MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: PicturEngine: Some thoughts  (Read 15941 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #75 on: December 06, 2012, 22:09 »
0
As stated previously in post :
http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/picturengine-some-thoughts/msg283239/#msg283239
...
My statements are clear when taken in context.  (Anyone can change the meaning of a statement when taking text out of context.)
....
I will try to stay out of your conversations on this thread unless asked a direct question.  I will need to respond, however, if misquoted.
Best,
JB

Does Justin and PE really believe that contributors will be willing to pay to be part of a service that effectively sends buyers to the cheapest source of their images? Is that what PE will offer for buyers? I've been convinced by Justin thus far, but my confidence is seriously shaken by this revelation. Justin, I'd really like to hear your explanation...?

Montys answer:  Sadly, some users of this forum appear to be on a witch hunt, taking my old posts, removing a word here and there until my words (out of context, of course) say what they want them to say.  Its called libel.
We are and always have been crystal clear regarding price comparisons.  Let me spell it out, W-E  D-O-N--T!  Furthermore, buyers see only ONE place to license an image.  Please, please review the PicturEngine support center.

Look, I love this industry.  I love photography.  I have profound appreciation for photographers.  Its what Ive wanted to do all my life.  I want this industry to survive.  I want this industry to succeed!  Every day I get up motivated to do everything I possibly can do to save, and ultimately reinvent this dying industry before its dead.  Im simply offering an alternative, a fantastic alternative, to the status quo.  If youre not looking for an option to constantly decreasing commissions, lower image prices, buyers frustrated by image duplication and marketplace chaos, and on and on, then dont join PicturEngine, its that simple.  I understand skepticism and questions.  Hey, Im skeptical and ask tons of questions every day of my life, and thats simply being smart and savvy.  But outright libelous accusations, are just not productive to our common goal.  May I ask that we keep the discussion based in reality by first reviewing the PicturEngine support center resources, and secondly by reading original posts rather than concocted and false misquotes.  If after reviewing these resources, something remains unclear, please PLEASE, by all means, ask me!!

Please try to keep in mind that Im a photographer, I think like a photographer, I know what its like to be a photographer.  Were on the same team.  Your success is our success.  Please join me on this positive journey.  Together we CAN create a bright future for the stock photo industry.

Best,
JB


« Reply #76 on: December 07, 2012, 03:27 »
0
Hi Justin, thanks for your reply. From what I see Cascoly has done a cut and paste from PE to illustrate that PE will offer a service that enables buyers to source the cheapest supplier of any given image returned by a PE search. Is that the case? It certainly appears that way!

You claim that your words are being taken out of context but, as I see it, your words appear to have been taken directly from the text on your website. Do you dispute that?

Kind regards,
Monty

« Reply #77 on: December 07, 2012, 09:43 »
0
it appears that buyers & sellers are being told 2 different things - sellers are told we can direct the search to our preferred site or agency, but buyers are told " Image buyers get the best image at the best price with access to all outlets from which the image can be licensed."

here are extracts from the PE website :

=======================
picturengine to buyers:

Search, find and license images.  Its that simple!  The world's stock photos consolidated into ONE search!  Some images are exclusive to a single stock photo agency, some are listed with multiple agencies and some are available directly from the photographer.  Image buyers get the best image at the best price with access to all outlets from which the image can be licensed.

....,.
The option to choose not only which image to license, but also from whom to license it, assures images buyers the best image at the best price.  We include all representatives licensing a particular image and allow the image buyer to make an informed purchasing decision.

Once you find and image, we show you all available sources to license that image
============================
picturengine to photographers:

Does PicturEngine compare prices?

Last Updated: Aug 17, 2012 10:58AM CDT

 NO.  PicturEngine does NOT compare prices.
 
We know buyers demand good prices.  The only way to get the best price on ANY good or service, is to reduce the distance from the producer to the buyer.  We DO NOT compare prices, instead we send the buyer to the base agency (where the image was uploaded FIRST) or directly to the photographer (if they are on the PicturEngine platform).  Sending the buyer directly to the base agency or photographer, effectively removes unnecessary expenses added to the sale.  Our goal is to help both photographers and image buyers get the most out of each transaction.



---------------------
Am I competing with my agencies?

Last Updated: May 05, 2012 10:34PM CDT

 No.  If an image is listed with an agency, and the photographer lists the same image on the PicturEngine platform, buyers see only the image listed by the photographer on the PicturEngine platform.


If you're going to quote someone you need to link to the original source.  Where are you getting this from?

grafix04

« Reply #78 on: December 07, 2012, 09:47 »
0
Carried on from this thread:

http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/check-out-picturengine/msg283495/?topicseen#new


Quote
Reply #266 on: Today at 06:06

Found it with advanced Google search. They've removed it,  here's the Google cached version, better get some grabs if you want it before the cache goes:

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:MEQb7BTJQtgJ:support.picturengine.com/customer/portal/articles/415464-how-does-picturengine-work#

I guess this is the new edited version with the "show you all of the available sources to license that image" bits removed.
http://support.picturengine.com/customer/portal/articles/415524-how-does-it-work-

It now seems a bit harsh to have accused someone of libel on the strength of quite accurate quotes, could you not have just said you have changed the way Picturengine was supposed to work (if that is what has happened)?
Last Edit: Today at 06:14 by Microbius











Poncke

« Reply #79 on: December 07, 2012, 11:19 »
0
I think for everyone being suspicious and calling this a witch hunt and libel, the screenshot posted by grafix should cover that area. No words were twisted or removed, its there.  Everything from made up buyers, the non existent marketing plan, pushing fees onto buyers, lying to us about not offering the cheapest image, the ktools debacle and all of a sudden the need for a 1000 unique images should  be enough for everyone to be cautious about signing up and drop 480 euros in a hole.

« Reply #80 on: December 07, 2012, 12:03 »
0
It's interesting to note that when we first heard about PE, Grafix, as far as I remember, was all over the idea. At that time, being a natural cynic, I wondered if this was a scam. $480 was more than I was prepared to give to someone I didn't know, for something that doesn't exist.

Now it seems that Grafix has completely turned around and is violently opposed to the idea, and in my opinion has become quite poisonous in his opposition, and I am curious to know why the change?

It does seem to be taking a long time to get started,  but haven't we complained many times about IS pushing out revisions to the site without fully testing them?

I still have my doubts, but I have decided to give it a go, mainly because of the way we are treated by the agencies.

I do agree that Justin doesn't do himself any favours, but we should remember that he must be very busy, and the site is still in Beta. It's not really surprising that there are contradictory statements on the site, my guess is that Justin changed his mind along the way about how to set the thing up, and hasn't yet sorted out the wording.

If this is a scam, there won't ever be any customers, and since the customers won't directly be paying for PE, there would be no need to write the paragraph about finding the cheapest image, which is in full view and easy for contributors to find.

I can't help thinking about Colemanballs. You may have to be old and English to know what these are, but you can Google for it. I think these could be labelled Justinballs - unintentional, to be fixed before launch.

Also, if this a scam, there isn't a lot of money in it. How many people are going to be paying $480 before launch? I can't imagine it will be enough for an American to bother taking the risk.

If anyone is going to flame me for this, please do something you seem to have not bothered doing before, and read my comments in full, don't skim, make a guess at what you think I said, and start ranting. It's very clear that people are commenting without fully reading what's gone before, and without thinking.


Poncke

« Reply #82 on: December 07, 2012, 12:22 »
+1
Why do you keep pushing the beta? When are you going live or think you go live?


grafix04

« Reply #84 on: December 07, 2012, 19:07 »
0
It's interesting to note that when we first heard about PE, Grafix, as far as I remember, was all over the idea. At that time, being a natural cynic, I wondered if this was a scam. $480 was more than I was prepared to give to someone I didn't know, for something that doesn't exist.

Now it seems that Grafix has completely turned around and is violently opposed to the idea, and in my opinion has become quite poisonous in his opposition, and I am curious to know why the change?

It does seem to be taking a long time to get started,  but haven't we complained many times about IS pushing out revisions to the site without fully testing them?

I still have my doubts, but I have decided to give it a go, mainly because of the way we are treated by the agencies.

I do agree that Justin doesn't do himself any favours, but we should remember that he must be very busy, and the site is still in Beta. It's not really surprising that there are contradictory statements on the site, my guess is that Justin changed his mind along the way about how to set the thing up, and hasn't yet sorted out the wording.

If this is a scam, there won't ever be any customers, and since the customers won't directly be paying for PE, there would be no need to write the paragraph about finding the cheapest image, which is in full view and easy for contributors to find.

I can't help thinking about Colemanballs. You may have to be old and English to know what these are, but you can Google for it. I think these could be labelled Justinballs - unintentional, to be fixed before launch.

Also, if this a scam, there isn't a lot of money in it. How many people are going to be paying $480 before launch? I can't imagine it will be enough for an American to bother taking the risk.

If anyone is going to flame me for this, please do something you seem to have not bothered doing before, and read my comments in full, don't skim, make a guess at what you think I said, and start ranting. It's very clear that people are commenting without fully reading what's gone before, and without thinking.



If you read through the other thread you'll see the turning point where I started to have my doubts.  It just got worse from there.

The fact that I was all over the idea and probably the most supportive of PE from the beginning and then changed my tune about PE (not the idea), should tell you something.  Saying I'm "violently opposed to the idea" is taking it a bit far.  I like the idea.  The idea is great, it's getting it (and seeing) working that's become the issue.  I now have my doubts because of the way Justin has handled himself, because of the BS we've been fed, and possibly because of his background.  At the beginning I was sold on PE because I really wanted it to work out for us.  I still do.  I would like nothing more that to see this industry - which has squeezed the life out of every photographer and has taken the enjoyment out of it evolve into something new that gives us back some freedom and control over our own property.  But unfortunately, Justin has destroyed my enthusiasm about PE being the site that does that.  I'm still hopeful it will work out.  I like the idea and if PE isn't the site that saves the day, I'm hoping something similar will pop up.


If you read through the other thread youll see the disappointment unfold but since we've moved to this thread, let me summarize it here:

First it was the ktools issue.  Justin came in here telling us how great he is, that he's been in this industry for years, has interviewed buyers and contributors and as a result came up with PE, and that he has been working on PE for four years.  After all the hype we find out he doesn't even have ktools set up.  Surely, if he had researched this properly, he would have known that ktools is a popular platform used by us to sell direct.  We were then told he would work on setting it up.  Later we were told that if we have ktools, the $120 advertising plan doesn't apply and that we would have to sign up as an agent and would have to pay more than $120.  He told us the amount would be decided on an individual basis.  That there lost my interest but I remained hopeful.  Lisa has been pushing him to set up ktools and Justin finally turned around and pretty much told Lisa that if she wants it, she should chase ktools for it herself.  That put me off.  She did that and we still don't have ktools.

Then there's the issue about site comparison.  We were told from the beginning that buyers would not be able to compare prices between agents and that only one agent (the first indexed) would show up on PE.  Now we find out that's BS.  I don't know where cascoly pasted that stuff from but what was cached by Google is as recent as a couple of weeks ago.  I can understand him changing his mind along the way, but this isn't changing his mind, this is saying one thing to buyers and something completely different to us from the beginning.

Then there's the bit about having 40K buyers lined up waiting to use the site.  I don't know if that's true or not but even if it is, he obviously won them over by promising them that they'll be able to use PE to find the image with the cheapest price.  I'm assuming what cascoly posted is legit but even if it isn't what is cached is enough to tell me that we both buyers and photographers- have been played.

Then there's the constant sales pitch to push us to purchase a plan before it goes live but here we are, almost approaching a year later and it's still in beta.  He knows most of us here are waiting for ktools or smugmug and he still hasn't done anything with those.  I suspect hes delaying them on purpose so that we ditch our own sites and pay him $480 instead of $120+. 

Then there was the 90 day free trial offer which is useless.  Signing up for free to test out a site that isn't even working yet, is pointless.  He should go live and give us 12 months free to test out a fully operational site.

Then Justin comes into this thread and tells us not to bother unless we have 1000 unique images to supply him exclusively see his reply #27 on this thread and my reply #32 where I quoted the relevant bits in red but Ill copy them again.  He wrote:
Quote

The purpose of our recent push for the PicturEngine photographer platform is to get content onboard that is NOT currently at agencies, bringing our image buying audience truly unique content, right alongside the same ol stuff they can find repeatedly at agencies
[/quote] If you dont yet have 1,000 unique images in your portfolio or collection, keep us on your radar for when you do.[/quote]
So basically, he's wasted most people's time because most people either don't have 1000 'unique' images or if they do they don't want to upload them to PE exclusively.  Then he comes in here all defensive saying that his words were taken out of context.  Do you see anywhere that I've taken his words out of context?  I simply quoted his EXACT words.

Then there's his background which I ignored and shouldn't have.  He has a porn site directed to PE.  How unprofessional is that?  I don't want my images and my associated with porn!  Lol, so far, this has been his only marketing plan.  If this is the only way he get can draw attention to his site, forget it.

And now finally, there's cascoly's post.  I don;t know where it came from but Justin did imply that it does exist but just like the 1000 unique images, he's claiming we've taken his words out of context lol.  He's even gone so far as to call this a witch hunt and made accusations of libel, even though it's quite obvious that he's been telling a few big fat 'whoppers' along the way.

Then there's all his smartass comments, eg "microstock 101". Lol, could he be any more patronizing, condescending and insulting?  There are photographers in here that were doing this while he was still in diapers.

I shouldn't forget the PayPal issue where he blatantly announced he'll be passing on the PayPal fee to the buyers, which is against PayPal's terms.  I know sellers are allowed to bump up their prices and  charge the buyer a processing/handling fee that is less than the PayPal fee, but Justin writing in a public forum that the buyers will pay the PayPal fee puts his PayPal account (and the PayPal account of the Photographers supplying him) in jeopardy.  If hes been in this industry for that many years and has been dealing with PayPal since 2006, he should know better. 

So now do you see why I have doubts and suspicions.  Had he come in here being honest from the beginning without being condescending, my support for his site would have continued.  Instead I've wasted my time thinking about this.  I'm still hoping it pans out but I'm going to be hopeful on the sidelines and let other guinea pigs take the risk and possibly the fall.  Most of us here can't do anything anyway because we're waiting on ktools which looks like he wont be setting up anywhere in the near future, if at all.


« Reply #85 on: December 08, 2012, 07:56 »
+1
Picturengine is the tool we have been waiting for a long time. I think we shall give Justin a chance to make it, and of course everything cannot be perfect from scratch. I can imagine the difficulties in making things working properly, I think we shall let him work on the project.
I was one of the few (4 or 5) that indicated in a specific thread that Ktool compatibility was highly wanted. If we are only 5 I can understand this cannot be a priority for Justin, if we are more we should maybe tell him all of us so to get Ktool on board asap......
For now I have taken the 3 month free option and I'm presently uploading my pictures as a test. I have a Ktool store and I intend to stop the test once the 3 months free  period is over and from than I will wait on Ktool compatibility....unless the 3 first months sales are enough to justify to stay as it is....
jean
 

Microbius

« Reply #86 on: December 08, 2012, 09:36 »
0
The more I think about it the less bothered I am.
For all intents and purposes just another agency that has come up with a clever way to get past the collection size barrier to entry in the industry.
So we pay a flat fee rather than a percentage, all that means is that the agency will have less motivation to market our work.
I would rather they just take a percentage, host our work and let us set our own prices.
Anyone who uploads direct gets listed first in the search results.

« Reply #87 on: December 08, 2012, 17:45 »
0
PicturEngine is in open photographer beta, meaning that we're not yet open to the public.  The purpose of beta is testing the site, looking for areas of improvement, bug fixes, etc.  We are actively asking for feedback from photographers in an effort to make PicturEngine the best it can be BEFORE advertising publicly.  We do NOT compare prices, period.  I apologize that one word on one page of our website led some people to believe otherwise, despite numerous other places which clearly articulate the fact that we do NOT compare prices.  We have updated the page in question to more clearly state the fact that we do NOT compare prices.  Thank you very much for bringing this concern to our attention.  We greatly appreciate constructive, professional, and productive criticism/feedback, which will enable us to more quickly complete the beta process and launch publicly.  Again, thank you.  If you find any other inconsistencies, please email our support center so we can review the issue and get it resolved.


Best,

JB
before you start calling people names maybe you should do some ALPHA testing -- the quotes, which i accurately noted were directly from your website, were longer than 'one word' and were NOT simple misstatements or taken out of context - they were 2 COMPLETELY different sales pitches -- not only did they absolutely contradict each other, one was the opposite of what you were pitching here

you keep saying it's a photographer's beta, but there'sNOTHING there to even hint at a 'BETA' - etter do some more research to what a beta test actually is - when we sign up for 'ad only' there's almost NOTHING there - no indicatin of how the system will work - how can this ossibly be a beta when there's nothing to test?

and it's NOT photographer only, since 1 also registered as a buyer and got to see the pages which i quoted here

------

i thought the idea you initially described was of interest and i spent time trying to see if it would work - i even PAID for a photoshelter acct to test it out since you dont support smugug.  only after i wasted my time creating galeries on PS did i discover i wasnt going to be able to 'test' them on your system, since your current system DOES NOT DO ANYTHING!  and yo then declared that i'd have to start paying before i could actually see anything on your site.
« Last Edit: December 08, 2012, 18:04 by cascoly »

« Reply #88 on: December 08, 2012, 17:56 »
0
[

If you're going to quote someone you need to link to the original source.  Where are you getting this from?

sorry for any confusion, but all quotes were taken from picturengine.com website [i thot everyone in this thread wold know that's what the 'pe website' is - i  changed NO WORDS and used ellipses to shorten some lenght, but nothing was out of context

the buyer & photographer sections told 2 compeltely different stories - i dont know what justinj's talking about when he said they were able to fix it by changing 'one word' -- the differences were major.

maybe some of this was from a older idea of the site and no one bothered to actually read their own site before letting other people in, but justin hasnt said that to date either.  the entire pitch to buyers was to say we can get you the best images at the cheapeast rates.  since there's nothing to actually test, we may not know until they let the system go 'live'

i tried to pull up the site picturengine.com just now, but dont get anything.  it may be my slow wifi while traveling.  i've saved the original quotes on my home computer.
« Last Edit: December 08, 2012, 18:03 by cascoly »

« Reply #89 on: December 08, 2012, 18:20 »
+1
ok, using site:picturengine.com i was able to find the new pages;


http://www.picturengine.com/beta/static.php?page=link2&type=buyer

Features 
Search, find and license images.  Its that simple!  The world's stock photos consolidated into ONE search!  Some images are exclusive to a single stock photo agency, some are listed with multiple agencies and some are available directly from the photographer.  Image buyers get the best image at the best price with access to direct outlets from which the image can be licensed.

Individual photographers licensing images directly through PicturEngine receive 100% of the image license fee, and are encouraged to price images competitively.  No middleman means the best images at the best price.

======================

http://www.picturengine.com/beta/static.php?page=faqbuyer
this section now reads:

===============
We DO NOT compare prices, instead we send the buyer to the base agency (where the image was uploaded first) or directly to the photographer (if they are on the PicturEngine platform) to get the best possible price. 



============
so yes, the text has changed,- but they're still telling buyer's they'll get the best price when that is no longer true, since they are not promising to send them to the lowest price offering - and how can they if the are promising elsewhere that they're most definitely not comparing prices?

they are implicitly assuming that the first place a photographer uploads has the cheapest price AND that if the photographer offers it themselves it will be cheaper than any agency.  neither is true

grafix04

« Reply #90 on: December 08, 2012, 21:09 »
0
ok, using site:picturengine.com i was able to find the new pages;


http://www.picturengine.com/beta/static.php?page=link2&type=buyer

Features 
Search, find and license images.  Its that simple!  The world's stock photos consolidated into ONE search!  Some images are exclusive to a single stock photo agency, some are listed with multiple agencies and some are available directly from the photographer.  Image buyers get the best image at the best price with access to direct outlets from which the image can be licensed.

Individual photographers licensing images directly through PicturEngine receive 100% of the image license fee, and are encouraged to price images competitively.  No middleman means the best images at the best price.

======================

http://www.picturengine.com/beta/static.php?page=faqbuyer
this section now reads:

===============
We DO NOT compare prices, instead we send the buyer to the base agency (where the image was uploaded first) or directly to the photographer (if they are on the PicturEngine platform) to get the best possible price. 



============
so yes, the text has changed,- but they're still telling buyer's they'll get the best price when that is no longer true, since they are not promising to send them to the lowest price offering - and how can they if the are promising elsewhere that they're most definitely not comparing prices?

they are implicitly assuming that the first place a photographer uploads has the cheapest price AND that if the photographer offers it themselves it will be cheaper than any agency.  neither is true



Wow, that's pretty disappointing but it's what I expected.  I'm going to attach a copy of a screenshot of that in case he changes it again on his site and accuses anyone of libel again. 

Cascoly, sorry that you actually spent money on this.  I almost did myself.  Early on in the other thread I mentioned that my web hosting on my own site was up for renewal and I was waiting for PE to go live to make a decision on whether to renew my hosting or ditch my site and upload directly to PE.  I considered ditching my site but now I'm really glad I renewed it. 


The other thing that irks me and I keep forgetting to mention is that Justin keeps saying that PE is not an agent.  How can they not be an agent when photographers upload their images on their site, they sell to buyers on their behalf and handling the transaction and the payment?  Of course they're an agent.  They're a search engine AND an agent.  I can't see how he states that they're not.

This makes me wonder whether they'll be infringing copyright.  As a search engine that doesn't make money from the site, they can claim to be a service provider and can protect themselves with "fair usage" and "safe harbor".  But if they're making money on the same site, can they get away with it?  I'm not sure.  I suppose it depends how they display the other agents' images and what size they show.  I can't remember what happens when you click on a thumb and the site's down right now - maintenance (removing evidence? lol).  If they display the full sized watermarked image, the other agents might give them a hard time.  It will be interesting to see.


« Reply #91 on: December 08, 2012, 22:56 »
0

 
Cascoly, sorry that you actually spent money on this.  I almost did myself.  Early on in the other thread I mentioned that my web hosting on my own site was up for renewal and I was waiting for PE to go live to make a decision on whether to renew my hosting or ditch my site and upload directly to PE.  I considered ditching my site but now I'm really glad I renewed it.   


my smugmug renewal is up soon, so PS looked like a possible alternative -- but for me, it turned out i can stay at the $150 pro rate rather than the new smugmug $240 rate as that new version doesnt have anything i really need [you can still sell prints, images, etc at $150 - you just can't customize as much] -- so i'm set for now and will spend my time on some SEO work for my smugmug site.  i recently worked out a way to display my smugmug gallery thumbnails on my cascoly website, adding backlinks and alt image text. eg

http://cascoly.com/photo/travel-india-markets.asp
« Last Edit: December 09, 2012, 11:44 by cascoly »


grafix04

« Reply #92 on: December 08, 2012, 23:46 »
0
Well that's just it, it's not as if we're all going to disappear into a black hole if we don't sign up with PE.  30% of my income is from selling direct and I expect that to increase since I'm no longer supplying the micros with new content.

Even if PE pans out in the long term, they're not going to be a hit overnight since if don't want to put any real money into marketing.  Google's not going to disappear if PE takes off.  If anything, I expect Google to come up with something similar and put PE back in their place if they're vastly effected by them. 

Like you I've been working on my backlinks too.  It's work but it's worthwhile.   I suppose if I don't see great improvement with SEO, I can always start a porn site and direct it to my site :D

By the way, I'm curious, what's smugmug like?  Taking your costs into account, how does it stack up compared to the micros?

« Reply #93 on: December 09, 2012, 05:50 »
0
....How can they not be an agent when photographers upload their images on their site...
It's a bit different.  They use Rackspace.  Contributors upload to Rackspace and give PE a key to access their files.  It's not the conventional agent setup that other sites use but it's virtually the same.  Perhaps the big difference is that if we don't make $480 in sales and cover the Rackspace fees, we end up losing money.

Poncke

« Reply #94 on: December 09, 2012, 06:46 »
0
Why can Flickr and FAA offer unlimited upload for 35 dollar a year? I have made 430 dollar on FAA in 3 months, thats made it a well worth investment. An average commission per sale of 53 dollar. I realize you cant compare FAA with PE but I dont see my files selling that much to make 480 dollar back that easily. And FAA also gives me 100% commission + commission on their material sales.

« Reply #95 on: December 09, 2012, 08:06 »
0
I suppose that volume subscriptions may drive prices down....just speculating though.
« Last Edit: December 09, 2012, 08:19 by Mantis »

Poncke

« Reply #96 on: December 09, 2012, 08:24 »
0
I suppose that volume subscriptions may drive prices down....just speculating though.
Probably, but its hard to get volume when the entry price is so high.

« Reply #97 on: December 09, 2012, 10:42 »
0
I suppose that volume subscriptions may drive prices down....just speculating though.
Probably, but its hard to get volume when the entry price is so high.

$30? Just to be clear I was referring to FAA's $30 a year fee.  Their site says they have about 100k contributors but don't know how many of those have the premium package ($30).  If it's half then we're looking at 1.5 mil.  Not too much doe.

« Reply #98 on: December 09, 2012, 11:54 »
0

Like you I've been working on my backlinks too.  It's work but it's worthwhile.   I suppose if I don't see great improvement with SEO, I can always start a porn site and direct it to my site :D

By the way, I'm curious, what's smugmug like?  Taking your costs into account, how does it stack up compared to the micros?

smugmug is well designed & the tech support folks are extremely helpful.  also, there's a large # of plugins and other features available.  the gallery system is easy to use.
i had tried the opensource GALLERY2 earlier, but it took more maintenance

i dont make enough to pay for the yearly sub - but my sales thru FAA and Redbubble are minor also.  my main use is as a convenient way to build ad traffic with captioned images to my hubpages, and my own website, and otherwise promote my website outside the agencies.  for me, it's really not a replacement or even competitor to microstock, but addresses different audiences

grafix04

« Reply #99 on: December 10, 2012, 21:34 »
0

Like you I've been working on my backlinks too.  It's work but it's worthwhile.   I suppose if I don't see great improvement with SEO, I can always start a porn site and direct it to my site :D

By the way, I'm curious, what's smugmug like?  Taking your costs into account, how does it stack up compared to the micros?

smugmug is well designed & the tech support folks are extremely helpful.  also, there's a large # of plugins and other features available.  the gallery system is easy to use.
i had tried the opensource GALLERY2 earlier, but it took more maintenance

i dont make enough to pay for the yearly sub - but my sales thru FAA and Redbubble are minor also.  my main use is as a convenient way to build ad traffic with captioned images to my hubpages, and my own website, and otherwise promote my website outside the agencies.  for me, it's really not a replacement or even competitor to microstock, but addresses different audiences

Thanks Steve, that was helpful.  I was wondering whether I should pack up my own site and sell on a platform like Photoshelter or Smugmug but it seems that it wouldn't bring in any more traffic.  For me it's about eventually replacing the microstocks. I might leave my dregs on some of the agents but anything worth anything will be sold exclusively through me.



 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
270 Replies
37572 Views
Last post December 07, 2012, 09:24
by leaf
55 Replies
7403 Views
Last post November 27, 2012, 13:53
by Poncke
4 Replies
1617 Views
Last post December 06, 2012, 12:51
by Poncke
5 Replies
2570 Views
Last post December 14, 2013, 22:55
by simi
16 Replies
4279 Views
Last post September 27, 2016, 17:26
by PicturEngine-JustinB

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results