pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Anyone sold anything on Pocketstock?  (Read 2842 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Microbius

« on: September 15, 2012, 04:35 »
0
I'm just wondering if they have shifted a single license since they opened their doors. Anyone seen any action at all?


« Reply #1 on: September 15, 2012, 04:54 »
0
Nothing.  Wondering if I should leave now because if I do sell anything, how will I ever reach the 60 payout level?  People are critical of Stockfresh but I do sell with them and get the occasional payout.  I thought this site would be at least that good but so far its a big disappointment.

« Reply #2 on: September 15, 2012, 11:19 »
0
I just went to check, and still $0

They made it virtually no work for me to get my portfolio up there, so I'm quite happy to let the files sit while they work things out, but I don't expect to upload anything new unless we see some sales.

Stockfresh - I had great hopes for that site given StockXpert - has been so slow that I'm not uploading any more. In just over a year there (with only 1,500 of my images uploaded) I'm sitting at $48.60, which is sad. With only 800 images at Veer I've had several payouts in the same period.

Microbius

« Reply #3 on: September 16, 2012, 04:56 »
0
I'll take that as a no then, it's a shame they don't have a rep on here to give some idea of their strategy.

« Reply #4 on: September 17, 2012, 09:58 »
0
We know there are some of you that have not made sales, this is largely down to us spending time building our content, as without large numbers it's not easy to make sales.  We have now realised that our attempt to try and sell content at much higher prices than other agencies is not possible in the present climate, so we will soon be getting more aggressive with our pricing. It takes at least three months to make sales from any new agency and we have been selling for around a month and a half and at much higher prices than any other agency. You might all want to wait a while before passing judgement, as building an agency to compete with those that sell images for 30 cents, have millions in the bank and millions of images, is not going to be easy or quick. It takes time to get to critical mass and that doesn't happen in a few months either.
« Last Edit: September 17, 2012, 10:14 by Pocketstock »

« Reply #5 on: September 17, 2012, 10:41 »
0
.... We have now realised that our attempt to try and sell content at much higher prices than other agencies is not possible in the present climate, so we will soon be getting more aggressive with our pricing. ...
Did I miss that?  I thought your prices were already cheaper than some sites I use and you also let buyers bid for smaller license fees.  I thinks it's wrong to compare with subscription sites, like you seem to be doing.  That's a different model and there lots of sites selling pay per download at much higher than 30 cents.

This does nothing to increase my confidence in you, why wasn't all this researched properly before starting the site?  Some sites have tried getting more aggressive with pricing but that doesn't seem to attract buyers.  They get buyers by spending lots on marketing.  I wish there was a better way but if all you can come up with is lower prices, we might as well all leave now.

I hope you can take some time to think about this.  If you really want us to stay with your site, lower the minimum payout to $10 and spend all your time thinking of new ways to get buyers interested.  Otherwise you'll end up like all the other sites that have failed to make any significant sales and have lost the vast majority of their contributors.

« Reply #6 on: September 17, 2012, 11:20 »
0
Why does it matter how high you price our images as long as you are advertising on the front page (bidder) that people basically can pay the lowest price they can find online anyway?

I understand that Pocketstock is new and attracting buyers is the hardest part of the business but I doubt that the pricing is really the issue here.

Many of us sell the same images also at Alamy at prices way higher than Pocketstock (and also more often than Pocketstock...).

It's the small customer base that you have at the moment not purchasing enough images which is the problem.

Best of luck to get the customers!

« Reply #7 on: September 21, 2012, 12:43 »
0
They sent me a flickr mail asking me to supply my content (which is why I looked at this thread).

Apart from the question of sales volume I was perturbed by the statement that they will pay 30% basic AFTER deducting taxes and "necessary expenses". I didn't stop to search for a definition of "necessary expenses" but it struck me that these could include the entire running costs of the site, in which case having a zero balance would not necessarily indicate that they hadn't sold  your images.

I have trouble understanding how "necessary expenses" can be fairly apportioned between sales, since the volume of sales and the expenses will vary over time.

« Reply #8 on: September 21, 2012, 12:52 »
0
i hope they will consider to pay for uploading.. it had been a long time a new agency paid for uploading


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
69 Replies
16246 Views
Last post November 30, 2012, 09:18
by CD123
8 Replies
2385 Views
Last post June 27, 2012, 07:20
by luissantos84
27 Replies
6883 Views
Last post August 30, 2012, 11:59
by fotografer
1 Replies
1551 Views
Last post August 14, 2012, 14:59
by luissantos84
4 Replies
2071 Views
Last post September 15, 2012, 15:54
by tomasfoto

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results