MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: How to advertize your porfolio?  (Read 9124 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: August 28, 2007, 04:08 »
0
Hi! I feel that my preasence on fotolia is not enough. I feel there must be some place where you can advertise your porfolio to buyers directly, not only wait if they will find your images or not. Do you know for those places or methods where you can advertise / offer your images to buyers directtly (trough microstock site of corurse, I want to offer my fotolia portfolio).


« Reply #1 on: August 28, 2007, 06:43 »
0
How about signing up with ShutterStock, iStock, Dreamstime to begin with and then see the difference. Fotolia just isn't all that crash hot for sales to be honest.

« Reply #2 on: August 28, 2007, 07:19 »
0
I am exclusive to fotolia, so it means I would have to cancel my exclusivity on all of my imgaes, and wait 3 months until I can submit to some other agencies...



« Reply #3 on: August 28, 2007, 07:30 »
0
i am guessing it would be far worth it, unless it is a LOT of trouble to upload to more sites.

Why did you choose to go exclusive with Fotolia by the way - just currious

« Reply #4 on: August 28, 2007, 07:52 »
0
Just take exclusive off all your best images on FT and use those on the other sites and make sure that all new images from now on, you only make non-exclusive on FT so that you can also upload elsewhere. I did this about four months ago myself and haven't looked back since. To be honest Fotolia is a bit of a joke sales wise compared to the three sites I mentioned.  And that's not even talking about StockExpert and 123RF both which will be guaranteed to outsell FT on any given month. If Fotolia fixed their search and overall speed it might be different but not many people around here take it all that seriously...

« Reply #5 on: August 28, 2007, 07:56 »
0


Just had a look at your folio on FT and be prepared to be amazed when you take my advice :)

Also ShutterStock is the best place to start - http://submit.shutterstock.com/?ref=93425 (my referral link as I think you'll do quite nicely there)

« Reply #6 on: August 28, 2007, 09:48 »
0
I have account on stockxpert for a while, but no images there. I have created account on shutterstock today, but I do not get it. I took free registration, and I do not know how to upload mages? They offer me 199$ to pay and I can download 25 images per day, I do not want to download anything, I want to sell.

Also I tried registering with Istock a month ago, but didnt have enough patience to repeat ther rigorous requests over and over again. Sometimes my ID picture is not good, sometimes my sample image is not good, ah screw it I said... and stuck on Fotolia. :)

So you think I should cancel exclusivity and go to shutterstock and stockxpert?

« Reply #7 on: August 28, 2007, 10:00 »
0
SS has 2 separate sites, one for the buyers, another one for photographers.  The page you're looking for is this one:

http://submit.shutterstock.com

I would also advise you to check the forum pages to know what to expect as a contibutor.  For example this post is from today:

Requirements for new members?
http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=24483&highlight=

I agree that FL isn't a big earner compared to SS and IS.  Not yet...

« Reply #8 on: August 28, 2007, 10:14 »
0
Before when I was also exclusive at Fotolia, microstock never seemed more then like being a fun little hobby. Since I ventured to greener pastures it started to actually look like something that I could do full time and get an ok income from... Sure some sites like iStock can be a pain to get accepted but persevere, it will be well worth the effort.

« Reply #9 on: August 28, 2007, 11:45 »
0
oooouh! Tnx for the link! :)

And how about photoxpert? Is this agency good?

« Reply #10 on: August 28, 2007, 14:38 »
0
Now is not the time to be making too many judgements about Fotolia - they are just emerging from the V2 nightmare, and at the same time we have had the slower summer period.

After Sept 5th it will be possible to judge FT based on 'normal' business with everyone back to work.

Even though it is holiday time in Europe I have noticed that my page views are climbing sharply and easily reaching new record highs on a regular basis - this suggests that FT is gradually sorting the situation out.

There are many people who were very impressed with FT in 'the old days'.

Nonetheless I'd never be exclusive there.  OZ is correct in recommending SS and IS - both very difficult to get acceptance at BTW, and becoming more difficult with each passing week.

I'd advise to forget DT - they appear to be swamped with the flow of new pictures, and the customer base doesn't seem to be growing at the same pace.  Perhaps have another look at them in six months.

« Reply #11 on: August 28, 2007, 18:30 »
0
I'd advise to forget DT - they appear to be swamped with the flow of new pictures, and the customer base doesn't seem to be growing at the same pace.  Perhaps have another look at them in six months.

I think DT is still worth uploading to. hatman12 is right, they are lagging behind StockXpert for me lately, but DT still does a lot better for me than FO. You never know when sales at DT might pick up.

If it takes a while getting accepted at SS (and a LONG while getting into IS) you could boost your earnings some by submitting to DT in the meanwhile.

« Reply #12 on: August 28, 2007, 21:36 »
0
Fotolia has outsold my Shutterstock portfolio for the past 3 months in a row.

« Reply #13 on: August 28, 2007, 22:44 »
0
Fotolia has outsold my Shutterstock portfolio for the past 3 months in a row.

Wow, you serious? I never complained about FT, they are fine in my eyes, but outsell SS? That's impressive.

Hatman, no offence please but I don't think that's a good advice to "forget DT" or any opther of big 6 for that matter. You see constantly this sharp divergence where same agency performs great for one contributor and very poorly for another. You just never know whose shooting style may find just the right fit in what agency. You are not getting sales at BigStock, others swear by it... To me SS is unbeatable money-producer with FT distant second, yet as you can see from the post above there are photgraphers getting better return on their effort from FT. A lot of people swear by IS while for me it's very lucklustre site (at least so far, many say it takes a while to pick up). Soooo... I just wouldn't risk to tell anyone to skip any of big ones based on my personal experience and speculations.

« Reply #14 on: August 28, 2007, 23:08 »
0
I accept your argument completely pr2is.

« Reply #15 on: August 29, 2007, 02:20 »
0
Thank you on your advices! What about Stockxpert?

« Reply #16 on: August 29, 2007, 02:24 »
0
Thank you on your advices! What about Stockxpert?

Took me three months to get accepted, total pain in the arse... however well worth it now :)


« Reply #17 on: August 29, 2007, 11:03 »
0
I am asking because I am already accepted at stockxpert, but dont have any images yet there. :)


Also, I was disapointed when I read that payments on Shutterstock are only 25c? Gee, that is too low. I like most to sell 1 image on fotolia for 3$, rather then sell 6-7 images on shutterstock?!

« Reply #18 on: August 29, 2007, 11:45 »
0
I can't see why anybody would go exclusive on any site. Exclusivity and the privileges (and even blatant discrimination at iStock) of exclusives can never make up for lost sales at the other sites. Every site has its own audience and customer base, so you won't cannibalize yourself by submitting to different sites.

Three months is not that long to wait so you can sweat it out. In the meantime, try to get approved by ShutterStock because I heard that the process can take some time nowadays.

If you want to promote yourself, that's a good idea, because the interests of stock sites and individual photographers are somewhat different. Stock sites want to maximize the sales of all photographers, but that might not benefit everybody in the same amount.

Submitting to several sites will make your visibility higher on Google. Also consider Flickr, but make sure you upload your shots there watermarked and with a clear link back to the sites where you sell. An example is my Flickr account at http://www.flickr.com/photos/flemishdreams/sets/

« Last Edit: August 29, 2007, 12:08 by FlemishDreams »

« Reply #19 on: August 29, 2007, 16:02 »
0
.25 cents might seem little (also there is a pay rise once you hit $500 to .30 cents) however to let you decide if its worth it I hit $500 in under 3 months with around 400 images and when I stopped being exclusive with Fotolia, at the time, my percentage of income with FT was 100%. However pretty much of the mark Shutterstock became 84% of my total income while Fotolia was at 10%. (thats with over 900 images at FT and only 80 with SS). For August SS is at 69% while FT at 5%, while the rest are the remaining agencies with iStock being the strongest growth agency in the past two months, accounting for 12% of my total microstock income. So is .25 little, yes, but is it worth it ? heck yeah :)

« Reply #20 on: August 29, 2007, 16:38 »
0
Also consider Flickr, but make sure you upload your shots there watermarked and with a clear link back to the sites where you sell.
I was planing to start a portfolio at Flickr, with small images (300x200 pix maybe) and was wondering if adding watermarks are allowed.

Also does any microstock site terms of agreement restrict this kind of display? I don't think so, but I wonder if I'm really right.

Regards,
Adelaide

« Reply #21 on: August 29, 2007, 16:44 »
0
i have  a similar experience than ozbandit. I was exclusive with FT and ped just after V2 was launched. I started submitted to all agencies and SS is took the lead after few weeks . Only 60 pics so far but it make 55 % of my earnings, FT is only 25 % and I have 460 pics on line including 328 exclusives ...
The 3rd is IS.
I will developped this a bit more on my blog in a couple of days

So Yes it is worth being non exclusive

PS : I use Flickr to promote my pics, small size and watermarked

« Reply #22 on: August 29, 2007, 16:59 »
0

« Reply #23 on: August 29, 2007, 17:36 »
0
I was planing to start a portfolio at Flickr, with small images (300x200 pix maybe) and was wondering if adding watermarks are allowed.

Also does any microstock site terms of agreement restrict this kind of display? I don't think so, but I wonder if I'm really right.

1) Flickr doesn't allow commercial displays. IMHO, showing off your portfolio is not "commercial". They also require work on which you have the rights. But I came across many posted shots "from the net", watermarked by the owner, which is clearly a breach of copyright.

2) Unless you are exclusive with a site, as copyright owner, you can do with your shots what you want. The site just markets your shots for a commission. Freebies hunters will rob anything they can from Flickr. Watermarking is a way to avoid cannibalization of your earnings at microstock sites, but at the same time draw attention to them.

« Reply #24 on: August 30, 2007, 03:01 »
0
Thank you all for advices.  I will cancel my exclusivity and start in November on ShutterShtock and StockXpert. :) And put it on 3 months test. If it shows good, I will stay non exclusive, if it does not show increase of profit, I will back to fotolia only. :)


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
4 Replies
2883 Views
Last post April 16, 2010, 17:50
by luissantos84
0 Replies
4649 Views
Last post November 11, 2011, 23:01
by gemmy12
9 Replies
3235 Views
Last post June 08, 2015, 04:11
by skyfish
2 Replies
2614 Views
Last post January 13, 2016, 06:39
by Microstockphoto

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle