MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: RF: self-killing?  (Read 6399 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #25 on: May 16, 2011, 14:19 »
..snip... I have posted elsewhere, that, sorry, but I feel many buyers buy for the subjects only, not quality.  They don't care or know about artifacting, noise,purple fringing, etc.  They simply want a small image for a website.  My sales bear this hypothesis out.  There is obviously a good market for high quality, high end work, but I think the average buyer is not needing that type of work.

I didn't stay with Crestock for very long so I don't know what their current policy is - but the brief month that I was with them they would publish a photo at the max size they thought the quality could bear.  Say I'd submit an XL but they thought it was soft at XL but they liked it they would sell it at medium or smaller.   I almost like this policy, but I imagine it creates 2 or 3 times the work for inspectors.

My sales trends seem to be getting smaller and smaller.   Fotolia for example has become almost exclusively XS regular sales, with the other 95% of sales going to subs.  I feel like I should only supply Medium or smaller files.  My RPD at FT last month was .45 and this month it is trending .47.


    This user is banned.
« Reply #26 on: May 19, 2011, 05:01 »
I don't think people reuse images as often as you might expect. I occasionally reuse an image for the same client, taking a photo I used in a brochure and using it on their website design, for example. But I'd never reuse an image I bought for use in one client project in a new project for a different client. Aside from it feeling a bit unprofessional to do so, I think it would look strange in my portfolio to see the same images used in projects for different clients.

That and the fact that rarely does a particular image fit well with multiple projects for different clients.

Does it happen? I'm sure. But does it happen often enough to make a dent in overall earnings over a prolonged period of time? I doubt it.

I worked at decent sized graphic design studios (or the graphic design part of ad agencies) andwe did store a lot of pictures, organized. We usually hada rather large stock of all kinds of backgrounds downloaded for expample, we had so many that we almost never went back to the sites for those, simply loaded something from our own servers, becasue it was a lot faster.

Don't they get hard to find?  Did the company have to hire a database technician to maintain the files?

nope, just view in thumbnail size, I can search thru thousands of images in few minutes visually on a fast computer.

« Reply #27 on: May 19, 2011, 05:59 »
Lot's of sites also have keywords attached to the images, easily searchable on (for example) Mac's Spotlight.


Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
22 Replies
Last post May 22, 2006, 09:15
by ichiro17
21 Replies
Last post November 08, 2017, 06:10
by Chichikov


Microstock Poll Results