MicrostockGroup
Microstock Photography Forum - General => General Stock Discussion => Topic started by: Sean Locke Photography on December 06, 2010, 11:53
-
Interesting read that Ron has pretty much stopped submitting micro...
http://blog.johnlund.com/2010/12/photographer-ron-chapple-interview.html (http://blog.johnlund.com/2010/12/photographer-ron-chapple-interview.html)
-
Very interesting article. Thanks for posting.
Here are a couple of statements I found particularly notable, especially since the long term sustainability of the image-factory model has been debated so often here:
All of our cost reduction measures were to no avail- revenues continue to drop, and microstock is no longer profitable for our business.
and:
With Change being our studio mantra and discovering that microstock was not sustainable in the long term, we looked for new opportunities.
-
Wonderful interview! Thanks for posting!
-
And my favourite quote:
"1. Do not rely on stock as your sole revenue source."
Well some people here rely even on one agency ;D
-
The most creative photographer will always lose out to the better business person.
-
The most creative photographer will always lose out to the better business person.
Yes I liked this one also very much - hard but true. I'm still not a good business person but not that lousy anymore than 10years ago - I learned it the hard way ;)
-
Ron's business model is about producing really expensive images. It makes complete sense that he wouldn't be able to put it into microstock and that he's looking for better returns elsewhere. Its how he does his business. If I had the resources/know-how, I'd love to do what Ron does - its awesome
-
lots of interesting info in there even if he is really on the other end of the stock spectrum from me.
It is clever to get into a field with a $600,000 barrier to entry, that should keep competition out for a few years (until radio control airplanes can get the same footage for a few grand).
I wonder if if his speculation about the percentages to photographers will come about and how that upheaval would effect the industry. It sure would be nice to see some pressure in the photographers favor for a change.
-
Thanks for posting this Sean.
That's the most informative, business-like and unemotional assessment of the stock business I've ever read __ by a very long way. Lot's of food for thought.
Interesting in particular that Ron has largely given up on producing stock still images as not being 'sustainable'. That word again.
-
'sustainable'. That word again.
lol :D
-
another whining 'trad', huh? ;)
-
Interesting in particular that Ron has largely given up on producing stock still images as not being 'sustainable'. That word again.
Good word, even if it has gotten a bad rep lately ;)
I have wondered for a long time how the image factories could manage their overhead at micro prices. Looks like, at least in this case, they can't. If someone with Ron's skill and business expertise has found microstock unsustainable, what does that mean? Is it unsustainable for all of us, or just the folks with high production costs and overhead?
Seems like, based on this interview, getting into more assignment work is the smart way to go, for long-term security.
-
Thanks for posting this Sean - very interesting read.
My pick for the quote to note is this one "My only conjecture is that once a search engine gets involved in licensing images, many of the current distributor channels will be challenged to offer a compelling reason for customers to visit their web site."
I can understand Ron's issues with being unable to make the numbers work with higher cost shoots, but even for those of us with very low costs would experience a little speed bump if there's a huge shift in who's the big dog in the microstock end of the market. I guess we all need to keep our eyes on new entrants - Google being the big dog in the search engine business - to see when it's time to jump.
Fortunately (I say with reluctance) there's no issues of loyalty to many of the existing micros given how poorly they've been treating contributors in cutting the portion of the income we receive. Being treated like a disposable Kleenex is pretty dispiriting, but it does simplify decisions if and when something new arises :)
-
Great read, thanks
-
...If someone with Ron's skill and business expertise has found microstock unsustainable, what does that mean? Is it unsustainable for all of us, or just the folks with high production costs and overhead...
What Ron has said, alongside hints from some of the other high-overhead shooters like Yuri, seems to suggest that microstock is indeed an unsustainable venture. Not sure Yuri has any plans to get out of the business or reduce his involvement, but he has suggested that he plans to reinvent himself as a photographer. Where microstock fits into that, if at all, is not yet known to anyone but him.
One thing is for sure. Today it's harder to make a living in this business than it was a year ago, and a year from now it will be even harder. I think we'll always have a few folks around who can live very well off a microstock-only income, but for most people microstock will need to become an increasingly smaller part of our overall business strategies.
My favorite part of the interview with Ron was his comments on ending up doing things he didn't ever expect to do. Not that video is that much of a stretch from photography, but the fact that he's embraced change as it comes and is now doing something as wild as helicopter-based ariel video is pretty awesome. Ron could have very well been another one of the dinosaurs who frequently lament the good old days of stock photography and refuse to shift their business as the industry changes. Instead, he embraced the change and is doing very well for himself because of that. Maybe microstock didn't work out for him, but by constantly moving and looking ahead, he found something better.
-
If someone with Ron's skill and business expertise has found microstock unsustainable, what does that mean? Is it unsustainable for all of us, or just the folks with high production costs and overhead?
It sounded like part of his problem was high operating costs, but the other part was diminishing sales numbers due to competition. I think that part affects everyone. Our number of sales have steadily decreased, but price increases haven't necessarily kept pace. I thought it was interesting he mentioned setting your own prices and direct sales. Controlling more aspects of our business would be nice. As opposed to leaving it up to an agency that doesn't necessarily have our best interest in mind.
-
Hi All,
John Lund is one of the great creators of the past two decades of conceptual work that is funny and sells really well. The nicest guy you will meet and so humble considering his immense talent and standing in the industry. I would suggest following his blog to anyone in stock. He was a big influence on my career.
Best,
Jonathan
-
It sounded like part of his problem was high operating costs ...
I remember Sean once quoting Ron as having spent $600K on his initial 15K images for microstock. He's probably just about recovered his expenditure by now but it has taken all of 3 years and that's a long payback for microstock images. Microstock is simply not stable or predictable enough to justify a 3 year payback for virtually any image let alone for an extensive portfolio.
Sure, you can hire professional models, MUA, wardrobe, assistants, etc and fly them all off to exotic locations but the results aren't necessarily going to outsell those of someone using a couple of photogenic friends at a local beauty spot __ and there's always going to be plenty of those contributors to compete against.
-
It sounded like part of his problem was high operating costs ...
I remember Sean once quoting Ron as having spent $600K on his initial 15K images for microstock. He's probably just about recovered his expenditure by now but it has taken all of 3 years and that's a long payback for microstock images. Microstock is simply not stable or predictable enough to justify a 3 year payback for virtually any image let alone for an extensive portfolio.
Sure, you can hire professional models, MUA, wardrobe, assistants, etc and fly them all off to exotic locations but the results aren't necessarily going to outsell those of someone using a couple of photogenic friends at a local beauty spot __ and there's always going to be plenty of those contributors to compete against.
That's It! When Yuri Arcurs and Andres Rodriguez spoke 3 years ago at the PDN photo show, one point I remember ( although I can't remember whom to credit), is that when you shoot locations, you're competing against someone who lives there, and went out on the morning of the most beautiful sunrise in 10 years and took a picture. Throw in a couple of local real but great looking people and you are toast.
If there is one thing I would be wary of for his new venture is making sure he pays off that camera before I can buy one at BestBuy for $600.
-
Thanks for the post
this is one of the most informative and business-like assessments I have seen in a long time. His statement that"change is the only thing that remains constant" is so true. I have been in the aerial photo and Mapping business off and on for many years and I know it sure has changed. I can now do with my digital camera and my home computer what use to take a room full of large plotters and a 50lb 9"X9" aerial camera.
While Ron's approach is to go the expensive high tec. end of the business,mine is to be at the low tec end of a high tec. business. I think the term is KISS (keep it simple stupid).Not that Ron is stupid- we are just not playing in the same court.
Also microstock for me was always a fill in for my main aerial photo business.I don't think there is enough demand for aerial photos in microstock to make it a full time business.
Smiling Jack
-
Very interesting article. Thanks for posting.
Here are a couple of statements I found particularly notable, especially since the long term sustainability of the image-factory model has been debated so often here:
All of our cost reduction measures were to no avail- revenues continue to drop, and microstock is no longer profitable for our business.
and:
With Change being our studio mantra and discovering that microstock was not sustainable in the long term, we looked for new opportunities.
And if I may add my favorite business viewpoint "When we started, most micro sites only had 1,000,000 images. Now those same sites have over ten million images! The statistical chance of making a sale has decreased by 90%." Competition and dilution, small wonder that sales are down for individuals. Not only that, the new images are better than the old ones in many cases as competition gets newer equipment and more sophisticated. Here's the true unsustainable.
-
Thanks Sean...that's a very interesting interview
I think what it all boils down, with the ever increasing high quality standards of the microstock sites, photos any more have to be perfect in every way which a lot of time means more expensive equipment in order to meet those standards and they expect it to be done for a buck....which is really unsustainable
-
Thanks Sean...that's a very interesting interview
..photos any more have to be perfect in every way...
was?? : ) You mean technically. If they had the ability and 'inspected' for aesthetical and style virtues, there wouldn't be diluted sales, because they wouldn't have 10 million pictures... maybe 1,5 mil... or less. I always said their dilettant inspection - acceptance policy is the death of microstock, very few understood.
-
Fascinating stuff, thanks for posting the link.
Direct licensing via search engines rather than through agencies ... there's a thought to conjure with.
-
Quote
"The most creative photographer will always lose out to the better business person."
I think this is what separates the top microstockers from the rest. It would be hard to find a top microstocker who wasn't a good business person.
-
My pick for the quote to note is this one "My only conjecture is that once a search engine gets involved in licensing images, many of the current distributor channels will be challenged to offer a compelling reason for customers to visit their web site."
Completely agree Joann. I believe Google will create a huge disruption in this marketplace. Agencies are going to lose a lot of power in a hurry.
-
My pick for the quote to note is this one "My only conjecture is that once a search engine gets involved in licensing images, many of the current distributor channels will be challenged to offer a compelling reason for customers to visit their web site."
Completely agree Joann. I believe Google will create a huge disruption in this marketplace. Agencies are going to lose a lot of power in a hurry.
Will this be a good development for contributors?
Not sure how this will work. How will we get our images indexed in the search engines? How will we charge for downloads and get paid? Who will set and enforce licensing terms? And if Google grows to completely dominate the image industry, will they do the same as the agencies and slash our commissions to a tiny %?
I am not skeptical it could happen, just confused on implementation.
-
Very interesting article. Thanks for posting.
Here are a couple of statements I found particularly notable, especially since the long term sustainability of the image-factory model has been debated so often here:
All of our cost reduction measures were to no avail- revenues continue to drop, and microstock is no longer profitable for our business.
and:
With Change being our studio mantra and discovering that microstock was not sustainable in the long term, we looked for new opportunities.
And if I may add my favorite business viewpoint "When we started, most micro sites only had 1,000,000 images. Now those same sites have over ten million images! The statistical chance of making a sale has decreased by 90%." Competition and dilution, small wonder that sales are down for individuals. Not only that, the new images are better than the old ones in many cases as competition gets newer equipment and more sophisticated. Here's the true unsustainable.
Already in 2008 I started to wonder about the dilution effect. I always try to follow the rule quality over quantity. Now all what is left it's to find a niche and only make quality. Soon it will be to find a niche, only make quality and flip a coin in hope your work show up in the search. I don't even tell about lowering the production cost
-
My pick for the quote to note is this one "My only conjecture is that once a search engine gets involved in licensing images, many of the current distributor channels will be challenged to offer a compelling reason for customers to visit their web site."
Completely agree Joann. I believe Google will create a huge disruption in this marketplace. Agencies are going to lose a lot of power in a hurry.
Will this be a good development for contributors?
Not sure how this will work. How will we get our images indexed in the search engines? How will we charge for downloads and get paid? Who will set and enforce licensing terms? And if Google grows to completely dominate the image industry, will they do the same as the agencies and slash our commissions to a tiny %?
I am not skeptical it could happen, just confused on implementation.
I think this will force us to operate our own websites -- not sure how the images will be indexed but likely much as blog articles/websites are indexed.
Nearly everything I sell at Cutcaster is due to Google search.
I'm wondering if this approach isn't why so many (all) agencies are now so active in the social networking communities.
-
Not sure how this will work. How will we get our images indexed in the search engines?
Umm... your images already are indexed in Google images. People probably already find them there and buy them from the stock agencies. It doesn't seem like much of a leap that the company that indexes those would try to sell them too. I'm not sure if they have any plans though or if it creates a conflict of interest.
-
Not sure how this will work. How will we get our images indexed in the search engines?
Umm... your images already are indexed in Google images. People probably already find them there and buy them from the stock agencies. It doesn't seem like much of a leap that the company that indexes those would try to sell them too.
This is correct. It will fall upon the contributor to have other skills - the ability to publish to the web, set up e-commerce facilities, and self-edit one's portfolio. Well worth it imo for a 100% commission percentage.
-
Not sure how this will work. How will we get our images indexed in the search engines?
Umm... your images already are indexed in Google images. People probably already find them there and buy them from the stock agencies. It doesn't seem like much of a leap that the company that indexes those would try to sell them too. I'm not sure if they have any plans though or if it creates a conflict of interest.
Umm... Thanks for stating the obvious, but at the same time, missing the point of my question. ;)
I am well aware that my images that are sold through stock sites are indexed on Google. My question was asked in the context of a suggestion that agencies would lose their market dominance in favor of contributors selling images through search engines directly.
I think this will force us to operate our own websites -- not sure how the images will be indexed but likely much as blog articles/websites are indexed.
It will fall upon the contributor to have other skills - the ability to publish to the web, set up e-commerce facilities, and self-edit one's portfolio. Well worth it imo for a 100% commission percentage.
Thanks, Warren and Dan, for understanding my question and responding with relevant answers :)
If the industry changes in this way, it seems that most of us will have to devote a lot more time to marketing than we currently do. Wouldn't this shift the skill set necessary for success in stock images from an emphasis on photographic quality to an emphasis on programming and search optimization techniques?
-
Umm... Thanks for stating the obvious, but at the same time, missing the point of my question. ;)
I am well aware that my images that are sold through stock sites are indexed on Google. My question was asked in the context of a suggestion that agencies would lose their market dominance in favor of contributors selling images through search engines directly.
Now, you've got me confused. I'm not sure I understand. Are you talking about a search engine running a stock site or people running their own stock sites? I reread your post and the other comments and you seem to be referencing both.
-
If the industry changes in this way, it seems that most of us will have to devote a lot more time to marketing than we currently do. Wouldn't this shift the skill set necessary for success in stock images from an emphasis on photographic quality to an emphasis on programming and search optimization techniques?
Rather than shift your emphasis, you will need to keep that quality high while becoming proficient in other areas too. Search optimization is kind of a holy grail. Obviously there are some things you can do to make a website more Google friendly, but there are no clear answers to gaining preferential position. Nobody knows that answer...and if they do, you can bet they aren't sharing any secrets. In other words when you come across someone selling a program to reveal search engine secrets to you, run away.
I don't think you need to learn to program so much as you need to have an eye for design. There are plenty of WYSIWYG website editors available which require little or no programming background. The trick is to make an eye-catching site which is easy to navigate, loads quickly, and sells your work efficiently.
-
Just a follow up on the previous point...
Up until a month ago I ran a fairly successful collegiate football website. It was online for 7 years. The site covered my former college's small college football program, and included game stories and my best photography shot from field level, as well as some op-ed, schedules, results, etc.
It built up a helluva following. The last time I checked Google a few months ago, my site had passed the college's official site to become the #1 ranked site. My traffic was so high I needed to consider upgrades to my host's plan.
I took it down because I ran out of time, and it was a hobby - not a money making venture. But it proved to me that in a few short years I could build a site which attracted massive traffic. The key was my content was relevant, enjoyable, high quality, and my site was easy to navigate. No annoying pop ups. No flash video wasting bandwidth and time. No hard sales to turn people off.
I DO have a programming background, but most of what I did was accomplished in Kompozer (free) and Dreamweaver-4 using the WYSIWYG interface.
-
Now, you've got me confused. I'm not sure I understand. Are you talking about a search engine running a stock site or people running their own stock sites? I reread your post and the other comments and you seem to be referencing both.
From my reading of Ron's comment, it seemed he was talking about our selling images directly through Google and keeping 80% of the royalties. Maybe I misinterpreted him.
If Google were to start an agency of their own, that would certainly be easier on most contributors, IMHO, than our each having to do our own thing and fight for placement in Google images. OTOH, in that situation, I doubt Google would do it for only 20%. If they were to offer even 50% royalties I imagine most of us would jump on it.
My original post on the topic was an effort to figure out how the logistics of selling images through Google, as mentioned in the interview, might work.
-
Thanks for the additional info Dan. Sorry to hear you had to take down your football site. Bet a lot of folks are disappointed.
-
Dan Heller has some interesting views, if you want to peep over the microstock fence, his blog is well worth a read.
My tip - learn SEO.
-
No that's not what Ron meant imo, Lisa. When you search Google Images for "football field" you get a myriad of results. Some come from iStockphoto, others come from Bigstockphoto, some from Flicker, and a ton more from independent sites.
The idea is that Google is already indexing images which it "finds" on the net through its web crawler. There is no reason that Google Images couldn't return one of my images hosted on my own site alongside the examples from iStock. Which means someone searching "football field" using Google is likely to find my image sitting right next to an agency's image. Now if they click on my image and find it is for sale on my website, they can buy it directly from me and totally bypass the agency.
You can take advantage of this RIGHT NOW if you are selling from your own site and your images are being found by Google. The trick is, can you get Google to find your images? If so there is no reason to sell for a 20% commission ever again, unless you really want the extra money.
As time goes on Google will get better at indexing these images and finding the most relevant material. It is inevitable that eventually all agencies will see a portion of their sales lost to direct purchases which are found through Google Images. If that portion tends out to be rather large, a lot of agencies are going to go out of business.
-
I believe Google will create a huge disruption in this marketplace. Agencies are going to lose a lot of power in a hurry.
It certainly could happen. The speed with which the mobile phone app's market has developed and changed makes microstock look positively naive. I read recently that the 'Angry Birds' game sold 36M for iPhone in the first 4 months. Now they've released a free version for Android and the developers anticipate generating $1M per month from adverts alone.
All it would need for Google to take over the image market ... is for them to decide to do so. I wonder how much Getty would be worth then?
-
Dan Heller has some interesting views, if you want to peep over the microstock fence, his blog is well worth a read.
Bingo. Read Dan Heller. I have two of his books too. Most of the information in the books can be found for free in his blog, but it is more conveniently organized in book form. Regardless of whether you agree with Heller's view of microstock or stock in general, he knows how to self promote as well as any photographer I've come across. His material is solid, but let's face it...you can find more compelling imagery. But I bet he outsells 95% of the photographers who shoot more compelling imagery.
-
I believe Google will create a huge disruption in this marketplace. Agencies are going to lose a lot of power in a hurry.
It certainly could happen. The speed with which the mobile phone app's market has developed and changed makes microstock look positively naive. I read recently that the 'Angry Birds' game sold 36M for iPhone in the first 4 months. Now they've released a free version for Android and the developers anticipate generating $1M per month from adverts alone.
All it would need for Google to take over the image market ... is for them to decide to do so. I wonder how much Getty would be worth then?
At the PDN photo show 2 years ago, there was a panel discussing the future of stock. One of the most interesting presentations came from someone ( I think it was Photoshelter ) who said that 40% of image sales came from google searches already, and the number was growing. If you do a search for something that is fairly unique that you own, you'll probably find images from all the microstock sites. I'm not sure how much google would be interested in going into stock image sales, however, because these microstock sites pay them a ton of money for search advertising. The last time I checked, buying the keyword " stock photo" was over $4 per click. You can run up hundreds or thousands of clicks in a matter of hours. The monthly traffic on that phrase was huge. Google usually gets into areas where they can eat someone else's lunch, not give away their own, i.e. google docs, email, android, the list goes on. For a company whose motto is "don't be evil", they've done some pretty evil things to other company's businesses.
-
From my reading of Ron's comment, it seemed he was talking about our selling images directly through Google and keeping 80% of the royalties. Maybe I misinterpreted him.
Thanks. Got it.
The more I think about it, the more I think it would be a conflict of interest for Google to run a site. If Google doesn't show up number one in the searches, it would be embarrassing, but if they do, then it would be suspicious. I'm not sure they would do anything to hurt their search business. Bing and Yahoo would love to get that market back.
I could see Google creating an engine for it like they did with Froogle, but that seems too small of a market to be profitable. I guess all these companies are pimping out their cloud type systems, so they could do hosting. But, that seems like a pretty small market too. I guess Yahoo has merchant solutions, so maybe they would be more apt to jump in.
As far as competing with your own store, ask me again in a year. SEO has fairly basic and simple rules, but that doesn't necessarily make it easy to get to the top.
-
I'm not sure how much google would be interested in going into stock image sales, however, because these microstock sites pay them a ton of money for search advertising. The last time I checked, buying the keyword " stock photo" was over $4 per click. You can run up hundreds or thousands of clicks in a matter of hours. The monthly traffic on that phrase was huge. Google usually gets into areas where they can eat someone else's lunch, not give away their own, i.e. google docs, email, android, the list goes on. For a company whose motto is "don't be evil", they've done some pretty evil things to other company's businesses.
That's a very good point __ Google are already making a ton of money from stock imagery without actually having their own library! Amazing really.
-
I don't believe search engines could compete/replace stock sites in a foreseeable future. Too many irrelevant pictures in the internet (wrong keywords, crap pictures, low resolution); too many problems with non-unified licensing, lack of model releases, etc. Too many troubles for buyers that aren't easy to resolve. And other logistic issues like no single payment method applicable globally.
If google would make a site that would be yet another stock agency. But google/yahoo/any_other_search as it is to day can't replace stock...
-
I believe Google will create a huge disruption in this marketplace. Agencies are going to lose a lot of power in a hurry.
It certainly could happen. The speed with which the mobile phone app's market has developed and changed makes microstock look positively naive. I read recently that the 'Angry Birds' game sold 36M for iPhone in the first 4 months. Now they've released a free version for Android and the developers anticipate generating $1M per month from adverts alone.
All it would need for Google to take over the image market ... is for them to decide to do so. I wonder how much Getty would be worth then?
At the PDN photo show 2 years ago, there was a panel discussing the future of stock. One of the most interesting presentations came from someone ( I think it was Photoshelter ) who said that 40% of image sales came from google searches already, and the number was growing. If you do a search for something that is fairly unique that you own, you'll probably find images from all the microstock sites. I'm not sure how much google would be interested in going into stock image sales, however, because these microstock sites pay them a ton of money for search advertising. The last time I checked, buying the keyword " stock photo" was over $4 per click. You can run up hundreds or thousands of clicks in a matter of hours. The monthly traffic on that phrase was huge. Google usually gets into areas where they can eat someone else's lunch, not give away their own, i.e. google docs, email, android, the list goes on. For a company whose motto is "don't be evil", they've done some pretty evil things to other company's businesses.
I found a ton of good information on Photoshelter about SEO and Social Networking. I don't have a link but try searching for "SEO Cookbook." It is a FREE Photoshelter download.
Dated ?April? 2009.
-
I believe Google will create a huge disruption in this marketplace. Agencies are going to lose a lot of power in a hurry.
It certainly could happen. The speed with which the mobile phone app's market has developed and changed makes microstock look positively naive. I read recently that the 'Angry Birds' game sold 36M for iPhone in the first 4 months. Now they've released a free version for Android and the developers anticipate generating $1M per month from adverts alone.
All it would need for Google to take over the image market ... is for them to decide to do so. I wonder how much Getty would be worth then?
At the PDN photo show 2 years ago, there was a panel discussing the future of stock. One of the most interesting presentations came from someone ( I think it was Photoshelter ) who said that 40% of image sales came from google searches already, and the number was growing. If you do a search for something that is fairly unique that you own, you'll probably find images from all the microstock sites. I'm not sure how much google would be interested in going into stock image sales, however, because these microstock sites pay them a ton of money for search advertising. The last time I checked, buying the keyword " stock photo" was over $4 per click. You can run up hundreds or thousands of clicks in a matter of hours. The monthly traffic on that phrase was huge. Google usually gets into areas where they can eat someone else's lunch, not give away their own, i.e. google docs, email, android, the list goes on. For a company whose motto is "don't be evil", they've done some pretty evil things to other company's businesses.
I found a ton of good information on Photoshelter about SEO and Social Networking. I don't have a link but try searching for "SEO Cookbook." It is a FREE Photoshelter download.
Dated ?April? 2009.
I've had a site on Photoshelter for a few months now, and I have to say they make it pretty easy to do sales, although there is still the problem of getting people to the website. When you set up the site, they have certain things they try to guide you on for SEO. I suppose it might help, but who knows? If you want, check out the site , and drive up my traffic numbers! http://www.expresspix.com] [url]http://www.expresspix.com (http://[url)[/url]
-
I've had a site on Photoshelter for a few months now, and I have to say they make it pretty easy to do sales, although there is still the problem of getting people to the website. When you set up the site, they have certain things they try to guide you on for SEO. I suppose it might help, but who knows? If you want, check out the site , and drive up my traffic numbers! [url]http://www.expresspix.com]http://www.expresspix.com] [url]http://www.expresspix.com (http://[url=http://www.expresspix.com)[/url]
Good to know. Are you making enough sales there to justify the effort in uploading and getting setup?
-
I've had a site on Photoshelter for a few months now, and I have to say they make it pretty easy to do sales, although there is still the problem of getting people to the website. When you set up the site, they have certain things they try to guide you on for SEO. I suppose it might help, but who knows? If you want, check out the site , and drive up my traffic numbers! [url=http://www.expresspix.com]http://www.expresspix.com] [url]http://www.expresspix.com]http://www.expresspix.com]http://www.expresspix.com] [url]http://www.expresspix.com (http://[url=http://www.expresspix.com)[/url]
Good to know. Are you making enough sales there to justify the effort in uploading and getting setup?
In a word, no. But hope springs eternal...
-
I've had a site on Photoshelter for a few months now, and I have to say they make it pretty easy to do sales, although there is still the problem of getting people to the website. When you set up the site, they have certain things they try to guide you on for SEO. I suppose it might help, but who knows? If you want, check out the site , and drive up my traffic numbers! [url=http://www.expresspix.com]http://www.expresspix.com] [url=http://www.expresspix.com]http://www.expresspix.com]http://www.expresspix.com] [url]http://www.expresspix.com]http://www.expresspix.com]http://www.expresspix.com]http://www.expresspix.com] [url]http://www.expresspix.com (http://[url=http://www.expresspix.com)[/url]
Good to know. Are you making enough sales there to justify the effort in uploading and getting setup?
In a word, no. But hope springs eternal...
I don't think Photoshelter will be it, but my guess/hope is that someone offers a bundle of merchant services along the lines of amazon's for third party merchants who have "stores" at amazon.com. I don't think there'd be much chance of getting every photographer to become an expert in building a web site themselves. That scenario would require paying them something for the service, but possibly less than the large cut currently going to the microstock agencies.
And if it were Google doing it, at least we'd have a working search engine :)
Of course it could also be an out-of-the-frying-pan-into-the-fire situation, where it's a change of distributor but still very little control.
-
I don't think Photoshelter will be it, but my guess/hope is that someone offers a bundle of merchant services along the lines of amazon's for third party merchants who have "stores" at amazon.com. I don't think there'd be much chance of getting every photographer to become an expert in building a web site themselves. That scenario would require paying them something for the service, but possibly less than the large cut currently going to the microstock agencies.
And if it were Google doing it, at least we'd have a working search engine :)
Of course it could also be an out-of-the-frying-pan-into-the-fire situation, where it's a change of distributor but still very little control.
Well, there are a lot of companies vying for this market (Photoshelter, Clustershot, Photodeck, Ktools, Pixaria, StockBoxPhoto & more) Some are pre-built and some are do it yourself. The demand seems minimal for all of them, so I don't think any large company like Google or Amazon would bother to penetrate this market. I think people like to talk about running their own site, but don't really want to actually do it. :)
-
It's a lot of work if you do it yourself. You got to keep it updated and that takes time for the maintenance of the site. It's not that hard to set one up...it's just the time involved keeping it updated.
-
It's a lot of work if you do it yourself. You got to keep it updated and that takes time for the maintenance of the site. It's not that hard to set one up...it's just the time involved keeping it updated.
That was kind of my point. Nobody really wants to do the work, but they want all the rewards. Do I see an earn millions with your snapshots and a little html skills website in the works? ;D
-
The real problem with your own website is how to drive traffic to it. Not as easy as some might think.
-
The real problem with your own website is how to drive traffic to it. Not as easy as some might think.
Operating independently, that's true. But following from Ron's comment in the interview, suppose a search engine giant like Google served up the images and collected the cash and paid us royalties. People go to search engines to find things. They only go to microstock agencies 'cause that's how you make the purchase today. The old days of custom research and knowing what images might meet a client's needs are gone. If the search engine could easily deliver both paid and free content and process the transaction when it was paid, I think buyers would find that useful.
The back end of maintaining standards (legal, model release, avoiding copyright infringement, etc.) isn't trivial, but I'll bet someone with deep pockets who wanted this business could work something out with one of the existing agencies to be an outsourced processing "shop".
It'll be interesting to watch and see how things develop over the next few years.
-
The real problem with your own website is how to drive traffic to it. Not as easy as some might think.
Operating independently, that's true. But following from Ron's comment in the interview, suppose a search engine giant like Google served up the images and collected the cash and paid us royalties. People go to search engines to find things.
Exactly. Google or Amazon, both of them would have the means to get sufficient traffic.
-
That had a lot of valuable insights in it. Thanks for sharing. I really like John Lund's blog and what he writes about.
-
The real problem with your own website is how to drive traffic to it. Not as easy as some might think.
Operating independently, that's true. But following from Ron's comment in the interview, suppose a search engine giant like Google served up the images and collected the cash and paid us royalties. People go to search engines to find things.
Exactly. Google or Amazon, both of them would have the means to get sufficient traffic.
That's true. Google has the means, but they would rather let you pay them per click. I never thought about Amazon, which is on track to take about 15% share of retail sales in the next few years, according to Gartner Research Partners. The problem is as was noted before, how to keep people honest about rights, releases, ownership. Driving the traffic to a website by search only really works when you have unique content, like you specialize in Polar bears or something.
-
I have a website but no galleries or e-commerce capability. I'm thinking this could lead to an increase in the way John at Cutcaster and I do business -- I get a call looking for an image from a race in Switzerland in 1982. I find the image and post it to a Lightbox (if it isn't already there) in Cutcaster; give John a heads up and the clients name. He takes care of licensing and collecting the money. I get a 50% split plus a referral fee.
Often, these are images found via Google searches. They are linked to my Cutcaster lightbox (image) or, often, to a post in my blog. Most deals are being done via telephone or email, based on the contact info at my website.
I would need to expand, considerably, my "exclusive" portfolio at Cutcaster but I can see this working. I still lose a large percentage of the income but have more time for building a portfolio rather than constantly maintaining/updating my website and the hassle of collecting fees and monitoring license violations.
If Cutcaster was more popular, I would have committed to this process long ago.
PS: the key to indexing is personal blog posts -- blog posts and cutcaster links to "social media sites." Do a Google search on "motocross legends." It has helped to receive over 3600 views and several hundred dollars in sales.
-
The real problem with your own website is how to drive traffic to it. Not as easy as some might think.
It's not easy but if you know SEO and have a website platform that's SEO optimized it's entirely possible.
But are serious buyers really using search engines frequently enough to drive some decent sales volume?
-
I've had a site on Photoshelter for a few months now, and I have to say they make it pretty easy to do sales, although there is still the problem of getting people to the website. When you set up the site, they have certain things they try to guide you on for SEO. I suppose it might help, but who knows? If you want, check out the site , and drive up my traffic numbers! [url=http://www.expresspix.com]http://www.expresspix.com] [url]http://www.expresspix.com]http://www.expresspix.com]http://www.expresspix.com] [url]http://www.expresspix.com (http://[url=http://www.expresspix.com)[/url]
Good to know. Are you making enough sales there to justify the effort in uploading and getting setup?
I also am (slowly) setting up a Photoshelter site. No sales but I'm not really expecting any yet either.
I'm just starting to prepare a boat for the search engine flood that people like Dan Heller, John Lund, and iofoto are expecting to happen. Stock is big money and somebody with an innovative new model is going to tap into it. SEO takes months or even years to build up and if a big shift happens where Google search somehow becomes a main method of purchasing stock in a few years I'd like to be ready for it.
If you look at Google images, notice all of the stock-ish features. Search by size, color, orientation, etc.
Something's brewing.
-
Maybe everyone should read the whole article/interview again and take notes. It's so full of good information, it would take a couple of slow readings to find most of the wisdom.
Here's what stands out for me, that hasn't been discussed here yet.
"Over the past few years, we have also acquired several hundred generic domains to capture natural "type-in" traffic. "
All the SEO tricks and books and blogs will also need to address another obvious problem. Using a simple example, the number of Diamond and Black diamond on IS is 800. Now the optimist here says, well, I can use Photoshelter and Google and make some web pages and raise my ranking. Well maybe, but with 800 people all doing the same thing, it starts to become an interesting logic problem. I mean 800 people can't all be on the front page with a top rank... can they? :D
If someone acquires several hundred websites and domains, which all point to their main site, they are going to be first, and what chance does someone small have? Say there are 50 groups or agencies, doing the same thing, which will insure they are on the top few pages. See what's going on here? All the reading and theoretical planning, joining the right places, and making a great little website, is never going to put you up top!
At this point, 50 people competing for top rank, and 800 people competing for high rank. It's a stampede to the top and the small sites will be flattened. Or maybe some of you want to buy several hundred domain names and run that many websites, in order to get a good search rank for you photos. ???
This may not be the ultimate solution, but it's mine. Find a specialty or favorite niche and concentrate on that.
and please don't take mine. ;)
-
800 people can't all be on the front page with a top rank... can they? :D
That's exactly what I've been pondering on... Also, how would we know what buyers are looking for? How could we keep track of competitive pricing? Would we just individually end up on a 'race to the bottom' if others were undercutting our own prices in a similar genre and taking our business from under us?
As you say, in that scenario, finding a niche may be the best option. But then... what if someone else enters the same niche at same quality, cheaper price? What if a 'one-person-niche' operation suddenly finds itself pitted against one of the image factories that we know so well?
On balance, I'd rather stick with the agency model - but would obviously prefer for the agencies to work towards giving us a more respectful commission for our time, creative thought processes, skills, costs, and contribution. Just as we accept their need for a cut for their admin, infrastructure, expertise, market knowledge, experience, legal nouse etc. I'm happy with the division of labour as it is, I just want proper financial acknowledgement for my part in the process.
-
You mean SEO need to adress the problem that there's competition for top placement? 8)
Micro sites already have converted pic-title URLs so they try to use google too. No way that someone's personal site gonna beat their PR, if it's only about microstock. If there's something esle.. It's possible. Stock is preatty obscure small dot compared to net-hyped stuff's numbers. Even kids commentating starcraft matches beat it
-
These are my preferred quote from the interview:
"Stock can provide a lifestyle that offers creativity and flexibility."
...
"Business is just a game we need to play so that we can enjoy our lifestyle"
I'd rather not turn to assignments even if they were more profitable: for me stock means travelling, freedom, and expecially not having to meet clients
-
It's a lot of work if you do it yourself. You got to keep it updated and that takes time for the maintenance of the site. It's not that hard to set one up...it's just the time involved keeping it updated.
That was kind of my point. Nobody really wants to do the work, but they want all the rewards. Do I see an earn millions with your snapshots and a little html skills website in the works? ;D
Yeah now all the sites will say "Make millions on you snap shots by learning html skills" only 29.95 if you order within the next five minutes.....don't miss out on this once in a life time offer!!!
Now everyone will be taking web development classes rather than photography classes.
-
Here's what stands out for me, that hasn't been discussed here yet.
"Over the past few years, we have also acquired several hundred generic domains to capture natural "type-in" traffic. "
I noticed that but didn't give it much thought. I think there is someway to link all those sites to you main site. If you notice you put in a similar domain name...it will take you to the main site with the correct domain...not the one you typed in. I don't know how it is done but it can be done and I don't know if all those domain names would have to be maintained or just links put in them. The key word there is "natural "type-in"
-
Here's what stands out for me, that hasn't been discussed here yet.
"Over the past few years, we have also acquired several hundred generic domains to capture natural "type-in" traffic. "
I noticed that but didn't give it much thought. I think there is someway to link all those sites to you main site. If you notice you put in a similar domain name...it will take you to the main site with the correct domain...not the one you typed in. I don't know how it is done but it can be done and I don't know if all those domain names would have to be maintained or just links put in them. The key word there is "natural "type-in"
you don't have to link anything, the same thing can run on several domain names. domain name =/= place of hosting.
-
Here's what stands out for me, that hasn't been discussed here yet.
"Over the past few years, we have also acquired several hundred generic domains to capture natural "type-in" traffic. "
I noticed that but didn't give it much thought. I think there is someway to link all those sites to you main site. If you notice you put in a similar domain name...it will take you to the main site with the correct domain...not the one you typed in. I don't know how it is done but it can be done and I don't know if all those domain names would have to be maintained or just links put in them. The key word there is "natural "type-in"
you don't have to link anything, the same thing can run on several domain names. domain name =/= place of hosting.
Thanks for the explanation. I knew there was some way to do it but didn't know how.
-
Now everyone will be taking web development classes rather than photography classes.
It's always been about the marketing.
-
Here's what stands out for me, that hasn't been discussed here yet.
"Over the past few years, we have also acquired several hundred generic domains to capture natural "type-in" traffic. "
I noticed that but didn't give it much thought. I think there is someway to link all those sites to you main site. If you notice you put in a similar domain name...it will take you to the main site with the correct domain...not the one you typed in. I don't know how it is done but it can be done and I don't know if all those domain names would have to be maintained or just links put in them. The key word there is "natural "type-in"
you don't have to link anything, the same thing can run on several domain names. domain name =/= place of hosting.
Thanks for the explanation. I knew there was some way to do it but didn't know how.
another thing ppl do is get a bunch of domains and sites just to fill them with links to their business, trying to structure it in a way that doesn't alarm the google bots. I know many who do it, and they are nailed to top 3 position in searhes related. It gives fast results, but it's hazardous, if you get caught of backlink spamming thru worthless content, you get deindexed, no quetsions asked, and your complaints go to dev/null forever. If you think dealing with microstock sites was painful, try google. They just behead your site and never-ever talk to you again.
-
Here's what stands out for me, that hasn't been discussed here yet.
"Over the past few years, we have also acquired several hundred generic domains to capture natural "type-in" traffic. "
I noticed that but didn't give it much thought. I think there is someway to link all those sites to you main site. If you notice you put in a similar domain name...it will take you to the main site with the correct domain...not the one you typed in. I don't know how it is done but it can be done and I don't know if all those domain names would have to be maintained or just links put in them. The key word there is "natural "type-in"
Yes, it's a simple script that forwards anyone to the main site. But another benefit from any dummy site is creating a page link which directs people to the main site (even if no one ever sees it) which will count as a page link to a site and raise the rank, because someone has a link to a site. If that's a bit muddled, just think of it this way.
Here's one of mine "<meta http-equiv="refresh" content="8; url=http://www.gizex.com/hodagrr">" right before the </head> command in your html. By the way, I'm a dinosaur and still do my web pages manually with Wordpad! This one shows the page for eight seconds, says the site has moved and you will automatically be forwarded, and then takes the viewer to the new site. It can be invisible, which you may not notice, you enter one site name, it takes you to another main page.
The more people who have a link to a page, (on their independent site), the higher the rank of that page. You can't just post 50 links on your own site, to someplace, it only counts as one. When one place I work for wanted to raise their rank, they asked everyone that knew them to post a link on their websites, and now for the search they wanted, they are one of the top three, if not number one. It works, it's simple, you don't need to take some scam class and pay money for someone to tell you how you can be number one. Along with the thousands of other people who will also be number one, after taking the class - Which Is Impossible! :(
Our referral links are an example, so if we still have them for places that pay nothing and give us nothing in return, we're just doing free advertising and SEO for them. Good reason for a micro site to offer referral bonuses for a short term and get the free boost.