MicrostockGroup
Microstock Photography Forum - General => General Stock Discussion => Topic started by: ICP on August 20, 2012, 18:01
-
I'm new to microstockgroup.com. I've spent a few days looking through posts here and I think there's a huge resource in the members here, for the members.
So... I have a design firm, which is the bread and butter right now, and have been contributing (both photo and vector) to SS, IS and BS for several years. Because of my design company I don't have a lot of time to dedicate to this but I've been horsing around for years with the idea of starting a RF stock site and have finally gotten to a point I think it's ready, at least for external review.
Here's the site www.incolorphotos.com (http://www.incolorphotos.com). I would appreciate any/all feedback from everyone with some time to do so. Good, bad and indifferent...it's all good...and you can't hurt my feelings.
Thanks in advance.
-
Looks nice. Ktools?
I would charge more for the images though. Probably 2 to 3 times more.
-
Looks nice. Ktools?
I would charge more for the images though. Probably 2 to 3 times more.
Yes, Ktools. Why charge more? And how do I know what's the right amount? Other stock sites are all over the place with pricing. I know I don't want to sell too cheap or it won't be taken seriously...but what's the balance between too expensive and reasonably affordable. I would like to be on the more affordable side of things.
-
Do you have lots of money for marketing, like a couple million bucks?
-
Is this intended to be a site to sell your own stock, or are you planning to make it into an agency?
For selling your own stock, this looks great. You have some nice conceptual stuff there.
Anyone will probably tell you, if you are planning on turning it into an agency you are in for an uphill battle.
Best of luck either way :D
-
I think the name is a little unfortunate. For starters, it has the word "photos" in it, which completely ignores the vector side of things. Plenty of existing companies have stuck with names that included the word because they started before they were ever selling vectors, but being a new company you could do yourself a favor and kick it off with a more universal name. And who knows, down the road you might find yourself selling other assets beyond still images, and the name will become even less suitable.
I'd make the same comment about your logo. The camera icon really doesn't really suit the modern stock agency. Not to mention it's way overdone and dated looking.
If you have any plans to take this beyond a small one-man operation, I'd strongly consider renaming and rebranding the site.
Do you intend to take on any contributors? If so, what's your royalty rate plan?
-
Do you have lots of money for marketing, like a couple million bucks?
No, not a couple million. Frankly, if I had a couple million I probably wouldn't be looking into starting another business venture.
I realize marketing is important and expensive. Do you have any thoughts on the marketing subject?
-
Is this intended to be a site to sell your own stock, or are you planning to make it into an agency?
For selling your own stock, this looks great. You have some nice conceptual stuff there.
Anyone will probably tell you, if you are planning on turning it into an agency you are in for an uphill battle.
Best of luck either way :D
My intention is to make it into an agency as soon as the software is capable. I know it'll be an uphill battle. But I'm hoping with high contributor commissions, good images and responsiveness to customers and contributors it'll do well.
What do you see as the challenges for making it an agency?
-
I think the name is a little unfortunate. For starters, it has the word "photos" in it, which completely ignores the vector side of things. Plenty of existing companies have stuck with names that included the word because they started before they were ever selling vectors, but being a new company you could do yourself a favor and kick it off with a more universal name. And who knows, down the road you might find yourself selling other assets beyond still images, and the name will become even less suitable.
I'd make the same comment about your logo. The camera icon really doesn't really suit the modern stock agency. Not to mention it's way overdone and dated looking.
If you have any plans to take this beyond a small one-man operation, I'd strongly consider renaming and rebranding the site.
Do you intend to take on any contributors? If so, what's your royalty rate plan?
Name: Yeah, I'm thinking it should change also. As you note, something less photo-focused.
logo: Agreed, the logo is a few years old and I've been toying around with something new.
contributors: Yes. I'm starting with 50%. The original contributors will retain 50% forever. Over time it will reduce for new contributors but my intention is to always keep it high. I'd like my contributors to be happy to add content. I've seen a lot of complaining about other stock agencies and I hope to be fair and responsive enough to keep everyone happy and keep the company on a steady growth path.
-
Yes, Ktools. Why charge more? And how do I know what's the right amount? Other stock sites are all over the place with pricing. I know I don't want to sell too cheap or it won't be taken seriously...but what's the balance between too expensive and reasonably affordable. I would like to be on the more affordable side of things.
I would say $10 is on the low end for high res files, and $30+ is on the high end in micro. There are sites that charge less than $10 for high res files, but that doesn't seem like a very good model for attracting "happy" contributors. I would shoot for the $15 to $20 range. That's around where I charge on my site now and that is around where I look for prices for my files on other sites. As a small site, you will get less sales and customers, so you want to make those sales count.
Also, think about what you want to earn, and how many sales will it take per month at that price point. At $6 a sale, it would take 5.5 sales a day or 166 sales a month to earn $1000. That's a decent amount of sales for a small site. By comparison at $20, it would only take 50 a month or 1.5 a day. That's still good sales performance, but a much lower bar.
Just food for thought. Good luck with the site.
-
Because of my design company I don't have a lot of time to dedicate to this but I've been horsing around for years with the idea of starting a RF stock site
Agreed, the logo is a few years old and I've been toying around with something new.
If it's just a one man sales site, then it's just a KTools site which works fine, and you're a designer, so I'm sure you're comfortable with the design.
If it is supposed to go farther than that, then look, let's be honest - it sounds like you're not really serious about this with all the toying and horsing around. You saw the software, thought it sounded like easy money with a little bit of work, so you bought it and started an "stock site", right? Randomly picked prices and a contributor payment level, and you're good to go.
I think if you've been contributing, and reading here, you know that it takes a LOT more than that (ie., lots of $$$$ and lots of time), and that the people here are kind of tired of contributing their time and content to places where it is unlikely they will ever see a return. If the design business is so busy, I'm not sure why you'd want to do this, aside from just having a hobby.
-
I realize marketing is important and expensive. Do you have any thoughts on the marketing subject?
If you haven't used them before, you can get $50-$100 in free advertising credits as a first time user at Google AdWords and Microsoft adCenter. First, sign up for free Google and Bing Webmaster accounts:
www.google.com/webmasters/tools/ (http://www.google.com/webmasters/tools/)
www.bing.com/toolbox/webmaster (http://www.bing.com/toolbox/webmaster)
Bing offers you the ad credit right off the bat. For Google, you might need to wait for them to send you an email or snail mail coupon code. Neither are amazing for conversions and they both have a good chance of not paying for themselves, but there is no downside to advertising for free until the credits are used up. I would recommend bidding your ads at the absolute minimum price ($0.01 at Google and $0.05 at Bing). I also recommend making your ads as narrow as possible on specific image keywords that you have decent coverage for and link them to a search result or category or even an individual image page to put the buyer as close as you can to a sale.
There's no reason to bid ads higher if you are getting clicks and $100 on Google will give you 10,000 visitors at a penny a pop.
-
I can't get enthusiastic about new sites doing the same thing as all the others. My advice would be, don't do it unless you come up with an alternative way to sell images. It's going to lose you money and it wont make any money for us.
The big problem with starting a new site is that it's hard to get a decent sized collection when there's no incentive for us to upload. There must be at least 100 sites that have never made the vast majority of contributors enough to get a payout. Even if you do by some miracle get 1 million images, your expenses will go up and you still wont have any reason for buyers to switch from sites that have over 10 million images. There's no point in asking for exclusive images because we wont give you them until you have lots of buyers.
So how does a new site become successful? If I knew that, I'd be starting a new site. I'm sure there's better ways to sell images than we have seen so far. It seems strange that if we use 20 sites, we have to upload full size images 20 times. The only idea I've had is to do something completely different. Only have thumbnails and small preview images on the site and let the buyer contact the contributor direct to get the full size image with a payment through PayPal. The site would have much lower costs and the contributor could get more commission. Buyers could pay less because there isn't so much going to the site. I'm not sure if that's how the Photographers Direct site works but if it is, perhaps that could work for microstock? There's a big problem if the contributor couldn't be contacted quickly and the buyer needed the image fast. Perhaps we could use something like Dropbox to store full size images and there could be an automated way of transferring images to buyers after a payment is made?
If anyone can think of a much better way to sell images, that gives more commission to contributors and is good for buyers, I don't think it will need any marketing budget. We would do all the marketing through Facebook, twitter etc. and everyone that is in contact with buyers would be telling them about it.
-
Because of my design company I don't have a lot of time to dedicate to this but I've been horsing around for years with the idea of starting a RF stock site
Agreed, the logo is a few years old and I've been toying around with something new.
If it's just a one man sales site, then it's just a KTools site which works fine, and you're a designer, so I'm sure you're comfortable with the design.
If it is supposed to go farther than that, then look, let's be honest - it sounds like you're not really serious about this with all the toying and horsing around. You saw the software, thought it sounded like easy money with a little bit of work, so you bought it and started an "stock site", right? Randomly picked prices and a contributor payment level, and you're good to go.
I think if you've been contributing, and reading here, you know that it takes a LOT more than that (ie., lots of $$$$ and lots of time), and that the people here are kind of tired of contributing their time and content to places where it is unlikely they will ever see a return. If the design business is so busy, I'm not sure why you'd want to do this, aside from just having a hobby.
I'll echo this.
If it's your own site, it looks good and more power to you. You might get some sales and it might be worthwhile.. you can only try.
If you are thinking about setting up an agency - you need more than a cookie cutter site and a few dollars to do so. DepositPhotos came in with $50,000,000 and has had further funding - they are your 'new guys' competition. 20 sites have been and gone from the sidebar on the right - and that is hardly an extensive list, that was just the sites that looked even a tiny bit promising. If someone was going to set up a new agency I'd expect more than a ktools install. Ktools is a very nice software solution for the individual but not what I'd expect for an agency.
-
I'd echo most of the comments above - the name, the pricing and the need to be serious to invest time and money if you want to be an agency vs. just selling your own work.
I'd also add a comment about the one price for everything approach, regardless of whether that's $6 (which is way too low IMO if you're including even the largest images; if I shoot with an expensive 21 MP camera, you'll sell my images for the same price as those shot with an 8MP point and shoot). Pricing vectors at a single level is a non-starter, IMO. You need to allow for very complex work commanding a higher price or you'll not get anyone to give you complex vectors. It would get even more complicated if you added video - who's going to give you a high def video clip if you sell it for the same price as a point and shoot photo?
Being fair to contributors is about much more than offering 50%. If your sales are zero (or close to it), 50% is irrelevant. Generating income for contributors - which is what we care about - requires volume as well as a reasonable royalty. Volume doesn't just happen.
-
I don't have a lot of time to dedicate to this but I've been horsing around for years
sorry this really isn't inspiring.
-
One more note is that your search doesn't work. I did a search for palm tree and found many random images, including cracked asphalt and a brick wall. The few images I checked had neither palm nor tree as keywords
-
One more note is that your search doesn't work. I did a search for palm tree and found many random images, including cracked asphalt and a brick wall. The few images I checked had neither palm nor tree as keywords
I wonder if that's a problem with the ktools search. I have results for palm tree on my site too and I don't have any palm trees in my port. I think the search looks for the search terms like this *tree* and *palm*
so if you have the keyword street then yep... there is a tree in there sTREEt - simply put, ktools needs a bit better search.
-
It seems strange that if we use 20 sites, we have to upload full size images 20 times. The only idea I've had is to do something completely different. Only have thumbnails and small preview images on the site and let the buyer contact the contributor direct to get the full size image with a payment through PayPal.
I always wondered about the same thing. I would suggest a slight variation to your solution, that doesn't require direct contact with contributors, because I don't want to be contacted by buyers in first place, and they don't want to wait for the hi-res file:
a central repository (on Amazon S3 or similar) to which we upload our pics, and then we give agencies the right to access our files as long as we agree with their terms; when a new agency pops up, they can have our full port immediately, with our consent; if they change their tos, we can block access immediately; of course, a consortium of all the agencies which adhere to this model should pay for storage, not us; they're are going to pay for storage anyway even with their current model.
-
I always wondered about the same thing. I would suggest a slight variation to your solution, that doesn't require direct contact with contributors, because I don't want to be contacted by buyers in first place, and they don't want to wait for the hi-res file:
a central repository (on Amazon S3 or similar) to which we upload our pics, and then we give agencies the right to access our files as long as we agree with their terms; when a new agency pops up, they can have our full port immediately, with our consent; if they change their tos, we can block access immediately; of course, a consortium of all the agencies which adhere to this model should pay for storage, not us; they're are going to pay for storage anyway even with their current model.
In my musings on various things, I've come up with sort of the same idea, but it seems like a huge thing to implement, at least in the form I was thinking. And we've discussed parts of this before.
A central vault, that holds the hirez. The description, keywords, all meta, etc. The contributor is charged for storage in the vault. Agencies interested in pulling from the vault would have to supply parameters, such as license terms (either options from a standard set, or custom terms), as well as sell cost, royalty percentage, etc. They would be able to select the portfolios they want to "represent". The contributor would have the option of yes or no to the request. An API provides access to the content and data and it is pulled into the Agency database. Daily updates are done, so a contributor could deactivate images or agencies from the vault side, and new work is passed on. There should never be individual interaction with the agency. Any sales are reported through the API to the contributor's account, and payments are transmitted to the vault for withdrawal.
Problems are - a lot of work on the Agency side to import and report. Alternatives include the contributor setting up accounts everywhere, and then using an import function to pull content into each site and then having to interact with each site - that would be a simpler set-up.
This would be a huge project, imo, and my programming skilz aren't up to it.
This would be your "collective" and would put the contributor in control.
eta: This can go further, to the point where the Vault can offer easy installation of agency (Ktools or similar) software, so anyone could set up an "Agency" on their domain, licensing, to pick up extra cash, almost like a MLM scheme. You'd have to implement the whole thing so it was secure, so the installer couldn't just go modify the php to keep sales hidden or to gain access to the content, etc. Kind of like Zazzle is a warehouse of product, and anyone can set up a sales site to offer that product (I think...).
-
Do yourself a favour! forget the whole project! look how bad the 4 major sites are going and then ask yourself: what chance have I got?
-
Wow! This one really went off the rails. ;D
I'd say good luck with the site. It can be hard work, but it can also be worth the time. I enjoy running my own site and make money from it every month.
-
One more note is that your search doesn't work. I did a search for palm tree and found many random images, including cracked asphalt and a brick wall. The few images I checked had neither palm nor tree as keywords
I wonder if that's a problem with the ktools search. I have results for palm tree on my site too and I don't have any palm trees in my port. I think the search looks for the search terms like this *tree* and *palm*
so if you have the keyword street then yep... there is a tree in there sTREEt - simply put, ktools needs a bit better search.
Actually, it's a matter of knowing the proper way to use a search engine. Search any site for Palm Tree and you'll get every image that has palm and tree in it. Do a search (with quotes) "Palm Tree" and you'll only get "palm tree" results.
Check out this site, http://www.exalead.com/search/web/search-syntax, (http://www.exalead.com/search/web/search-syntax,) and start utilizing search engines correctly...it'll save you lots of time wading through irrelevant results.
-
One more note is that your search doesn't work. I did a search for palm tree and found many random images, including cracked asphalt and a brick wall. The few images I checked had neither palm nor tree as keywords
Actually, it's a matter of knowing the proper way to use a search engine. Search any site for Palm Tree and you'll get every image that has palm and tree in it. Do a search (with quotes) "Palm Tree" and you'll only get "palm tree" results.
Check out this site, http://www.exalead.com/search/web/search-syntax, (http://www.exalead.com/search/web/search-syntax,) and start utilizing search engines correctly...it'll save you lots of time wading through irrelevant results.
-
Do yourself a favour! forget the whole project! look how bad the 4 major sites are going and then ask yourself: what chance have I got?
Yah! I agree with this comment. Why not beat facebook instead of all these stock sites. It would be just as easy to take on fakebook as getty. It should be a breeze with the software set up for you and all. Piece of cake!
Next week I am replacing the airplane with something better!
-
Hmm...let's see if we can wrangle this back to the topic and more positive discussion. (Please, I realize the possibility of failure, I'm looking for what it would take to work. And that requires help from contributors.) Instead of failure, imagine success.
OK, maybe it sounded like I'm not serious about this in my first post. I am serious. I realize this is going to take time and effort and money to become successful, even moderately successful. I've been looking for and working with various software for 5 years now and have decided that Ktools has the best product for where I am.
Question: Why, in your opinions, is Ktools Photostore insufficient? It currently doesn't have all the bells and whistles but it has the core functionality for a stock site. The software will continue to improve, one way or another.
Pricing seems to be a bit of an issue. Only looking at SS, IS, BS and Fotolia (standard collection). For the majority their pricing is between $9 and $19 dollars for vectors and $9 and $75 for photos. I get anywhere between .09 to $3 per download and they get the rest.
Question 1 (Assume fair success): Where would you as a contributor be happy with pricing of vectors and photos?
Question 2 (Assume fair success): Where would you be happy with commission rates?
There is some mention of failure which is always a possibility in business. Every time we, as contributors to other stock sites, upload an image we take a risk that the image may or may not sell and our time and money will have been wasted.
Question: What would it take to convince contributors take the time to sign up with, and contribute to, a new stock site?
For example: What if it were set up so all you had to do was create an account on the site, FTP as many images (with IPTC data) as you like, and your images were set up on the site for you?
-
Actually, it's a matter of knowing the proper way to use a search engine. Search any site for Palm Tree and you'll get every image that has palm and tree in it. Do a search (with quotes) "Palm Tree" and you'll only get "palm tree" results.
Nope: iStock has Palm Tree in its CV, so you only get Palm Trees, unless anyone has erroneously or spammily put Palm Tree where it doesn't apply. IMO a FAR superior system (usually), though I know others disagree.
-
Question 1 (Assume fair success): Where would you as a contributor be happy with pricing of vectors and photos?
I like the $10 price point for vectors. And as a buyer, I like paying around $10 for a large photo. Obviously I don't want to pay a lot for a photo, but I'm comfortable around that $10 price point.
If you want to seem more competitive, go for $9 per vector or large photo and you'd still find most people are comfortable with that.
Question 2 (Assume fair success): Where would you be happy with commission rates?
50%. More is always better, but the bare minimum to attract any contributor interest these days is 50%.
Question: What would it take to convince contributors take the time to sign up with, and contribute to, a new stock site?
For example: What if it were set up so all you had to do was create an account on the site, FTP as many images (with IPTC data) as you like, and your images were set up on the site for you?
Commitment. You have to prove that you're in this to do it right and do what it takes to make it work. Pardon the comparison, but take a look at StockFresh. They did a lot of things right. They got the pricing right, the royalty rate (50%), and they even had some goodwill from the contributor community in that they were previously behind another successful stock site (stockxpert) which many of us made decent money on. But they did just a few things wrong and have since had a lot of trouble regaining the trust and confidence of the community. Applications took too long to approve. They've been very slow to market the site at all. Despite all of the good things they did, they've struggled because of just a few missteps.
I hate to say it, but in this day and age in the stock business, you have to do everything right and keep doing it right to gain the trust of the contributor community. It's very hard to do.
And just making it easy to get our images onto your site isn't going to be enough. Lots of sites offer that. Superhug offered that not too long ago and just last week they closed down. I made just a few bucks there before they closed up shop. It wasn't even with the time to FTP images to them.
You want this to work? You need to come out of the gates with something that we can all get behind. No one is looking to hep anyone build anything. I wish things were different, but that's reality here. You need to launch with a solid product, a solid brand, some sort of marketing plan, even if it doesn't launch right away, and a solid site. And frankly I'm not convinced that a ktools site can do everything you want to do. You're not just talking about taking on a handful of contributors. It sounds like you want to take on anyone who is willing. Can ktools handle that? Can your web hosting handle it? Are you prepared for the extremely high bandwidth costs you are likely to incur from moving large files?
I'd need to see more to want to get involved in this. It's good you're considering changing the name and logo. I'd start there, get the site design, branding, and infrastructure nailed down, get your contributor agreement written up so we can se all of the details of what's involved, come up with a realistic marketing plan for the near future, and then maybe we can talk.
-
[...] Alternatives include the contributor setting up accounts everywhere, and then using an import function to pull content into each site and then having to interact with each site - that would be a simpler set-up. [...]
I was thinking about this simpler set-up indeed (but perhaps only importing low-res and index). But I like your complete package even more. Not easy at all, still easier than the other project often discussed here (opening a contributors-owned agency).
However I agree with the above poster that an easy upload is not enough. Necessary but not sufficient.
-
Have a read of this:
http://www.microstockgroup.com/new-sites-general/superhug-are-you-out-there (http://www.microstockgroup.com/new-sites-general/superhug-are-you-out-there)!/msg268514/#new
and then have a read of this:
http://www.microstockgroup.com/new-sites-general/superhug-sells-stock-images/ (http://www.microstockgroup.com/new-sites-general/superhug-sells-stock-images/)
-
Do yourself a favour! forget the whole project! look how bad the 4 major sites are going and then ask yourself: what chance have I got?
Yah! I agree with this comment. Why not beat facebook instead of all these stock sites. It would be just as easy to take on fakebook as getty. It should be a breeze with the software set up for you and all. Piece of cake!
Next week I am replacing the airplane with something better!
Yah! and that something better, I will beat with something eve, even, even better! ;)
-
....Question: What would it take to convince contributors take the time to sign up with, and contribute to, a new stock site?
For example: What if it were set up so all you had to do was create an account on the site, FTP as many images (with IPTC data) as you like, and your images were set up on the site for you?
There have been lots of people that have put in long hours and tried everything to make a site work but they have had very little success and we have had hardly any earnings from them. Being committed and driven isn't enough. Starting yet another ktools site just turns me off completely. Others have paid for their own code and at least have something that looks like their own, not something off the peg.
But the real problem is trying something that's been done by at least 100 other sites. You need to forget about this until you have a USP that gets us interested. I wouldn't worry about what we want to start with. Contact lots of buyers and try and find something you could offer them that all the other sites are missing. All we really want is to be able to make enough money to get regular payouts. That seems easy but no new site has achieved it without spending a small fortune and then they have to pay back their investors.
The idea that we've discussed several times in this forum and in this thread is the best I've seen mentioned so far. I'm surprised that nobody has worked on it but I suppose it's easier to ignore all the facts and just start up yet another ktools site doing the same thing that has failed for everyone else.
-
Question 1 (Assume fair success): Where would you as a contributor be happy with pricing of vectors and photos?
I like the $10 price point for vectors. And as a buyer, I like paying around $10 for a large photo. Obviously I don't want to pay a lot for a photo, but I'm comfortable around that $10 price point.
If you want to seem more competitive, go for $9 per vector or large photo and you'd still find most people are comfortable with that.
Question 2 (Assume fair success): Where would you be happy with commission rates?
50%. More is always better, but the bare minimum to attract any contributor interest these days is 50%.
Question: What would it take to convince contributors take the time to sign up with, and contribute to, a new stock site?
For example: What if it were set up so all you had to do was create an account on the site, FTP as many images (with IPTC data) as you like, and your images were set up on the site for you?
Commitment. You have to prove that you're in this to do it right and do what it takes to make it work. Pardon the comparison, but take a look at StockFresh. They did a lot of things right. They got the pricing right, the royalty rate (50%), and they even had some goodwill from the contributor community in that they were previously behind another successful stock site (stockxpert) which many of us made decent money on. But they did just a few things wrong and have since had a lot of trouble regaining the trust and confidence of the community. Applications took too long to approve. They've been very slow to market the site at all. Despite all of the good things they did, they've struggled because of just a few missteps.
I hate to say it, but in this day and age in the stock business, you have to do everything right and keep doing it right to gain the trust of the contributor community. It's very hard to do.
And just making it easy to get our images onto your site isn't going to be enough. Lots of sites offer that. Superhug offered that not too long ago and just last week they closed down. I made just a few bucks there before they closed up shop. It wasn't even with the time to FTP images to them.
You want this to work? You need to come out of the gates with something that we can all get behind. No one is looking to hep anyone build anything. I wish things were different, but that's reality here. You need to launch with a solid product, a solid brand, some sort of marketing plan, even if it doesn't launch right away, and a solid site. And frankly I'm not convinced that a ktools site can do everything you want to do. You're not just talking about taking on a handful of contributors. It sounds like you want to take on anyone who is willing. Can ktools handle that? Can your web hosting handle it? Are you prepared for the extremely high bandwidth costs you are likely to incur from moving large files?
I'd need to see more to want to get involved in this. It's good you're considering changing the name and logo. I'd start there, get the site design, branding, and infrastructure nailed down, get your contributor agreement written up so we can se all of the details of what's involved, come up with a realistic marketing plan for the near future, and then maybe we can talk.
Doing things right: I agree things must be done right from the beginning for the site and contributor. And it is my plan to listen and adjust as needed (and reasonable). I've been playing the contributor role for some time and really don't like the idea of taking a pittance so the stock agency can pay their investors off and get rich. Don't get me wrong, we all want to make money, but I think spreading it around is far better than what's being experienced out there now. If I were making 50% on IS, SS and BS right now I'd be doing quite alright.
Trust: Mistakes will be made no matter what. I think the kind of mistakes and how the company reacts to them is key. Trust is also key but, as with any relationship, but how can you build the trust if you don't partake in the relationship. Where did all the other stock agencies begin? Did they hit the ground running with a million images? Did they pay contributors money just to join? What did it cost? My thought here is to avoid costly overhead and have everyone make money, not just the agency. I'm asking contributors to help only by contributing, which is required for a stock agency to grow.
Time: This will take time and if the contributor is willing to wait for growth I think the money will come. So you spend 2 minutes signing up and 20 minutes FTPing some images and you don't do anything else but wait and see if the sight works and maybe spread the word a little. I think it's better than spending hours a day jumping through hoops to upload your images, which may or may not sell, then at the end of the month you see payment of a quarter each for most images, or evan a couple bucks per image. But we all do it because these companies have marketing millions and traffic that gets our images seen. Well, we don't have marketing millions, but we do have time and a fairly good sense of how to get traffic to the site.
Ktools and hosting: Yes, Ktools can handle it. And when it can't I'm fairly confident we'll be in a position to hire developers to help make it work...which I plan to do long before anything breaks. Yes, the hosting can handle anything thrown at them. Yes, I can sustain this cost overhead indefinitely. So if you have the time (a few minutes really) and a little patience, it just may pay off. One thing that won't happen: I won't shut the site down because it's not making money fast enough, I just don't have the overhead to worry about that. Again, I have time.
You say "I'd need to see more to want to get involved in this.": I would expect that. I have a little time before I'm ready to set up contributors, not to mention the changes previously discussed and a few others.
Doing everything right: The site will not be perfect. Anyone telling you they are perfect is scamming you. We will do everything we can to make it as pleasurable an experience for everyone as possible, but we will fall short somewhere and, again, I think what matters most in this is how we respond.
-
Have a read of this:
[url]http://www.microstockgroup.com/new-sites-general/superhug-are-you-out-there[/url] ([url]http://www.microstockgroup.com/new-sites-general/superhug-are-you-out-there[/url])!/msg268514/#new
and then have a read of this:
[url]http://www.microstockgroup.com/new-sites-general/superhug-sells-stock-images/[/url] ([url]http://www.microstockgroup.com/new-sites-general/superhug-sells-stock-images/[/url])
It's sad, in this economic climate, more people are closing their doors. What's even worse, I think, is starting a business with millions (or even thousands) of someone else's money then shutting down. Now you owe everyone. Not telling your customers and contributors this is coming is appalling.
As I state in a reply to EmberMike. I have no overhead and I can sustain this site, no matter the size, indefinitely. All I'm asking for is a little of your time to sign up and FTP some content (when it's ready of course). Then we market. Worst case: you have spent a little time and over the years you make a little residual income. You need to do nothing more if you choose. I'm going to keep this site running, at minimum with my and a few other's uploads, until I die.
I'm not shutting the site down. I have no employees to pay. No investors to repay. I we get more, external, contributors the popularity will grow that much faster.
Once again, time is the key here. You have to be willing to let it grow.
-
So you have no money whatsoever with which to market the site? If you think you will passively sell images from your site without marketing it then you are very mistaken. I am sorry, but you are wasting our time and your own. RF stock is very big business now - you missed the boat on amateurs making a killing a long time ago - that one sailed with Bruce Livingstone. Perhaps you saw what his old company sold for the other day?
-
....Question: What would it take to convince contributors take the time to sign up with, and contribute to, a new stock site?
For example: What if it were set up so all you had to do was create an account on the site, FTP as many images (with IPTC data) as you like, and your images were set up on the site for you?
There have been lots of people that have put in long hours and tried everything to make a site work but they have had very little success and we have had hardly any earnings from them. Being committed and driven isn't enough. Starting yet another ktools site just turns me off completely. Others have paid for their own code and at least have something that looks like their own, not something off the peg.
But the real problem is trying something that's been done by at least 100 other sites. You need to forget about this until you have a USP that gets us interested. I wouldn't worry about what we want to start with. Contact lots of buyers and try and find something you could offer them that all the other sites are missing. All we really want is to be able to make enough money to get regular payouts. That seems easy but no new site has achieved it without spending a small fortune and then they have to pay back their investors.
The idea that we've discussed several times in this forum and in this thread is the best I've seen mentioned so far. I'm surprised that nobody has worked on it but I suppose it's easier to ignore all the facts and just start up yet another ktools site doing the same thing that has failed for everyone else.
Ktools? Why is Ktools' Photostore so bad? Why does a site need hundreds of thousands in development to start off in order to be taken seriously? When you need a pair of shoes...do you make your own or go downtown and pay for a pair? When it's necessary the development will grow/alter/change completely...but for now it does the job and requires no overhead. I believe in this day and age success to the new guy comes only with low cost, persistence and loyalty...loyalty both ways.
Unique Selling Proposition? My first thoughts are "buy from us because we give more money to the artists". People I speak to like the idea of better supporting the artist. We have affordability and quality. Everyone likes affordability. Do you (or anyone) have any suggestions?
-
But the real problem is trying something that's been done by at least 100 other sites. You need to forget about this until you have a USP that gets us interested. I wouldn't worry about what we want to start with.
I disagree completely. I don't think you need anything overly unique. You just need to do it well. Micro was started by a bunch of people that just wanted to sell a few files and make a little money. They did that and it worked. Then, it grew up and pros moved in. Unfortunately, the model didn't really change to accommodate those contributors. If you are a pro, then you should be getting paid like one. How many sites can really claim that they are paying their contributors like professionals? And how many people can say they are a pro when they don't make a decent wage doing it. My point is that if none of the micros are fulfilling the needs that professional contributors have, then how are there too many sites? I'd like to see more (good ones) and I wish new sites the best.
-
So you have no money whatsoever with which to market the site? If you think you will passively sell images from your site without marketing it then you are very mistaken. I am sorry, but you are wasting our time and your own. RF stock is very big business now - you missed the boat on amateurs making a killing a long time ago - that one sailed with Bruce Livingstone. Perhaps you saw what his old company sold for the other day?
I don't recall saying I have no money for marketing. It wouldn't make sense to start a business venture with $0 marketing dollars. I have no overhead (which is one reason I do have some money.)
Difference between me and most failures is I have my money, not someone else's. I won't be losing $50,000 a month if the site isn't wildly successful right out of the gate...that's usually why the failures happen.
-
But the real problem is trying something that's been done by at least 100 other sites. You need to forget about this until you have a USP that gets us interested. I wouldn't worry about what we want to start with.
I disagree completely. I don't think you need anything overly unique. You just need to do it well. Micro was started by a bunch of people that just wanted to sell a few files and make a little money. They did that and it worked. Then, it grew up and pros moved in. Unfortunately, the model didn't really change to accommodate those contributors. If you are a pro, then you should be getting paid like one. How many sites can really claim that they are paying their contributors like professionals? And how many people can say they are a pro when they don't make a decent wage doing it. My point is that if none of the micros are fulfilling the needs that professional contributors have, then how are there too many sites? I'd like to see more (good ones) and I wish new sites the best.
Exactly. Share the success (money) with the people that got you there. Doesn't matter if it's 10 employees or 100 contributors. Everyone thrives. This site is going to happen and it's success will come quickly or slowly, nobody knows. But it's not going away.
-
it's not going anywhere.
In your own words. ;D
Best of luck.
-
See, it's all about doing what ya need to do
To get where ya wanna go
And be who ya wanna be
But don't relax; it won't come to you,
Cos theirs a million other cats out competing with you
But not doing it the same way
Ya see, seeing the world through different eyes is your gateway
A special gift from your consciousness an individual-ness
For you to rock to this
A little kiss from an emptiness for you to bop to this for you to jump to this
;) Dub FX - Not Cool :)
Just to cheer it up a little :)
-
it's not going anywhere.
In your own words. ;D
Best of luck.
Agreeing 100% ! why does it take so many posts before the poor guy will realize he isnt going nowhere, same as all the rest with the same idea?
-
....Question: What would it take to convince contributors take the time to sign up with, and contribute to, a new stock site?
For example: What if it were set up so all you had to do was create an account on the site, FTP as many images (with IPTC data) as you like, and your images were set up on the site for you?
There have been lots of people that have put in long hours and tried everything to make a site work but they have had very little success and we have had hardly any earnings from them. Being committed and driven isn't enough. Starting yet another ktools site just turns me off completely. Others have paid for their own code and at least have something that looks like their own, not something off the peg.
But the real problem is trying something that's been done by at least 100 other sites. You need to forget about this until you have a USP that gets us interested. I wouldn't worry about what we want to start with. Contact lots of buyers and try and find something you could offer them that all the other sites are missing. All we really want is to be able to make enough money to get regular payouts. That seems easy but no new site has achieved it without spending a small fortune and then they have to pay back their investors.
The idea that we've discussed several times in this forum and in this thread is the best I've seen mentioned so far. I'm surprised that nobody has worked on it but I suppose it's easier to ignore all the facts and just start up yet another ktools site doing the same thing that has failed for everyone else.
Ktools? Why is Ktools' Photostore so bad? Why does a site need hundreds of thousands in development to start off in order to be taken seriously? When you need a pair of shoes...do you make your own or go downtown and pay for a pair? When it's necessary the development will grow/alter/change completely...but for now it does the job and requires no overhead. I believe in this day and age success to the new guy comes only with low cost, persistence and loyalty...loyalty both ways.
Unique Selling Proposition? My first thoughts are "buy from us because we give more money to the artists". People I speak to like the idea of better supporting the artist. We have affordability and quality. Everyone likes affordability. Do you (or anyone) have any suggestions?
Warmpicture is run by a contributor using ktools, seems almost the same as you want to do. I haven't sold anything there yet. Zymmetrical used to pay 70% commission. They didn't seem to spend a lot on marketing. They gave up after a few years. Clustershot was another one paying a big commission. They didn't last long and sold to another company that was going to run the site but has left it to rot. Snapixel is another one that's just about to close. There's lots of others that have started out just like you and are no longer here. There was one recently that was looking to sell to the Asian market. Seemed interesting and I uploaded some images. Then for some strange reason they decided to become a black and white only site and closed a few weeks later.
You would have to payout every time something sold to make it worthwhile uploading. Otherwise it's almost certain to be another of a very long list of sites that have sold a few images but not enough to get over payout thresholds. It get's annoying when I sell something but know I'm unlikely to ever see the money. I'm sorry but I just can't get enthusiastic about low budget new sites anymore, I really wish people wouldn't start them, unless they can come up with something unique that buyers actually want.
-
"I don't have a lot of time to dedicate to this but I've been horsing around for years"
sorry this really isn't inspiring.
That was my first thought when I read the OP.
-
Look... You're just "a guy" who nobody knows, with some software, promising money if you make some sales on your hobby site. You can understand why people aren't really in the mood to help out.
-
it's not going anywhere.
In your own words. ;D
Best of luck.
Misinterpreted and distorted like the best of politicians!
-
Look... You're just "a guy" who nobody knows, with some software, promising money if you make some sales on your hobby site. You can understand why people aren't really in the mood to help out.
Look...you're an exclusive member at iStock. You aren't even allowed to join my site. But you felt it was necessary to stab some negativity my way? I never "promised" anything, as a matter of fact, if you had read my replies you would understand exactly where I coming from.
-
We already evaluated where you're coming from. Sorry.
-
I would appreciate any/all feedback from everyone with some time to do so. Good, bad and indifferent...it's all good...and you can't hurt my feelings.
You asked for feedback from everyone... That's what you are getting. ;D
-
OK. Here it is:
Yes, I'm just a guy, and yes I could be full of it. I hope some of you will see (once the site is ready for contributors) that It's not some scary, bloated, investor saturated venture that nobody cares about.
If it works and becomes even moderately successful everybody could make OK money. If it doesn't you still stand to make a little money because I'm not closing the site. I will continue adding my content and marketing and if you have some content up there you'll probably sell some too. Residual income. I'm sure it's one of the reasons we all started contributing to stock sites.
All I'm asking for is a few minutes of your time to sign up and FTP some images, maybe 20 minutes of your time, I'll do the rest. Nothing more ever, if you so choose.
Payouts will be monthly regardless of amount sold.
Commission will be at least 50% if not more based on this and other discussions.
I'll repost when it's ready for contributors and maybe a few of you will join. In the mean time if all you have is "You suck and you're going to fail" I'd just assume you stay on the sidelines, it diverts the real topic. Not everyone wants to help but the few that have real suggestions are why I'm here in the first place.
Now, can we get back to the questions I asked at the top of page 2?
-
Do you have lots of money for marketing, like a couple million bucks?
No, not a couple million. Frankly, if I had a couple million I probably wouldn't be looking into starting another business venture.
I realize marketing is important and expensive. Do you have any thoughts on the marketing subject?
Well, after having read your posts, it's evident you are not a business person and this project has no future. You are just trying to make some easy money.
-
I would appreciate any/all feedback from everyone with some time to do so. Good, bad and indifferent...it's all good...and you can't hurt my feelings.
You asked for feedback from everyone... That's what you are getting. ;D
You're exactly right. I asked for it. And I appreciate it, all of it. While the "run away while you still can" posts have made themselves clear, I am not going to run away. It's much easier to simply say "no" and walk away instead of opening the mind some and working for a bit of reward.
I prefer to open up a little and find a way to make something work. I won't stop before it starts. For such a creative group of people I'm surprised to see such closed-minded language.
Smile a little. We have it good. Most of us are making a living off taking pictures and drawing.
-
Do you have lots of money for marketing, like a couple million bucks?
No, not a couple million. Frankly, if I had a couple million I probably wouldn't be looking into starting another business venture.
I realize marketing is important and expensive. Do you have any thoughts on the marketing subject?
Well, after having read your posts, it's evident you are not a business person and this project has no future. You are just trying to make some easy money.
OK, OK. I tried to respond to what I thought was a tounge-in-cheek message with another bit of tounge-in-cheek. I apologize for not coming across seriously enough in my first post, I was trying to be casually conversational. Can we move on and assume I am serious?
-
Now, can we get back to the questions I asked at the top of page 2?
-
...Smile a little. We have it good. Most of us are making a living off taking pictures and drawing.
I think you've vastly overestimated the amount of money "most of us" make. There's very few people making a living from this and it's getting harder every year.
If you are genuine, I still can't see the point when we already have Warmpicture doing virtually the same thing. Why not work with Dan on that site? It looks like there's very little money to be made with these sites at the moment and they aren't going to attract many buyers. Having two similar ones paying all the fees and for marketing seems like a waste of resources. I'll stick with Warmpicture unless you come up with something that has more appeal to buyers.
-
...Smile a little. We have it good. Most of us are making a living off taking pictures and drawing.
I think you've vastly overestimated the amount of money "most of us" make. There's very few people making a living from this and it's getting harder every year.
If you are genuine, I still can't see the point when we already have Warmpicture doing virtually the same thing. Why not work with Dan on that site? It looks like there's very little money to be made with these sites at the moment and they aren't going to attract many buyers. Having two similar ones paying all the fees and for marketing seems like a waste of resources. I'll stick with Warmpicture unless you come up with something that has more appeal to buyers.
I'll definitely check out Warmpicture. I'm always open to seeing a better way to do things. I see a common thread in your posts here: "come up with something that has more appeal to buyers". Do you have any ideas or thoughts regarding this?
-
I'll definitely check out Warmpicture. I'm always open to seeing a better way to do things. I see a common thread in your posts here: "come up with something that has more appeal to buyers". Do you have any ideas or thoughts regarding this?
Better search; weed out spam; better search.
-
Is this yours http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-3613p1.html (http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-3613p1.html) ?
One thing you should know is that big agencies don't like contributors who own an agency. So, they will probably close your account if your site www.incolorphotos.com (http://www.incolorphotos.com) starts working as an agency.
-
I'll definitely check out Warmpicture. I'm always open to seeing a better way to do things. I see a common thread in your posts here: "come up with something that has more appeal to buyers". Do you have any ideas or thoughts regarding this?
Better search; weed out spam; better search.
What would make for a better search?
Do you mean better than everyone else's or better implementation of the search on my site?
-
Is this yours [url]http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-3613p1.html[/url] ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-3613p1.html[/url]) ?
One thing you should know is that big agencies don't like contributors who own an agency. So, they will probably close your account if your site [url=http://www.incolorphotos.com]www.incolorphotos.com[/url] ([url]http://www.incolorphotos.com[/url]) starts working as an agency.
No. That's not me.
-
I'll definitely check out Warmpicture. I'm always open to seeing a better way to do things. I see a common thread in your posts here: "come up with something that has more appeal to buyers". Do you have any ideas or thoughts regarding this?
It makes me nervous having you ask people to upload their high rez images to you, and then have you ask US to tell you how to run your business. If I knew the answers to your questions on how to make a site successful, get buyers, etc. , I'd be doing my own and not contributing to yours.
I wish you a lot of luck on your venture. I'm one of those "sit back and see what happens first" kind of people.
-
Here are some of my findings which I hope might be useful written in a patronising form for the sake of speed :)
You won't be able to take a holiday for the first two years at least - and you won't want to.
You will need to keep expectations low and keep under the radar after launch whilst you learn how to run an agency.
You will really notice and appreciate the contributors putting in the time to help your project.
You won't be able to get behind test portfolios and their owners will be your most vocal critics.
You must have the full support of your immediate family, even if not directly involved they will have to make sacrifices too.
Above all you will need to enjoy your new job and you will only enjoy it if you can shape and control it - Ktools might not be up to the job in the longer term, that's just my opinion though.
I was up last night until 6AM due to someone in the southern hemisphere having a credit card issue which I needed to look into in case it turned out to be a wider site problem (which it wasn't thankfully & the customer got his image) - it will be your baby and you might have to skip sleep sometimes.
If no one here can talk you out of it then just do it, but I would consider writing your own code so you can deviate from the norm if you want to and when the time is right.
Good luck!
-
I'll definitely check out Warmpicture. I'm always open to seeing a better way to do things. I see a common thread in your posts here: "come up with something that has more appeal to buyers". Do you have any ideas or thoughts regarding this?
Better search; weed out spam; better search.
What would make for a better search?
"Weed out spam."
Do you mean better than everyone else's or better implementation of the search on my site?
Better than every one else's.
In theory, iStock's is currently best, but in practice, spamming trumps the best match, though BM2 was supposed to thwart spam.
Controlled vocabulary is really the way to go IMO, but I believe they're very expensive to buy in.
-
I'll definitely check out Warmpicture. I'm always open to seeing a better way to do things. I see a common thread in your posts here: "come up with something that has more appeal to buyers". Do you have any ideas or thoughts regarding this?
It makes me nervous having you ask people to upload their high rez images to you, and then have you ask US to tell you how to run your business. If I knew the answers to your questions on how to make a site successful, get buyers, etc. , I'd be doing my own and not contributing to yours.
I wish you a lot of luck on your venture. I'm one of those "sit back and see what happens first" kind of people.
Why would you be nervous? I can't steal your work. I'm not asking people to tell me how to run my business, I'm simply trying determine if anyone has some feedback regarding the shortcomings of the microstock agency world (and there does appear to be some shortcomings). I would like to not repeat other's mistakes...if at all possible.
-
Is this yours [url]http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-3613p1.html[/url] ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-3613p1.html[/url]) ?
One thing you should know is that big agencies don't like contributors who own an agency. So, they will probably close your account if your site [url=http://www.incolorphotos.com]www.incolorphotos.com[/url] ([url]http://www.incolorphotos.com[/url]) starts working as an agency.
No. That's not me.
Are you sure? Images in your new website can be also found in the portfolio of Mark Bernard at http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-3613p1.html (http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-3613p1.html)
-
I'll definitely check out Warmpicture. I'm always open to seeing a better way to do things. I see a common thread in your posts here: "come up with something that has more appeal to buyers". Do you have any ideas or thoughts regarding this?
Better search; weed out spam; better search.
What would make for a better search?
"Weed out spam."
Do you mean better than everyone else's or better implementation of the search on my site?
Better than every one else's.
In theory, iStock's is currently best, but in practice, spamming trumps the best match, though BM2 was supposed to thwart spam.
Controlled vocabulary is really the way to go IMO, but I believe they're very expensive to buy in.
I realize there's a lot more to it, but for starters wouldn't you control spam by requiring a short, concise keyword lists? Like iStock now does.
-
You are not being honest!
Domain name: INCOLORPHOTOS.COM
Registrant:
Mark Bernard
1309 35th Street
Sacramento, CA 95816
US
You are Mark Bernard and you do own this portfolio at Shutterstock: http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-3613p1.html (http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-3613p1.html) and this one at iStock: http://istockphoto.com/user_view.php?id=1709548 (http://istockphoto.com/user_view.php?id=1709548)
-
Is this yours [url]http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-3613p1.html[/url] ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-3613p1.html[/url]) ?
One thing you should know is that big agencies don't like contributors who own an agency. So, they will probably close your account if your site [url=http://www.incolorphotos.com]www.incolorphotos.com[/url] ([url]http://www.incolorphotos.com[/url]) starts working as an agency.
No. That's not me.
Are you sure? Images in your new website can be also found in the portfolio of Mark Bernard at [url]http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-3613p1.html[/url] ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-3613p1.html[/url])
Right. There is more than one of us in this. Hopefully more soon.
-
I realize there's a lot more to it, but for starters wouldn't you control spam by requiring a short, concise keyword lists? Like iStock now does.
I'm not sure 50 is 'short and concise', and I see that certain contributors seem to think that 'up to 50' means 'you must use 50 even if it's an apple isolated on white'. I think I've gone up to 50 an absolute maximum of 20 times, and I really doubt if it's even 10.
The trouble without a CV is that you can't second guess what a potential buyer might search on. Sometimes I'm astounded at what people search for (i.e. the search terms they use) and wonder what on earth they wanted, or expected. And these are the 'big buyers', not Nadia Newsearch. E.g. one search I got was for 'Margaret'. H*ll, what did they want from that? (Plus on Alamy that would turn up all images from contributors named Margaret ...) I guess 'senior leg' must mean something, but what? Mis-spellings too: I had one for man ringing hand. I bet they wanted a man wringing his hands. I've actually seen quite a lot of mis-spellings in Alamy search reports, leading to some odd results, no doubt.
Would you have variant spellings, e.g. British English vs US English? What about languages - would you encourage people to keyword at least their most important words in several languages (more keyword checking) to encourage a global market, or are you only targetting customers who can search in English? How will you work it so that someone searching e.g. 'Wheat' won't get hit with photos depicting Wheat Street? How will you encourage contributors to be less parochial, e.g. not just keywording Robin, but being specific about whether they mean European, American or any of the less well known ones? That probably matters to potential buyers, but a remarkable number of micro contributors haven't a clue about anything outwith their own locality. Or they know they haven't a clue and list a whole load of e.g. fish species hoping to hit the right one, and sometimes none of them are correct.
These are just trivial examples. You'll no doubt know tons more yourself.
-
Here are some of my findings which I hope might be useful written in a patronising form for the sake of speed :)
You won't be able to take a holiday for the first two years at least - and you won't want to.
You will need to keep expectations low and keep under the radar after launch whilst you learn how to run an agency.
You will really notice and appreciate the contributors putting in the time to help your project.
You won't be able to get behind test portfolios and their owners will be your most vocal critics.
You must have the full support of your immediate family, even if not directly involved they will have to make sacrifices too.
Above all you will need to enjoy your new job and you will only enjoy it if you can shape and control it - Ktools might not be up to the job in the longer term, that's just my opinion though.
I was up last night until 6AM due to someone in the southern hemisphere having a credit card issue which I needed to look into in case it turned out to be a wider site problem (which it wasn't thankfully & the customer got his image) - it will be your baby and you might have to skip sleep sometimes.
If no one here can talk you out of it then just do it, but I would consider writing your own code so you can deviate from the norm if you want to and when the time is right.
Good luck!
Yes, I am very familiar with all your points. Except the second, but I've been in and around the stock world long enough to (hopefully) have a good go at it.
I've had and moved on from three developers. I can't seem to find someone reliable. Photostore will suffice for now...
-
Photostore will suffice for now...
I know nothing abut Photostore, but 'suffice for now' generally either means it never gets changed, or size makes a change imperatie, with inevitable nightmare scenarios during the switch to a new system, which is almost like starting from scratch, except you have many times more files to deal with.
-
I realize there's a lot more to it, but for starters wouldn't you control spam by requiring a short, concise keyword lists? Like iStock now does.
I'm not sure 50 is 'short and concise', and I see that certain contributors seem to think that 'up to 50' means 'you must use 50 even if it's an apple isolated on white'. I think I've gone up to 50 an absolute maximum of 20 times, and I really doubt if it's even 10.
The trouble without a CV is that you can't second guess what a potential buyer might search on. Sometimes I'm astounded at what people search for (i.e. the search terms they use) and wonder what on earth they wanted, or expected. And these are the 'big buyers', not Nadia Newsearch. E.g. one search I got was for 'Margaret'. H*ll, what did they want from that? (Plus on Alamy that would turn up all images from contributors named Margaret ...) I guess 'senior leg' must mean something, but what? Mis-spellings too: I had one for man ringing hand. I bet they wanted a man wringing his hands. I've actually seen quite a lot of mis-spellings in Alamy search reports, leading to some odd results, no doubt.
Would you have variant spellings, e.g. British English vs US English? What about languages - would you encourage people to keyword at least their most important words in several languages (more keyword checking) to encourage a global market, or are you only targetting customers who can search in English? How will you work it so that someone searching e.g. 'Wheat' won't get hit with photos depicting Wheat Street? How will you encourage contributors to be less parochial, e.g. not just keywording Robin, but being specific about whether they mean European, American or any of the less well known ones? That probably matters to potential buyers, but a remarkable number of micro contributors haven't a clue about anything outwith their own locality. Or they know they haven't a clue and list a whole load of e.g. fish species hoping to hit the right one, and sometimes none of them are correct.
These are just trivial examples. You'll no doubt know tons more yourself.
The last few uploads I saw to iStock kicked back a request to thin out the keywords. Which I think is a good idea...clear and concise makes for better keywords and search results.
Disallowing any sort of spamming or "not so relevant" keywords will help the buyer. I also plan to educate the buyers on the proper syntax for focussing and using the search engine.
-
Photostore will suffice for now...
I know nothing abut Photostore, but 'suffice for now' generally either means it never gets changed, or size makes a change imperatie, with inevitable nightmare scenarios during the switch to a new system, which is almost like starting from scratch, except you have many times more files to deal with.
The system is open to change and when it needs to be updated I'll be working with developers to do what needs to be done. I think we can stay in front of it and avoid any major system switches in the future. Judging by the feedback here, I'm not too concerned about the site running away from us (that was a tounge-in-cheek comment.)
-
By the way... I'm checking out Warmpicture and it's also built on Ktools Photostore. Hopefully this will get me a little softer response from some of you... regarding Ktools anyway.
-
Is this yours [url]http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-3613p1.html[/url] ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-3613p1.html[/url]) ?
One thing you should know is that big agencies don't like contributors who own an agency. So, they will probably close your account if your site [url=http://www.incolorphotos.com]www.incolorphotos.com[/url] ([url]http://www.incolorphotos.com[/url]) starts working as an agency.
No. That's not me.
Do you still insist this is not you?:
INCOLORPHOTOS.COM
Registrant: Mark Bernard
1309 35th Street
Sacramento, CA 95816
US
Mark Bernard's portfolios:
Shutterstock: http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-3613p1.html (http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-3613p1.html)
iStock: http://istockphoto.com/user_view.php?id=1709548 (http://istockphoto.com/user_view.php?id=1709548)
You are not being honest here. And you expect people to trust you?
-
Is this yours [url]http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-3613p1.html[/url] ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-3613p1.html[/url]) ?
One thing you should know is that big agencies don't like contributors who own an agency. So, they will probably close your account if your site [url=http://www.incolorphotos.com]www.incolorphotos.com[/url] ([url]http://www.incolorphotos.com[/url]) starts working as an agency.
No. That's not me.
Do you still insist this is not you?:
INCOLORPHOTOS.COM
Registrant: Mark Bernard
1309 35th Street
Sacramento, CA 95816
US
Mark Bernard's portfolios:
Shutterstock: [url]http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-3613p1.html[/url] ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-3613p1.html[/url])
iStock: [url]http://istockphoto.com/user_view.php?id=1709548[/url] ([url]http://istockphoto.com/user_view.php?id=1709548[/url])
You are not being honest here. And you expect people to trust you?
Hi, Digital66, Mark here. What's your real name and address? And why does it matter that the person working on this thread is not the same person listed as the registrar? I'm doing other things or would you feel better if it we me you were talking to? Don't forget to search all the other stock sites and report back...thanks.
-
Is this yours [url]http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-3613p1.html[/url] ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-3613p1.html[/url]) ?
One thing you should know is that big agencies don't like contributors who own an agency. So, they will probably close your account if your site [url=http://www.incolorphotos.com]www.incolorphotos.com[/url] ([url]http://www.incolorphotos.com[/url]) starts working as an agency.
No. That's not me.
Do you still insist this is not you?:
INCOLORPHOTOS.COM
Registrant: Mark Bernard
1309 35th Street
Sacramento, CA 95816
US
Mark Bernard's portfolios:
Shutterstock: [url]http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-3613p1.html[/url] ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-3613p1.html[/url])
iStock: [url]http://istockphoto.com/user_view.php?id=1709548[/url] ([url]http://istockphoto.com/user_view.php?id=1709548[/url])
You are not being honest here. And you expect people to trust you?
Hi, Digital66, Mark here. What's your real name and address? And why does it matter that the person working on this thread is not the same person listed as the registrar? I'm doing other things or would you feel better if it we me you were talking to? Don't forget to search all the other stock sites and report back...thanks.
HAHAHA! Now you are being ridiculous! What a way to start an agency! ROFL
-
It will be very hard to get people to upload if we don't know who the real owner is. Tried that with albumo, that was another big mistake. It took a lot of effort for some of us to get our portfolios removed form there. There are some people that just upload anywhere but I'm more cautious now.
-
HAHAHA! Now you are being ridiculous! What a way to start an agency! ROFL
You better watch where you poke your nose ... ;)
(http://image.shutterstock.com/display_pic_with_logo/3613/3613,1172700602,2/stock-photo-man-in-suit-with-baseball-bat-2780242.jpg)
@OP. Seriously you shot your self in the foot with this one. ;D
You've got the exact same pictures on your 'agency site' and Shutterstock. The whole thread sounded a bit amateurish to me, but getting caught on a lie is not a good starting point for attracting contributors.
-
Hi, Digital66, Mark here. What's your real name and address? And why does it matter that the person working on this thread is not the same person listed as the registrar? I'm doing other things or would you feel better if it we me you were talking to? Don't forget to search all the other stock sites and report back...thanks.
I'm sorry, what? So you've had an employee posting for you in the thread?
Now I'm lost.
-
But Sean, he can't have! He is the guy with no overheads - duh!
-
One more note is that your search doesn't work. I did a search for palm tree and found many random images, including cracked asphalt and a brick wall. The few images I checked had neither palm nor tree as keywords
Actually, it's a matter of knowing the proper way to use a search engine. Search any site for Palm Tree and you'll get every image that has palm and tree in it. Do a search (with quotes) "Palm Tree" and you'll only get "palm tree" results.
Check out this site, [url]http://www.exalead.com/search/web/search-syntax,[/url] ([url]http://www.exalead.com/search/web/search-syntax,[/url]) and start utilizing search engines correctly...it'll save you lots of time wading through irrelevant results.
You should search for palm tree - no quotes - at Shutterstock, iStock, Google (look at images) and you will see relevant results at all of them. Check all the other stock web sites and you'll find the same thing.
Being rude and wrong is not a great combination
-
Disallowing any sort of spamming or "not so relevant" keywords will help the buyer.
So you plan to have keyword reviewers?
How will you find and recruit people with the necessary knowledge of everything that might appear in a Stock image? How much will that expertise cost?
I also plan to educate the buyers on the proper syntax for focussing and using the search engine.
1. Amazon is the online company I spend most money in and most regularly.
2. They don't (need to) 'educate' their buyers on any hypothetical 'proper' syntax. It mostly just 'works'.
Facts one and two are not unrelated.
In business you need to remember two things: the customer is always right and 'customer service'. [1]
You need to make your site work for buyers, not mould buyers to the way you want to do things. If half of the world call a tap a 'faucet', you'd better make sure faucet is keyworded on your tap images. That's where a CV is useful. Same as 'fall'. If you don't have a CV, Amercans searching for autumn pictures might find people falling. How would you deal with stemming?
[1]That without shafting your suppliers, of course.
-
One more note is that your search doesn't work. I did a search for palm tree and found many random images, including cracked asphalt and a brick wall. The few images I checked had neither palm nor tree as keywords
Actually, it's a matter of knowing the proper way to use a search engine. Search any site for Palm Tree and you'll get every image that has palm and tree in it. Do a search (with quotes) "Palm Tree" and you'll only get "palm tree" results.
Check out this site, [url]http://www.exalead.com/search/web/search-syntax,[/url] ([url]http://www.exalead.com/search/web/search-syntax,[/url]) and start utilizing search engines correctly...it'll save you lots of time wading through irrelevant results.
You should search for palm tree - no quotes - at Shutterstock, iStock, Google (look at images) and you will see relevant results at all of them. Check all the other stock web sites and you'll find the same thing.
Being rude and wrong is not a great combination
Sorry if this came across as rude. You are correct, most of the large companies address this through their search engines. Assuming what the visitor is looking for is palm tree and not palm 'or' tree they place what they think is the more relevant results up front. The further down the results you go in shutterstock, the more broad the results become.
Small (not million dollar) sites like ICP do not have revenue for this advanced search function (yet). I think it would be helpful to let people know a few of the basics of searching on not-so-advanced search engines.
-
I'll address sherlock's (digital666) conspiracy revelation. My partner (wife) started this thread no one ever said "Hi, my name is Mark and I'll be answering all your questions". When she was asked "are you Mark?" she said no without feeling it was necessary to explain.
We work in the same office together and share the workload. She got the "hey, let's see if we can get a little insight from the nice people at microstockgroup" task and, yes, we collaborate a bit. It is our company so I don't think it matters whose name is on the registrar for the domain and who is typing (Mark is now for the record).
That's all it is. Nothing sinister. It's all ICP.
-
Disallowing any sort of spamming or "not so relevant" keywords will help the buyer.
So you plan to have keyword reviewers?
How will you find and recruit people with the necessary knowledge of everything that might appear in a Stock image? How much will that expertise cost?
I also plan to educate the buyers on the proper syntax for focussing and using the search engine.
1. Amazon is the online company I spend most money in and most regularly.
2. They don't (need to) 'educate' their buyers on any hypothetical 'proper' syntax. It mostly just 'works'.
Facts one and two are not unrelated.
In business you need to remember two things: the customer is always right and 'customer service'. [1]
You need to make your site work for buyers, not mould buyers to the way you want to do things. If half of the world call a tap a 'faucet', you'd better make sure faucet is keyworded on your tap images. That's where a CV is useful. Same as 'fall'. If you don't have a CV, Amercans searching for autumn pictures might find people falling. How would you deal with stemming?
[1]That without shafting your suppliers, of course.
Eventually, if all goes well, we plan on hiring/contracting people help as needed, reviewer(s) being part one of them.
We work in the design industry and know many people that are willing to help. We might even search here for help when the time comes.
Customer is #1 goes without saying if you plan on any level of success.
We will make advances in technology as we can/need to. We're not trying to mould buyers necessarily. Just help them best utilize our limited search engine.
-
The truth is ktools version 4 search engine does not work as it is. When a buyer can go to any site you consider competition, type in palm trees (no quotes) and get palm trees, but on your site gets every image tagged tree, trees, etc you are clearly at a disadvantage.
Also it does not take a million dollars worth of development to have a search that works. I've been working with a competing script to ktools that costs slightly less and has a normal search function that give the buyer images with all of the tags they searched for as it should.
Unfortunately I seem to be talking to myself when asking about this on the ktools forum and facebook page and it doesn't seem like other users are aware of this or as concerned as they should be.
Apologies for jumping in off topic but this is a giant frustration for me at the moment!
-
The truth is ktools version 4 search engine does not work as it is. When a buyer can go to any site you consider competition, type in palm trees (no quotes) and get palm trees, but on your site gets every image tagged tree, trees, etc you are clearly at a disadvantage.
Also it does not take a million dollars worth of development to have a search that works. I've been working with a competing script to ktools that costs slightly less and has a normal search function that give the buyer images with all of the tags they searched for as it should.
Unfortunately I seem to be talking to myself when asking about this on the ktools forum and facebook page and it doesn't seem like other users are aware of this or as concerned as they should be.
Apologies for jumping in off topic but this is a giant frustration for me at the moment!
Yeah, it's definitely one of those things I want to get updated. Although, it's not really a deal breaker for sales, since a lot of traffic comes in directly from Google. It's disappointing that it isn't better though.
-
One more note is that your search doesn't work. I did a search for palm tree and found many random images, including cracked asphalt and a brick wall. The few images I checked had neither palm nor tree as keywords
I wonder if that's a problem with the ktools search. I have results for palm tree on my site too and I don't have any palm trees in my port. I think the search looks for the search terms like this *tree* and *palm*
so if you have the keyword street then yep... there is a tree in there sTREEt - simply put, ktools needs a bit better search.
That's absolutely weird. A search for "palm tree" on our site yields a reasonable result. We did some customization work last year...maybe that is the difference?
-
Are you on version 3.x or 4.0.9? Version 3 includes the option for match all terms, version four does not. There is literally no way to do an "AND" search. Actually one of the things I really liked about ktools which prompted me to switch was the drop down option in V3 that let people choose to match all terms, any terms etc. I wrongly assumed that would be included in V4.
-
But the real problem is trying something that's been done by at least 100 other sites. You need to forget about this until you have a USP that gets us interested. I wouldn't worry about what we want to start with.
I disagree completely. I don't think you need anything overly unique. You just need to do it well. Micro was started by a bunch of people that just wanted to sell a few files and make a little money. They did that and it worked. Then, it grew up and pros moved in. Unfortunately, the model didn't really change to accommodate those contributors. If you are a pro, then you should be getting paid like one. How many sites can really claim that they are paying their contributors like professionals? And how many people can say they are a pro when they don't make a decent wage doing it. My point is that if none of the micros are fulfilling the needs that professional contributors have, then how are there too many sites? I'd like to see more (good ones) and I wish new sites the best.
Well, even if I can say I'm positive about the outlook of the site in the this thread I agree with you cthoman. when people say a certain market is saturated or there are already too many of some profession - teachers for example. My thought / comment is - there is never enough good anythings. There may be a teacher surplus but there is not a surplus of good teachers or in our case a surplus of good microstock sites.
-
There's already several sites that pay a decent commission. Do we need another one when those already doing it are struggling to get sales going? It would be easy for us to only use them and sink the greedy sites but that's not happening. I wish it would but it's human nature to stick with what's making money instead of taking a risk. And buyers could help us by avoiding sites like Thinkstock but they don't. There's still a lot of them using istock, knowing that some contributors only get 15% commission. So how do we change the status quo?
I supported almost every new site that paid a decent commission for years and some of them were extremely contributor friendly but they all had one fault, they couldn't attract buyers. Some of the same people here that were positive about them when they started were deleting their portfolios within a few months. So unless a new sites has some great new ways to sell images that gets buyers interested, I think they're wasting our time.
-
The truth is ktools version 4 search engine does not work as it is. When a buyer can go to any site you consider competition, type in palm trees (no quotes) and get palm trees, but on your site gets every image tagged tree, trees, etc you are clearly at a disadvantage.
Also it does not take a million dollars worth of development to have a search that works. I've been working with a competing script to ktools that costs slightly less and has a normal search function that give the buyer images with all of the tags they searched for as it should.
Unfortunately I seem to be talking to myself when asking about this on the ktools forum and facebook page and it doesn't seem like other users are aware of this or as concerned as they should be.
Apologies for jumping in off topic but this is a giant frustration for me at the moment!
Yeah, V4 came out of the gate short of features which is no secret. The one thing I was waiting for was vector upload capability which it does allow for now. They're responsive to issues though and know what needs to be added. You're right it doesn't take a million dollars to have a good search. Unfortunately I'm not a high level developer so I can't fix it, I need to wait for them to fix it.
-
The truth is ktools version 4 search engine does not work as it is. When a buyer can go to any site you consider competition, type in palm trees (no quotes) and get palm trees, but on your site gets every image tagged tree, trees, etc you are clearly at a disadvantage.
Also it does not take a million dollars worth of development to have a search that works. I've been working with a competing script to ktools that costs slightly less and has a normal search function that give the buyer images with all of the tags they searched for as it should.
Unfortunately I seem to be talking to myself when asking about this on the ktools forum and facebook page and it doesn't seem like other users are aware of this or as concerned as they should be.
Apologies for jumping in off topic but this is a giant frustration for me at the moment!
Yeah, it's definitely one of those things I want to get updated. Although, it's not really a deal breaker for sales, since a lot of traffic comes in directly from Google. It's disappointing that it isn't better though.
I believe if enough noise is made about it they'll fix it. I also think they may have most (if not all) of the missing V3 items slated for inclusion into V4 at some point. I don't know for sure but some of their employee posts make me think this is the case.
-
One more note is that your search doesn't work. I did a search for palm tree and found many random images, including cracked asphalt and a brick wall. The few images I checked had neither palm nor tree as keywords
I wonder if that's a problem with the ktools search. I have results for palm tree on my site too and I don't have any palm trees in my port. I think the search looks for the search terms like this *tree* and *palm*
so if you have the keyword street then yep... there is a tree in there sTREEt - simply put, ktools needs a bit better search.
That's absolutely weird. A search for "palm tree" on our site yields a reasonable result. We did some customization work last year...maybe that is the difference?
I would prefer for it to work by assuming if I type Palm Tree I'm looking for Palm Tree first. So give me the most relevant results first then give me everything with palm and tree. That's the way it's done now everywhere.
-
Are you on version 3.x or 4.0.9? Version 3 includes the option for match all terms, version four does not. There is literally no way to do an "AND" search. Actually one of the things I really liked about ktools which prompted me to switch was the drop down option in V3 that let people choose to match all terms, any terms etc. I wrongly assumed that would be included in V4.
I'm on V4.0.8 (haven't installed 4.0.9 yet). One of my points of contention with them when V4 came out was: It's version 4 (coming from version 3) and a new version of software doesn't go backwards in features and functionality. If you're going to change the software and drop features/functionality call it something new.
To repeat from another reply I made: I also think they may have most (if not all) of the missing V3 items are slated for inclusion into V4 at some point. I don't know for sure but some of their employee posts make me think this is the case.
-
Sharpshot, Leaf
The strength behind ICP, and I think fundamental difference, is we're not borrowing thousands/millions whatever the amount to set this up. So in six months or a year if it isn't performing to spec according to the "business plan" or investors... we won't need to bail.
At bare minimum this site will always be our portfolio site where we sell our stuff. We're not going to shut it down. Repeat... we're not going to shut it down.
Will it be successful? We think so. What we have is time. If it takes a year or five or ten it makes no difference to us. We are the turtle in the race, we're slow but we won't stop.
We all agree that the software is no shutterstock. But the software does the job. Can it be better? Yes. Will it be better? Yes.
What is being asked of potential contributors? (At least the initial group.)
1. Sign up (when it's ready). (2 minutes.)
2. We give you an FTP link to upload as many images (with IPTC data) as you wish. (10 to 30 minutes depending on your connection speed.)
3. We upload your images into your account.
4. You do nothing ever agin if you choose not to.
5. (Very probably) Collect a little money from us over time. Possibly more than a 'little'.
You've spent 32 minutes.
We continue to market the site (slow but sure) and we continue adding our content. If you have good photos and vector you'll make money. How much is unknown but, comparatively, it''ll be a lot more per sale than what you're getting now in the "big 4".
-
...The strength behind ICP, and I think fundamental difference, is we're not borrowing thousands/millions whatever the amount to set this up. So in six months or a year if it isn't performing to spec according to the "business plan" or investors... we won't need to bail.
At bare minimum this site will always be our portfolio site where we sell our stuff. We're not going to shut it down. Repeat... we're not going to shut it down.
Will it be successful? We think so. What we have is time. If it takes a year or five or ten it makes no difference to us. We are the turtle in the race, we're slow but we won't stop...
We already have a site that fits this bill and that many of us uploaded to because the guy who started it - no big debts but we'll let it grow over time - had started a successful site, StockXpert, that got sold twice (Jupiter which was then swallowed by Getty) before it was shut down. It's a lovely site with decent features and search and other than for a few vector contributors who seem to be doing well, Stockfresh isn't producing after several years. You can read threads about it here, the most recent of which is here (http://www.microstockgroup.com/stockfresh/is-anyone-seeing-300-gains/).
I completely understand the upload and wait idea, but there has to be some chance of it producing a reasonable income to make it worth the time to upload (and for large portfolios, 30 minutes is unlikely). I am sorry to be negative, but you asked for feedback, and having been around the dance floor a few times, those reasons don't seem to me to be compelling enough to upload.
-
...The strength behind ICP, and I think fundamental difference, is we're not borrowing thousands/millions whatever the amount to set this up. So in six months or a year if it isn't performing to spec according to the "business plan" or investors... we won't need to bail.
At bare minimum this site will always be our portfolio site where we sell our stuff. We're not going to shut it down. Repeat... we're not going to shut it down.
Will it be successful? We think so. What we have is time. If it takes a year or five or ten it makes no difference to us. We are the turtle in the race, we're slow but we won't stop...
We already have a site that fits this bill and that many of us uploaded to because the guy who started it - no big debts but we'll let it grow over time - had started a successful site, StockXpert, that got sold twice (Jupiter which was then swallowed by Getty) before it was shut down. It's a lovely site with decent features and search and other than for a few vector contributors who seem to be doing well, Stockfresh isn't producing after several years. You can read threads about it here, the most recent of which is here ([url]http://www.microstockgroup.com/stockfresh/is-anyone-seeing-300-gains/[/url]).
I completely understand the upload and wait idea, but there has to be some chance of it producing a reasonable income to make it worth the time to upload (and for large portfolios, 30 minutes is unlikely). I am sorry to be negative, but you asked for feedback, and having been around the dance floor a few times, those reasons don't seem to me to be compelling enough to upload.
I completely understand where you (and others) are coming from. This isn't going to be for everyone. It may or may not be successful. But remember, for all the hours we spend uploading to other agencies they've never once guaranteed success of our portfolios. Yet here we are, countless hours into them, myself included.
-
....The strength behind ICP, and I think fundamental difference, is we're not borrowing thousands/millions whatever the amount to set this up. So in six months or a year if it isn't performing to spec according to the "business plan" or investors... we won't need to bail.....
As well as Stockfresh, I'm sure FeaturePics hasn't borrowed thousands/millions. And there's Cutcaster, I remember them saying they weren't going to spend lots of money. I don't think Mostphotos spent much. There's probably at least another 10 sites with the same "different" approach. What do they all have in common? Very few buyers, low sales and they aren't popular with the majority of contributors. There's enough already, I think you need to come up with a new and hopefully true difference.
-
As well as Stockfresh, I'm sure FeaturePics hasn't borrowed thousands/millions. And there's Cutcaster, I remember them saying they weren't going to spend lots of money. I don't think Mostphotos spent much. There's probably at least another 10 sites with the same "different" approach. What do they all have in common? Very few buyers, low sales and they aren't popular with the majority of contributors. There's enough already, I think you need to come up with a new and hopefully true difference.
Speak for yourself, some of my best earners are smaller sites, but I did put in some effort/images (I think) to help them grow. It really depends on how many contributors you are trying to pay each month. It's easier to pay one or two a decent amount rather than trying to pay 30,000+. I'd focus on my own images if I were ICP. If you can sell your own images, then it shouldn't be a problem attracting other contributors. Most contributors don't want to dedicate much time or resources to small sites to help them grow anyway, so there probably isn't too much point chasing them at random.
-
"Will it be successful? We think so. What we have is time. If it takes a year or five or ten it makes no difference to us."
Here's that 'hobby' thing coming into play. This isn't your focus. You're just another guy with the same software as everyone else and nothing to really make people go there instead of here.
-
I'll give it a try, let me know when the site takes contributors. I am a small fish, 400 photos, but lets see. I'll PM you here Mark or Wife of Mark.
-
I'll give it a try, let me know when the site takes contributors. I am a small fish, 400 photos, but lets see. I'll PM you here Mark or Wife of Mark.
I'm sure he'll be thrilled to have you join.
-
...What is being asked of potential contributors? (At least the initial group.)
1. Sign up (when it's ready). (2 minutes.)
2. We give you an FTP link to upload as many images (with IPTC data) as you wish. (10 to 30 minutes depending on your connection speed.)
3. We upload your images into your account.
4. You do nothing ever agin if you choose not to.
5. (Very probably) Collect a little money from us over time. Possibly more than a 'little'.
You've spent 32 minutes...
If I spent 32 minutes on every site run by someone coming into the forums or emailing me asking for images without a unique proposition, I'd have invested days I'd never get back. I invest my time in sites that I think have something interesting to offer and who I'd like to see succeed. You're not convincing me that this site is worth spending any amount of time on.
...We continue to market the site (slow but sure) and we continue adding our content. If you have good photos and vector you'll make money. How much is unknown but, comparatively, it''ll be a lot more per sale than what you're getting now in the "big 4".
Slow isn't going to cut it. We've seen slow. I'm on SF despite the slow marketing plan because those guys have a history in this business and know what they're doing when it comes to building a good, simple site that works and I think buyers will like. You're not those guys, and you're not building that site. You've already got brand problems right out of the gate. You name doesn't work, your logo, your entire branding strategy is flawed. You're not offering anything interesting or unique.
I wish you well, I really do. But you're a long ways away from being a site that should be opened up to the public. Fix some of your problems, come to the table with a real idea and not what appears to be a glorified hobby effort, and you might find some interested people. Until then, to me you just look like one more big risk in a sea of similar longshots.
-
I'll address sherlock's (digital666) conspiracy revelation. My partner (wife) started this thread no one ever said "Hi, my name is Mark and I'll be answering all your questions". When she was asked "are you Mark?" she said no without feeling it was necessary to explain.
HAHAHA! Yeah sure!
Cheers,
Digital66's secretary ;)
-
I'll give it a try, let me know when the site takes contributors. I am a small fish, 400 photos, but lets see. I'll PM you here Mark or Wife of Mark.
I'm sure he'll be thrilled to have you join.
Thanks, I am sure he is. Forgive me for not knowing, but who are you?
-
I'll give it a try, let me know when the site takes contributors. I am a small fish, 400 photos, but lets see. I'll PM you here Mark or Wife of Mark.
I'm sure he'll be thrilled to have you join.
Thanks, I am sure he is. Forgive me for not knowing, but who are you?
Do your own research. It's not hard.
-
I'll give it a try, let me know when the site takes contributors. I am a small fish, 400 photos, but lets see. I'll PM you here Mark or Wife of Mark.
I'm sure he'll be thrilled to have you join.
Thanks, I am sure he is. Forgive me for not knowing, but who are you?
1st you donīt know about the RC's, 2nd you donīt know who is Sean, is this your playground?
-
I'll give it a try, let me know when the site takes contributors. I am a small fish, 400 photos, but lets see. I'll PM you here Mark or Wife of Mark.
I'm sure he'll be thrilled to have you join.
Thanks, I am sure he is. Forgive me for not knowing, but who are you?
Do your own research. It's not hard.
Why would I research some random poster in this forum?
-
I'll give it a try, let me know when the site takes contributors. I am a small fish, 400 photos, but lets see. I'll PM you here Mark or Wife of Mark.
I'm sure he'll be thrilled to have you join.
Thanks, I am sure he is. Forgive me for not knowing, but who are you?
Do your own research. It's not hard.
Why would I research some random poster in this forum?
Sean is a random? where have you been?
-
I'll give it a try, let me know when the site takes contributors. I am a small fish, 400 photos, but lets see. I'll PM you here Mark or Wife of Mark.
I'm sure he'll be thrilled to have you join.
Thanks, I am sure he is. Forgive me for not knowing, but who are you?
Do your own research. It's not hard.
Why would I research some random poster in this forum?
Because apparently, by your own admission, you want to know who he is.
-
So there seems to be a lot of talk about why we shouldn't join a new stock site.
How about some reasons why we should join a new site?
Maybe a sub topic here could be be: Everything is new at some point. How did the current smaller sites out there start up?
-
I'll give it a try, let me know when the site takes contributors. I am a small fish, 400 photos, but lets see. I'll PM you here Mark or Wife of Mark.
I'm sure he'll be thrilled to have you join.
Thanks, I am sure he is. Forgive me for not knowing, but who are you?
I forgive you.
-
That's absolutely weird. A search for "palm tree" on our site yields a reasonable result. We did some customization work last year...maybe that is the difference?
Must be. I had my search customized, along with some other things, by the talented programmer who helped me set up my site. My site yields only shots with palm trees for that search, no quotes necessary.
-
You're right it doesn't take a million dollars to have a good search. Unfortunately I'm not a high level developer so I can't fix it, I need to wait for them to fix it.
Come on. I am not a developer. I have a piddly little site just to sell my own stuff. I paid a programmer to customize everything for me. The improved search functionality cost me (if I remember correctly) $100 - 4 hours at $25 each - to get installed. The whole site, including the software, all the custom changes, including a batch editing software, cost me right under $1,000. You don't have to be a developer, but if you aren't willing to put in a few hundred dollars to get your site up and running properly, how on earth can you be serious??
-
You're right it doesn't take a million dollars to have a good search. Unfortunately I'm not a high level developer so I can't fix it, I need to wait for them to fix it.
Come on. I am not a developer. I have a piddly little site just to sell my own stuff. I paid a programmer to customize everything for me. The improved search functionality cost me (if I remember correctly) $100 - 4 hours at $25 each - to get installed. The whole site, including the software, all the custom changes, including a batch editing software, cost me right under $1,000. You don't have to be a developer, but if you aren't willing to put in a few hundred dollars to get your site up and running properly, how on earth can you be serious??
Would you share your developer's name with me? I would love to have a reliable developer ... especially at $25 per hour. Rates I'm getting are triple that and more.
-
That's absolutely weird. A search for "palm tree" on our site yields a reasonable result. We did some customization work last year...maybe that is the difference?
Must be. I had my search customized, along with some other things, by the talented programmer who helped me set up my site. My site yields only shots with palm trees for that search, no quotes necessary.
Nice site, I see you're on Photostore V3. Unfortunately the V4 version search, at least the up front search option, doesn't have the functionality V3 had. The new "advanced search" is good, but I sure wish we still had the options for matching terms up front.
-
....All I'm asking for is a little of your time to sign up and FTP some content (when it's ready of course). Then we market. Worst case: you have spent a little time and over the years you make a little residual income. You need to do nothing more if you choose. I'm going to keep this site running, at minimum with my and a few other's uploads, until I die.
I'm not shutting the site down. I have no employees to pay. No investors to repay. I we get more, external, contributors the popularity will grow that much faster.
Once again, time is the key here. You have to be willing to let it grow.
Hi,
I'm agree that today it could be really difficult to create something competitive but I also thing that ICS is right...
If a new agency comes to me (an agency did that I for me it was a pleasure to join) and said that I only have to register and then upload everything by FTP and after I don't have to do nothing...
Under this term I dont' see nothing wrong...
Of course before I would at least seen a professional looking website perfectly running... :-D
-
I'll give it a try, let me know when the site takes contributors. I am a small fish, 400 photos, but lets see. I'll PM you here Mark or Wife of Mark.
I'm sure he'll be thrilled to have you join.
He was. I am very late to the business, only started 5 months ago. Its nice to be part of a start up for once, and if it doestnt work out, I didnt lose anything but gained another experience.
-
I'll give it a try, let me know when the site takes contributors. I am a small fish, 400 photos, but lets see. I'll PM you here Mark or Wife of Mark.
I'm sure he'll be thrilled to have you join.
Thanks, I am sure he is. Forgive me for not knowing, but who are you?
Do your own research. It's not hard.
Why would I research some random poster in this forum?
I wish I could put this entire thread into my signature.
-
I'll give it a try, let me know when the site takes contributors. I am a small fish, 400 photos, but lets see. I'll PM you here Mark or Wife of Mark.
I'm sure he'll be thrilled to have you join.
Thanks, I am sure he is. Forgive me for not knowing, but who are you?
Do your own research. It's not hard.
Why would I research some random poster in this forum?
I wish I could put this entire thread into my signature.
LOL it would look better in Sean's :D
-
I am glad to be of entertainment... I do know who Yuri is, does that count? 8)
I am sure there are more fish in the stock pond I do not know. I have never been a follower and wasnt planning on starting now either.
There are a few people in stock I have the utmost respect for. Mainly because they are great because of their personallity, which comes back in their work.
-
I am glad to be of entertainment... I do know who Yuri is, does that count? 8)
I am sure there are more fish in the stock pond I do not know. I have never been a follower and wasnt planning on starting now either.
There are a few people in stock I have the utmost respect for. Mainly because they are great because of their personallity, which comes back in their work.
Here's some background info on sean
http://blog.microstockgroup.com/sean_locke_interview/ (http://blog.microstockgroup.com/sean_locke_interview/)
-
I am glad to be of entertainment... I do know who Yuri is, does that count? 8)
I am sure there are more fish in the stock pond I do not know. I have never been a follower and wasnt planning on starting now either.
There are a few people in stock I have the utmost respect for. Mainly because they are great because of their personallity, which comes back in their work.
Sorry for the teasing but asking who Sean is, is like a computer expert asking who Bill Gates is :D
-
Just do a Google search for Sean Locke. Beyond his 880,000+ sales at iStock, you'll find a resume that includes animation for Disney's Mulan and Lilo and Stitch, among others. And as much as he refuses to admit it, he gives a great deal back to these boards.
-
Just do a Google search for Sean Locke. Beyond his 880,000+ sales at iStock, you'll find a resume that includes animation for Disney's Mulan and Lilo and Stitch, among others. And as much as he refuses to admit it, he gives a great deal back to these boards.
And he has a pretty good sense of humor if you can read through many of his posts.