MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Stock Sites And SEO Is This True? Ouch  (Read 6071 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Rose Tinted Glasses

« Reply #25 on: June 30, 2015, 11:35 »
+4
This is going to be a busy thread for Tickstock. And it Took him only 3 comments to get SS in the mix.

Yet it took only your first comment for you to open your rather large flap and mention Tickstock.


Semmick Photo

« Reply #26 on: June 30, 2015, 12:03 »
+2
This is going to be a busy thread for Tickstock. And it Took him only 3 comments to get SS in the mix.

Yet it took only your first comment for you to open your rather large flap and mention Tickstock.
lol. Didn't take you long to give away your identity

« Reply #27 on: June 30, 2015, 12:19 »
+4
This is going to be a busy thread for Tickstock. And it Took him only 3 comments to get SS in the mix.

Yet it took only your first comment for you to open your rather large flap and mention Tickstock.
I didn't see it, I've had that troll on ignore for a while now.  If he ever chooses to say something interesting, relevant, or on topic maybe I'll reply but as it is I only expect more of the same so I'm happy keeping him on ignore.  That's all the space I want to waste on him, back to the topic.
« Last Edit: June 30, 2015, 12:52 by tickstock »

« Reply #28 on: June 30, 2015, 12:28 »
+2

A big portion of what income? Maybe the people that are making crazy money are staying quiet but seems like most people that have been doing this for a while are reporting overall income is stagnant or dropping year over year regardless of how many new images they submit. The wall. The hamster wheel.

If pricing model changes continue to head in the same direction what will your micro income look like in five years? Higher? Lower? Non-existent?

I don't know what to tell you. There's a huge and growing influx of new contributors every year. Increased competition means lower earnings no matter what you do. For me it looks like about 2/3 of my micro income comes from subs. So how does ending subs help? It just deletes 2/3 of your shrinking income instantly.

At one time there were two distinct marketplaces...high-end pro images through RM and amateur (but not necessarily poor quality) images through RF. Then the pros realized they could make a ton of money out-competing the amateurs in RF, which led to an influx of high-quality pro images selling for peanuts, which led to amateurs having to up their games, which led to the simultaneous upward spiral of image quality and downward spiral of image price we're seeing now. I'm not sure what the solution is.

Pros with 10,000 images realized they could have more money coming in NEXT WEEK if they dumped them on all the microstock sites.  Sounded too good to be true.  And it was.

Over the last few years I've seen this statement countless times:  "I want my images to be available from as many sources as possible."  Well, now they are - including many you don't even know about.   All competing on nothing but price. 


« Last Edit: June 30, 2015, 12:30 by stockastic »

« Reply #29 on: December 06, 2015, 12:15 »
+1
I am exclusive and I have been with Getty Images for years. This is not a SEO problem, rather it is a CEO problem. You can't keep sh!tt!ng on the talent and expect positive long term results. Without a doubt the competition has brought the industry to new lows, but you combine this with reckless abandon and total disrespect to your contributors and buyers, people will leave you either as a contributor or a buyer. Mr. CEO you and your arrogant ego blew Getty Images, not the competition or Google search. You needed us more than you thought.

whether or not this is a CEO problem, it also is true that Google and their arbitrary "algo updates" are designed with Google's bottom line in mind -- not yours, not Getty's, not mine nor anyone else's.

At the same time, Google delivers very mediocre "image search", if you can call it that at all. Actually, it seems the entire internet does not havy any "image search" worth its salt yet. This is ridiculous, and it seems they at Google, of all places, did not know the first thing about parsing certain pieces of data.

So, as much as I dislike Getty (or Rockefeller or any other corporation belonging to that cartel discovered by the ETH Zurich a few years back) as well as being aware of the fact that Getty seem to try and argue against any deep linking on the net in some way here and certainly still don't get how the internet works, they still have a point. At least sort of. (Also the "proof" offered by thesempost is incredibly lame and beside the point. That is where the real "ouch" lies: seriously, who in this world would only be searching for ridiculous terms like "stock photo of xyz"...?

No one should ignore the fact that Google pose a far greater threat to all internet users and their interests than an on-the-way-out joint like Getty.
« Last Edit: December 06, 2015, 13:07 by marquixHD »

« Reply #30 on: December 07, 2015, 09:48 »
+1
No one should ignore the fact that Google pose a far greater threat to all internet users and their interests than an on-the-way-out joint like Getty.

And if you can pay big $$$, as I understand it, your search results will be at the top on Google. As long as money influences the search results, the top images you are going to see in a search will belong to the company with the deepest pockets. That goes for any search engine.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
3 Replies
3454 Views
Last post August 17, 2007, 09:51
by w7lwi
21 Replies
6642 Views
Last post July 08, 2009, 18:16
by Squat
0 Replies
1529 Views
Last post July 07, 2011, 21:35
by click_click
4 Replies
2290 Views
Last post April 17, 2015, 16:27
by ShadySue
7 Replies
2473 Views
Last post April 12, 2018, 20:21
by Hildegarde

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results