Author Topic: If I were a low earner site... (Read 5994 times)

microstockphoto.co.uk · « **on:** November 04, 2010, 08:18 »

... I'd try to make things as simple as possible for contributors. Why don't you?

- pictures should go directly from FTP to review to online status, without even visiting the web site: no categories to choose, boxes to tick, buttons to click, links to follow; smart IPTC import: if a field is missing, try to guess it from other fields;

- pictures should only be checked for technical / legal issues: how do you dare to tell us that our pictures are LCV if you can't sell a single picture?

If my only effort was to upload files, I'd probably give you a try hoping for future sales. But even losing a minute on a low earner site is not acceptable, given the current expected return (near zero sales)

Am I wrong?

lisafx · « **Reply #1 on:** November 04, 2010, 08:25 »

Sounds like a great recipe to me. Hope some of them are listening

gostwyck · « **Reply #2 on:** November 04, 2010, 08:36 »

Why bother with low-earning sites anyway? Any site that is less than 2-3% of total earnings is essentially a waste of time. More practical and cost-effective to concentrate on building your ports at the agencies that do spend out on marketing and do shift product.

The success or otherwise of a microstock agency is almost entirely down to their marketing expenditure __ if they ain't selling it's because they ain't spending and therefore you shouldn't be wasting your time with them.

microstockphoto.co.uk · « **Reply #3 on:** November 04, 2010, 08:42 »

Quote from: gostwyck on November 04, 2010, 08:36

Why bother with low-earning sites anyway? Any site that is less than 2-3% of total earnings is essentially a waste of time. More practical and cost-effective to concentrate on building your ports at the agencies that do spend out on marketing and do shift product.

While building a port, I completely agree with you.

But if one already has a large port, fully IPTC tagged, and very little time to shoot new pictures - my current situation, since I am also doing other things besides photography (architect) - things are different.

If I could add 2% for each low earner by simply FTPing my full port, it wouldn't be a waste of time for me.

RT · « **Reply #4 on:** November 04, 2010, 08:43 »

123RF and Stockfresh are the low earning sites that have the easiest upload process that I'm prepared to tolerate, other than attach model releases (which you'd have to do manually no matter how easy a site makes it) I don't do anything once the files have gone via FTP.

Other than that I agree with gostwyck, it's a complete waste of time uploading to the others, unless you use a distributor.

And IMO no new microstock site will succeed unless they have major funding, and I actually think all the sites in the 'low earner' section on the right actually damage the industry.

lisafx · « **Reply #5 on:** November 04, 2010, 08:43 »

Quote from: gostwyck on November 04, 2010, 08:36

The success or otherwise of a microstock agency is almost entirely down to their marketing expenditure __ if they ain't selling it's because they ain't spending and therefore you shouldn't be wasting your time with them.

Very good point.

I generally advise anyone just starting out to go with the top 4-5 sites. Until Istock began its recent nosedive I wouldn't have considered the lower earning sites, but I have begun to wonder if it's wise to allow just four sites to completely dominate the market.

At this point, with my whole port on those big sites, I have a bit of leeway to explore some of the more promising lower tier sites.

microstockphoto.co.uk · « **Reply #6 on:** November 04, 2010, 08:46 »

Quote from: lisafx on November 04, 2010, 08:43

but I have begun to wonder if it's wise to allow just four sites to completely dominate the market.

this is a very good point in a long-term perspective

Kone · « **Reply #7 on:** November 04, 2010, 09:14 »

Quote from: microstockphoto.co.uk on November 04, 2010, 08:18

Am I wrong?

Nope!

Personally I don't submit to new sites. Make couple exceptions and those are mistakes, I tried CC and DP, I like CC commitions and DP had aggressive start. I still have portfolio on CC but I am done with DP.
Usually they are waste of your time as I can see.

Stockware · « **Reply #8 on:** November 04, 2010, 09:29 »

thats really surprising to hear this $:-\$ I have made more on one site that is not even mentioned here on MS than FT or DT put together. some new sites are really niche and can do so well if you choose right.

RacePhoto · « **Reply #9 on:** November 10, 2010, 02:33 »

Quote from: Stockware on November 04, 2010, 09:29

thats really surprising to hear this $:-\$ I have made more on one site that is not even mentioned here on MS than FT or DT put together. some new sites are really niche and can do so well if you choose right.

Are you the owner of that site? I figure that's the best way to make money on a new site.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: If I were a low earner site... (Read 5994 times)

microstockphoto.co.uk

lisafx

gostwyck

microstockphoto.co.uk

RT

lisafx

microstockphoto.co.uk

Kone

Stockware

RacePhoto

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors