Author Topic: Next site to go under? (Read 14680 times)

redo · « **Reply #25 on:** September 30, 2010, 17:41 »

istock to go under.
i wish.
cause of istock i loose my StockXpert-income (nearly 10% in 2009)
also i loose massiv income at istock year by year (i had 54% in 2008, 41% in 2009, 33% in 2010)

but my income is growing year by year cause the other agencies work better and better.
and also my $ per download is growing.

20% at istock was a joke, but istock raised the price of my work for buyers.
this was a good move, also for the prices at other agencies.
but now or next year 15 or 16 or 17% is a killing joke.
I will not spend my money for istocks marketing.
buyers can buy elsewhere.
dreamstime and veer and others bring me more and more money.
istock less and less...
oh good,i think my english is horrible

OM · « **Reply #26 on:** September 30, 2010, 18:32 »

Quote from: Randy McKown on September 30, 2010, 00:24

Here in a few years Wal-Mart will get into the microstock game and then all of them will die off.

Only if they can source all their images in China as they do their merchandise.

Rculleton · « **Reply #27 on:** October 07, 2010, 04:48 »

I´m backing the small firms to survive. Although big firms do dominate I think the smaller ones that keep their costs down and business steady, like Photaki.com , will be a good bet! Although sales may sometimes be low, you can rely on the smaller ones to be competing and innovating constantly-purely because they need to to stay in the game. And we should be supporting that!!

qwerty · « **Reply #28 on:** October 07, 2010, 06:08 »

Quote from: Rculleton on October 07, 2010, 04:48

I´m backing the small firms to survive. Although big firms do dominate I think the smaller ones that keep their costs down and business steady, like Photaki.com , will be a good bet! Although sales may sometimes be low, you can rely on the smaller ones to be competing and innovating constantly-purely because they need to to stay in the game. And we should be supporting that!!

New member and pumping photaki every post ? Never heard of them, maybe change your name to photaki.

Rculleton · « **Reply #29 on:** October 07, 2010, 06:17 »

Quote from: qwerty on October 07, 2010, 06:08

Quote from: Rculleton on October 07, 2010, 04:48
I´m backing the small firms to survive. Although big firms do dominate I think the smaller ones that keep their costs down and business steady, like Photaki.com , will be a good bet! Although sales may sometimes be low, you can rely on the smaller ones to be competing and innovating constantly-purely because they need to to stay in the game. And we should be supporting that!!

New member and pumping photaki every post ? Never heard of them, maybe change your name to photaki.

I´m relatively new to this whole thing- I was told about Photaki by a spanish friend (it´s a spanish company, probably why you haven´t heard of it) but i am fully open to everyones input on the best places to go to!! Maybe don´t be so synical? I though this sight was welcoming to newbies!!

But I was more interested in this feed in terms of business models- i´m a big supporter of all small businesses in all industries, i don´t like the giants taking over!

dirkr · « **Reply #30 on:** October 07, 2010, 06:38 »

If you are interested in supporting smaller sites that pay a fair commission, you should look at

Yaymicro
Featurepics
Zoonar
The3dStudio
GraphicLeftovers

But if you are more interested in immediate and better sales, I would try:

Shutterstock
Dreamstime
Fotolia

and in between (lower sales, but better than the ones on the first list)

Bigstock
123RF
Veer
Panthermedia

FD · « **Reply #31 on:** October 07, 2010, 08:26 »

You've got your referrals nicely hidden :-p

I've got a good tracking record on leaving sites 6-12 months before they go under (Snap, LO,). If that counts: I left CutC, Vivoz, Mostph, Crest, but I didn't leave FeatureP, Deposit, CanStockPhoto.

Rule #1: No microstock site established after 2005 will ever make it.

dirkr · « **Reply #32 on:** October 07, 2010, 10:10 »

Quote from: FD-regular on October 07, 2010, 08:26

You've got your referrals nicely hidden :-p

MicrostockExp · « **Reply #33 on:** October 07, 2010, 11:34 »

Rule #1: No microstock site established after 2005 will ever make it.

Hopefully Veer will be the exception:)

jwsc101 · « **Reply #34 on:** October 07, 2010, 16:57 »

I see that someone mentioned yaymirco. I can kind of see why, I only have small portfolios at the moment but the views for my images have just been non-existant compared to the same portfolio on other sites.

This is a shame, I like the site. Don't really know why, I just do.

I have decided to have a go at promoting their site to buyers via their affiliate scheme (which is quite good), maybe if we all do that we can increase their sales a bit!

louoates · « **Reply #35 on:** October 07, 2010, 18:26 »

I don't understand those feeling they must "support" non-producing sites. As far as I can tell those sites aren't sending company shares to contributors. The healthy relationship I believe is to upload to those sites that are producing for me and ignoring those that can't generate the business. There is no shortage of images for them to successfully market if they had the skills and wherewithal to do so. I don't begrudge them making piles of money off my images as long as I get something in return. After six years in this business and wasting my time with too many start-ups that looked pretty in the beginning but returned next to nothing in results I've learned to ignore low earners.

stormchaser · « **Reply #36 on:** October 07, 2010, 19:06 »

Anyone know if Albumo is still breathing? I dumped out of there a long time ago.

PaulieWalnuts · « **Reply #37 on:** October 07, 2010, 21:08 »

Albumo? I think it was taken off of life support a long time ago.

johngriffin · « **Reply #38 on:** October 07, 2010, 22:15 »

istockphoto. they are digging their own grave. keep digging.

MarkFGD · « **Reply #39 on:** October 08, 2010, 06:50 »

Anybody fancy having a whip round and buying them a new spade. I'm happy to put today's royalties in.

Randy McKown · « **Reply #40 on:** October 08, 2010, 10:30 »

Quote from: louoates on October 07, 2010, 18:26

I don't understand those feeling they must "support" non-producing sites.

Because they aren't serious about the business side of photography .. they're just playing pro photographer when there's nothing to watch on TV. So they will waste time "supporting" bad business and allow big business to walk all over them until there is no good business left standing.

louoates · « **Reply #41 on:** October 08, 2010, 10:52 »

Randy,
I agree the business side of things can get quite messy. I prefer to think of microstock as a minefield. I gladly let the novices rush onto new sites mindlessly. After the requisite carnage I may or may not venture in. Fewer missteps, and much less pain, for me.

RacePhoto · « **Reply #42 on:** October 08, 2010, 20:09 »

Quote from: MicrostockExp on October 07, 2010, 11:34

Rule #1: No microstock site established after 2005 will ever make it.

Hopefully Veer will be the exception:)

Registration Information:

Domain Name: VEER.COM
Creation Date: 09-dec-2001

I don't know if that counts, but at least it's before 2005.

I think FD is correct. There may be an exception some day, but for now, the market is not only full, bloated and dominated, it's contracting. That means that companies that once could flourish, produce a profit and be considered a success, are going under. It's not a good time to enter a market, when it's already on the downside of the boom.

I know this will come a a shock to some people, but these businesses are not here for us, to be our friends and make us money. They aren't designed solely to provide a product and fill a need. Although they do in many cases. They have one goal in existing. They are here to make money for the owners! They don't owe us anything. They don't really care. It's all about profit and money for investors or owners. Hard facts of life... unless you are Alamy, giving money to charity and still making a business that works, or maybe Goodwill or Salvation Army, business ventures are investments and the people who run them want to make a profit or they want to do something else with their time and money, that doesn't make a profit.

Now before someone jumps on this, turn the whole thing around and ask yourself if you are talking photos and making images, as a charity or hobby or are you trying to earn some income? Kind of like the stock sites isn't it? Bottom line is the same for almost all of us. We invest time and effort and make images. We want to earn more money and make a profit.

rubyroo · « **Reply #43 on:** October 09, 2010, 02:15 »

Very true Race.

I'd just add that we also want to make a sustainable profit.

jamiet757 · « **Reply #44 on:** October 09, 2010, 07:36 »

Quote from: etienjones on September 29, 2010, 14:33

Even though Elena seems to be a very nice person, I am afraid that FeaturePics will be the next to fall.

Check out the incident I had with Elena on my blog:
http://www.station23.com/featurepics-review/

I am not so sure she is such a nice person, only on the outside.
Maybe I am just being picky, but idk it seemed silly to me.

PaulieWalnuts · « **Reply #45 on:** October 09, 2010, 08:08 »

Quote from: jamiet757 on October 09, 2010, 07:36

Quote from: etienjones on September 29, 2010, 14:33
Even though Elena seems to be a very nice person, I am afraid that FeaturePics will be the next to fall.
Check out the incident I had with Elena on my blog:
http://www.station23.com/featurepics-review/I am not so sure she is such a nice person, only on the outside.

Although I don't disagree FeaturePics is a poor earner for most people I don't think she was out of line. If you submitted stuff similar to what's in your Istock portfolio (which is not a poor earner and you have zero sales in 9 months there) I can understand their reaction. They made it clear that:

- The stuff you're submitting is already well covered (and they really don't want or need more of it)
- You closed your account and they don't recreate accounts (they don't take back people who closed their accounts so yours never should have been recreated)
- They don't recreate accounts and you continued on and on asking about why you have upload limits, etc (even though they made it clear your account is closed and never should have been reopened you kept going)

A lot of people assume there is no such thing as a bad customer/partner. This isn't the case. A lot of companies have no problem letting go customers/partners who are unprofitable, indecisive, high maintenance, or are just a PITA. Maybe they feel you fall into this category.

jamiet757 · « **Reply #46 on:** October 09, 2010, 08:15 »

Quote from: PaulieWalnuts on October 09, 2010, 08:08

Quote from: jamiet757 on October 09, 2010, 07:36
Quote from: etienjones on September 29, 2010, 14:33
Even though Elena seems to be a very nice person, I am afraid that FeaturePics will be the next to fall.
Check out the incident I had with Elena on my blog:
http://www.station23.com/featurepics-review/I am not so sure she is such a nice person, only on the outside.

Although I don't disagree FeaturePics is a poor earner for most people I don't think she was out of line. If you submitted stuff similar to what's in your Istock portfolio (which is not a poor earner and you have zero sales in 9 months there) I can understand their reaction. They made it clear that:

- The stuff you're submitting is already well covered (and they really don't want or need more of it)
- You closed your account and they don't recreate accounts (they don't take back people who closed their accounts so yours never should have been recreated)
- They don't recreate accounts and you continued on and on asking about why you have upload limits, etc (even though they made it clear your account is closed and never should have been reopened you kept going)

A lot of people assume there is no such thing as a bad customer/partner. This isn't the case. A lot of companies have no problem letting go customers/partners who are unprofitable, indecisive, high maintenance, or are just a PITA. Maybe they feel you fall into this category.

I didn't just keep going even though she said they don't recreate accounts, that is all she kept saying, over and over, they don't recreate accounts. I didn't understand, it let me sign up, upload, and they even approved my first 10 or so images that I uploaded, then suddenly they said something about an upload limit, and I asked about it and she said they don't recreate accounts. Put yourself in that situation and see if you would understand what is happening.

My IS portfolio is only a fraction of my whole portfolio, as I can only upload 18 images every week, it has taken quite a while to get any images at all on the site, so don't base the quality of my work on that.

PaulieWalnuts · « **Reply #47 on:** October 09, 2010, 09:08 »

Quote from: jamiet757 on October 09, 2010, 08:15

Quote from: PaulieWalnuts on October 09, 2010, 08:08
Quote from: jamiet757 on October 09, 2010, 07:36
Quote from: etienjones on September 29, 2010, 14:33
Even though Elena seems to be a very nice person, I am afraid that FeaturePics will be the next to fall.
Check out the incident I had with Elena on my blog:
http://www.station23.com/featurepics-review/I am not so sure she is such a nice person, only on the outside.

Although I don't disagree FeaturePics is a poor earner for most people I don't think she was out of line. If you submitted stuff similar to what's in your Istock portfolio (which is not a poor earner and you have zero sales in 9 months there) I can understand their reaction. They made it clear that:

- The stuff you're submitting is already well covered (and they really don't want or need more of it)
- You closed your account and they don't recreate accounts (they don't take back people who closed their accounts so yours never should have been recreated)
- They don't recreate accounts and you continued on and on asking about why you have upload limits, etc (even though they made it clear your account is closed and never should have been reopened you kept going)

A lot of people assume there is no such thing as a bad customer/partner. This isn't the case. A lot of companies have no problem letting go customers/partners who are unprofitable, indecisive, high maintenance, or are just a PITA. Maybe they feel you fall into this category.

I didn't just keep going even though she said they don't recreate accounts, that is all she kept saying, over and over, they don't recreate accounts. I didn't understand, it let me sign up, upload, and they even approved my first 10 or so images that I uploaded, then suddenly they said something about an upload limit, and I asked about it and she said they don't recreate accounts. Put yourself in that situation and see if you would understand what is happening.

My IS portfolio is only a fraction of my whole portfolio, as I can only upload 18 images every week, it has taken quite a while to get any images at all on the site, so don't base the quality of my work on that.

I've dealt with Elena and she was fair to me. I read it as they don't take back people who cancel their accounts. You cancelled, it slipped by, they caught your recreated account, and cancelled it. I don't see a problem other than if they don't state this policy, or the right to refuse/cancel, in their Terms and Conditions.

Regarding your upload limit comment, you've been on IS since June 2007. You've had the opportunity to upload over 2,500 images. Even if you only started uploading in Jan 2010 that's still potential for 600 uploads. You have 25. So what's your point here?

And I'm not judging your work. But agencies are buyers clearly are. You cancelled your account due to poor sales so you're obviously concerned with sales. But your sales at other agencies aren't much better than FeaturePics so I'm not sure why you're singling them out. And quantity really isn't a factor either. There are people here who have a couple dozen images and hundreds or thousands of downloads. What might that tell you?

jamiet757 · « **Reply #48 on:** October 09, 2010, 09:20 »

My point is that I have not been uploading since 2007, I have only started uploading a few months ago, and I don't always have time to di it every week, and I don't understand why you are on your soap box talking down to me, I was just sharing an interaction that I had, which I think was unfair and unjustified, if you disagree, fine, but don't act like your opinion matters more than mine because you have more images on istock.

PaulieWalnuts · « **Reply #49 on:** October 09, 2010, 09:33 »

You either didn't fully read or understand what I wrote.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Next site to go under? (Read 14680 times)

redo

OM

Rculleton

qwerty

Rculleton

dirkr

FD

dirkr

MicrostockExp

jwsc101

louoates

stormchaser

PaulieWalnuts

johngriffin

MarkFGD

Randy McKown

louoates

RacePhoto

rubyroo

jamiet757

PaulieWalnuts

jamiet757

PaulieWalnuts

jamiet757

PaulieWalnuts

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors