pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Selling off of one's own site -- thoughts?  (Read 8506 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Leo Blanchette

« on: February 27, 2009, 04:24 »
0
Hello everyone,

See www.JesterArtsIllustration.com. Its an incredible flash based interface. Right now the Orange Man catagory is the only thing working, so check that one out. We are still setting it up.

I've been involved in microstock as a career for over a year now. I've enjoyed the journey and have learned a great deal from being among so much talent. I've gotten used to it, I understand the market to some degree, and although I'm not as involved as I used to be in other aspects (such as keeping up with news, forums, etc) but I am still enjoying a good living in this field.

A concern I've always had which will probably never go away is the extremely large amount of images constantly being added to all of the microstock libraries online, creating more options and less chance for sales on the part of the contributor. I've accepted that thats just the way it goes, so this is not a complaint. Knowing that this may evolve into something thats harder to be seen in, I've looked for ways to adapt. There are plenty of ways to "be seen" for the images you produce, but I think what many people may want to consider in the future is not fully relying on microstock agencies to sell your images. You may have to put in a little extra in the future to bring traffic directly to your images from outside the microstock sites. If its directing them from outside to your microstock portfolios or to your own sites, either ways is good, but it might become necessary one day to maintain a living.

I'm overhauling my www.JesterArts.net site, but I intend to keep my referal links giving fresh customers the choice of which company they will go to to buy my images. So if they choose, say, dreamstime or stockxpert over Istockphoto, I technically make less on commission, but have gained yet another person interested in my work. In the end, I'm still making a great living, and they find their own good deal.

But now I've decided to, among these options, include my own site as an option to buy images. This is solely based on the things mentioned above: That a microstock contributor may in the future have to get more of his own traffic/customers on his own efforts or risk seeing his living dissipate.

One person I've come across who does exceptional work and is incredibly versatile in his talent is Tygraphics (Tom Young) www.Tygraphics.net. He too has seen the nature of this business and has developed an interface that caters to this need. I wanted to show it here not as an advertisement, but as a presented solution to an upcoming challenge of being seen in selling your images. Please see the one he created for me: www.JesterArtsIllustration.com (We've disabled the shopping cart so this is not mistaken as an advertisement). Its completely done in flash and behind the scenes is very sophisticated in its programming, but actually is a very simple interface for the user which makes image sales easy.

Its not crawlable by search engines, but you would have to link from your site to it. A separate program that installs on your computer gives you a special way of uploading and managing your images. It in itself is a work of art. It does not look like much (because it runs so simple) but it took him the better part of a year and many, many hours to develop and get working right.

I believe that we as microstockers should start seeking our own traffic in case our sales start to run thin on the other sites due to overcrowding.  I've shown you this for the obvious reason of letting you know its available to you and has been recently unveiled. I'm putting it to work right away.

What are your thoughts?




« Reply #1 on: February 27, 2009, 04:30 »
0
selling my images on my own site is something ive wanted to do for a while just have no idea how to go about it.

« Reply #2 on: February 27, 2009, 08:47 »
0
What a great place this forum is! :)

Just wanted to post a comment about Mr. JesterArt's post where he states that the content of Flash based Rich Internet Applications (RIA's) can not be indexed by search engines. That is not entirely true as Adobe has recently provided insight into the Flash technology to allow search engines to access content.
« Last Edit: March 09, 2009, 10:07 by tygraphics »

alias

« Reply #3 on: February 27, 2009, 09:42 »
0
For stock, editorial, travel etc photographers will do much better with professional representation at sites, agencies and libraries which designers, editors and other buyers regularly use  and trust with their payment details.

« Reply #4 on: February 27, 2009, 10:12 »
0
For stock, editorial, travel etc photographers will do much better with professional representation at sites, agencies and libraries which designers, editors and other buyers regularly use  and trust with their payment details.

But from the stand point of a contributing professional artist who has been in the business of making art for 30+ years and over half that time representing myself, I think it is worth the effort to run a three year trial to test the potential.

Now if the payment is made directly from the buyer to the artist/photographer at 100% minus the transaction fee, then what is there to trust? Also the artist/photographer would have the name of the buyer. At these corporate stock sites I have no clue who has bought my illustrations unless the buyer tells me or show me the design they made.
« Last Edit: February 27, 2009, 23:41 by tygraphics »

« Reply #5 on: February 27, 2009, 10:41 »
0
For stock, editorial, travel etc photographers will do much better with professional representation at sites, agencies and libraries which designers, editors and other buyers regularly use  and trust with their payment details.
Now if the payment is made directly from the buyer to the artist/photographer at 100% minus the transaction fee, then what is there to trust?

The only real issue is the value of traffic. I'm willing to pursue the learning curve for generating serious traffic. I would say to receive an additional 80% of the purchase price is a mighty fine incentive!
The buyer has to trust that the person running the site is the one that actually owns the rights to the art they are selling, and they're not just illegally reselling art they downloaded from other sites. That's a very big thing.

Generating traffic isn't the only real issue here, there are many others, but we don't have the room here. Also, most people would rather have 20%-40% of something rather than 100% of nothing, and that 100% doesn't account for advertising and transactional costs.

The truth is that most independent sellers fail. By fail I mean generate less revenue than they would have by selling through the agencies even after the agencies take 80%. With the exception of a few top photographers, buyers prefer going to the agencies where they can search a large database of art rather than go to individual artist's websites. If it is true that the art on this site can't be indexed by google images then it will be a 1000 times harder.

With that said, I wish you well with your new adventure and hope you're able to overcome the odds. Good luck!

« Reply #6 on: February 27, 2009, 10:49 »
0
I run my own site. It's been up for about a year and a half now, and it's just now starting to get respectable organic (search-engine based) traffic without any advertising.

The biggest hurdle, by far, is marketing and advertising. In the beginning, I spent hundreds of dollars each month in Yahoo search marketing campaigns but I pulled the plug on that after a while. I decided to focus more of my attention on places where my images do sell (shutterstock, dreamstime, etc) and leave my site as a "backup". Time is money, and I just found that my time was better spent where I could get the biggest return on my time investment.

I keep uploading images to my site each month, and it's nice to know it's there if I ever really want to crank things up and move away from the major microstock sites. As you say, it's getting harder and harder to get noticed when some of the larger agencies are adding 80,000+ images a week - so running your own site with nothing but your own work is a hedge against that.

Some interesting things I've discovered about running my own site:

1). Many buyers crawl my site identifying the images they want, but they go to places like dreamstime or shutterstock to make the purchase. It's easy to spot, because the keywords people use at dreamstime to search my images are strange. For example: "norebbo globe red surface with wrench" (or similar). Those purchases usually correspond to recent searches/views on my site.

2). I get a LOT of requests for custom work through my site. I can't fulfill them all right now due to time constraints, but I sometimes wonder if this (freelancing/contract work) is how my business is eventually going to evolve. I predict that the money earned from microstock will continue to dwindle over the next few years, so again, this could be a nice hedge against that.




« Reply #7 on: February 27, 2009, 12:07 »
0
Hi Norebbo,

Thanks for the insights. I like the quality of the images on your site, 1st class!

Interesting discovery of how people check out your site but make the purchase through a large corporate site. I think you are right about falling prices. I think eventually stock art will be selling for the price of a song. So these be the days of the big money ($25)!

Thomas

« Reply #8 on: February 27, 2009, 12:53 »
0
Cool site!

I was always under the impression that becoming a direct competitor of the stock sites was against their User Agreement's, but I'm probably wrong.

« Reply #9 on: February 27, 2009, 13:09 »
0
Cool site!

I was always under the impression that becoming a direct competitor of the stock sites was against their User Agreement's, but I'm probably wrong.

If one were exclusive. But we're not exclusive. What's the difference if you contribute to competing sites or to your own competing site?

BTW, I like your website Cory! Thanks for the comments.

Leo Blanchette

« Reply #10 on: February 27, 2009, 13:17 »
0
Hi guys,

I don't have time to directly quote people, but if the microstock sites continue to expand at the rate they are, and contributor's material continues to get lost in an ever growing library of images, there will come a time when selling off your own site becomes equal in profitability to selling on those sites, even if your site makes 12 dollars a month!!!

But what I'm suggesting is that people explore ways ahead of time to have a fall back plan, and this in fact is one of many ideas I've been exploring.

Actually one big player I know had been selling images off his own site (which was not even amazingly stunning) but said it did a significant portion a week. Every bit counts.

« Reply #11 on: February 27, 2009, 15:13 »
0
Id need reviewers for my own site I think. Or I risk getting tons of trash uploaded :-[

cmcderm1

  • Chad McDermott - Elite Image Photography
« Reply #12 on: February 27, 2009, 20:09 »
0
Id need reviewers for my own site I think. Or I risk getting tons of trash uploaded :-[

Now thats funny!!!

« Reply #13 on: February 28, 2009, 06:27 »
0
I started selling my stuff on my own site as well. I use smugmug for this. The drawback is, that they still take a percentage, but it is only 15%. But the service is great. So far I would say I earn as much there as with Alamy. No regular sales (maybe a little bit more regular than Alamy). The problem I see with this is, that you need a highly specialized portfolio. To make really good money on my site, I need to produce much more of the subjects I am good at. If you have a unique special and good sized collection, I believe you can do really well. I will definitely continue to pursue that direction.

« Reply #14 on: February 28, 2009, 06:46 »
0
Thanks for sharing that FreezingPictures. In my mind 15 to 30 percent is a fair portion for an artist to yield to a rep.

One of my reasons for wanting to pursue selling off my own site is to offer very specialized, elaborate illustrations that take exceptional amounts of time to make. These would be like a collection of fine wines and are not meant for the mass markets but rather the connoisseur. The focus is to build one's reputation as an extraordinary resource for exquisite specialties that are priced accordingly. That is why a simple, intimate and focused interface of presorted images makes so much sense.
« Last Edit: February 28, 2009, 07:08 by tygraphics »

« Reply #15 on: February 28, 2009, 21:05 »
0
Leo, I agree with pretty much everything you've said. Diversifying is key and you've got a great portfolio with which to populate your own website. Anything we can do to draw more attention to our work has to be a good thing, so I salute you for taking the initiative.

I've intended to get my own site up together for a while now, but never seem to get the time to see it through to completion! I have the basic design done, but will almost certainly outsource the coding - a dedicated web designer could knock up my design in a fraction of the time it would take me. I have no intention of selling images directly through my own site, but would use it as a means of self promotion / blog, and simply as a way to get people to my portfolio on iStock/Shutterstock etc.

Tom, you've got some stunning illustrations. With work as detailed and specialized as yours, a dedicated website is an absolute must for attracting larger clients that have the money to spend on bespoke artwork. Keep up the great work guys!

« Reply #16 on: February 28, 2009, 23:52 »
0
If it the dollar/time cost isn't too high to maintain, why not?  Any extra sale would help.  You certainly may get the occasional niche sale, but most sales will go to the Supercenters of content.  I certainly don't have the time to be SEO'ing and coding and dealing with shopping carts and such on my own sale site.  Nothing wrong with a portfolio to get links and attention though.


WarrenPrice

« Reply #17 on: March 01, 2009, 13:58 »
0
I started selling my stuff on my own site as well. I use smugmug for this. The drawback is, that they still take a percentage, but it is only 15%. But the service is great. So far I would say I earn as much there as with Alamy. No regular sales (maybe a little bit more regular than Alamy). The problem I see with this is, that you need a highly specialized portfolio. To make really good money on my site, I need to produce much more of the subjects I am good at. If you have a unique special and good sized collection, I believe you can do really well. I will definitely continue to pursue that direction.

I keep running across SmugMug references.  On occasion, I take pictures of regional motorcycle races.  I considered establishing an "events" outlet there.  Parents love to have pictures of their kids. 

I had considered selling stock or fine art there.  Not so sure the print quality would produce fine art?  The intiial investment (I think it is $150 per year) scared me away.  How long have you been with SmugMug?  How do you guide buyers to your site?

« Reply #18 on: March 01, 2009, 16:32 »
0
I started selling my stuff on my own site as well. I use smugmug for this. The drawback is, that they still take a percentage, but it is only 15%. But the service is great. So far I would say I earn as much there as with Alamy. No regular sales (maybe a little bit more regular than Alamy). The problem I see with this is, that you need a highly specialized portfolio. To make really good money on my site, I need to produce much more of the subjects I am good at. If you have a unique special and good sized collection, I believe you can do really well. I will definitely continue to pursue that direction.

I keep running across SmugMug references.  On occasion, I take pictures of regional motorcycle races.  I considered establishing an "events" outlet there.  Parents love to have pictures of their kids. 

I had considered selling stock or fine art there.  Not so sure the print quality would produce fine art?  The intiial investment (I think it is $150 per year) scared me away.  How long have you been with SmugMug?  How do you guide buyers to your site?


I have been with Smugmug now just over a year. With Smugmug the 150$ a year I have very well covered by what I earned with this site. But stock is not my only outlet for smugmug. I use it for weddings as well. Each customer gets access to his own photos through my website and can sent friends and relatives to this site.

People find this site through my other website, google search, and google adwords. I do not know about the print quality. From what I heard it should be good. I never tried it out. I am actually thinking about having a pure wedding website with smugmug and seperating it from penguinphotos.net. Smugmug is really great especially for someone like me who is not so much into webdesign and has no website programming experience. Btw you can have a 14 day free trial with them.

« Reply #19 on: April 07, 2009, 12:05 »
0
Great Topic KonaHawaii,

Has anyone checked out Imagespan, newbielink:http://www.imagespan.com [nonactive], and their business model using LicenseStream Creator, newbielink:http://www.licensestream2.com [nonactive], for selling your own stock directly.  I think it will rely on Google search for image buyers as well as your own marketing efforts.  Ive been reading about it for the last week and am thinking of opening up a storefront with a few images to test the viability of this approach.

Offer licensing-with-a-click from inside your custom LicenseStream gallery or on your own site.

It offers various pricing models and Im just trying to figure out what would work best for me.  Im thinking of offering both RM as well as RF images.  They also have something called Rights Simple which is a unique licensing model created by LicenseStream. It combines the protection and detail of a Rights Managed license with the simplicity of a Royalty Free license. It can be selected in a single click and all the terms of the license are included in the simple statement.  I dont know yet if there is any microstock range pricing.   I havent seen any vector sales info yet either.

I would appreciate any experience anyone might have.  As I move forward with this I will share what I find.

Ed Bock

« Reply #20 on: April 07, 2009, 13:52 »
0

Besides microstock, we use www.clustershot.com to sell our photos,
directly linked from our site ( www.airphoto.gr/greek_aerial_photos.html )

We set our own prices and they charge 12% which is fair.

Tasos
airphoto.gr team

« Reply #21 on: April 07, 2009, 16:50 »
0
Besides microstock, we use www.clustershot.com to sell our photos,
directly linked from our site ( www.airphoto.gr/greek_aerial_photos.html )


Great info! Thanks for the links.

« Reply #22 on: April 07, 2009, 17:14 »
0
I've heard of ifp3 a while ago and it looks very well designed.
http://www.ifp3.com
I don't know if we can sell RM there though, what is an important feature.  Smugmug only works RF, right?  A good thing is that they sell digital files and prints.  I only hear good things about them and I do regret not having signed up when they were much cheaper...

helix7

« Reply #23 on: April 07, 2009, 17:25 »
0

I sell through my own site. It used to account for about 10% of my total stock earnings, but lately it has been much less. I use Ejunkie for the shopping cart system, and create my own product pages on my site. I only offer a handful of images, and mostly just put collections of individual images on my site for sale.

I think most of the buyers come to my site from the microstock sites, and just buy there because I sell the images cheaper than at the agencies.



« Reply #24 on: April 07, 2009, 17:58 »
0
I would love to sell off my own site.  I'm still fairly new to stock, but I'm a software developer and could certainly create and manage my own sales site.  Like everyone, I'm frustrated by the way microstock has driven prices down to 25 cents, and I want to see a new model start countering that downhill slide. 

What we need I think is some sort of aggregator site that we'd work through.  It wouldn't sell files directly, just point buyers to sites maintained by individual photographers, each of whom could set their own prices.  The aggregate site could have searching, by keywords or maybe some better scheme yet to emerge.  It would have a "name" that could be marketed, and would establish a common understanding for rights management that all the participants would adhere to. 

I guess what I'm thinking of is a sort of coop model where photographers could combine their image archives for search purposes but cut out these parasitic microstock middlemen that add no value to the product and simply drive prices through the floor for short-term profits.   However, an aggregate site could still make money by selling memberships to photographers.



 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
18 Replies
22210 Views
Last post May 31, 2008, 13:59
by steppysteph
36 Replies
16122 Views
Last post August 06, 2009, 13:15
by clustershot
2 Replies
1903 Views
Last post April 30, 2012, 03:41
by Wim
11 Replies
5002 Views
Last post October 24, 2012, 15:30
by wordplanet
14 Replies
8232 Views
Last post November 18, 2015, 17:43
by etudiante_rapide

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors