MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Why stay with non performing agencies?  (Read 5541 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: April 16, 2013, 09:55 »
+1
I will start by saying that I am not exclusive to anyone so I have no idea whether or not that would help promote images on any site.

Now to my main ponderance,  I have portfolios with 15 agencies from the bigger players to some of the newbie agencies.

I have noticed that of thes 15 that 5 of them produce on average over $200 per month, 4 of them approx $100 per month, 1 of them approx $50 per month and the rest are lucky if produce $10 per month.

Now it takes just as much effort to maintain databases with agencies that don't produce as is does for the ones that do produce.  So my question is do you think it is worth maintaining portfolios with agencies that seem to have no sales?

By dropping the 5 agencies that don't produce sufficiently I could save over 10 hours per week uploading, tagging, adding releases etc.  Time I personally feel could be better spent developing portfolios on producing sites therefor I am considering removing my portfolio from the non-producers.

What are your thoughts?  (and please do not state the obvious of $10 per month is better than nothing, I am looking for solid debates)
 
All the best  ;)


rubyroo

« Reply #1 on: April 16, 2013, 09:59 »
+4
If it will save you ten hours a week then I would definitely invest those ten hours into the sites that perform better for you.

I would leave the port you have on them and keep an eye on threads relating to those agencies, as well as their performance on the right-hand panel.  If they start to show an increase across the board, go back and upload the images they didn't get previously.

DC


« Reply #2 on: April 16, 2013, 10:12 »
+1
Sounds like you could improve your workflow.  Two hours per site per week sounds like a lot to me.

It takes me about 3 hours per week to submit 25 - 30 pics to about 15 sites, but almost none of mine have release forms.

« Reply #3 on: April 16, 2013, 10:14 »
+3
Yeah, I'd leave my port there and stop uploading. Things may change in the future. You can always look at your RPI to see how many files it would take to make an impact.

steheap

  • Author of best selling "Get Started in Stock"

« Reply #4 on: April 16, 2013, 10:16 »
+1
I'm also surprised about the time you are spending on the smaller sites. I submit to 20 or so, and the smaller ones are updated with 50 images, say, in no more than 5 - 10 mins per agency. My images are already keyworded, sometimes I have to add a release, but I don't submit to any site that requires more than a bare minimum of effort.

Those $10 returns add up after a while and they obviously continue even if you later decide not to add more images.

Steve

RacePhoto

« Reply #5 on: April 16, 2013, 10:30 »
+2
I'd agree about the time spent. Some people seem to be able to upload and process much faster than I do. Heck, image editing I take a half hour on one photo, making it "perfect" sometimes. But the waste of time agencies have been voted off my island.  :) I still see no use for categories, most don't fit.

For some the Microstock shotgun marketing works. Send everything to every place and hope you hit something. For others, a more selective targeting of the places that bring the best returns on investment, (and time) is the choice. Each person must make their own decisions, there's no one answer for everyone.


Cold day in the Microstock line

My personal choice is less is more. Top agencies only and I only send them the best images for each concept or shoot. Often that means one. Not an identical image of the same individual, with a cell phone, cloned onto 200 different backgrounds. Although maybe that's how Micro works?


tab62

« Reply #6 on: April 16, 2013, 10:43 »
0
I stay because I like to support the little guy and pray they will raise to the middle tier or higher someday. Bigstock this month has really done well for me as a good example with staying with them...

« Reply #7 on: April 16, 2013, 10:50 »
0
I agree with some previous posts - if uploading to "small guys" is too tedious and barely profitable, why not leave your existing images there (you've already done the work!) and check on these agencies once in a while. If at some point you'll see increase in sales, you can always upload the rest of your stuff, providing you kept proper records of which images went where. However, on my memory, only one low-earner managed to increase sales, the rest of them usually start with better sales and then gradually decline or close their doors, or, at beast, manage to maintain the status quo.

RacePhoto

« Reply #8 on: April 16, 2013, 11:09 »
0
Exactly, you can let the ones already there, season and age. If something changes, add a big batch from the stored collection. The editing and keywords are already stored in the files Metadata.

I should have included that. It takes no time and doesn't cost anything to leave things where they are.

Unlike the people who pray for a miracle, that the little hopeless agencies will some day jump up and run with the big dogs. I'm extremely skeptical of that every happening. But of course I buy one lottery ticket a day, so one of those two could happen to be a winner? Neither is statistically likely. The same applies with the old saw. You can't win if you don't get in.  :)
 

I agree with some previous posts - if uploading to "small guys" is too tedious and barely profitable, why not leave your existing images there (you've already done the work!) and check on these agencies once in a while. If at some point you'll see increase in sales, you can always upload the rest of your stuff, providing you kept proper records of which images went where. However, on my memory, only one low-earner managed to increase sales, the rest of them usually start with better sales and then gradually decline or close their doors, or, at beast, manage to maintain the status quo.

microstockphoto.co.uk

« Reply #9 on: April 16, 2013, 11:23 »
0
Because there's a (smaller and smaller) hope that a site could grow into the next big thing.

Because competition is good.

And especially because it's an easier and faster way to increase earnings - with iptc+ftp+lightburner - than shooting/editing/keywording new pictures.

That's why I am insisting with every new/small site that they make their upload method as easy as possible.

If it's not easy, I don't even start: I just upload a few test images and then leave; I don't delete pictures anyway (unless I don't trust them), since once the work is done there's no point.

In 2011-2012 I managed to (slightly) grow my total earnings across all sites - despite sales at two major sites going down - exactly by adding my port to every possible minor site.

Of course, there's a difference between sites with low sales and sites that show absolutely no sales and no sign of improvement: I don't continue to support the latter (mostly sites that are not even on the list on the right). Unfortunately - although new sites are popping-up every week on this forum - I don't see any worthy new site after DP and PD. Most recent sites lack one fundamental thing: a plan - or the money - to attract buyers.
« Last Edit: April 16, 2013, 11:55 by microstockphoto.co.uk »

lisafx

« Reply #10 on: April 16, 2013, 11:57 »
0
I only have one truly NON performing site, but several low performers.  The non-performer were kind enough to get my images on their site with little help from me, so I will leave what I have there.  The other low performers are all very easy to upload to and cost me almost no time at all, so they can keep having my new stuff and I will keep getting my payout every couple of months. 

I know they don't produce much individually, but all together my lowest performing sites managed to pull in $1600 for me last year.  Maybe someday I'll be rich and $1600 won't seem worth the effort, but for now, I'll take it ;)

« Reply #11 on: April 16, 2013, 12:02 »
+2
I only have one truly NON performing site, but several low performers.  The non-performer were kind enough to get my images on their site with little help from me, so I will leave what I have there.  The other low performers are all very easy to upload to and cost me almost no time at all, so they can keep having my new stuff and I will keep getting my payout every couple of months. 

I know they don't produce much individually, but all together my lowest performing sites managed to pull in $1600 for me last year.  Maybe someday I'll be rich and $1600 won't seem worth the effort, but for now, I'll take it ;)
+1. I'd take and appreciate the $1600 a year even if I'm rich. Money = Money.

Les

« Reply #12 on: April 16, 2013, 23:21 »
0
I'm also surprised about the time you are spending on the smaller sites. I submit to 20 or so, and the smaller ones are updated with 50 images, say, in no more than 5 - 10 mins per agency. My images are already keyworded, sometimes I have to add a release, but I don't submit to any site that requires more than a bare minimum of effort.

Those $10 returns add up after a while and they obviously continue even if you later decide not to add more images.

Steve

Conceivably, this practice can rob you of more than $10 for the same images on higher priced sites.


michealo

« Reply #13 on: April 17, 2013, 04:26 »
0
I only have one truly NON performing site, but several low performers.  The non-performer were kind enough to get my images on their site with little help from me, so I will leave what I have there.  The other low performers are all very easy to upload to and cost me almost no time at all, so they can keep having my new stuff and I will keep getting my payout every couple of months. 

I know they don't produce much individually, but all together my lowest performing sites managed to pull in $1600 for me last year.  Maybe someday I'll be rich and $1600 won't seem worth the effort, but for now, I'll take it ;)

Very simply it depends on how long it takes to make that $1600
If you could make more putting that time into the better paying sites then there is an opportunity cost too

« Reply #14 on: April 17, 2013, 05:12 »
0
My images are already keyworded, sometimes I have to add a release, but I don't submit to any site that requires more than a bare minimum of effort.

Steve

Yes Steve, all of my work is also already keyworded, however as 90% of my work is lifestyle 9 out of 10 do require the time to add releases, also on each individual site I will add the categories and any other options the site feels it need, orientation etc.

I can not adopt the 'bare minimum' attitude as I want to give each image its best chances of success.

« Reply #15 on: April 17, 2013, 08:46 »
+2
Ja, it is easy enough to get them up there, since they are already keyworded and processed.
But you guys forget one thing.

POLLUTION.

When you upload to every agency, and spread your images around (in the competition) you pollute the fishing pond with your images, and they can be found in all kinds of derivated searches and at all kinds of places.

If you do so, you loose the grip, and let the asset (the pictures) become an asset for whatever agency and not for you.
Like... they would all be happy to spread your copyright for free. Doing their fancy trades. Be happy you are in the pile and get 10%.
And the more you pollute, they more they can do it.
We have seen many examples.

Therefore I only upload to a few agencies, and they must make sure to perform, else I withdraw my port.





ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #16 on: April 17, 2013, 09:11 »
0
Ay, that's the rub.
Uploading to all the different agencies with their individual quirks and odd requirements, then monitoring them to see how well they do or don't perform, deciding how long and how many images to give them as a trial, then keeping an eye on them as they send images off to partner sites, change terms and conditions, etc etc. The whole business is a quagmire.  >:( ::)


Les

« Reply #17 on: April 17, 2013, 09:44 »
+2
Ay, that's the rub.
Uploading to all the different agencies with their individual quirks and odd requirements, then monitoring them to see how well they do or don't perform, deciding how long and how many images to give them as a trial, then keeping an eye on them as they send images off to partner sites, change terms and conditions, etc etc.
The whole business is a quagmire.  >:( ::)
Good point. It's totally unproductive.
And then still to worry, when to withdraw images from the non-performing agencies, and worse still, losing the accumulated earnings when they go belly up.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #18 on: April 17, 2013, 10:09 »
0
Ay, that's the rub.
Uploading to all the different agencies with their individual quirks and odd requirements, then monitoring them to see how well they do or don't perform, deciding how long and how many images to give them as a trial, then keeping an eye on them as they send images off to partner sites, change terms and conditions, etc etc.
The whole business is a quagmire.  >:( ::)
Good point. It's totally unproductive.
And then still to worry, when to withdraw images from the non-performing agencies, and worse still, losing the accumulated earnings when they go belly up.
Then you've got to keep watching to see when it's not worth uploading, e.g. it doesn't seem like a good time to be uploading to iS (since Sept) as images just sink rapidly in the best match (though it isn't the same across all keywords making checking even more time consuming).

lisafx

« Reply #19 on: April 17, 2013, 10:20 »
0
I only have one truly NON performing site, but several low performers.  The non-performer were kind enough to get my images on their site with little help from me, so I will leave what I have there.  The other low performers are all very easy to upload to and cost me almost no time at all, so they can keep having my new stuff and I will keep getting my payout every couple of months. 

I know they don't produce much individually, but all together my lowest performing sites managed to pull in $1600 for me last year.  Maybe someday I'll be rich and $1600 won't seem worth the effort, but for now, I'll take it ;)

Very simply it depends on how long it takes to make that $1600
If you could make more putting that time into the better paying sites then there is an opportunity cost too

I already explained in the quote you posted that it takes hardly any time at all to upload images to these low earners.  I put time into the better paying sites too, obviously.  The most time consuming part of this job is producing and preparing the content.  I am going to produce the same amount of images whether I am uploading it to 4 sites or 14, so in effect, that extra $1600 is free money for hardly any additional effort.  Understand now?
« Last Edit: April 17, 2013, 10:27 by lisafx »

lisafx

« Reply #20 on: April 17, 2013, 10:25 »
-1
When you upload to every agency, and spread your images around (in the competition) you pollute the fishing pond with your images, and they can be found in all kinds of derivated searches and at all kinds of places.

If you do so, you loose the grip, and let the asset (the pictures) become an asset for whatever agency and not for you.
Like... they would all be happy to spread your copyright for free. Doing their fancy trades. Be happy you are in the pile and get 10%.
And the more you pollute, they more they can do it.
We have seen many examples.

Nearly all the examples of agencies "doing fancy trades" and "polluting" the marketplace are from the top agencies - the big moneymakers. If protecting your content and keeping it from winding up all over the place in mysterious partnerships is your primary concern, you would be better off NOT to upload it to the top earning agencies. 

michealo

« Reply #21 on: April 17, 2013, 11:19 »
0
I only have one truly NON performing site, but several low performers.  The non-performer were kind enough to get my images on their site with little help from me, so I will leave what I have there.  The other low performers are all very easy to upload to and cost me almost no time at all, so they can keep having my new stuff and I will keep getting my payout every couple of months. 

I know they don't produce much individually, but all together my lowest performing sites managed to pull in $1600 for me last year.  Maybe someday I'll be rich and $1600 won't seem worth the effort, but for now, I'll take it ;)

Very simply it depends on how long it takes to make that $1600
If you could make more putting that time into the better paying sites then there is an opportunity cost too

I already explained in the quote you posted that it takes hardly any time at all to upload images to these low earners.  I put time into the better paying sites too, obviously.  The most time consuming part of this job is producing and preparing the content.  I am going to produce the same amount of images whether I am uploading it to 4 sites or 14, so in effect, that extra $1600 is free money for hardly any additional effort.  Understand now?

You forget the opportunity cost.

Let's say it takes you 20 hours to upload to the the sites that make you $1600

Sounds fantastic doesn't it an hourly rate of $80?

Had you instead invested those 20 hours on your best returning site you may have made $4000

The difference is opportunity cost.

Understand now? :-)

« Reply #22 on: April 17, 2013, 11:25 »
+3

Nearly all the examples of agencies "doing fancy trades" and "polluting" the marketplace are from the top agencies - the big moneymakers. If protecting your content and keeping it from winding up all over the place in mysterious partnerships is your primary concern, you would be better off NOT to upload it to the top earning agencies.

You're not wrong on that count.  WHen I started with DT 8 years ago I accidentally (cause I wasn't reading small print too closely) agreed to the 'free image' selection for low / non performing images.

Just last month I reviewed all contracts and have withdrawn from all 'partner site' opt ins and all 'free image' opt ins.

To clarify a little I was a full time stock photographer in 2005 - 2009 before a serious accident saw me hospitalized for a few years so I am just picking up where I left off.

When I started reviewing my DT port I had over 400 images in the 'free selection' some of these were landscape shots of the Slot Canyons that had been free downloaded over 350 times - prior to these going into free selection the shots I had of the same scene in portrait mode had been some of my top performing images and went dead almost as soon as the landscape images went 'free'

Pollution of the pool is more to do with contributors 'opting in' to every deal on the promise that it will increase their sales.  I have found this approach to be negative and find that 'partner sites' are these small upstart sites that don't have the contributors that SS / IS / FT etc have.    By the time the partner has sold it for $1 paid 50% to the site you uploaded to and then they have paid you 25 cents or sometimes less dependant on commision structure agreement  is it really worth opting in?

By my reckoning (and only when the opt out is available) if we don't agree to partner sites then these fly by night operations will wither and fade and there will be less 'pollution' of the market place.

« Reply #23 on: April 17, 2013, 11:36 »
-1
You forget the opportunity cost.

Let's say it takes you 20 hours to upload to the the sites that make you $1600

Sounds fantastic doesn't it an hourly rate of $80?

Had you instead invested those 20 hours on your best returning site you may have made $4000

The difference is opportunity cost.

Understand now? :-)

That doesn't really make a lot of sense. How many new images can you really create in 20 hours versus the number of existing images you can upload in 20 hours? It's not really even close in earnings potential. I guess you can make the argument that you are polluting the waters of your brand, but some of these low earners have better deals than the bigger sites. So that isn't necessarily the case either.

michealo

« Reply #24 on: April 17, 2013, 11:52 »
+3
You forget the opportunity cost.

Let's say it takes you 20 hours to upload to the the sites that make you $1600

Sounds fantastic doesn't it an hourly rate of $80?

Had you instead invested those 20 hours on your best returning site you may have made $4000

The difference is opportunity cost.

Understand now? :-)

That doesn't really make a lot of sense. How many new images can you really create in 20 hours versus the number of existing images you can upload in 20 hours? It's not really even close in earnings potential. I guess you can make the argument that you are polluting the waters of your brand, but some of these low earners have better deals than the bigger sites. So that isn't necessarily the case either.

There is a flaw in your logic there too
The choice is between uploading lots of files to sites that have poor returns versus creating new files that can be uploaded to sites with good returns.

To equal the average return of SS (83.9) seen across one needs to upload From Depositphotos down to Cutcaster (16 sites) (87.5)

DC


« Reply #25 on: April 17, 2013, 15:59 »
0

You forget the opportunity cost.

Let's say it takes you 20 hours to upload to the the sites that make you $1600

Sounds fantastic doesn't it an hourly rate of $80?

Had you instead invested those 20 hours on your best returning site you may have made $4000

The difference is opportunity cost.

Understand now? :-)

I don't understand.  You are just pulling whatever numbers you want out of thin air.  The only real number was $1600 and you just made up the other two.  If the numbers you gave are accurate then people should be able to pull in $16000 a month in microstock just by working 20 hours a week.  I wonder how many people are able to do that.

DC


« Reply #26 on: April 17, 2013, 16:05 »
+7

There is a flaw in your logic there too
The choice is between uploading lots of files to sites that have poor returns versus creating new files that can be uploaded to sites with good returns.

To equal the average return of SS (83.9) seen across one needs to upload From Depositphotos down to Cutcaster (16 sites) (87.5)

If you have 1000 images at Shutterstock then you can double your income by uploading to every site from Deposit to Cutcaster.

To double your income with just Shutterstock you would need to produce 1000 new images, and that would take a LOT more time than just uploading already existing photos to other sites.


WarrenPrice

« Reply #27 on: April 17, 2013, 16:08 »
0

There is a flaw in your logic there too
The choice is between uploading lots of files to sites that have poor returns versus creating new files that can be uploaded to sites with good returns.

To equal the average return of SS (83.9) seen across one needs to upload From Depositphotos down to Cutcaster (16 sites) (87.5)

If you have 1000 images at Shutterstock then you can double your income by uploading to every site from Deposit to Cutcaster.

To double your income with just Shutterstock you would need to produce 1000 new images, and that would take a LOT more time than just uploading already existing photos to other sites.

Well said; good post.

« Reply #28 on: April 17, 2013, 17:18 »
+1
You need to be careful when calculating hours worked vs. image income from any one site or all sites combined. Lots of folks here overlook the continuing income stream with no new working hours.
For exemple, you only have 1 image that took 1 hour to shoot and process. You then keyworded and uploaded that 1 image to 10 sites. That took another 1 hour because you're a lousy typist.
So you've spent 2 hours of time.
Now you sit back and wait for the money to come rolling in. Unfortunately, the image sells only so-so, let's say 1 sale per month per site, averaging $0.50 commission per sale. That totals $5 per month income. So you could say that you earned $5 the first month for an hourly rate of $2.50.
That's a crappy income stream. So you decided to retire from micro-stock and you're too lazy to remove your 1 image. So it sits there earning a meager $5/mo.
Two years later you re-calculate your hourly rate and discover that your 2 hours of labor has actually earned you $120, or $60 per hour.
Three years later you found that your 1 image earned you $90 per hour.
Hmmm. Maybe micro-stock wasn't so bad after all.

michealo

« Reply #29 on: April 18, 2013, 04:53 »
0

There is a flaw in your logic there too
The choice is between uploading lots of files to sites that have poor returns versus creating new files that can be uploaded to sites with good returns.

To equal the average return of SS (83.9) seen across one needs to upload From Depositphotos down to Cutcaster (16 sites) (87.5)

If you have 1000 images at Shutterstock then you can double your income by uploading to every site from Deposit to Cutcaster.

To double your income with just Shutterstock you would need to produce 1000 new images, and that would take a LOT more time than just uploading already existing photos to other sites.

Taking more images should in theory improve you photography / editing skills.
Doing more admin makes you better at admin.

If you take your 1000 image portfolio 20% will make 80% of the revenue
shooting more like these and uploading to SS and a few other higher returning sites would be more beneficial than uploading the same 1000 files to every site that exists.

spending 20 hours on tax planning or developing your photographic or editing skills might give a better return too


« Reply #30 on: April 18, 2013, 05:25 »
+1
If you knew which 20% like the saying about advertising spending 50% is wasted the problem is knowing which 50%

michealo

« Reply #31 on: April 18, 2013, 06:07 »
-1
If you knew which 20% like the saying about advertising spending 50% is wasted the problem is knowing which 50%

It's the 20% that sell most - it's not rocket science.

« Reply #32 on: April 18, 2013, 06:33 »
+5
If you knew which 20% like the saying about advertising spending 50% is wasted the problem is knowing which 50%

It's the 20% that sell most - it's not rocket science.

No, it's certainly not rocket science. Rocket science is both predictable and replicable. Stock photography is not. There is a huge amount of luck involved in how an individual image will sell on one agency or another which is why an image might sell 1000x on one agency and only 5x at another. Even Yuri freely admits that he only rarely knows if an image will do well or not.

michealo

« Reply #33 on: April 18, 2013, 07:11 »
0
I didn't liken stock photography to rocket science.

I said 20% of a portfolio will make 80% of the revenue.

And working out that 20% isn't rocket science.



ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #34 on: April 18, 2013, 07:30 »
0
I didn't liken stock photography to rocket science.

I said 20% of a portfolio will make 80% of the revenue.

And working out that 20% isn't rocket science.
If it's so easy to work out the high sellers, everyone's sales would be evenly high throughout.
On the downside, the collections would be even more evenly generic than they are just now, and the buyers would have less choice.

michealo

« Reply #35 on: April 18, 2013, 08:43 »
0
I didn't liken stock photography to rocket science.

I said 20% of a portfolio will make 80% of the revenue.

And working out that 20% isn't rocket science.
If it's so easy to work out the high sellers, everyone's sales would be evenly high throughout.
On the downside, the collections would be even more evenly generic than they are just now, and the buyers would have less choice.

You can't work out the the 20% of your portfolio that sells the most?

microstockphoto.co.uk

« Reply #36 on: April 18, 2013, 08:55 »
0
The choice is between uploading lots of files to sites that have poor returns versus creating new files that can be uploaded to sites with good returns.

Not necessarily a choice.

I create new files during daytime, while my old netbook (silent, low-power and otherwise useless) stays up all night FTPing.


ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #37 on: April 18, 2013, 08:59 »
0
I didn't liken stock photography to rocket science.

I said 20% of a portfolio will make 80% of the revenue.

And working out that 20% isn't rocket science.
If it's so easy to work out the high sellers, everyone's sales would be evenly high throughout.
On the downside, the collections would be even more evenly generic than they are just now, and the buyers would have less choice.

You can't work out the the 20% of your portfolio that sells the most?
Indeed, but mine are out of the usual as of my top 20 sellers:
2 are of the kitchen in my old day job the day it opened. I have no access to it any more, and it certainly isn't new.
2 are of an iceberg in Newfoundland. That iceberg has done very well for me, and paid for the trip over several images. However, there's no guarantee that any are there at any given time, and I was lucky in that that one was particularly pretty, and I could shoot it twice, a week apart, and also sail all round it. Not always the case.
5 are scanned slides from Kenya, taken long before I was on iS.
1 was taken in Uganda, another more recent Kenya one
1 Grand Canyon
1 winter shot
2 which sold nothing until they were put into the Dollar Bin, then took off
3 random isolations, which sold well in the first couple of years then floundered. Took hours to set up; hours to clean up in post, as I don't have lighting; did in my back, as I don't have a studio and was 'making do'.

So, nothing I can exactly recreate this afternoon when it's raining APU. Also these have a huge cost, so a simple rpd or rpi doesn't cut it.

Also more recent safari pics which IMO are actually better haven't sold so well. These early scans almost certainly wouldn't even get accepted nowadays. One in particular has a very strong 'rival' on iS, and I'm astonished every time mine still sells. (Similarly, they almost certainly wouldn't get into other agencies.)

YMMV.

PS: As a comparison, I just a couple of minutes ago had a dl of a pic I took 'randomly' (I just 'saw' it when the light was good) when out for a meal. First download, uploaded 2009 (!).
Cost to take: $0; rpd: $7.31. 
No cost calculations are simple. That one has now netted me more 'profit percentage' than any of my highest sellers. FWIW.
« Last Edit: April 18, 2013, 09:20 by ShadySue »

« Reply #38 on: April 18, 2013, 11:12 »
+2
You can work out the 20% which sells the most on an agency. Its a little harder to work out which 20% WILL sell the most and on other agencies.

« Reply #39 on: April 18, 2013, 11:21 »
0
No, it's certainly not rocket science. Rocket science is both predictable and replicable. Stock photography is not. There is a huge amount of luck involved in how an individual image will sell on one agency or another which is why an image might sell 1000x on one agency and only 5x at another. Even Yuri freely admits that he only rarely knows if an image will do well or not.

You get a heart for this. That first line cracked me up.

« Reply #40 on: April 24, 2013, 04:37 »
+1
Well now you've all moved this well off topic, I will attempt to bring it back a little towards subject  ::)

I made the decision but not lightly, out of the 15 agencies I have finally decided to remove my ports from 5.

 Not 'may as well leave my pics there and see' attitude, they have had more than their time to perform and still do not So to quote Suggsy 'They failed miserably, you're fired!'

I say no more chances for underperformers, they reserve the right to pick and choose which of your pics they want and still can't sell them? Give them the boot!

By dropping a third of the agencies this really does let me just focus quality time with the ones that have always looked after me well.

Having done the math there is no great loss to me in this culling and the time saved and put into performing agencies should more than make up for it.

« Reply #41 on: April 24, 2013, 04:39 »
0
Well now you've all moved this well off topic, I will attempt to bring it back a little towards subject  ::)

I made the decision but not lightly, out of the 15 agencies I have finally decided to remove my ports from 5.

 Not 'may as well leave my pics there and see' attitude, they have had more than their time to perform and still do not So to quote Suggsy 'They failed miserably, you're fired!'

I say no more chances for underperformers, they reserve the right to pick and choose which of your pics they want and still can't sell them? Give them the boot!

By dropping a third of the agencies this really does let me just focus quality time with the ones that have always looked after me well.

Having done the math there is no great loss to me in this culling and the time saved and put into performing agencies should more than make up for it.

Sounds like a smart idea. 

« Reply #42 on: April 24, 2013, 05:00 »
0

By dropping a third of the agencies this really does let me just focus quality time with the ones that have always looked after me well.


I've never seen the point of deleting a port just because it doesn't get a lot of dls. You've already invested the time in getting the port up there. You can just stop uploading any further images and then then you don't need to focus any quality time there at all except to go in every few months and see if you have reached payout.
On the other hand if the site suddenly takes off and you decide to use them again you will have to upload your whole port there again.

« Reply #43 on: April 24, 2013, 06:28 »
+1
If the site has an extremely easy uploading process and there are at least some sales, I can't see any reason why not upload.

I have a dozen of sites where the active uploading time (just a few clicks) is about 1 minute per month and each site makes be around $200/year. And that's just for 12 minutes of extra work per year. That's $1000 per hour, a very nice rate.
« Last Edit: April 24, 2013, 06:39 by Perry »

« Reply #44 on: April 24, 2013, 07:57 »
0
If the site has an extremely easy uploading process and there are at least some sales, I can't see any reason why not upload.

I have a dozen of sites where the active uploading time (just a few clicks) is about 1 minute per month and each site makes be around $200/year. And that's just for 12 minutes of extra work per year. That's $1000 per hour, a very nice rate.
Exactly and deleting a port actually takes more work with the only result being is loss of potential earnings.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
7 Replies
4082 Views
Last post June 02, 2008, 04:35
by runamock
23 Replies
10910 Views
Last post March 26, 2009, 19:48
by null
31 Replies
7799 Views
Last post May 17, 2010, 06:06
by borg
55 Replies
8374 Views
Last post April 26, 2012, 07:02
by rubyroo
141 Replies
19956 Views
Last post August 27, 2014, 09:00
by Phadrea

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle