Fine Art America - sales increasing nicely since September

[ShadySue]

So, if one watermarks images there, I gather there's no option but to have the FAA watermark in the corner. It doesn't look bad at all, but I do wish they included a note that the wm will be removed when the print/card is produced. How hard could that be???

They do say it somewhere on the site, but I also write it into the description if I remember.

[marthamarks]

They do say it somewhere on the site, but I also write it into the description if I remember.

Interesting!

Sue, I arrived at that same "solution" too. The link below goes to one of the first images I uploaded there, with that notice in the description. The wm is barely visible on this image, but I hope it provides a wee bit of protection.

http://fineartamerica.com/featured/two-backlit-snow-geese-martha-marks.html

[DF_Studios]

I've had a huge June so far.    I've been on there for three years now.  Sales lead to more sales as it moves you up in the search, so it takes time and promotional effort to get a foothold.  Don't expect sales to just come in.  Took me about two years to get the ball rolling.

[Mantis]

I've had a huge June so far.    I've been on there for three years now.  Sales lead to more sales as it moves you up in the search, so it takes time and promotional effort to get a foothold.  Don't expect sales to just come in.  Took me about two years to get the ball rolling.

How are you promoting?

[Silken Photography]

I would if I could ever bl**dy upload.  The last 4 times I've tried, only one image has actually uploaded.  I uploaded 7 images to Crated in the time I got that one to work.

[stockastic]

I notice that there's no longer any discussion, on the FAA forum, about that long awaited "major upgrade" to the so-called Artist Web Sites.  I think it's pure vapor at this point.   The last time I made a sarcastic comment about this on the FAA forum I got a nasty lecture from the moderator and the thread was immediately closed - that was a couple of weeks ago, and nothing since.

I really hope that someone, somewhere, is creating a new POD site that looks good, lets us set our own prices, has keyword search, and finds some way to filter out all the cr@p without being an artsy hipster fantasy like Crated.

[Mantis]

I notice that there's no longer any discussion, on the FAA forum, about that long awaited "major upgrade" to the so-called Artist Web Sites.  I think it's pure vapor at this point.   The last time I made a sarcastic comment about this on the FAA forum I got a nasty lecture from the moderator and the thread was immediately closed - that was a couple of weeks ago, and nothing since.

I really hope that someone, somewhere, is creating a new POD site that looks good, lets us set our own prices, has keyword search, and finds some way to filter out all the cr@p without being an artsy hipster fantasy like Crated.

Well stated.

[marthamarks]

without being an artsy hipster fantasy like Crated.

+1

[ShadySue]

Wow - they can't even take helpful bug reporting.
I noticed that Art Deco / art deco returns no results, though "Art Deco" returns many, as expected.

I posted that info on the discussion board, affirming that e.g. New York (not in quotes) is findable. Obviously, I have no way of knowing whether/which/how many other searches might be affected.
This morning, I see my post has been 'disappeared', but as I just took the screenshot a couple of minutes ago, the issue is still there. (I guess it might take a server update, but surely a better way of responding would have been 'thanks, fixed' rather than disappearing the post.
The real worry is what caused the bug and how many searches it affects. Maybe they don't even care. (?)

[stockastic]

Their search function is very crude compared to the microstocks - for example you have to add your own plurals, and all the variations of "black and white", "b & w", "black & white" etc.  The search knows nothing about synonyms.  Coincidentally I added a photo yesterday with the phrase "art deco" and obviously many if not most buyers wouldn't know they had to put it in quotes.

The search is cut off after about 25 pages so new photos of common subjects have no chance anyway.

But hey - iPhone cases! And image licensing!   

[ShadySue]

Their search function is very crude compared to the microstocks - for example you have to add your own plurals, and all the variations of "black and white", "b & w", "black & white" etc.  The search knows nothing about synonyms. 

And both Proper English and American English spellings. Total PITA, like Alamy.

But yes, new files going to the end is going to stymie anything in large searches.

Also, I noticed in one particular popular search, all of the first page and much of the second, was by one particular contributor, except the three 'sponsored' searches, one of which was also his. Nothing wrong with his work, and by coincidence I noticed a sale the very day after finding this search, but it makes submitting in that search a bit pointless (unless someone specfied photo in the dropdown). Also doesn't show any variety of styles to the buyers.

[landbysea]

It seems that using the word art as a first word confuses the search unless the phrase is in quotes. The search will however return results for a search for deco with all the files with the tag "art deco". New files do not go to the end. They are ranked by an unknown algorithm. If the artist who uploaded it is a big seller and has recently sold works with that keyword the piece will go right to the front of the search. There are also various ways to change the sort. You can sort by age so Mr. stocktastic's new file is right at the top. ;-). You can also do a random sort. I doubt many use these options except experienced buyers. The sort options buttons are a bit glitchy also and will lock if any of the search terms is also a term for medium as in "art'

[ShadySue]

Art Nouveau works without quotes.
But yes, there are many glitches.

[stockastic]

The main factor in search placement is previous sales, and maybe that means all sales by a particular artist - we'll never know, but it's probably more accurate to say that all your images go to the end of the list until you make some sales.  And with the search results now capped after a limited number of pages, new artists probably won't have much of a chance unless they can jump start some sales through their own marketing efforts.

[ShadySue]

There was some date when things changed. My older images there are generally around the middle of the search, with some about 1/4 way down. My newer images are generally towards the very end.

[ShadySue]

And, despite the above, I just got a sale, so   

[Mantis]

And, despite the above, I just got a sale, so   

Saweet.

[ShadySue]

Trying to see where my recently sold image came in the most likely search term (two words) I was it was very low, below probably hundreds of images (unrelated to the subject) by a guy whose surname was one of the words in the keyword phrase.
For example, if your artist name on FAA was Joe Mantis, then your images might be bunched together in a search for Praying Mantis, with many actual Praying Mantis images below that.
Crude and unhelpful, when there's an option to search for artist.
I'm guessing my buyer used an extra qualifier, such as 'insect' in the Praying Mantis scenario, though putting "Praying Mantis" in quotes works, as would the scientific name.

[stockastic]

We can discuss all the shortcomings of FAA until we're blue, and it's just a waste of time.  All the problems with search have been brought up on the FAA forum many times and the response is always "it's not going to change".

McDunn apparently has no interest in updating the site, it's just a cash cow.  Obviously his attention is elsewhere (a week ago  there was a joyous announcement of the McDunns' new baby) and he's the only technical guy behind the site - it's a one man show.

It is what it is. It works, sort of - I make an occasional sale - but it's frustrating because it could be so much better. I don't mean to beat up on Sean McDunn, he's done an amazing thing with FAA.  It's just a shame we've all ended up depending on a company that doesn't have the motivation to move forward.  All we can do is hope for some meaningful competition to emerge.

[hofhoek]

I have 875 images/art on FAA but haven't sold anything except one small postcard about a year ago. I have absolutely no clue why I don't sell when I see what does but I must do something wrong.
http://fineartamerica.com/profiles/patricia-hofmeester.html

[landbysea]

ShadySue, the search is very literal. a search for praying mantis will not show a Joe mantis. There has to be an exact match. Although it will pull off the 'mantis" and match it up with "praying" if there are no other results to return. Putting in insect does not help. There are no categories. It a straight word for word match.
Stockastic is correct in saying that sales by a particular artist count in the algorithm. I figure there are other parameters in the algorithm related to sales.
There is a relevancy function to the algorithm. The search is not static and will eventually push back irrelevant files.

[ShadySue]

Sorry, this is long, and doesn't reflect what a buyer would probably do; just demonstrating what I said above the workings of FAA's Search in one specific. Also I apologise profusely to Ms Swan. I didn't want to bring her into this, but as my hypothecial was refuted, I had to give a real life example.

ShadySue., the search is very literal. a search for praying mantis will not show a Joe mantis. there has to be an exact match. Although it will pull off the mantis and match it up with praying if there are no other results to return. Putting in insect does not help. There are no categories. It a straight word for word match.

OK, I'll demonstrate by the actual subject I sold, which was a Black Swan.
Searching for Black Swan (not in quotes) the top image is two wee girls at a piano with a painting of a white swan on a wall in the background. (Swan and black are both in the keywords, seemingly black after swan - it's interesting to see how different minds work. I wouldn't have keyworded black or swan on that image.)
Today, my own three Black Swan images are showing very highly - because I 'sponsored' Black Swan last night in a rolling programme of sponsorings. Yesterday after my sale when I checked, all three were very low. Bracketing that ...

The first page of the Black Swan (not in quotes) search throws up a lot of Black Swans, and a lot of images connected with the movie (no CV). At this point, a buyer would probably either put Black Swan into quotes (won't get rid of the movie-related images) or add bird, which deletes the movie images, but elevates a lot of non-black swan images with black also as a keyword (e.g. on the front page of Black Swan unmodified there's a white swan with a black beak) If it were me, I'd switch immediately to Cygnus atratus, because experience with micros has taught me that many fewer people bother to spam the scientific name, or get it wrong (though it happens).

Bracketing what a buyer might do, and sticking with Back Swan, unmodified, no quotes (to demonstrate how the search works) ...

Page 2 has a few more white swans (various) with black in the keywords, and by page 5, there's a much higher number of white swans, often against a black background.
Towards the bottom of page 6, there are a lot of 'black' and white drawings by an artist called Kelli Swan, not of swans (mostly horses and/or dogs). Her work is very good, and presumably sells well and is almost half of the images shown on pp7 and 8, tailing off on page 9, at which point, we get a lot more white swans and black-necked swans.

Page 10 has some real Black Swans appearing again, mixed in with white and black-necked swans, and some more of Ms Swan's work. Pages 11 & 12 have few, if any actual Black Swans, but they appear again on p13, presumably from new contributors or those who have not sold. Last night, just after notification of my sale, and before I sponsored 'Black Swan', I had one on the bottom of p10, 1 on the top of p11 and one I couldn't find.

The preponderance of actual Black Swans on p14 is much higher than on pp 7-12.

Added: I just sponsored 'Victoria Falls', and noticed that my pic of Murchison Falls had gone into the sponsored slot rotation - because MF is on the Victoria Nile. 
iS's CV has problems, but it's better than anything else, if it's used properly by contributors (not spammed) and updated as necessary.

Added x2: And a cartoonist called Kim Niles (apologies again, not criticising her or her work, only the system) has files higher in a search for Nile (no s) than actual images of the Nile.

[ShadySue]

I have 875 images/art on FAA but haven't sold anything except one small postcard about a year ago. I have absolutely no clue why I don't sell when I see what does but I must do something wrong.

A lot of people who have regular sales market outwith FAA and just use them for realisation. FAA don't do any promotion that I've ever seen or heard of (of course maybe some I don't know about [?]).
That has been said often in their heavily-moderated discussion forum,  but is also apparent from seeing sales of images with 'artsy' titles and no keywords or description, so they're not findable from within the site.
I don't promote and have no fans or followers, so my sales there are sporadic. Still, it's fun for me, as I can return to work which would be considered 'over-filtered' on iS, so had been out of making for a while.

[hofhoek]

Thanks for the reaction Shady Sue. I don't like to put my images on Facebook too much (or on other social media) as I read that every image put on Facebook then belongs to Facebook. I never understand why so many just give their images away like this. How did you do you sponsering?

[ShadySue]

Thanks for the reaction Shady Sue. I don't like to put my images on Facebook too much (or on other social media) as I read that every image put on Facebook then belongs to Facebook. I never understand why so many just give their images away like this. How did you do you sponsering?

I just follow the instructions for 'sponsoring' on the site. It's a PITA and takes ages, really tedious, but I only started a couple of weeks ago so can't say if it's worth it. Even things that work in the search don't work with sponsoring, so you have to 'sponsor' e.g. 'street Miami' and 'Miami Street'. Although the search seems to bring up the same search, if you only 'sponsor' the first, it won't have a 'sponsor rotation position' for the second.

I don't promote on Fb, I'd have 25 unfriends in a couple of days! I see people use Pinterest and/or LinkedIn, but any sales I've get have just been random people somehow finding my images in the search.

BTW, the photos don't belong to Fb. IIRC they tried to push that last year sometime, then backed down after a stooshie. I only put facebookish pics on Fb, only my 25 'friends' can see them, they're only 720px wide, and they're watermarked (unless they come directly from my phone. I must learn how to downsize and watermark phone pics, but they're really just 'happy snaps'.