MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Mid October - Still no post summer, pre-holiday bump?  (Read 18304 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #75 on: October 15, 2013, 22:01 »
+2
I tend to think if your images are 'too precious' to be sold at sub rates, then they shouldn't be on microstock at all.
To me, it's not really about my images being too precious. I sold at a variety of different prices for a while. What I learned was that higher prices worked better for me. It doesn't make my images special or better than anybody else's images. It just means it is better for me to sell them at higher prices and less profitable to sell them at lower prices. I'd love the option to turn off subs at a number of sites and even set my own prices. It would most likely improve my income drastically overnight.

But isn't it the fact that the 'Big 5' agencies have way more data than any of will ever have, and they also have the same desire as us to optimise prices and profits ... and yet all of them have pretty much ended up embracing subs in one form or another. Nowadays your stuff needs to be really unique and special to warrant making it unavailable on subs.

I always assumed their deal was volume. I was never really able to do that massive volume as an individual (especially outside of SS), but they crowdsource so they can. The massive volume works for some though. It just didn't work that great for me (at least, not as well as other methods).


« Reply #76 on: October 15, 2013, 22:29 »
+3
I tend to think if your images are 'too precious' to be sold at sub rates, then they shouldn't be on microstock at all.
To me, it's not really about my images being too precious. I sold at a variety of different prices for a while. What I learned was that higher prices worked better for me. It doesn't make my images special or better than anybody else's images. It just means it is better for me to sell them at higher prices and less profitable to sell them at lower prices. I'd love the option to turn off subs at a number of sites and even set my own prices. It would most likely improve my income drastically overnight.

But isn't it the fact that the 'Big 5' agencies have way more data than any of will ever have, and they also have the same desire as us to optimise prices and profits ... and yet all of them have pretty much ended up embracing subs in one form or another. Nowadays your stuff needs to be really unique and special to warrant making it unavailable on subs.

I always assumed their deal was volume. I was never really able to do that massive volume as an individual (especially outside of SS), but they crowdsource so they can. The massive volume works for some though. It just didn't work that great for me (at least, not as well as other methods).

Also, what is good for the microstock sites is not necessarily good for the artists. For instance, their ideal sub buyer never downloads anything = money for the site and none for the artist.

I do think the sub sales move the images up the levels at DT nicely, but I wish they hadn't gotten rid of the higher return for the higher level subs. It makes for very bi-modal sales (which is what I get at SS too I suppose)

« Reply #77 on: October 15, 2013, 22:31 »
+1
If it is the US problems causing this, wouldn't the US have a noticeably larger drop in sales?  I did have a better day yesterday, on a US holiday.

I keep seeing references to a US holiday on Monday.  I had no idea it was a holiday yesterday, and neither did anyone else I asked.  Literally NOBODY I know was off work yesterday.   

After seeing your post I googled it and see that it was Columbus Day.  I seriously doubt that accounts for any real impact on sales.

It seems to have been a Canadian holiday yesterday too FWIW.

yep, thanksgiving was on monday

« Reply #78 on: October 16, 2013, 01:01 »
+5
Chiming in a bit late, but with the same song as most of us :  sales down all over compared to Oct.2012.  And not just "a bit down" but a LOT (between 20 and 25%).  Oct. 2012 was a BME. 
Only site that's doing well (read: showing growth) is 123rf.
The fact that I'm going down 27% at Fotolia WITHOUT going down too much in 7-days-rank means that this trend is not just for me ...

Tror

« Reply #79 on: October 16, 2013, 04:56 »
+2
The fact that I'm going down 27% at Fotolia WITHOUT going down too much in 7-days-rank means that this trend is not just for me ...

Same here. I earn less and stay at the same ranking....

« Reply #80 on: October 16, 2013, 20:10 »
+1
.
« Last Edit: May 12, 2014, 09:08 by Audi 5000 »

« Reply #81 on: October 16, 2013, 20:51 »
0
I tend to think if your images are 'too precious' to be sold at sub rates, then they shouldn't be on microstock at all.
To me, it's not really about my images being too precious. I sold at a variety of different prices for a while. What I learned was that higher prices worked better for me. It doesn't make my images special or better than anybody else's images. It just means it is better for me to sell them at higher prices and less profitable to sell them at lower prices. I'd love the option to turn off subs at a number of sites and even set my own prices. It would most likely improve my income drastically overnight.

But isn't it the fact that the 'Big 5' agencies have way more data than any of will ever have, and they also have the same desire as us to optimise prices and profits ... and yet all of them have pretty much ended up embracing subs in one form or another. Nowadays your stuff needs to be really unique and special to warrant making it unavailable on subs.

I always assumed their deal was volume. I was never really able to do that massive volume as an individual (especially outside of SS), but they crowdsource so they can. The massive volume works for some though. It just didn't work that great for me (at least, not as well as other methods).

Exactly. Our photos aren't precious, but we know people will pay a bit more for some of them. As I've said many times, not everything sells in the volume required to be worthwhile as subs, but can do very well at say $20 a pop. Unfortunately no site with volume is offering that.
I once had a game of golf (actually in August 1970, now I think of it, at Newquay). After
9 holes for 357 shots, I realised it wasn't for me, but it does mean I have a lot more time available for my camera.


« Last Edit: October 16, 2013, 21:20 by Travelling-light »

lisafx

« Reply #82 on: October 16, 2013, 22:27 »
+1

No secrets, sorry to say.  Just continuing to do what I've been doing for the last 8 years.   The start of this year while things were down I decided to invest in a few more shoots than I normally would have and it seems to be paying off now.

Well, you responded to the slowdown with increased production and I got discouraged and slowed production. Looks like yours was definitely the smarter strategy.  Glad it's paying off for you :)

« Reply #83 on: October 17, 2013, 01:06 »
+1
I've been working hard without summer holidays. And only now I took 2 weeks off the stock. But to be honest I can't see any big October bump in sales. Yesterday were very poor sales on SS like on weekends. :(   

« Reply #84 on: October 17, 2013, 03:59 »
+1
Got to tell my golf story.  I'm really bad at golf.  After a few air shots on the previous tee, I went to tee off and someone walking past the course shouted "FORE" just before I hit the ball.  It was the best shot of my round.  The person ran away laughing at my terrible shot while I was laughing at my best shot :)

« Reply #85 on: October 17, 2013, 06:13 »
+1
The best thing about golf is the Andy Williams-esque fashions.

lisafx

« Reply #86 on: October 17, 2013, 16:50 »
0
The best thing about golf is the Andy Williams-esque fashions.

;D

drd

« Reply #87 on: October 29, 2013, 17:40 »
0
no sales for 7 days at istock. Longest bad run since exclusive. What is going on? Nothing good I suppose...

lisafx

« Reply #88 on: October 29, 2013, 17:44 »
+1
no sales for 7 days at istock. Longest bad run since exclusive. What is going on? Nothing good I suppose...

You may have had sales that just aren't showing in the stats.  I don't show any sales since the 25th, but the sales are showing in the my uploads area, and the money has been added to my totals. 

Hopefully it is the same for you?  If not, that's really depressing...

drd

« Reply #89 on: October 29, 2013, 17:48 »
0
No sales are showing up. Believe me I checked everywhere :)


You may have had sales that just aren't showing in the stats.  I don't show any sales since the 25th, but the sales are showing in the my uploads area, and the money has been added to my totals. 

Hopefully it is the same for you?  If not, that's really depressing...

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #90 on: October 29, 2013, 18:21 »
+1
No sales are showing up. Believe me I checked everywhere :)
That is really depressing. Are most of your files relatively new (e.g the past 14 months or so)?

Added: And if so, have they got a few dls?
I've found that in the same search, files I've uploaded in the past year with a couple of downloads are well down in the best match and FM search compared to those uploaded months earlier, but still within the past year, with 0 dls.
New files sink like a stone; but if they have the temerity to get a few downloads, they sink like a stone with lead weights attached.
« Last Edit: October 29, 2013, 21:13 by ShadySue »

drd

« Reply #91 on: October 30, 2013, 03:40 »
0
stats are not updating @istock
« Last Edit: October 31, 2013, 11:17 by drd »


« Reply #92 on: October 30, 2013, 13:20 »
0
just a slow update  in the stats.
« Last Edit: October 31, 2013, 09:55 by [email protected] »

« Reply #93 on: October 31, 2013, 09:57 »
0
My October rocked on Shutterstock, which is by far my best earner. I made almost twice as much as I did in October 2012, and I beat my previous best month there by $200.

Shelma1

« Reply #94 on: October 31, 2013, 10:34 »
0
Just hit BME last night on Shutterstock...took 3 months to recover from the mid-July site maintenance. Looks like it will be my BME at iStock as well, if PP sales come in at the rate they normally do. A slight bump.

« Reply #95 on: October 31, 2013, 18:28 »
+1
My theory is that agencies have been selling images so cheaply, for so long, that it's gotten to the point where a growing number of customers simply don't need that many images anymore. I'm not suggesting that they have stopped buying, but perhaps they buy less than they used to?

I can't back this up with data. But for years many have argued that there was no difference between selling 5 images for $7 each and 100 images for $0.35 each. It still pays the same, right? The difference is the former option theoretically keeps demand higher (because I only own 5 images and I need 95 more), whereas the latter option reduces demand more quickly (I already have 100 images, I don't need any more).

I don't think the agencies have all the answers, regardless of their data. It could be that they realize they are killing demand long term by grabbing market share now, and are looking to make their money and run before the market collapses.

Shelma1

« Reply #96 on: October 31, 2013, 18:54 »
+1
My experience is that ad agencies, at least, rely on stock images more and more every day. But there are so many images uploaded daily that supply far outweighs demand.

« Reply #97 on: November 01, 2013, 11:01 »
0
My theory is that agencies have been selling images so cheaply, for so long, that it's gotten to the point where a growing number of customers simply don't need that many images anymore. I'm not suggesting that they have stopped buying, but perhaps they buy less than they used to?

I can't back this up with data. But for years many have argued that there was no difference between selling 5 images for $7 each and 100 images for $0.35 each. It still pays the same, right? The difference is the former option theoretically keeps demand higher (because I only own 5 images and I need 95 more), whereas the latter option reduces demand more quickly (I already have 100 images, I don't need any more).

I don't think the agencies have all the answers, regardless of their data. It could be that they realize they are killing demand long term by grabbing market share now, and are looking to make their money and run before the market collapses.

I have a printer friend who supplies marketing materials for small to medium local businesses. Five years ago he was spending a few hundred quid per year buying stock images on his clients' behalf for their projects. Nowadays however they nearly always supply their own images taken by themselves (usually of their own premises, staff or services in action). Digital cameras are just so cheap and easy to use that almost anyone can produce a passable image.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #98 on: November 01, 2013, 11:46 »
0
My theory is that agencies have been selling images so cheaply, for so long, that it's gotten to the point where a growing number of customers simply don't need that many images anymore. I'm not suggesting that they have stopped buying, but perhaps they buy less than they used to?

I can't back this up with data. But for years many have argued that there was no difference between selling 5 images for $7 each and 100 images for $0.35 each. It still pays the same, right? The difference is the former option theoretically keeps demand higher (because I only own 5 images and I need 95 more), whereas the latter option reduces demand more quickly (I already have 100 images, I don't need any more).

I don't think the agencies have all the answers, regardless of their data. It could be that they realize they are killing demand long term by grabbing market share now, and are looking to make their money and run before the market collapses.

I have a printer friend who supplies marketing materials for small to medium local businesses. Five years ago he was spending a few hundred quid per year buying stock images on his clients' behalf for their projects. Nowadays however they nearly always supply their own images taken by themselves (usually of their own premises, staff or services in action). Digital cameras are just so cheap and easy to use that almost anyone can produce a passable image.

Also over the past few years the trend is moving towards authentic imagery, so businesses actually show their own premises and staff. I've heard this recommended over stock images several times on CreativeLIVE and also read it in design publications. Though the business publications which come my way have always used their own people and premises and built articles around them.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
31 Replies
10414 Views
Last post June 11, 2008, 16:25
by leaf
3 Replies
2999 Views
Last post November 09, 2010, 13:52
by Snufkin
16 Replies
4414 Views
Last post May 16, 2012, 11:47
by JPSDK
12 Replies
4639 Views
Last post December 04, 2012, 14:07
by ShadySue
October Earnings Post

Started by nobody « 1 2  All » iStockPhoto.com

39 Replies
11582 Views
Last post November 20, 2018, 21:35
by rushay

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle