have no idea how frugal even giant companies are. Their corporate trained marketing ppl are told to push everyone to the edge for every penny. If they could charge you for working, they would do it (actually they are doing that more and more...) + as economy collapses and budgets shrink even more.
+1
Finally, someone who speaks with knowledge.
-
You don't seem to understand (and I don't understand why this is so hard) that any kind of advertising is branding, even your local plumber's.
Um, no. I've worked in advertising for many years, and regularly discuss with clients whether a given campaign will be branding or direct response. These are the two primarily types of advertising -- institutional/branding and direct response/product advertising. They really are distinctly different, with different primary objectives and different tones and messaging. Branding ads aim to give you warm fuzzies about the company and keep them top of mind, or associate them with something positive. Direct response or product advertising focuses on a specific product and wants you to take action in a specific way. A simple Google search on the topic could help clear this up further and give you some good examples of both types, but I'll offer a few...
Think of the Chrysler ad during the Superbowl starring Clint Eastwood. It barely featured the products, instead focusing on concepts and values Chrysler wanted you to associate with it. That's institutional/branding advertising. Then think of local ads for the Chrysler dealership in your town yelling about a cheap lease price on a new Chrysler 200 and urging you to come in for a test drive. That's direct response/product advertising.
Of course, these are black and white examples, and sometimes ads will be grey... trying to cover all the bases (perhaps like your local plumber -- though I'd argue that if he's urging you to call him to fix a leaky sink that's call to action rather than branding)... but people in advertising can typically spot the differences a mile away.
-
You don't seem to understand (and I don't understand why this is so hard) that any kind of advertising is branding, even your local plumber's.
Um, no. I've worked in advertising for many years, and regularly discuss with clients whether a given campaign will be branding or direct response. These are the two primarily types of advertising -- institutional/branding and direct response/product advertising. They really are distinctly different, with different primary objectives and different tones and messaging. Branding ads aim to give you warm fuzzies about the company and keep them top of mind, or associate them with something positive. Direct response or product advertising focuses on a specific product and wants you to take action in a specific way. A simple Google search on the topic could help clear this up further and give you some good examples of both types, but I'll offer a few...
Think of the Chrysler ad during the Superbowl starring Clint Eastwood. It barely featured the products, instead focusing on concepts and values Chrysler wanted you to associate with it. That's institutional/branding advertising. Then think of local ads for the Chrysler dealership in your town yelling about a cheap lease price on a new Chrysler 200 and urging you to come in for a test drive. That's direct response/product advertising.
Of course, these are black and white examples, and sometimes ads will be grey... trying to cover all the bases (perhaps like your local plumber -- though I'd argue that if he's urging you to call him to fix a leaky sink that's call to action rather than branding)... but people in advertising can typically spot the differences a mile away.
so? Branding works the same there too. It's function is not to give you warm fuzzies, but to make sure you get that it's about chryslers and not toyotas. I worked BTL by the way.
-
I've just checked a couple of searches on DT and my images are appearing high up in them. That doesn't seem to be translating into many sales at the moment but I see no reason to suppose they are hiding my work.
I've no idea what FT is doing.
I think (and it's only my opinion) that FT is 'favouriting' in it's default search. Some contributors' (often serial uploaders) most recent files get priority in the search. Search 'beans' and on p1 you'll see towards the bottom of the page a series of 8 images, all very recent from the same contributor (gold) with virtually no views/downloads but they're on p1 and compose 8 of the 50 images on the first page buyers get to see. From another contributor there are also a number of recent images on that same page.
Perhaps even more interesting are various images from one particular contributor. They also have an image of a single large bean at the bottom of the page although it is difficult to tell what it is at first sight. Many new images of this 'emerald' appear in pole position in any search when you take their keywords and feed them into search separately.
Specific example: http://en.fotolia.com/id/42313501 (http://en.fotolia.com/id/42313501)
Keywords: by, cease, cigarette, defec,t doubt, electronics, girl, girls, people, person, smoke, smoker, technology, tobacco, woman, women
Take some of those keywords one by one and search..........bingo!.. cease: image on p1! smoker: image on p1! electronics: image on p1
tobacco: image on p1. Doesn't work for all the keywords like women or girl but perhaps they weren't in the 'all important' first six keywords that FT tells contributors to prioritise. The funny thing about that shot also is that it has no English title, only what appear to be Chinese/Japanese characters and Cyrillic script. An interesting port to peruse, that's for sure. Recent images from that port crop up with amazing regularity when the search is fed with their keywords (even when wrongly keyworded). Try 'tortilla' and you'll see a glaring, obviously mis-keyworded, green slab of quiche on p1. Yep, same character and the green slab + one of the series turns up within the first 2 pages of search of most of the keywords.
Now either it's some sophisticated hack that FT hasn't discovered or contributor has a direct line to the top of almost every search. This example, combined with the massive over-exposure of some contributors on the first pages of search make me wonder if there isn't some sort of exclusive club in operation here. Still you can lead the horse to the water but you can't make it drink. Poor shots will not be bought and will gradually disappear from the first search pages but it does seem that some contributors there are getting a disproportionate opportunity to get their stuff in front of buyers compared to others.
-
Now either it's some sophisticated hack that FT hasn't discovered or contributor has a direct line to the top of almost every search. This example, combined with the massive over-exposure of some contributors on the first pages of search make me wonder if there isn't some sort of exclusive club in operation here. Still you can lead the horse to the water but you can't make it drink. Poor shots will not be bought and will gradually disappear from the first search pages but it does seem that some contributors there are getting a disproportionate opportunity to get their stuff in front of buyers compared to others.
I think that happens all the time, on most agencies. The owners and operators of these sites are the kind of persons who's preffered business model is to rip ppl off whenever possible, and they found a nice low maintenance cash cow model for with an easy-to-victimize crowd of mostly impotent whiners. Favoritism and similar things are trivial to these kind of businesses. That's why it's important to be anonymous if you need to express criticism, I don't think they will hesitate to make your port sink or lock you out if they have a grudge. I humiliated istock's village idiot on their forums because I just couldn't watch him needlessly picking on some timid contributor. I got banned from mail and forums (forever) got an email with 'personal messages', and my port abruptly started getting almost no dls.
-
The level system used to be the best thing about DT
I'd say 50% flat rate for every file was the best thing about DT. None of this sheat would be going on if it was still in place, we'd be getting more, because of royalty percentage alone, not to mention a lot higher volume. Buyers wouldn't be confused with the levels either.
-
I got banned from mail and forums (forever) got an email with 'personal messages', and my port abruptly started getting almost no dls.
Noooooo! With your charisma and charm? I find that difficult to believe.
I'd say 50% flat rate for every file was the best thing about DT. None of this sheat would be going on if it was still in place, we'd be getting more, because of royalty percentage alone, not to mention a lot higher volume. Buyers wouldn't be confused with the levels either.
Agreed. Yet another reason why buyers are likely to leave.
-
On FT, is it not the case that higher ranks can set higher prices (the punter pays more as well as / instead of just a higher cut for the contributor)? If so, is it not just possible that buyers are simply taking cost into account thus favouring the small timer?
I keep reading this, but it isn't borne out by my sales. First off, since they began dropping images that haven't sold in 6 months to one credit, most emeralds, etc. probably have thousands of 1 credit images. I know I do.
If the argument that customers are simply buying cheaper images is true, then I should be seeing a high proportion of my sales going to 1 credit files. I'm not. Vast majority of my sales are still on 2 credit images, both new and old.
Whatever the magic formula is at FT, it doesn't seem to be especially dependent on image price.
-
On FT, is it not the case that higher ranks can set higher prices (the punter pays more as well as / instead of just a higher cut for the contributor)? If so, is it not just possible that buyers are simply taking cost into account thus favouring the small timer?
I keep reading this, but it isn't borne out by my sales. First off, since they began dropping images that haven't sold in 6 months (including seasonal ones) to 1 credit - and leaving them there even after they sell - , most emeralds, etc. probably have thousands of 1 credit images. I know I do.
If the argument that customers are simply buying cheaper images is true, then I should be seeing a high proportion of my sales going to 1 credit files. I'm not. Vast majority of my sales are still on 2 credit images, both new and old.
In FT's case, the anecdotal evidence points overwhelmingly to the fact that the best match is favoring based on contributor rank, NOT image price. Wish it wasn't so, but there you are.
That is exactly what I am seeing as well. My sales actually went up instead of down when I originally put them from 1 credit to 2 and at the moment I am selling new images and 2 credit images.
-
I have just been and looked for one of my highest selling images using it's most relevant keyword. It usually sold several times a day at FT and has about 2000 dls but I've just realized that I haven't seen it sell for ages. On the dl search it comes in on the second page (20 a page), but the relevant search where it used to be one of the first images I now can't even find it after going through about 10 pages.
-
You don't seem to understand (and I don't understand why this is so hard) that any kind of advertising is branding, even your local plumber's.
Um, no. I've worked in advertising for many years, and regularly discuss with clients whether a given campaign will be branding or direct response. These are the two primarily types of advertising -- institutional/branding and direct response/product advertising. They really are distinctly different, with different primary objectives and different tones and messaging. Branding ads aim to give you warm fuzzies about the company and keep them top of mind, or associate them with something positive. Direct response or product advertising focuses on a specific product and wants you to take action in a specific way. A simple Google search on the topic could help clear this up further and give you some good examples of both types, but I'll offer a few...
Think of the Chrysler ad during the Superbowl starring Clint Eastwood. It barely featured the products, instead focusing on concepts and values Chrysler wanted you to associate with it. That's institutional/branding advertising. Then think of local ads for the Chrysler dealership in your town yelling about a cheap lease price on a new Chrysler 200 and urging you to come in for a test drive. That's direct response/product advertising.
Of course, these are black and white examples, and sometimes ads will be grey... trying to cover all the bases (perhaps like your local plumber -- though I'd argue that if he's urging you to call him to fix a leaky sink that's call to action rather than branding)... but people in advertising can typically spot the differences a mile away.
Anything a company puts in front of your mug represents and conveys their corporate brand persona. Period.
Research, strategy and execution determines tactics. Apple may create a "Think Different" image campaign to refocus their brand. Volkswagon created the "Lemon" campaign to draw unique and memorable self-deprecating humor. These are corporate image ads that define a company's brand.
Direct response ads contain a specific call-to-action to buy something or go somewhere to learn more. They are NOT (or should not be) void of a company's corporate branding standards or overall messaging platform. They should (and will) communicate a company's brand personality and implement their branding strategy.
Some ad's purpose in life will lean more or less toward pithy, metaphoric concepts while others try harder to get the purchasing process started. Regardless of the execution and intent, a brand identity is conveyed to the viewer.
-
Wizz Air is a low cost company with very very low quality, so it's obvious they don't want to pay for anything.
[/quote]
You don't seem to understand (and I don't understand why this is so hard) that any kind of advertising is branding, even your local plumber's. I mean... isn't it kinda obvious that he wants attention for his stuff, wants ppl to remember his service offer, not somebody else... duh? :) For the rest: we used to buy RM, and guess what, as micro started to take off, clients directed us there. I didn't even know about istock for years after it existed, untill a marketing manager several years ago (wizz air) started sending over thumbails and links for pictures to use in layouts. You have no idea how frugal even giant companies are. Their corporate trained marketing ppl are told to push everyone to the edge for every penny. If they could charge you for working, they would do it (actually they are doing that more and more...) + as economy collapses and budgets shrink even more.
[/quote]
-
Wizz Air is a low cost company with very very low quality, so it's obvious they don't want to pay for anything.
now thats just seriously naive...
-
Anything a company puts in front of your mug represents and conveys their corporate brand persona. Period.
Research, strategy and execution determines tactics. Apple may create a "Think Different" image campaign to refocus their brand. Volkswagon created the "Lemon" campaign to draw unique and memorable self-deprecating humor. These are corporate image ads that define a company's brand.
Direct response ads contain a specific call-to-action to buy something or go somewhere to learn more. They are NOT (or should not be) void of a company's corporate branding standards or overall messaging platform. They should (and will) communicate a company's brand personality and implement their branding strategy.
Some ad's purpose in life will lean more or less toward pithy, metaphoric concepts while others try harder to get the purchasing process started. Regardless of the execution and intent, a brand identity is conveyed to the viewer.
Yes that's true however using MS images for 'branding' purposes is hardly effective. Branding is about making an association between a message or an image and a company's brand. Would a company use Yuri's top selling businessman handshake image for branding? I've added the link to his image below but probably everyone in this forum knows what image I'm talking about without even looking at it.
http://www.bigstockphoto.com/image-508163/stock-photo-business-handshake (http://www.bigstockphoto.com/image-508163/stock-photo-business-handshake)
There's a big difference between advertising and branding. When a company uses an image for branding they use something unique to associate that image with their brand and only their brand. If JP Morgan adds Yuri's image on a billboard, would buyers associate the image with JPM or would they associate it with a million other things? By now they just say "God, not that guy again!" Sure, JPM might use the image somewhere in a brochure, but it's not there for branding their products and services but rather to help illustrate a message they're conveying about their products or services.
We're not idiots. We all know what branding is but Microstock is not used, or should not be used for branding. The local plumber might use an MS image for branding but he probably doesn't know any better.
-
I have just been and looked for one of my highest selling images using it's most relevant keyword. It usually sold several times a day at FT and has about 2000 dls but I've just realized that I haven't seen it sell for ages. On the dl search it comes in on the second page (20 a page), but the relevant search where it used to be one of the first images I now can't even find it after going through about 10 pages.
Yep...same here. My top seller at FT is a simple green fabric background. It shows up as #2 in the DL search, then drops to #210 in the relevance search (photos only).
What's worse than the crappy placement is that only 15-20 or so of the preceding images depict green fabric backgrounds or are fabric backgrounds with patterns containing green. The rest are spools of thread with zero green or fabric, piles and piles of laundry, and every type of object and non-fabric background imaginable. 40+ don't even show any green...not even a smidgen (several are plain backgrounds of a completely different solid color: white, red, brown, blue...take your pick!). Why would a buyer even stick around when literally 91-93% of the relevance search leading up to my top-performing image is littered with irrelevant images?
-
Given Fotolia's history you shouldn't be surprised by any little tricks they come up with to increase their own share of the take.
-
It's pretty clear that both sites are punishing top sellers because they make too much money when their best selling images sell.
Do you have proof for that thought? I was not able to understand how you reached that conclusion? In my experience most stock agencies consistently tried to shift earnings from newbies to pros...
-
It's pretty clear that both sites are punishing top sellers because they make too much money when their best selling images sell.
Do you have proof for that thought? I was not able to understand how you reached that conclusion? In my experience most stock agencies consistently tried to shift earnings from newbies to pros...
I am sure stockmarketer will answer this very well like he always do but I believe you need to read more often here, top contributors are reporting this down trend for a while, I believe at least 4 or 5, donīt think there are that much emeralds too, that said its incredible how you are still having nice earnings there, you always had actually
-
It's pretty clear that both sites are punishing top sellers because they make too much money when their best selling images sell.
Do you have proof for that thought? I was not able to understand how you reached that conclusion? In my experience most stock agencies consistently tried to shift earnings from newbies to pros...
I am sure stockmarketer will answer this very well like he always do but I believe you need to read more often here, top contributors are reporting this down trend for a while, I believe at least 4 or 5, donīt think there are that much emeralds too, that said its incredible how you are still having nice earnings there, you always had actually
That only confirms that it's about time they do so. It's just stupid that you're getting better search positions because you started doing MS first. With such policies you can't make it if you're new even if you're better than the top contributors, even much better
-
I'm too lazy to work this out in any detail, but doesn't DT actually GAIN from high sellers/high selling images continuing to do well? In which case, if they were punishing top sellers it could only be because they were worried about the buyers' reaction to the pricing levels. But several top sellers have said DT does not appear to be demoting their images (though I'm not sure it is my best sellers that are best placed in the searches).
-
Wow. I just noticed that Art of Business Cards, Mostphotos and Red Bubble are each earning more than Fotolia for me this month! Even the t-shirt printing company I only started submitting to in mid-April has earned more! :o That's seriously pathetic.
-
I despise fotolia and can only suggest that if they are already so worthless to you, then you should dump them. They deserve it.
-
I despise fotolia and can only suggest that if they are already so worthless to you, then you should dump them. They deserve it.
Workin' on it. I started removing images a couple of weeks ago...just enough not to shoot myself in the foot. As my income continues to increase from selling products and my Alamy portfolio, I'm removing images from IS, StockXpert and FT. Just about ready to pull the plug on StockXpert.
I learned a long time ago not to terminate my account before getting all of my ducks in a row. That includes documenting every single image, because StockXpert doesn't always remove images from Thinkstock and Photos.com after they have terminated an account. I don't trust those partner sites to remove my images or the agencies to report sales after an account has been terminated. I know of one person here at MSG who terminated her StockXpert account in October, and her images are still on Thinkstock (yes, I notified her)!!! Has she been paid for any sales? Doubt it.
-
I have just been and looked for one of my highest selling images using it's most relevant keyword. It usually sold several times a day at FT and has about 2000 dls but I've just realized that I haven't seen it sell for ages. On the dl search it comes in on the second page (20 a page), but the relevant search where it used to be one of the first images I now can't even find it after going through about 10 pages.
Yep...same here. My top seller at FT is a simple green fabric background. It shows up as #2 in the DL search, then drops to #210 in the relevance search (photos only).
What's worse than the crappy placement is that only 15-20 or so of the preceding images depict green fabric backgrounds or are fabric backgrounds with patterns containing green. The rest are spools of thread with zero green or fabric, piles and piles of laundry, and every type of object and non-fabric background imaginable. 40+ don't even show any green...not even a smidgen (several are plain backgrounds of a completely different solid color: white, red, brown, blue...take your pick!). Why would a buyer even stick around when literally 91-93% of the relevance search leading up to my top-performing image is littered with irrelevant images?
I Took a look at 'green fabric background' or even 'fabric background green'. I see what you mean. The search is next to worthless. In fact, it seems that the only thing that all the images on the first page have in common is that there is' green' in the keywords even when there's no green in the image. When I look at all the recent images (those with numbers 40+ and mostly with few views or downloads) on page 1, a couple of things become apparent: there are 3 images from the same author all with coffee beans and a green leaf and that many of those 40+ images are from Russian Federation, Belarus, Ukraine, Romania contributors. There is no bias towards contributor status/price as the whole gamut of contributors is represented from colourless to emerald. The only other thing I think I noticed was that a high position in the search is favoured by not having an English title but I didn't really check that out so I could be wrong. (See my previous post in this thread about green quiche posing as tortilla!)
-
Wow. I just noticed that Art of Business Cards, Mostphotos and Red Bubble are each earning more than Fotolia for me this month! Even the t-shirt printing company I only started submitting to in mid-April has earned more! :o That's seriously pathetic.
willing to share that t-shirt printing company?
-
Wow. I just noticed that Art of Business Cards, Mostphotos and Red Bubble are each earning more than Fotolia for me this month! Even the t-shirt printing company I only started submitting to in mid-April has earned more! :o That's seriously pathetic.
willing to share that t-shirt printing company?
Not yet. 8) I will once my portfolio is more established and I have some earnings under my belt to report. First impressions are fantastic.
-
Wow. I just noticed that Art of Business Cards, Mostphotos and Red Bubble are each earning more than Fotolia for me this month! Even the t-shirt printing company I only started submitting to in mid-April has earned more! :o That's seriously pathetic.
willing to share that t-shirt printing company?
Not yet. 8) I will once my portfolio is more established and I have some earnings under my belt to report. First impressions are fantastic.
Is it really that competitive that you wont give it up?
-
DT was allways a book with seven seals to me. Strange selection, strange bestsellers but an interesting price policy.
FT seemed to me as not thinking about business. They started as a follower of IST and want to be buyedout since years. Now they're helpless because there's no one to follow and the Management wasn't buyed out from any investor.
What sucks because they had a good chance and, maybe by accident, a good concept. But FT is dying, faster than any others. Because they wont know what this business is. They hate it and behave also.
-
I never understand when people start talking about something "good" and then shut up, not only here but in everything :D
whats the point really??
in the end if we were all that smart Tyler could close this forum ::)
when you have tons of sales and money you will drop the name of it for us? seriously what sense does that make? please keep it to yourself like I do sometimes but I donīt come here and say this or that...
p.s: just found it, not that hard :D
-
A couple of dozens sales already today, what's going on? If it keeps going like that they'll catch SS soon :)
-
Yep! DT, is selling alright, no doubt about that and big sales as well.
-
Yep! DT, is selling alright, no doubt about that and big sales as well.
I meant FT, should have put it down. I'm not even sure I've had that many sales so far in June at DT, they're so pathetic I don't even check the stats lately.
-
Wow. I just noticed that Art of Business Cards, Mostphotos and Red Bubble are each earning more than Fotolia for me this month! Even the t-shirt printing company I only started submitting to in mid-April has earned more! :o That's seriously pathetic.
I think it's a bit more complicated than that.
While DT doesn't perform good for me either it doesn't say much when you compare POD sites to microstock agencies.
Even AOB doesn't say much about your photography skills as long as you are a great designer. I wish I had more time for the AOB but I already figured I'm not that much of a designer - given the sales I have there. So I focus on other (easier to handle) PODs like Zazzle and Cafepress.
These do take a lot of my time but it's still worth it.
-
Yep! DT, is selling alright, no doubt about that and big sales as well.
I meant FT, should have put it down. I'm not even sure I've had that many sales so far in June at DT, they're so pathetic I don't even check the stats lately.
Same here... FT sales have exploded today... nearly 100 already, while over at DT... 2. Can't believe these sites used to run neck and neck for me.
-
Wow. I just noticed that Art of Business Cards, Mostphotos and Red Bubble are each earning more than Fotolia for me this month! Even the t-shirt printing company I only started submitting to in mid-April has earned more! :o That's seriously pathetic.
I think it's a bit more complicated than that.
While DT doesn't perform good for me either it doesn't say much when you compare POD sites to microstock agencies.
Even AOB doesn't say much about your photography skills as long as you are a great designer. I wish I had more time for the AOB but I already figured I'm not that much of a designer - given the sales I have there. So I focus on other (easier to handle) PODs like Zazzle and Cafepress.
These do take a lot of my time but it's still worth it.
Okay then...BigStock and 123RF, which over the years have always battled for 5th place and have never come close to earning as much as my top 4, have each earned more than Fotolia. At BigStock, my earnings are triple this month what they are at Fotolia. Mostphotos, which has never broken into my top 6, is about equal to Fotolia this month. That's how bad Fotolia is doing. For the first time in six years, it's not even looking like I'm going to reach payout this month! :o I'm used to earning at least a payout per week!
My POD stuff is the same as what's on the micros and Alamy...I'm not a designer or fine artist by any stretch of the imagination...so that's why I included them. The point is I've never earned more than $20 dollars at Red Bubble or ABC in any given month, so for them to be earning more than Fotolia this month with significantly smaller portfolios is important info to me. It shows Red Bubble and ABC continuing to pick up some steam while Fotolia simultaneously implodes, and that products are becoming a viable option at a time when microstock is weakening.
-
Anything a company puts in front of your mug represents and conveys their corporate brand persona. Period.
Research, strategy and execution determines tactics. Apple may create a "Think Different" image campaign to refocus their brand. Volkswagon created the "Lemon" campaign to draw unique and memorable self-deprecating humor. These are corporate image ads that define a company's brand.
Direct response ads contain a specific call-to-action to buy something or go somewhere to learn more. They are NOT (or should not be) void of a company's corporate branding standards or overall messaging platform. They should (and will) communicate a company's brand personality and implement their branding strategy.
Some ad's purpose in life will lean more or less toward pithy, metaphoric concepts while others try harder to get the purchasing process started. Regardless of the execution and intent, a brand identity is conveyed to the viewer.
Yes that's true however using MS images for 'branding' purposes is hardly effective. Branding is about making an association between a message or an image and a company's brand. Would a company use Yuri's top selling businessman handshake image for branding? I've added the link to his image below but probably everyone in this forum knows what image I'm talking about without even looking at it.
[url]http://www.bigstockphoto.com/image-508163/stock-photo-business-handshake[/url] ([url]http://www.bigstockphoto.com/image-508163/stock-photo-business-handshake[/url])
There's a big difference between advertising and branding. When a company uses an image for branding they use something unique to associate that image with their brand and only their brand. If JP Morgan adds Yuri's image on a billboard, would buyers associate the image with JPM or would they associate it with a million other things? By now they just say "God, not that guy again!" Sure, JPM might use the image somewhere in a brochure, but it's not there for branding their products and services but rather to help illustrate a message they're conveying about their products or services.
We're not idiots. We all know what branding is but Microstock is not used, or should not be used for branding. The local plumber might use an MS image for branding but he probably doesn't know any better.
I have already stated the truth about branding based on my 35 years of real-world experience, owning a successful branding/marketing firm, but you don't believe what I am telling you. Most of your well intended perceptions of branding, advertising and how microstock photos are used are incorrect. And I am sure I will never convince you otherwise.
-
I have already stated the truth about branding based on my 35 years of real-world experience, owning a successful branding/marketing firm, but you don't believe what I am telling you. Most of your well intended perceptions of branding, advertising and how microstock photos are used are incorrect. And I am sure I will never convince you otherwise.
LOL the truth about branding? Like it's some secret and you've cracked some code after trying to work it out for 35 years? You can wave around the number of years experience you have but it won't change the definition of 'branding' which is:
The process involved in creating a unique name and image for a product in the consumers' mind, mainly through advertising campaigns with a consistent theme. Branding aims to establish a significant and differentiated presence in the market that attracts and retains loyal customers.
I have no idea what you've been doing for 35 years but if you were using stock photos, it wasn't branding, it was advertising and marketing. There's a big difference and someone working in the industry for 35 years should know the difference. Branding requires exclusivity. Period.
-
after a few days/weeks with 8 to 10 sales per day, I am with 0 today, very very unusual... and only 7 hours to go
-
after a few days/weeks with 8 to 10 sales per day, I am with 0 today, very very unusual... and only 7 hours to go
Same here. Extremely unusual that I get skunked during a weekday on any site, let alone DT. However, all sites are really slow for me today, VERY SLOW.
-
after a few days/weeks with 8 to 10 sales per day, I am with 0 today, very very unusual... and only 7 hours to go
Same story, my friend!
If this will continue for more than a month, I'll stop to promote DT!
-
after a few days/weeks with 8 to 10 sales per day, I am with 0 today, very very unusual... and only 7 hours to go
Same story, my friend!
If this will continue for more than a month, I'll stop to promote DT!
I was talking about FT actually, DT lol
-
Just goes to show how differant the wheel of fortune is turning! I have just had some of my best days with DT, whatever theyre doing its working here.
-
0 sales on DT since June 20 (and after payout)
Fantastic!
-
0 sales on DT since June 20 (and after payout)
Fantastic!
there is really something going on there, after a BME last month I am having a very bad month
May 12 - 58 ($68.73)
June 12 - 22 ($22.84)
regarding the max number of sales - Aug 11 - 74 (56.74$)
-
Have to go back to March 2010 for fewer DLs at DT (only started late 2009) ???
-
for the ones that donīt read that often on FT forum take a look at the following link:
http://www.fotolia.com/forum/viewtopic.php?pid=579103 (http://www.fotolia.com/forum/viewtopic.php?pid=579103)
Hi guys,
There have been a lot of posts about sales trends changing for contributors so I did some poking around and got confirmation on something I think most of you will find interesting.
In order to maintain priority placement in the database you do need to consistently upload and submit images. The more you submit the better your chances of visibility. If it's been several months (or years) since your last upload there is a good chance that the sales of your existing images will taper off as they will be pushed back deeper in the search. There is some sort of algorithm that prioritizes contributors that upload more frequently.
What that means is that you cannot expect to passively succeed. You need to constantly work on your images and uploading. The harder you work, the greater your success. I have noticed this in my portfolio here and it's my intent to get off my butt and start shooting more and shooting better.
Good luck and happy shooting!
Mat
-
Thanks for the info, Luis. I guess since I haven't uploaded in two years, the sudden off-the-cliff drop in my earnings is Fotolia's way of encouraging me to finally pull the plug.
-
Actually and dont be surprised! but this is very much the way the old film/trad agencies used to work, also, this is very much how the Getty-RM, still works. You supply/upload on a fairly regular basis and you gain exposure.
I dont see anything wrong at all in this. Its a way to create incentive and at the same time competition.
Just hope it works in the digital world, thats all.
-
I'd be more interested in DT's explanation, afaik it's going terribly for most of us, many more than at FT.
-
for the ones that donīt read that often on FT forum take a look at the following link:
[url]http://www.fotolia.com/forum/viewtopic.php?pid=579103[/url] ([url]http://www.fotolia.com/forum/viewtopic.php?pid=579103[/url])
Hi guys,
There have been a lot of posts about sales trends changing for contributors so I did some poking around and got confirmation on something I think most of you will find interesting.
In order to maintain priority placement in the database you do need to consistently upload and submit images. The more you submit the better your chances of visibility. If it's been several months (or years) since your last upload there is a good chance that the sales of your existing images will taper off as they will be pushed back deeper in the search. There is some sort of algorithm that prioritizes contributors that upload more frequently.
What that means is that you cannot expect to passively succeed. You need to constantly work on your images and uploading. The harder you work, the greater your success. I have noticed this in my portfolio here and it's my intent to get off my butt and start shooting more and shooting better.
Good luck and happy shooting!
Mat
Thanks for digging this up and posting it here, Luis... but I have two reactions to his findings...
1. Duh. I've always considered it to be common sense that you have to keep uploading to maintain a decent exposure level, not just at FT but everywhere.
2. This common sense approach to uploading doesn't explain the sudden cliff we all fell off a few months ago at FT, unless FT just rolled out this "constant uploading" algo recently. I suspect there's something else that would account for many of us (especially Emeralds) getting knocked down all at once. In fact, I have been steadily uploading like clockwork for pretty much four years, and my earnings charts for FT (and DT) look like a steady climb up a mountain, then all of a sudden falling into a valley a few months ago. At all the other sites, my trendlines look like pretty consistent upward arrows... but FT and DT had been my #2 and #4 earners, so they're holding me pretty flat overall. Very frustrating, since it's not from a lack of uploading, I assure you.
-
2. This common sense approach to uploading doesn't explain the sudden cliff we all fell off a few months ago at FT, unless FT just rolled out this "constant uploading" algo recently. I suspect there's something else that would account for many of us (especially Emeralds) getting knocked down all at once.
Agreed. I can't imagine what's at work to explain why my earnings have dropped 80%...yes, 80%...since March. :o
-
but FT and DT had been my #2 and #4 earners, so they're holding me pretty flat overall. Very frustrating, since it's not from a lack of uploading, I assure you.
I wouldn't worry at all if I earned as much as you, if my earnings flatlined (as in stay at the same level, not die) :) . After all you're not Charlie Sheen, you just can't keep on winning all the time ;D
-
In fact, I have been steadily uploading like clockwork for pretty much four years, and my earnings charts for FT (and DT) look like a steady climb up a mountain, then all of a sudden falling into a valley a few months ago.
Same here.
uploading like clockwork for pretty much seven years. and sudden falling into a valley.
They are not telling us the truth!
-
In fact, I have been steadily uploading like clockwork for pretty much four years, and my earnings charts for FT (and DT) look like a steady climb up a mountain, then all of a sudden falling into a valley a few months ago.
Same here.
uploading like clockwork for pretty much seven years. and sudden falling into a valley.
They are not telling us the truth!
I havenīt said that, you have wrongly quoted
-
Well the FT, search is OK, no changes there. Might be a selective few earning all the dosh or a general lack of buyers. It is strange though because sales have really slumped.
-
Thanks for digging this up and posting it here, Luis... but I have two reactions to his findings...
1. Duh. I've always considered it to be common sense that you have to keep uploading to maintain a decent exposure level, not just at FT but everywhere.
2. This common sense approach to uploading doesn't explain the sudden cliff we all fell off a few months ago at FT, unless FT just rolled out this "constant uploading" algo recently. I suspect there's something else that would account for many of us (especially Emeralds) getting knocked down all at once. In fact, I have been steadily uploading like clockwork for pretty much four years, and my earnings charts for FT (and DT) look like a steady climb up a mountain, then all of a sudden falling into a valley a few months ago. At all the other sites, my trendlines look like pretty consistent upward arrows... but FT and DT had been my #2 and #4 earners, so they're holding me pretty flat overall. Very frustrating, since it's not from a lack of uploading, I assure you.
I actually find most agencies are fairly stable without uploading new files. I'm coming up on two years without uploading to many of them and most of the earnings are pretty steady month to month. They haven't decreased all that much either from when I was regularly uploading to them.
-
DT is causing me to delete images at FT. Uploading just doesn't make sense when a credit sale is 20 cents and subscription is 25 cents. The killer is when a DT Level 4 images sells on FT for 20 cents.
Therefore, every time FT sells an image for 20 cents, I check it at DT. If it is an upper level image (3 or above), it gets deleted at FT.
Maybe that is why my already discouraging activity at FT has completely ceased to exist.
So Be It. ::) :(
-
Warren let agencies delete your pictures, donīt do it unless you are going to drop them in a near future ;)
-
Warren let agencies delete your pictures, donīt do it unless you are going to drop them in a near future ;)
You may have missed the point, Luis. I do NOT want FT selling THAT picture. I might even go back and make it exclusive at DT.
Maybe Not. It sells pretty good on SS too. ??? ::) :-\
-
Warren let agencies delete your pictures, donīt do it unless you are going to drop them in a near future ;)
You may have missed the point, Luis. I do NOT want FT selling THAT picture. I might even go back and make it exclusive at DT.
Maybe Not. It sells pretty good on SS too. ??? ::) :-\
I donīt have an exclusive picture and I believe never will.. DT is showing that after a BME with a month remembering 2009 ;D
-
for the ones that donīt read that often on FT forum take a look at the following link:
[url]http://www.fotolia.com/forum/viewtopic.php?pid=579103[/url] ([url]http://www.fotolia.com/forum/viewtopic.php?pid=579103[/url])
...There is some sort of algorithm that prioritizes contributors that upload more frequently.
This is key bit of information. I have stopped submitting for several weeks and my sales everywhere have been pretty normal (for June), with one exception: Fotolia. There, sales fell off a cliff. My 7-Day rank suddenly (over a few days) dropped over 150 positions. Nothing remotely like this has happened to me there before. And I, as is said, all other sites are normal.
Yesterday I submitted five images and my FT sales jumped back up to almost normal.
Fololia's algorithm must kick in after a certain number of days of not submitting, and move your search engine results way, way back. Something to keep in mind.
-
for the ones that donīt read that often on FT forum take a look at the following link:
[url]http://www.fotolia.com/forum/viewtopic.php?pid=579103[/url] ([url]http://www.fotolia.com/forum/viewtopic.php?pid=579103[/url])
...There is some sort of algorithm that prioritizes contributors that upload more frequently.
This is key bit of information. I have stopped submitting for several weeks and my sales everywhere have been pretty normal (for June), with one exception: Fotolia. There, sales fell off a cliff. My 7-Day rank suddenly (over a few days) dropped over 150 positions. Nothing remotely like this has happened to me there before. And I, as is said, all other sites are normal.
Yesterday I submitted five images and my FT sales jumped back up to almost normal.
Fololia's algorithm must kick in after a certain number of days of not submitting, and move your search engine results way, way back. Something to keep in mind.
we have around the same number of new files in the last 6 months and I havenīt felt any down on sales, they have been climbing since first month, that said I am only silver with 150 to 200 sales per month, I believe it has something related to ranking too
-
Warren let agencies delete your pictures, donīt do it unless you are going to drop them in a near future ;)
You may have missed the point, Luis. I do NOT want FT selling THAT picture. I might even go back and make it exclusive at DT.
Maybe Not. It sells pretty good on SS too. ??? ::) :-\
That's exactly what I've come to a few days ago. It would disgust me to sell photos for peanuts on sites with no volume. So since I stopped ULing to DT over a month ago (to keep my options regarding exclusivity open and sales fell off a cliff anyway, so no harm done) there's no other option than SS, IS and FT (yes low prices, but at least half decent volume).
-
for the ones that donīt read that often on FT forum take a look at the following link:
[url]http://www.fotolia.com/forum/viewtopic.php?pid=579103[/url] ([url]http://www.fotolia.com/forum/viewtopic.php?pid=579103[/url])
...There is some sort of algorithm that prioritizes contributors that upload more frequently.
This is key bit of information. I have stopped submitting for several weeks and my sales everywhere have been pretty normal (for June), with one exception: Fotolia. There, sales fell off a cliff. My 7-Day rank suddenly (over a few days) dropped over 150 positions. Nothing remotely like this has happened to me there before. And I, as is said, all other sites are normal.
Yesterday I submitted five images and my FT sales jumped back up to almost normal.
Fololia's algorithm must kick in after a certain number of days of not submitting, and move your search engine results way, way back. Something to keep in mind.
Dont know how you work that out? I uploaded about 20 images to FT, and still stuck in the bogghouse, as far as sales, that is.
-
for the ones that donīt read that often on FT forum take a look at the following link:
[url]http://www.fotolia.com/forum/viewtopic.php?pid=579103[/url] ([url]http://www.fotolia.com/forum/viewtopic.php?pid=579103[/url])
Hi guys,
There have been a lot of posts about sales trends changing for contributors so I did some poking around and got confirmation on something I think most of you will find interesting.
In order to maintain priority placement in the database you do need to consistently upload and submit images. The more you submit the better your chances of visibility. If it's been several months (or years) since your last upload there is a good chance that the sales of your existing images will taper off as they will be pushed back deeper in the search. There is some sort of algorithm that prioritizes contributors that upload more frequently.
What that means is that you cannot expect to passively succeed. You need to constantly work on your images and uploading. The harder you work, the greater your success. I have noticed this in my portfolio here and it's my intent to get off my butt and start shooting more and shooting better.
Good luck and happy shooting!
Mat
\
Thanks for posting this Luis! It may partially explain my downfall. I had been uploading weekly for years, but then took 6 months off when remodeling my studio and office. Been uploading regularly again since April, but apparently that hasn't been enough to get my sales back on track. Hopefully if I keep uploading they will recover in time....?
-
In order to maintain priority placement in the database you do need to consistently upload and submit images. The more you submit the better your chances of visibility.
So they want just quantity, not quality? They seem to get more stupid every minute.
-
In order to maintain priority placement in the database you do need to consistently upload and submit images. The more you submit the better your chances of visibility.
So they want just quantity, not quality? They seem to get more stupid every minute.
Seems like a good argument for spacing out downloads and doing a few each week instead of doing them in large batches...
-
In order to maintain priority placement in the database you do need to consistently upload and submit images. The more you submit the better your chances of visibility.
So they want just quantity, not quality? They seem to get more stupid every minute.
Seems like a good argument for spacing out downloads and doing a few each week instead of doing them in large batches...
Not too sure it works that way? if it does I certainly space them. Blimey, one has to be some sort of a half-assed guru nowdays, all sorts of skullduggery and shadey stuff going on. ::)
-
Blimey, one has to be some sort of a half-assed guru nowdays, all sorts of skullduggery and shadey stuff going on. ::)
So true!! Wish I was the type to just shoot, upload and forget, instead of worrying about the details of what site's doing what to whom. :P
-
Blimey, one has to be some sort of a half-assed guru nowdays, all sorts of skullduggery and shadey stuff going on. ::)
So true!! Wish I was the type to just shoot, upload and forget, instead of worrying about the details of what site's doing what to whom. :P
Yes, it's all turned into a big strategy. Let's see, at site A, upload 4 images today, but no more until the new moon. At site B, upload 20 today, but not similars. Space those out over 4 months or when the next solar flare occurs. That way you have a chance of them sliding through. And never upload on a full stomach. The server will NOT accept your images at all if you do.
It's getting that ridiculous!
-
Yes, it's all turned into a big strategy. Let's see, at site A, upload 4 images today, but no more until the new moon. At site B, upload 20 today, but not similars. Space those out over 4 months or when the next solar flare occurs. That way you have a chance of them sliding through. And never upload on a full stomach. The server will NOT accept your images at all if you do.
It's getting that ridiculous!
LOL. I used to do that. I would create a backlog of several series of images, then mix them together in desktop folders for small batches that I would upload slowly over time. It worked pretty well until iStock went crazy, and I decided I needed to reevaluate who I do business with.
-
Yes, it's all turned into a big strategy. Let's see, at site A, upload 4 images today, but no more until the new moon. At site B, upload 20 today, but not similars. Space those out over 4 months or when the next solar flare occurs. That way you have a chance of them sliding through. And never upload on a full stomach. The server will NOT accept your images at all if you do.
It's getting that ridiculous!
LOL! That's EXACTLY how it feels ;D
Not at all conducive to the creative process...
-
Blimey, one has to be some sort of a half-assed guru nowdays, all sorts of skullduggery and shadey stuff going on. ::)
So true!! Wish I was the type to just shoot, upload and forget, instead of worrying about the details of what site's doing what to whom. :P
Yes, it's all turned into a big strategy. Let's see, at site A, upload 4 images today, but no more until the new moon. At site B, upload 20 today, but not similars. Space those out over 4 months or when the next solar flare occurs. That way you have a chance of them sliding through. And never upload on a full stomach. The server will NOT accept your images at all if you do.
It's getting that ridiculous!
Well yes, youre not far off actually! its turned into a wheeling and dealing game, watching your back so nobody puts a dagger between your shoulderblades. Totally and utterly ludicrous.
-
Getting? ;D
Don't forget day of the week on SS and feed the beast. New image honeymoon boost, which became irrelevant at about 10 million images.
For those finding their sales suddenly dropping through the floor I have this one bit of information to consider. It's June! Maybe not the worst month of the year, but positively not the best.
6th worst according to the open forum poll, (tied at one vote) maybe some people want to change their vote?
http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/what%27s-the-worst-month-of-the-year-for-sales-based-on-income/ (http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/what%27s-the-worst-month-of-the-year-for-sales-based-on-income/)
Rank currently:
Dec
Jan
Apr
July
Aug
June
May
March
No votes
Feb
Sept
Oct
Nov
Blimey, one has to be some sort of a half-assed guru nowdays, all sorts of skullduggery and shadey stuff going on. ::)
So true!! Wish I was the type to just shoot, upload and forget, instead of worrying about the details of what site's doing what to whom. :P
Yes, it's all turned into a big strategy. Let's see, at site A, upload 4 images today, but no more until the new moon. At site B, upload 20 today, but not similars. Space those out over 4 months or when the next solar flare occurs. That way you have a chance of them sliding through. And never upload on a full stomach. The server will NOT accept your images at all if you do.
It's getting that ridiculous!
-
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-SSEx_UM4j3U/T-3ID5bsi6I/AAAAAAAABJg/OMNikzUxjeU/s1600/top5.PNG)
IS down down
SS up
123RF up up
FT =
DT down
-
Thanks for posting the chart Luis. Explains a lot.
-
2. This common sense approach to uploading doesn't explain the sudden cliff we all fell off a few months ago at FT, unless FT just rolled out this "constant uploading" algo recently.
From what I understand, this is a fairly new change so it does actually explain the "sudden cliff."
-Mat
-
I am not feeling the drop in sales in FT but its so curious how agencies can change or do whatever they want and us contributors will be the only ones having problems once our share is so ridiculous small, agencies OTOH with 80%, 85%, 75% share they can take the risk and still have their pockets full ;D
one day they value top contributors, other new contributors, other continuous uploading, other their own pockets with cuts
in the end we are just getting more confused and concerned regarding our future earnings... its a lot of fun!
-
2. This common sense approach to uploading doesn't explain the sudden cliff we all fell off a few months ago at FT, unless FT just rolled out this "constant uploading" algo recently.
From what I understand, this is a fairly new change so it does actually explain the "sudden cliff."
-Mat
Feed the beast it is. I upload regularly and have seen my sales go from 200 a month to 80 a month, while sales are growing at a few other sites, but not all.