MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Protect the market  (Read 16276 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: May 17, 2014, 14:53 »
+7
In order to protect a viable market and in consideration of your own best long term interests;

Which RF microstock agency would you like to see at the top of the earnings poll and why? Please disregard the current sales performance of your media type, instead consider the potential return per sale and track record of the company in the stock media marketplace.

I would say Pond5.
A successful and apparently thriving agency
You set your own price, after all not all subjects or aesthetic image quality are equal.
Flat no nonsense 50% royalty.
Efficient website with reasonably good search functions.
Pretty responsive to contributor concerns.
To date no crappy subscription plan or other underhanded ploys.

Just so you know, I have no connection to Pond5 other than being a long time video contributor with a modest photo and audio portfolio as well.

Which agency do you think would best serve your interests if they were a top seller?

 


Goofy

« Reply #1 on: May 17, 2014, 15:11 »
+10
In order to protect a viable market and in consideration of your own best long term interests;

Which RF microstock agency would you like to see at the top of the earnings poll and why? Please disregard the current sales performance of your media type, instead consider the potential return per sale and track record of the company in the stock media marketplace.

I would say Pond5.
A successful and apparently thriving agency
You set your own price, after all not all subjects or aesthetic image quality are equal.
Flat no nonsense 50% royalty.
Efficient website with reasonably good search functions.
Pretty responsive to contributor concerns.
To date no crappy subscription plan or other underhanded ploys.

Just so you know, I have no connection to Pond5 other than being a long time video contributor with a modest photo and audio portfolio as well.

Which agency do you think would best serve your interests if they were a top seller?

When companies are not selling large volumes like the top tier they tend to give generous commissions until they reach the top tier than their commissions go down with excuses like we need your money to market more thus sell more of your images---  :(



EmberMike

« Reply #2 on: May 17, 2014, 15:13 »
+2
I still like Stockfresh. They just need to get out of their own way long enough to get noticed in the market. They need to spend some money on marketing/advertising, and redesign that StockXpert clone of a site.

But the terms are pretty favorable to contributors. 50% royalty on credit sales, and although they do offer subscriptions they are highly limited (max Medium size photos only and no vectors). Pricing is simple and fair, something buyers would appreciate.

I'd honestly put them above Pond5 just for the reason that Stockfresh isn't coming from another market (video in the case of P5) and trying to expand into other things Stockfresh is a photo and vector agency, plain and simple.

« Reply #3 on: May 17, 2014, 15:16 »
+4
I'm okay with Shutterstock as the leader subscription site. They have big volume in downloads, they seem to constantly invest in reaching new markets and they have been able to slowly raise the return per download over the years. They do a good job.

As for non subscription site I also prefer Pond5.
You can set your own price for every file, 50% commission, and now photo sales are starting to move there do. And their support is really responsive and helpful.

« Reply #4 on: May 17, 2014, 16:19 »
+4
Self-Hosted.

« Reply #5 on: May 17, 2014, 16:54 »
+3
Self-Hosted.

Me too. I would say Symbiostock. We need no Agencies but Agencies need us.

« Reply #6 on: May 17, 2014, 16:54 »
+2
Pond5

« Reply #7 on: May 17, 2014, 17:00 »
+8
Pond5

Unfortunately, their website is not very pretty to look at, and the interface is terrible.

Dook

« Reply #8 on: May 17, 2014, 17:12 »
0
I'm good with SS.

« Reply #9 on: May 17, 2014, 17:21 »
+5
You are wasting your time! I was trying to explain people here that we all need to promote agencies with better deal for us, but people like more "regular" money from big houses...

« Reply #10 on: May 17, 2014, 18:05 »
+5
You are wasting your time! I was trying to explain people here that we all need to promote agencies with better deal for us, but people like more "regular" money .from big houses..

Problem is that 50%, 60% of bugger all is bugger all where 10%, 20% of something is something

« Reply #11 on: May 17, 2014, 18:17 »
+1
Pond5

Unfortunately, their website is not very pretty to look at, and the interface is terrible.

They certainly could use a face lift and nose job, that's for sure.

Dook

« Reply #12 on: May 17, 2014, 18:28 »
+1
You are wasting your time! I was trying to explain people here that we all need to promote agencies with better deal for us, but people like more "regular" money from big houses...

What does it mean promote? I upload the same pictures at the same time to all the agencies. I gave them all chance to earn me money. Some made it, some didn't. What's wrong with that?

fritz

  • I love Tom and Jerry music

« Reply #13 on: May 17, 2014, 18:57 »
+1
Pond5

shudderstok

« Reply #14 on: May 17, 2014, 19:26 »
+8
1) not a single site that has subscription sales. including IS.
2) IS if they brought back the canister system, that way i would go back to my 40% that i originally agreed upon and they completely drop the RC which is too easy to manipulate and i suspect it is manipulated and/or GI if they actually stopped messing with our images and stopped giving them away for free.
3) stocksy as i like the idea of 50% royalties and a share of the profits, but the attitude at that place really needs to change in terms of overall portfolio consideration (the biggest turn off for me by far) i know that i have the quality for the agency, but they only seem to want a certain look, and that is what i deem to be the deal breaker for the agency as a whole over the long run. i for one would not really search there as the style is way too limited, i get the no isolated on white decisions, but not everyone wants over filtered trendy styles either - just sayin.
4) not a single site that keeps the rates of images low just to gain market share, they are killing the industry and forcing others to compete against stupid rates, and go down to depths just to stay alive. i think they call this the domino effect.

but this is all utopia of course, the industry is in free fall, and buyers for the most part don't care about how much we get paid, they just want the images cheap, and have now become accustomed to cheap.

i'd just like to see an agency that rewards hard work fairly and is in partnership with the contributors in a more or less 50% 50% deal, or at the very least 40% 60% deal, like it used to be before the micros came along.

« Reply #15 on: May 17, 2014, 20:22 »
+2
You are wasting your time! I was trying to explain people here that we all need to promote agencies with better deal for us, but people like more "regular" money from big houses...

What does it mean promote? I upload the same pictures at the same time to all the agencies. I gave them all chance to earn me money. Some made it, some didn't. What's wrong with that?

There's nothing wrong with it, but you can also try to stack the deck and upload to places that make you more money per sale first (and delay those uploads at other sites for a few months or more). It gives some of the smaller sites that pay better a chance to compete with the larger sites with larger marketing budgets (budgets that you pay for). If you can find a couple good paying sites or start a site to sell your own work, it is worth experimenting with.

Ed

« Reply #16 on: May 17, 2014, 22:48 »
+3
In order to protect a viable market and in consideration of your own best long term interests;

Which RF microstock agency would you like to see at the top of the earnings poll and why? Please disregard the current sales performance of your media type, instead consider the potential return per sale and track record of the company in the stock media marketplace.

I would say Pond5.
A successful and apparently thriving agency
You set your own price, after all not all subjects or aesthetic image quality are equal.
Flat no nonsense 50% royalty.
Efficient website with reasonably good search functions.
Pretty responsive to contributor concerns.
To date no crappy subscription plan or other underhanded ploys.

Just so you know, I have no connection to Pond5 other than being a long time video contributor with a modest photo and audio portfolio as well.

Which agency do you think would best serve your interests if they were a top seller?

I hate to say this...but this sounds EXACTLY like what I was hearing about 9 or 10  years ago....except it was RM photographers looking out for long term interests amongst RF photographers.


« Reply #17 on: May 18, 2014, 02:59 »
+1
1) not a single site that has subscription sales.
... i'd just like to see an agency that rewards hard work fairly and is in partnership with the contributors in a more or less 50% 50% deal, or at the very least 40% 60% deal, like it used to be before the micros came along.

Stockfresh someone said? They do pay 50%, correct. But $1/ DL? Not worth the effort.

... I would say Pond5.
A successful and apparently thriving agency
You set your own price, after all not all subjects or aesthetic image quality are equal.
Flat no nonsense 50% royalty...
... To date no crappy subscription plan or other underhanded ploys.

I would say Symbiostock. We need no Agencies but Agencies need us.

Which agency do you think would best serve your interests if they were a top seller?

1. My Sys. it's obvious if I get 100% of prices set be me ;)
2. Pond5 - I set my own prices and get 50%
3. Alamy - they still pay well and I get 50% too (and yes, I have monthly sales here).


« Reply #18 on: May 18, 2014, 03:58 »
+2
I think if pond5 got that facelift and removed the visible downloads to encourage people to think of their own ideas instead of copying the bestsellers (and making them just a little cheaper to drive traffic to themselves) they could be a fantastic photo agency as well as a video agency.

I really like that I can set my own prices. Not all files are equal in production costs and value. I also like that they take nearly anything.

But in addition to a serious makeover they would also need inspiring, high quality lightboxes, i.e. editors that sift through it all and sort the best into different style themed galleries, to make it easier for the customer.

They probably need investors with 100 million dollars or more to lift them to the next stage. Again the question is - do the owners want that? Maybe they are fine with being the top video agency in the market and dont even want to get into the shark tank of photo sales.

Sometimes I wonder if pond5 got connected with stocksy somehow, what could they achieve together? stocksy has such a fantastic interface and great marketing. Pond5 has the videos,audio and everything else. Maybe they could collaborate on a photo stock project?

I also really like Shutterstock. Fantastic service, reliable sales, great looking website and their ipad app is a real work of art.

The downside are the subs and the punchy, fully focussed style that excludes a lot of content, most of what they have on Offset probably wouldnt pass the Shutterstock inspection.

It is also not possible to decide on higher prices if I believe it deserves to be more expensive. I do understand that their keep it simple approach makes it really useful for their customers.

And of course Shutterstock is very good at working with the artist community. Since many of the artists are also designers and buyers this is a really smart thing to do. Makes you wonder why so many agencies keep forgetting that making us distrust them is upsetting their customers as well.

EmberMike

« Reply #19 on: May 18, 2014, 11:09 »
+13
I'm good with SS.

Why?

Imagine if you took the sales volume you have at SS and had that at an agency that pays 50%. Or even just the on-demand sales. SS pays 20-30%. We can do a lot better.

Dook

« Reply #20 on: May 18, 2014, 16:08 »
0
I'm good with SS.

Why?

Imagine if you took the sales volume you have at SS and had that at an agency that pays 50%. Or even just the on-demand sales. SS pays 20-30%. We can do a lot better.

You mean SS amount of sales with 50% for me? Cool!

« Reply #21 on: May 18, 2014, 16:26 »
+3
So far, a good number of people also think that Pond5 would give us the best deal if their sales numbers would increase. Agreed, the photo and illustration parts of the site are in serious need of a make over!

I remember that it took them 2-3 years to get on track with the video side but when they did, it very quickly grew into a top selling site. The competition is much more entrenched on the photo and illustration side of the market so I expect it would take longer to make inroads. It has only taken them about two years to grow the photo numbers to over seven million and with the acquisition of Pixmac it seems they are serious about the photo side of the business. Here's hoping they do start to gain more market share!

I too thought that Stockfresh would be good, but their prices are quite low, they offer subscriptions which are never great for the contributor.

Self hosting might be a great alternative if you have the skills to pull it together and can attract buyers. I have the impression though that it is very time consuming relative to the amount of return.

Shutterstock sales are great, and it seems partnership with them is the largest percentage of income for many. I have to admit though, it irks me a lot to see us media creators forced to leave such a large percentage of the market value on the table for the corporate types.

Slim pickens huh?


« Reply #22 on: May 18, 2014, 16:29 »
+1
I'm good with SS.

Why?

Imagine if you took the sales volume you have at SS and had that at an agency that pays 50%. Or even just the on-demand sales. SS pays 20-30%. We can do a lot better.

You mean SS amount of sales with 50% for me? Cool!

In my opinion that's what it should be! Why can't it be?

« Reply #23 on: May 18, 2014, 16:33 »
0
You are wasting your time! I was trying to explain people here that we all need to promote agencies with better deal for us, but people like more "regular" money from big houses...

What does it mean promote? I upload the same pictures at the same time to all the agencies. I gave them all chance to earn me money. Some made it, some didn't. What's wrong with that?

There's nothing wrong with it, but you can also try to stack the deck and upload to places that make you more money per sale first (and delay those uploads at other sites for a few months or more). It gives some of the smaller sites that pay better a chance to compete with the larger sites with larger marketing budgets (budgets that you pay for). If you can find a couple good paying sites or start a site to sell your own work, it is worth experimenting with.

If a lot of us would do just that it might be noticed and prompt a positive change.

« Reply #24 on: May 21, 2014, 11:25 »
+3
Discussion moved from the Boycott DPC thread.

A fair trade agency, with fair royalties is nothing without buyers. There are plenty of honest agencies, problem is they dont have enough buyers and not enough money for marketing.

Before they can sell the files they need the files. Not that hard for us to do these days. At least then they would have a chance to compete with the corporates.

Please show me the massive marketing campaigns? I don't see a massive effort. Why would they need to they are very well established thank you very much. What I see is dozens of millions of dollars from our image value going to a few corporate execs!

Ron

« Reply #25 on: May 21, 2014, 11:31 »
+5
Discussion moved from the Boycott DPC thread.

A fair trade agency, with fair royalties is nothing without buyers. There are plenty of honest agencies, problem is they dont have enough buyers and not enough money for marketing.

Before they can sell the files they need the files. Not that hard for us to do these days. At least then they would have a chance to compete with the corporates.

Please show me the massive marketing campaigns? I don't see a massive effort. Why would they need to they are very well established thank you very much. What I see is dozens of millions of dollars from our image value going to a few corporate execs!

Shutterstock spent $56,738,000 USD on sales and marketing in 2013. Get yourself educated please.

Edit: voting down facts doesnt make it go away. Fact is fact. You may not like the answer, thats your problem.
« Last Edit: May 21, 2014, 11:43 by Ron »

Tror

« Reply #26 on: May 21, 2014, 11:31 »
+2
Stockfresh


« Reply #27 on: May 21, 2014, 11:33 »
+1
Please show me the massive marketing campaigns? I don't see a massive effort. Why would they need to they are very well established thank you very much. What I see is dozens of millions of dollars from our image value going to a few corporate execs!

Just type in terms in Google as if you were searching for stock art and see what ads pop up. Surf the web and count how many ads you see for stock art sites as well. They pay for those ads.

« Reply #28 on: May 21, 2014, 11:40 »
+2
Discussion moved from the Boycott DPC thread.

A fair trade agency, with fair royalties is nothing without buyers. There are plenty of honest agencies, problem is they dont have enough buyers and not enough money for marketing.

Before they can sell the files they need the files. Not that hard for us to do these days. At least then they would have a chance to compete with the corporates.

Please show me the massive marketing campaigns? I don't see a massive effort. Why would they need to they are very well established thank you very much. What I see is dozens of millions of dollars from our image value going to a few corporate execs!

We forget that we are the buyers. IS lost many of its contributor/buyers when they slashed royalties. SS gained a large portion of those buyers  and they gained a huge chunk of the market because they kept pricing stagnant for 9 years.

I buy far more images than I produce and I am not alone, I know many dual buyer/contributors. Stocksy is a perfect example of a site that is set up to take advantage of this dual relationship. We do support fair business's especially when it is in our own best interest. Buyer/Contributors helped bring IS success before IS sold and things went south and we bailed on them.

« Reply #29 on: May 21, 2014, 11:41 »
+3
Stockfresh

Really?  I've had most of my portfolio up on Stockfresh since they went live four years ago, and in all that time they've produced nothing.  123RF earns me more in a month than Stockfresh has done in four years, and Shutterstock does about twice that.  SF has been a waste of time and energy, and demonstrates that a storefront with no marketing plan won't produce sales.

EmberMike

« Reply #30 on: May 21, 2014, 14:11 »
+2
Really?  I've had most of my portfolio up on Stockfresh since they went live four years ago, and in all that time they've produced nothing.  123RF earns me more in a month than Stockfresh has done in four years, and Shutterstock does about twice that.  SF has been a waste of time and energy, and demonstrates that a storefront with no marketing plan won't produce sales.

The question was about potential, not current earnings.

From the OP:

Quote
Please disregard the current sales performance of your media type, instead consider the potential return per sale and track record of the company in the stock media marketplace.

« Reply #31 on: May 21, 2014, 14:23 »
+4
Really?  I've had most of my portfolio up on Stockfresh since they went live four years ago, and in all that time they've produced nothing.  123RF earns me more in a month than Stockfresh has done in four years, and Shutterstock does about twice that.  SF has been a waste of time and energy, and demonstrates that a storefront with no marketing plan won't produce sales.

The question was about potential, not current earnings.

From the OP:

Quote
Please disregard the current sales performance of your media type, instead consider the potential return per sale and track record of the company in the stock media marketplace.

From their track record I get that they have no interest and maybe no ability to spend money to market their site.  That tells me they have no potential to be more than a flyspeck in this industry.  "If you build it, he will come" works great as a movie catchphrase.  In the real world it hardly ever works out.

EmberMike

« Reply #32 on: May 21, 2014, 14:32 »
+1
Please show me the massive marketing campaigns? I don't see a massive effort. Why would they need to they are very well established thank you very much. What I see is dozens of millions of dollars from our image value going to a few corporate execs!


From this month's HOW Magazine, back cover:



No idea of the cost but I'd assume, $20k. For one month. So just a measly quarter-million dollars per year.

That's just one magazine. Imagine that they are regularly in others as well. Add in their online efforts, mailers, other promotions, events/tradeshows, sponsoring events, paying sales and marketing staff, etc. The millions add up quick.

EmberMike

« Reply #33 on: May 21, 2014, 14:37 »
+1
From their track record I get that they have no interest and maybe no ability to spend money to market their site.  That tells me they have no potential to be more than a flyspeck in this industry.  "If you build it, he will come" works great as a movie catchphrase.  In the real world it hardly ever works out.

I agree. I suspect they have little or no marketing budget and in general they are operating on a pretty slim budget. I made a comment in their forums about the upcoming site redesign and it sounds like Peter is actually working on the design himself, as well as doing some other updates to the current site. Probably a lot of their operation is shoestring DIY kind of stuff. Unless they ramp things up significantly, they're not going anywhere.

Still the question here was about potential and they certainly have it. Especially as it relates to contributor earnings. Decent pricing, very limited subscription offering, 50% royalties, etc. I'd gladly trade all of my SS sales for equal sales at Stockfresh and I'd be sitting on considerably more money as a result.

« Reply #34 on: May 21, 2014, 14:52 »
+2
From their track record I get that they have no interest and maybe no ability to spend money to market their site.  That tells me they have no potential to be more than a flyspeck in this industry.  "If you build it, he will come" works great as a movie catchphrase.  In the real world it hardly ever works out.

I agree. I suspect they have little or no marketing budget and in general they are operating on a pretty slim budget. I made a comment in their forums about the upcoming site redesign and it sounds like Peter is actually working on the design himself, as well as doing some other updates to the current site. Probably a lot of their operation is shoestring DIY kind of stuff. Unless they ramp things up significantly, they're not going anywhere.

Still the question here was about potential and they certainly have it. Especially as it relates to contributor earnings. Decent pricing, very limited subscription offering, 50% royalties, etc. I'd gladly trade all of my SS sales for equal sales at Stockfresh and I'd be sitting on considerably more money as a result.

We forget that Jon built and maintained the shutterstock site himself until just a few years ago. He did much of the enterprise marketing himself so it would be unwise to discount small but driven teams.

Building up to the IPO Jon started to spend more on marketing. However most of shutterstocks growth came before shutterstock kickstarted the IPO, beefed up the search and started the marketing spend machine.

Shutterstock is successful because they:

1. Did not manipulate their searches, they let customers decided which images were successful so the cream of the crop rose to the top and buyers could see this.
2. They kept pricing stagnant and their low pricing attracted customers that did not have a good experiences at other sites. Many of these were IS contributors hit with reduced royalties/sales.
3. They did not pull the underhand tricks from the likes of IS & Fotolia, therefore they did not lose existing contributor/buyers.

EmberMike

« Reply #35 on: May 21, 2014, 15:31 »
+1
We forget that Jon built and maintained the shutterstock site himself until just a few years ago. He did much of the enterprise marketing himself so it would be unwise to discount small but driven teams...

I didn't forget, it's just not a relevant point anymore. No one can break into this market today without significant marketing spend. If anything, Stockfresh proves that. They have had a good thing going for a while now. Decent prices, simple credit system (no variable dollar-to-credit schemes), nice 50% royalty. There is a lot to like. But that stuff alone isn't enough. The missing piece is marketing.

Jon could do a DIY operation in the past because, well, it was the past; a time in this business where you really could start with nothing and make something out of it. Today, no company, no matter how creative or industrious, is going to compete at a high level if they're not spending on marketing.

I hate to bring up DPC again, but...

That back-cover Shutterstock ad I mentioned earlier? Guess who is on the inside of that back cover...

DPC isn't just a threat because of what they offer. They're a threat because they are putting that offer in front of a lot of potential customers. Stockfresh doesn't do that, so they're not taking a bite out of anyone else's business.

The DIY approach gets you set up. To really compete, though, it doesn't work. Competing in this business comes down to spending money.

« Reply #36 on: May 21, 2014, 17:42 »
0
We forget that Jon built and maintained the shutterstock site himself until just a few years ago. He did much of the enterprise marketing himself so it would be unwise to discount small but driven teams...

I didn't forget, it's just not a relevant point anymore. No one can break into this market today without significant marketing spend. If anything, Stockfresh proves that. They have had a good thing going for a while now. Decent prices, simple credit system (no variable dollar-to-credit schemes), nice 50% royalty. There is a lot to like. But that stuff alone isn't enough. The missing piece is marketing.

Jon could do a DIY operation in the past because, well, it was the past; a time in this business where you really could start with nothing and make something out of it. Today, no company, no matter how creative or industrious, is going to compete at a high level if they're not spending on marketing.

I hate to bring up DPC again, but...

That back-cover Shutterstock ad I mentioned earlier? Guess who is on the inside of that back cover...

DPC isn't just a threat because of what they offer. They're a threat because they are putting that offer in front of a lot of potential customers. Stockfresh doesn't do that, so they're not taking a bite out of anyone else's business.

The DIY approach gets you set up. To really compete, though, it doesn't work. Competing in this business comes down to spending money.

To a degree I agree with you it is harder now. However shutterstock was successful because they kept it simple and kept pricing very low. Jon is an absolute tightwad, just ask some of the folks that work for him. This is exactly DPC's strategy now and they are throwing dollars out for marketing.  The net is filled with PR about DPC.

Marketing prices have dropped and shutterstock has in house sales people to target large enterprise customers, which is one of the largest growth areas. When you put these expenses into perspective, advertizing cost have dropped substantially over the last few years, it does not take much to get front and back covers these days.  Sites that innovate and market creatively at low cost and via existing contributors will gain more traction than you might imagine.

When you put micro advertizing cost's into perspective, micro sites spend very little to secure new customers compared to most other industries.


« Reply #37 on: May 22, 2014, 18:31 »
0
Discussion moved from the Boycott DPC thread.

A fair trade agency, with fair royalties is nothing without buyers. There are plenty of honest agencies, problem is they dont have enough buyers and not enough money for marketing.

Before they can sell the files they need the files. Not that hard for us to do these days. At least then they would have a chance to compete with the corporates.

Please show me the massive marketing campaigns? I don't see a massive effort. Why would they need to they are very well established thank you very much. What I see is dozens of millions of dollars from our image value going to a few corporate execs!

Shutterstock spent $56,738,000 USD on sales and marketing in 2013. Get yourself educated please.

Edit: voting down facts doesnt make it go away. Fact is fact. You may not like the answer, thats your problem.

Okay, okay so they spend some money on sales and marketing, mea culpa. However, being quite cynical when it comes to corporate and institutional motives I somehow doubt the veracity of the above figure. There are after all many types of expenditure that could be labeled "sales and marketing". Part of that figure might well be creatively manufactured to maintain a myth about operating costs in order to hide the enormous level of profit.

Don't get me wrong, I enjoy the substantial sales I get with Shutterstock and do not wish them ill. I would however prefer to receive a fair slice of the value that the market is still willing to pay. Wouldn't you?

You are correct, facts are facts and I don't argue with them when I've confirmed them. I can however make adjustments that change the facts for me as an individual and am starting to do so by first sending my best work to RM agencies, fair trade micro RFs and then as time permits, dump the leftover work to the micro RFs that pay a lower percentage.

By the way, I didn't vote your comment down if that's what you mean by voting down the facts.

Ron

« Reply #38 on: May 22, 2014, 18:35 »
+1
56 million is not some money. And I dont think when you are publicly traded you can be creative with the books that easily. They are being audited.

« Reply #39 on: June 05, 2014, 02:23 »
+4
Yesterday I applied to Graphic Leftovers. I never heard of them before but I was surprised by the "Fair Trade Contributor Site" logo they have.  Never saw this before either but it seems worthwhile to give some support.

Beppe Grillo

« Reply #40 on: June 05, 2014, 03:23 »
+3
I remember a 1 year old thread where for a great part of us the one to promote was GL Stock Images
http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/let's-promote-together-'the-best-contributor-friendly-agency'!-first-time!/msg309167/#msg309167

For me Shutterstock is still the best, they work for them it is normal because it is their business, but it is one of the few site (maybe the only one) working for us too.

Ideally I find Pond5 a good one too, if only photos sales could grow a little.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #41 on: June 05, 2014, 06:17 »
+2
Yesterday I applied to Graphic Leftovers. I never heard of them before but I was surprised by the "Fair Trade Contributor Site" logo they have.  Never saw this before either but it seems worthwhile to give some support.

Lots of info here:
http://www.microstockgroup.com/graphic-leftovers
Personally, I find the actual name offputting. Who wants to buy leftovers?
Or is there some other cultural/artistic illusion I'm missing?
« Last Edit: June 05, 2014, 06:24 by ShadySue »

« Reply #42 on: June 05, 2014, 06:26 »
+1
I want to be able to set different prices for every one of my pics. After all, contributors are the only ones who really knows what their pictures are really worth.

Shelma1

  • stockcoalition.org
« Reply #43 on: June 05, 2014, 06:30 »
+3
Yesterday I applied to Graphic Leftovers. I never heard of them before but I was surprised by the "Fair Trade Contributor Site" logo they have.  Never saw this before either but it seems worthwhile to give some support.

Lots of info here:
http://www.microstockgroup.com/graphic-leftovers
Personally, I find the actual name offputting. Who wants to buy leftovers?
Or is there some other cultural/artistic illusion I'm missing?


I agree. Awful name.

« Reply #44 on: June 05, 2014, 06:32 »
+1
Regarding stockfresh, while they do pay more by percentage, their prices are too low. So we net only a meager amount more when compared to other sites. They would need to do more along the lines of shutterstock licensing to interest me. That being said I like the pricing of graphic leftovers much better and if they also implemented a higher paying licensing scheme they would be my vote over sf.


Edit...yes the name graphic leftovers implies sloppy seconds. Maybe we can propose some new names for them to consider. GRAPHIC Marketplace ;D
« Last Edit: June 05, 2014, 06:36 by Mantis »

« Reply #45 on: June 05, 2014, 06:34 »
0
Personally, I find the actual name offputting. Who wants to buy leftovers?

It was initially a place to place your leftover work from client projects.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #46 on: June 05, 2014, 06:40 »
0
Personally, I find the actual name offputting. Who wants to buy leftovers?

It was initially a place to place your leftover work from client projects.

Yes, I remember that from when they started up. Still doesn't make it a good name, IMO.
If I see a site with the word 'overstock' in other contexts, I expect the products to be up tot the quality expected from the brand, but certainly cheap.


« Reply #47 on: June 05, 2014, 06:41 »
+3
Which is why it is GLStockImages now.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #48 on: June 05, 2014, 06:42 »
0
Which is why it is GLStockImages now.
Fairy Nuff.

« Reply #49 on: June 05, 2014, 07:31 »
0
Yesterday I applied to Graphic Leftovers. I never heard of them before but I was surprised by the "Fair Trade Contributor Site" logo they have.  Never saw this before either but it seems worthwhile to give some support.

Lots of info here:
http://www.microstockgroup.com/graphic-leftovers
Personally, I find the actual name offputting. Who wants to buy leftovers?
Or is there some other cultural/artistic illusion I'm missing?


Thanks for the link

« Reply #50 on: June 05, 2014, 09:56 »
0
Regarding stockfresh, while they do pay more by percentage, their prices are too low. So we net only a meager amount more when compared to other sites...

I think their prices are decent. JPGs up to 15 credits and all vectors are 10 credits. With emphasis on credit sales as the subscription offering is very limited.

I certainly wouldn't call it a "meager" improvement over other places. Especially on vectors. I'm seeing $5 per sale. Can't get that too many other places.

GL is one of them, though. I'd be happy to support them if they were the community favorite.

My only concern about them is the user-defined pricing. I get the feeling that buyers like to go to a site and always know what they're going to pay for an image. Its part of why SS is successful. You don't need to look at the site or a specific image to know the price. I've wondered if varying pricing is a buyer turn-off.

But besides that, there is a lot to like about GL.

« Reply #51 on: June 05, 2014, 10:57 »
+1
I think GL was severely impacted by the changes Google made. I'd love to see more sales there (and at SF - although SF doesn't seem to sell my type of images very much). Another black eye for SF from my point of view is it took over a year for them to respond to my application. I really liked stockxpert though and wish SF could gain that kind of traction. If I wanted to market images I'd open my own site.

« Reply #52 on: June 05, 2014, 12:46 »
+2
I was impressed by Pond5 and how their raised Royalites on pixmac when they purchased them.   I am also impressed by Envato and PhotoDune and their other sites.  Their exclusives royalty is super great.  Their non-exclusive rate isn't the best but I really like their mindset and have a lot more trust in their direction and 'mission' than most any other agency.

« Reply #53 on: June 05, 2014, 13:33 »
0
I was impressed by Pond5 and how their raised Royalites on pixmac when they purchased them.   I am also impressed by Envato and PhotoDune and their other sites.  Their exclusives royalty is super great.  Their non-exclusive rate isn't the best but I really like their mindset and have a lot more trust in their direction and 'mission' than most any other agency.

I was impressed and excited when P5 bought Pmac and raised royalties too.  Flash forward and all the sales I had on Pmac dried up and I am earning next to nothing.  I used to get a payout or close to it each month.  Now I am lucky to get to double digits in a month on P5.  Disappointing. 

Is it that P5 doesn't get much traffic to buy photos, or what?  Those that are happy with P5, are any of you selling just stills and not footage?

« Reply #54 on: June 05, 2014, 13:56 »
0
Regarding stockfresh, while they do pay more by percentage, their prices are too low. So we net only a meager amount more when compared to other sites...

I think their prices are decent. JPGs up to 15 credits and all vectors are 10 credits. With emphasis on credit sales as the subscription offering is very limited.

I certainly wouldn't call it a "meager" improvement over other places. Especially on vectors. I'm seeing $5 per sale. Can't get that too many other places.

GL is one of them, though. I'd be happy to support them if they were the community favorite.

My only concern about them is the user-defined pricing. I get the feeling that buyers like to go to a site and always know what they're going to pay for an image. Its part of why SS is successful. You don't need to look at the site or a specific image to know the price. I've wondered if varying pricing is a buyer turn-off.

But besides that, there is a lot to like about GL.

Mike you make some good points. I haven't really seen much in the $5 range as that is usually my monthly total, honest engine. 2800 images. But that said gl is the same in terms of money. Less that $10 a month. Either way I think we're pretty much on the same page. You do bring up a point as to why pond5 probably will never do good on non video content and that is pricing. It's all over the place.

« Reply #55 on: June 06, 2014, 00:43 »
+1
Is it that P5 doesn't get much traffic to buy photos, or what?  Those that are happy with P5, are any of you selling just stills and not footage?

Video sales at P5 are very good. Very rare to sell a photo though. I was hoping after they bought pixmac it would help P5 photo sales, but it doesn't seem to have made a difference.

Justanotherphotographer

« Reply #56 on: June 06, 2014, 04:00 »
+5
You can support more than one good site. I organize into batches and upload to the better sites before the others, hopefully that will give them some advantage. If everyone did this the the better paying sites would have much stronger collections and get a big advantage in Google placement too, by having the work first. Also means more money for me because it directs more of the search engine traffic to the better paying sites.

There's very little sacrifice in doing this, if you consistently create content after a few weeks gap you will again have a constant stream of work hitting the big sites, just a few weeks offset from the better paying sites.


« Reply #57 on: June 06, 2014, 15:28 »
0
Is it that P5 doesn't get much traffic to buy photos, or what?  Those that are happy with P5, are any of you selling just stills and not footage?

Video sales at P5 are very good. Very rare to sell a photo though. I was hoping after they bought pixmac it would help P5 photo sales, but it doesn't seem to have made a difference.

Thanks for the answer.  Kind of sad they couldn't even keep the sales level of pixmac going.

« Reply #58 on: June 06, 2014, 15:44 »
+1
Is it that P5 doesn't get much traffic to buy photos, or what?  Those that are happy with P5, are any of you selling just stills and not footage?

Video sales at P5 are very good. Very rare to sell a photo though. I was hoping after they bought pixmac it would help P5 photo sales, but it doesn't seem to have made a difference.

Thanks for the answer.  Kind of sad they couldn't even keep the sales level of pixmac going.

It is quite possible that the total # of sales has gone up but nowhere near the # of new images brought in from P5.

My early P5 photo sales were quite promising, but not much change with a lot more of my images - I am assuming it is the same factors there too.

« Reply #59 on: June 06, 2014, 22:43 »
+2
Quote
I organize into batches and upload to the better sites before the others, hopefully that will give them some advantage. If everyone did this the better paying sites would have much stronger collections and get a big advantage in Google placement too, by having the work first.

The short delay in supplying also the "bad" sites while giving the good sites a week or month of free breathing space is at best a self-delusion (especially considering the ever-changing Google searches) and a poor excuse for supporting the despicable practices of the bad guys. Best thing is to forego those bad sites altogether and deprive them from the better images. Now, if everybody did that, those bad sites would fold up pretty quickly and the fair agencies would have more money for us and advertising.
 

Justanotherphotographer

« Reply #60 on: June 07, 2014, 00:23 »
0
Quote
I organize into batches and upload to the better sites before the others, hopefully that will give them some advantage. If everyone did this the better paying sites would have much stronger collections and get a big advantage in Google placement too, by having the work first.

The short delay in supplying also the "bad" sites while giving the good sites a week or month of free breathing space is at best a self-delusion (especially considering the ever-changing Google searches) and a poor excuse for supporting the despicable practices of the bad guys. Best thing is to forego those bad sites altogether and deprive them from the better images. Now, if everybody did that, those bad sites would fold up pretty quickly and the fair agencies would have more money for us and advertising.

That would be the ideal; preferable for agencies that are untrustworthy. But I am trying to think of something anyone can do with no/ little risk and makes good business sense anyway.

Even if the agency is a good one but just sells more subs or lower priced credit packs it makes sense to stagger your "releases" so you can maximize the number of higher paying downloads. Also I agree that a couple of weeks is not enough. I aim for a couple of months.


« Reply #61 on: June 07, 2014, 05:44 »
0
My first picture accepted on GL  :). Here a link from my symbio site to it. http://7horses.eu/wp/blog/image/tubes-in-swimming-pool/?r=7horses.eu/wp showing a link back to the GL picture.
Yesterday I also applied to Stockfresh. Seems they are Europe based so maybe my port will better suite  their needs ?


« Reply #62 on: June 07, 2014, 07:36 »
0
I'm not sure if it's good idea to welcome client on your own Sys site and send him to Alamy and GL then... This way we can put all micros list on the right side of image... SS, FT, DT, SF, 123rf, CanStockPhoto, etc, etc... What for?

« Reply #63 on: June 07, 2014, 08:50 »
0
Probably you're right.
For the moment I just see it as a customer service. Visitors that are already buying at an agency maybe find it in the "list".
I don't sell direct anyway (but that's another story) and I can build the list as I like and drop agencies when needed.

I'm not sure if it's good idea to welcome client on your own Sys site and send him to Alamy and GL then... This way we can put all micros list on the right side of image... SS, FT, DT, SF, 123rf, CanStockPhoto, etc, etc... What for?


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
3 Replies
2569 Views
Last post July 15, 2012, 22:44
by ruxpriencdiam
1 Replies
2439 Views
Last post July 03, 2015, 13:54
by Semmick Photo
4 Replies
2283 Views
Last post January 30, 2018, 15:03
by ShadySue
17 Replies
4257 Views
Last post May 16, 2022, 12:24
by cascoly
9 Replies
2946 Views
Last post November 15, 2023, 10:22
by MadMax

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors