pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: External Search  (Read 3990 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: September 18, 2010, 03:54 »
0
There are already signs of external search engines that will find images across all microsites. I envisage that this will eventually become the default way that images are searched for - best image at best price. When that day arrives there won't be much point having our images on more than one site. But how far away is it? And which site would be the best, if you choose only one?


RacePhoto

« Reply #1 on: September 20, 2010, 00:18 »
0
There are already signs of external search engines that will find images across all microsites. I envisage that this will eventually become the default way that images are searched for - best image at best price. When that day arrives there won't be much point having our images on more than one site. But how far away is it? And which site would be the best, if you choose only one?

Not to be argumentative but yes there will be a need for multiple sites. (coming from someone who has cut down to essentially two sites for myself?) But buyers will have credits at one agency or another and even if using a universal search that looks at the top six for example, they will be more likely to buy from someone they do business with, instead of someone else, where they would have to deposit money, buy credits or start a subscription.

One search would be very helpful and welcome, but there's still a purpose and need for multiple agencies. Maybe not 20-30 anymore, but at least the top few?

Price isn't the only reason that someone will buy something.

« Reply #2 on: September 20, 2010, 00:28 »
0
Racephoto - the point Averil is making is that if you post your image at two sites, then the buyers will tend to get it from the cheaper one and you shoot yourself in the foot by having it there.

Of course, if they have to pay hundreds for a subscription just to get one photo, they won't go there. And iStock seems to have proven that some buyers are not massively price sensitive.

RacePhoto

« Reply #3 on: September 20, 2010, 00:38 »
0
Racephoto - the point Averil is making is that if you post your image at two sites, then the buyers will tend to get it from the cheaper one and you shoot yourself in the foot by having it there.

Of course, if they have to pay hundreds for a subscription just to get one photo, they won't go there. And iStock seems to have proven that some buyers are not massively price sensitive.

Yes that was the point. I have my photos at w - x - y and z and the only variable is a slight difference in price. Buyers will go to the site they deal with already, over starting with a new one.

Having your images at ten sites won't help much because the buyers will have an account at the big four (for example). Having them on a cheap site and the big four, yes, we'd be competing with ourselves. One central search will speed up the end of many more small sites that compete only on price.

In fact that's why I cut down to SS and IS and dropped the rest. I won't compete with myself on price, with the smaller sites. And never again on a new cheap site, or help a pay per upload upstart. :D

Also true, most buyers aren't price sensitive when it comes to a few cents one way or another.

« Reply #4 on: September 20, 2010, 00:53 »
0
But it might make sense to put your images on a site that pays a good royalty, if buyers will find it regardless of which site it is on. The credit package (whether subs or ppd) is still an issue of course.

« Reply #5 on: September 20, 2010, 04:39 »
0
I think plenty of people will continue to stay at one site they are happy with. Istock is perfect example, while buyers leave with every price increase, plenty stay. My wife's buying (which is pretty small) is now at canstock as I can convert credits as needed, rather than have credits at DT, FT and IS like we had before. I dont know how canstock compares, dont really care as it works for her.

« Reply #6 on: September 20, 2010, 05:34 »
0

Having your images at ten sites won't help much because the buyers will have an account at the big four (for example). Having them on a cheap site and the big four, yes, we'd be competing with ourselves. One central search will speed up the end of many more small sites that compete only on price.

In fact that's why I cut down to SS and IS and dropped the rest. I won't compete with myself on price, with the smaller sites. And never again on a new cheap site, or help a pay per upload upstart. :D

Also true, most buyers aren't price sensitive when it comes to a few cents one way or another.

What you are missing here is that you are not competing with yourself on the likes of 123 or CanStockPhoto. Where you compete with yourself is on Fotolia or DT or SS, because they are the sites that sell in quantity and offer cheap rates. Fotolia is the worst because it cheerfully hands over your most popular image at the largest possible size for a handful of pennies. I've just sold another 12 or 18 mp image there for 37c. At least DT is increasing the price for popular files and SS allows you to upload very small sizes without losing money (if you do that at F or DT you cut off the chance of large sales from the PPD model).

« Reply #7 on: September 20, 2010, 07:53 »
0
I have been contacted a while ago by sites that just wanted to do that. They were seeking for advertisement space and advice. Averil is totally right. The lesson to take is not to upload to cheap sites, and not the mix content on microstock and higher paying sites like Alamy.

May I add that Picscout is already doing this, and people get embarrassed when they see their thumbs at Alamy for 100$ with the blue Picscout bullet on it that points to DT where the same image can be bought for 1-4 credits. When more collections are going to join Picscout (they will), the price comparison will be easier.

I don't think the micros will compete each other on Picscout, but those with the same content mixed on high-yield sites and micro, they will. Everybody should anticipate this evolution by splitting his content. IMHO.

RacePhoto

« Reply #8 on: September 20, 2010, 12:50 »
0
I think what we have here is a failure to communicate. Maybe my fault. I agree.  :)

That's why I only have my new pictures on SS, IS and Alamy. I did leave some things on BigStock and StockXpert, but nothing new there.

Read what FD wrote. Maybe he said it better and I agree with his views as well.

My main disagreement was that buyers don't only look at price. That's easy enough to see in real life buying habits and just about every reply in this thread. So when Averil asked what one site, I didn't think that it was a simple answer based on price.



Having your images at ten sites won't help much because the buyers will have an account at the big four (for example). Having them on a cheap site and the big four, yes, we'd be competing with ourselves. One central search will speed up the end of many more small sites that compete only on price.

In fact that's why I cut down to SS and IS and dropped the rest. I won't compete with myself on price, with the smaller sites. And never again on a new cheap site, or help a pay per upload upstart. :D

Also true, most buyers aren't price sensitive when it comes to a few cents one way or another.

What you are missing here is that you are not competing with yourself on the likes of 123 or CanStockPhoto. Where you compete with yourself is on Fotolia or DT or SS, because they are the sites that sell in quantity and offer cheap rates. Fotolia is the worst because it cheerfully hands over your most popular image at the largest possible size for a handful of pennies. I've just sold another 12 or 18 mp image there for 37c. At least DT is increasing the price for popular files and SS allows you to upload very small sizes without losing money (if you do that at F or DT you cut off the chance of large sales from the PPD model).

« Reply #9 on: September 20, 2010, 14:42 »
0
I'm more interested in the idea of placing images where contributors get the best return (price/royalty percentage). Why place anywhere else if not necessary?

« Reply #10 on: September 20, 2010, 15:32 »
0
I'm more interested in the idea of placing images where contributors get the best return (price/royalty percentage). Why place anywhere else if not necessary?
1 - Because the 50+ % sites don't sell in volume?
2 - Because the more sites you're on, the more gross income?
(with the caveat not to upload to too cheap sites since the external search engines will find out)
(another caveat: being on iStock is not undercutting your other sites since even if your income is lower there, your images are more expensive to buyers)

« Reply #11 on: September 20, 2010, 16:00 »
0
I guess the limitation is the need for buyers to have accounts/credits at more than one place.

« Reply #12 on: September 20, 2010, 16:26 »
0
I guess the limitation is the need for buyers to have accounts/credits at more than one place.
When buyers are comfy at one site and they know the ropes and how to handle the search engine, they won't change easily, certainly not for 1 or 2$ difference. It's also a slight headache to keep several accounts, except for the very large houses. The diversity is also important: you can find faster and better what you want on a site with 10M pictures than at a site with 0.5M. Even if they are cheaper, you will waste more time (= money) to find the right image, if ever.

Commodity is probably more important to a buyer than price, within limits. Of course, if he sees the image he wants at Alamy for 100$ and just clicking the small blue Picscout bullet on it brings him straight to Dreamstime where he just has to pay 4$ for the same image, he might buy it at DT on the spot. When this happens regularly, our buyer might decide to switch to DT for most images. It's worthwhile since he can save 96$ every time. He won't do it for 2$.

In view of this evolution that you brought up (and Picscout is just a beginning), the contributor should not mix his content at hugely different price point sites. You can send your prime content for instance to Alamy, and the lesser images of a shoot or a series to microstock.

« Reply #13 on: September 20, 2010, 16:32 »
0
I'm considering switcing to MF, so maybe Alamy RM plus remain istock exclusive for lesser work (maybe at smaller file sizes too) is my best bet. I don't do the kind of work that might qualify for Vetta.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
8 Replies
3983 Views
Last post May 22, 2008, 21:42
by michaeldb
8 Replies
3730 Views
Last post September 15, 2013, 14:14
by stockastic
3 Replies
2663 Views
Last post October 15, 2013, 08:25
by shotupdave
5 Replies
1686 Views
Last post May 07, 2017, 09:41
by wds
14 Replies
5001 Views
Last post August 12, 2019, 01:01
by Anyka

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results