pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Your marketing strategies - let's hear it!  (Read 6286 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: January 17, 2010, 21:18 »
0
It's a (relatively) easy start in Microstock. Shoot, upload and earn.

At some point many of us get more serious and want to make a living with our images/videos. What venues, products, marketing strategies are you using to get your stuff sold?

How about a list of ways to (re-)use our images in order to rake in more $$$.

Let's start with:

- Zazzle, Cafepress, redbubble (which require lots of self marketing) - hard to achieve but it does work.

I think it would be useful to many of us as we can't think of everything. Ideally it would be nice to hear the ways that actually generate some money.


« Reply #1 on: January 17, 2010, 23:07 »
0
Any smart person will keep money making tips to themselves.  Sorry.  We're all competitors... ;)

« Reply #2 on: January 17, 2010, 23:16 »
0
Sean, I knew you'd keep that from us ;)

Anyway, I see that this must be too much of a secret although no one appears to have a problem critiquing other photographers' images which would also lead to tougher competition...


« Reply #3 on: January 17, 2010, 23:31 »
0
I've thought about trying Zazzle or CafePress, as I have some "stock" images which I think might sell on a coffee cup or T-shirt, maybe with some creative captioning.  I also put some images on RedBubble and got a few words of praise at the start,  but never a peep after that. 

These sites are really just gigantic haystacks in which you can put your needles.  The marketing is up to you, and like most people, I'm pretty clueless in that regard.  Work the social networking sites?  Write a blog that becomes popular? Rent a space at an art fair? 


« Reply #4 on: January 18, 2010, 01:24 »
0
what I'd prefer to hear is the agencies marketing strategies.

« Reply #5 on: January 18, 2010, 03:16 »
0
what I'd prefer to hear is the agencies marketing strategies.


To get that info you should be employee for some of agencies... Not remote reviewer or similar - more close to their executive staff ;-)

« Reply #6 on: January 18, 2010, 05:24 »
0
I didn't say they would tell me. ;)

Though it appears to me quite a few of them don't have any strategy.

« Reply #7 on: January 18, 2010, 07:40 »
0
Quote
Though it appears to me quite a few of them don't have any strategy.

That's my strategy...no strategy. Day by day. And if I did have a winning strategy, I wouldn't share it.  ;)

Xalanx

« Reply #8 on: January 18, 2010, 07:51 »
0
what strategy? there's no such thing.

helix7

« Reply #9 on: January 18, 2010, 12:05 »
0
... And if I did have a winning strategy, I wouldn't share it.  ;)

Word.

« Reply #10 on: January 18, 2010, 21:38 »
0
Hi Click Click,

 I am looking at Micro motion this year. Starting a new stock agency and increasing my Macro RM output. I think all of my RF will go to Micro this year and I have not out weighed the possibility of going exclusive with Istock. So things I wouldn't have considered a year ago have got to be revisited as the market changes.
 Still plan on high end RM motion and stills and also looking to go back to commercial work if we have the time. Building the Stock Agency has taken up most of my time this year but we got a bunch of motion done so we can watch the sales this year.
 Possibly a new commercial web site to promote us for commercial jobs that cover both motion and stills for the client.

Hope this helps,
Jonathan

« Reply #11 on: January 18, 2010, 22:07 »
0
I have not out weighed the possibility of going exclusive with Istock. So things I wouldn't have considered a year ago have got to be revisited as the market changes.

Except you can't, as you've mentioned many times, because you have RF scattered across the globe.

« Reply #12 on: January 18, 2010, 22:18 »
0
Sean,

Motion is wide open for me as an Exclusive at Istock.

Jonathan

« Reply #13 on: January 19, 2010, 03:43 »
0
Hi Click Click,

 I am looking at Micro motion this year. Starting a new stock agency and increasing my Macro RM output. I think all of my RF will go to Micro this year and I have not out weighed the possibility of going exclusive with Istock. So things I wouldn't have considered a year ago have got to be revisited as the market changes.
 Still plan on high end RM motion and stills and also looking to go back to commercial work if we have the time. Building the Stock Agency has taken up most of my time this year but we got a bunch of motion done so we can watch the sales this year.
 Possibly a new commercial web site to promote us for commercial jobs that cover both motion and stills for the client.

Hope this helps,
Jonathan

Would you share more info about the stock agency you are starting, Jonathan?

« Reply #14 on: January 19, 2010, 07:37 »
0
Sean,

Motion is wide open for me as an Exclusive at Istock.

Jonathan

Sorry, that wasn't clear in your post.  Prepare for frustration!

« Reply #15 on: January 19, 2010, 14:31 »
0
 Hi Sean,

 Yes, it can't be any worse than dealing directly for Getty for all these years. Istock has been treating me very well as of late and I have had some great conversations with the people there. I am used to waiting 6 months for my work to show up for sale at many Macro sites, it can't be much worse than that, or is it?

Thanks for the heads up,
J

PaulieWalnuts

  • On the Wrong Side of the Business
« Reply #16 on: January 19, 2010, 23:22 »
0
Well if you're used to 6 months than IS video should be fast by those standards.


« Reply #17 on: January 20, 2010, 02:46 »
0
Hi Paulie,

 I would love to share more I am bursting at the seams. It has taken most of the year but I should be able to share more inside of two weeks as soon as it goes live at one of our Distributors. I promise to share more as soon as I can.

Best,
Jonathan

« Reply #18 on: January 20, 2010, 17:53 »
0
 Hi All,

 This is a bit of topic but we were talking about how tough it can be in this business. Every photographer that had images with Brand X that was purchased by Getty in the Jupiter take over received a letter from Getty yesterday. It said " We have realized a mistake in our book keeping and you have been receiving 30-40% from your Brand X photos since we took over their control. We were supposed to be paying you 20% so your next check from Getty will subtract the difference in the accounting error.
 If you do not get a check this month that is because you owe us more than we owe you. As soon as you have paid back the debt we will continue with your commissions at the standard 20%, Thank you "
 What about that, their mistake and we get to pay for it. I realize we did get more than we were supposed to but it was their mistake. I think the damage should be shared by both parties but Getty is not going to do that. Welcome to the lovely world of Macro.

Best,
Jonathan

WarrenPrice

« Reply #19 on: January 20, 2010, 21:50 »
0
Hi All,

 This is a bit of topic but we were talking about how tough it can be in this business. Every photographer that had images with Brand X that was purchased by Getty in the Jupiter take over received a letter from Getty yesterday. It said " We have realized a mistake in our book keeping and you have been receiving 30-40% from your Brand X photos since we took over their control. We were supposed to be paying you 20% so your next check from Getty will subtract the difference in the accounting error.
 If you do not get a check this month that is because you owe us more than we owe you. As soon as you have paid back the debt we will continue with your commissions at the standard 20%, Thank you "
 What about that, their mistake and we get to pay for it. I realize we did get more than we were supposed to but it was their mistake. I think the damage should be shared by both parties but Getty is not going to do that. Welcome to the lovely world of Macro.

Best,
Jonathan

Is this for real?  I keep reading it to see where I am supposed to laugh??????????

« Reply #20 on: January 20, 2010, 22:32 »
0
I took a hit on that one too...ruined a relatively decent sales report!


Hi All,

 This is a bit of topic but we were talking about how tough it can be in this business. Every photographer that had images with Brand X that was purchased by Getty in the Jupiter take over received a letter from Getty yesterday. It said " We have realized a mistake in our book keeping and you have been receiving 30-40% from your Brand X photos since we took over their control. We were supposed to be paying you 20% so your next check from Getty will subtract the difference in the accounting error.
 If you do not get a check this month that is because you owe us more than we owe you. As soon as you have paid back the debt we will continue with your commissions at the standard 20%, Thank you "
 What about that, their mistake and we get to pay for it. I realize we did get more than we were supposed to but it was their mistake. I think the damage should be shared by both parties but Getty is not going to do that. Welcome to the lovely world of Macro.

Best,
Jonathan

Is this for real?  I keep reading it to see where I am supposed to laugh??????????

PaulieWalnuts

  • On the Wrong Side of the Business
« Reply #21 on: January 21, 2010, 07:21 »
0
Hi All, This is a bit of topic but we were talking about how tough it can be in this business. Every photographer that had images with Brand X that was purchased by Getty in the Jupiter take over received a letter from Getty yesterday. It said " We have realized a mistake in our book keeping and you have been receiving 30-40% from your Brand X photos since we took over their control. We were supposed to be paying you 20% so your next check from Getty will subtract the difference in the accounting error.  If you do not get a check this month that is because you owe us more than we owe you. As soon as you have paid back the debt we will continue with your commissions at the standard 20%, Thank you " What about that, their mistake and we get to pay for it. I realize we did get more than we were supposed to but it was their mistake. I think the damage should be shared by both parties but Getty is not going to do that. Welcome to the lovely world of Macro.
Best,
Jonathan

I wasn't part of the BrandX issue but a similar thing happened. They mistakenly paid out a higher percentage but took it back on the next statement. Getty is different from micro. There's no community forum to voice your opinion. They make changes and you deal with it.

« Reply #22 on: January 21, 2010, 12:16 »
0
Hi All, This is a bit of topic but we were talking about how tough it can be in this business. Every photographer that had images with Brand X that was purchased by Getty in the Jupiter take over received a letter from Getty yesterday. It said " We have realized a mistake in our book keeping and you have been receiving 30-40% from your Brand X photos since we took over their control. We were supposed to be paying you 20% so your next check from Getty will subtract the difference in the accounting error.  If you do not get a check this month that is because you owe us more than we owe you. As soon as you have paid back the debt we will continue with your commissions at the standard 20%, Thank you " What about that, their mistake and we get to pay for it. I realize we did get more than we were supposed to but it was their mistake. I think the damage should be shared by both parties but Getty is not going to do that. Welcome to the lovely world of Macro.
Best,
Jonathan

I wasn't part of the BrandX issue but a similar thing happened. They mistakenly paid out a higher percentage but took it back on the next statement. Getty is different from micro. There's no community forum to voice your opinion. They make changes and you deal with it.

but at least the money you make there far surpasses even the most you can make in micro, right?

and going back to Mr. Ross's comment on sharing the damage.
i am not sure if this is business protocol.  eg. if the bank machine had a glitch and deposited 1,000, 000 quid to your account.  are you supposed to be entitled to keep 50% of it?
it wasn't your mistake that you woke up and found you're a millionaire. so you hurriedly went out to get your Ferrari. now , the bank comes back and said it was a glitch.
and you shake your head and exclaim, "oh shoot, i thought that was an inheritance from my dying uncle!"
 ;)

btw, this "damage-share" would never wash with the taxman either. i had once a re-assessment on the 4th year. not even sure if they even charged me interest on the "over-refundement".

P.S.
apologies to click_click for the OT.
« Last Edit: January 21, 2010, 12:26 by PERSEUS »

« Reply #23 on: January 21, 2010, 18:59 »
0
Hi Perseus,

 yea I agree with what you are saying totally from a legal position. The part I have trouble with is a letter instead of some more direct way to present the problem as well as the amount of money I have made Getty in the past 12 years. I never expect them to do anything of the sort I just love having reciprocating relationships. If I came in and said, " oh I made a mistake and those 10,000 images on your site were actually ear marked for Micro so we will be removing them over the next week " they wouldn't even consider the idea. Maybe not the best example but it is frustrating to have to pay someone back for their mistake

Best,
j

« Reply #24 on: January 21, 2010, 19:57 »
0
Hi Perseus,

 yea I agree with what you are saying totally from a legal position. The part I have trouble with is a letter instead of some more direct way to present the problem as well as the amount of money I have made Getty in the past 12 years. I never expect them to do anything of the sort I just love having reciprocating relationships. If I came in and said, " oh I made a mistake and those 10,000 images on your site were actually ear marked for Micro so we will be removing them over the next week " they wouldn't even consider the idea. Maybe not the best example but it is frustrating to have to pay someone back for their mistake

Best,
j

sure Jonathan, I can relate to all this.
And in most situations, we would have already reallocated the money we made to other things, right?
I always put back what I make in photography to more photographic assets,etc...
so I too would be screaming my head off if something like that happens.
Like , "whattttt? all that money have already be spent on upgrading my studio, new lights, props,etc..  And we would have already taken all those into consideration in budgeting for the coming fiscal year".

I think in that sense, the taxman is a bit more negotiable. As many times a visit to their office would get you to be able to spread the payback . But you are right, communication could have been a little more tete a tete.

Yes, in that sense, some business ppl should go back to school to learn a little more about PR or just plain communication in bona fide, so as not to leave a bad taste in the mouth, so to speak.
« Last Edit: January 21, 2010, 20:01 by PERSEUS »


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
31 Replies
10211 Views
Last post March 14, 2008, 17:49
by sharply_done
23 Replies
4675 Views
Last post May 22, 2009, 08:00
by bittersweet
99 Replies
24673 Views
Last post August 29, 2010, 19:21
by FD
54 Replies
13287 Views
Last post March 01, 2016, 17:46
by YadaYadaYada
49 Replies
6589 Views
Last post May 16, 2015, 02:37
by Hobostocker

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results