|
MicrostockGroup Sponsors
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - cthoman
Pages: 1 ... 77 78 79 80 81 [82] 83 84 85 86 87 ... 145
2027
« on: May 16, 2012, 13:59 »
I think it would be funny to just start filing DMCA takedown notices to Alamy.
2028
« on: May 16, 2012, 13:52 »
Seriously? any case, whats the point?, you will be replaced by one or two tomorrow. Wont even make a dent. This has been my whole point for years, its a numbers game and nobody is irreplacable.
It's a two way street. FT was pretty easy to replace as well. 
2029
« on: May 16, 2012, 11:02 »
Everyone should pull all their images from Fotolia, and see how much it is worth then.
Too late. I already did that a year ago.
2030
« on: May 15, 2012, 16:21 »
So the average royalty rate (in 2011) at shutterstock is now official:
28%. (33,7 / 120,2)
How much above (higher levels) or below (beginners) that average anyone's individual percentage is, is still a little mystery...
If true, it wouldn't surprise me. I always assumed it was somewhere between 20-30%. My guess was always 25%.
2031
« on: May 15, 2012, 11:23 »
Are you saying that you make as much per image selling on your own site as you make from either iStock or Shutterstock? Or is the "particular agency" something like Canstock? And do you have clients who you can direct to your site or are you relying entirely on search engines?
I really do not see how simply through SEO someone can match the returns generated by Shutterstock. But, of course, I might be wrong, and if I am I would like to know how to perform that particular trick.
I'm not there yet, but I'm getting closer. This month could be real close. I usually either end up right above or below DT at about 10% of total income. I don't really have a trick. You don't have to sell as much when you sell at reasonable prices and take 100% of it. Most of it is content generation and search traffic. I made a decision about two years ago that I was going to only upload my new images to a couple fair partner sites. This year I wanted to double my portfolio from 4000 images to 8000 to ensure that I had more unique content on my site. I'm a little over half way there. I think this strategy is working too. I dumped IS and FT last year, but my income is pretty much back to where it was in 2010 BRC (Before Redeemed Credits). Now if I can just get my affiliate program humming, I might actually grow a little faster.
2032
« on: May 15, 2012, 09:49 »
The marketing figure makes perfect sense. Why do we rely on agencies to represent us? Because as individuals we don't have the clout to market ourselves. Agencies are firts and foremost a marketing tool for photographers/image producers, the accounting function is secondary.
You seem to like to promote this myth. It doesn't really cost that much to open up a shop and compete. When I say compete I mean my earnings on my site versus my earnings on a particular agency.
2033
« on: May 14, 2012, 16:23 »
In that case, before the invention of the picture, (the photograph) what did businesses use for promotion, advertising, etc, ?
They hired illustrators and paid them good money. Thanks a lot, stupid camera.
2034
« on: May 14, 2012, 14:53 »
But don't forget that IS's stated goal is 20% and at least so far SS hasn't said that.
SS's goal is 25%.
I don't know, by my calculations it's about 8%. 5 image pack for $49 = $9.8 per image. They pay 81 cents at the lowest for small multi on demand sales which is about 8% right? BTW what is the justification for paying different amounts for medium and large files when it looks like it costs the buyer the same amount to buy either?
It was a joke. Both sites pay pretty low.
2035
« on: May 14, 2012, 14:50 »
I love the idea but you are right they need some funding to offer this service for free till they show success.
Maybe the first step to find an investor for this idea is that more photographers need their own selling-site.
I always assumed you could just run a site like this using affiliate codes built into the links. For example, my affiliate program pays more per sale than most sites pay their artists.
2036
« on: May 14, 2012, 14:40 »
But don't forget that IS's stated goal is 20% and at least so far SS hasn't said that.
SS's goal is 25%.
2037
« on: May 14, 2012, 14:22 »
Thank you Lisa for trying to bring the thread back to the topic, which is buyers bailing on istock. It almost turned into a pimping thread there for a minute. 
You all can put down the "types of buyers" that are leaving istock all you want, but the fact is, it has hurt istock. If all istock wants is ad agencies and large companies for buyers, then they are certainly on the right track. Job well done!
I guess that's what I don't get. IS files aren't really that expensive for regular exclusive and non-exclusive. The agency stuff and extra collection get pricey and confusing. I question the way they implemented everything, but for the most part, I don't think IS is overpriced.
2038
« on: May 14, 2012, 13:50 »
Am I just the one asking this question? I'm feeling helpless with the sales trend and changes in iStock and wonder if I should just drop my crown too and start selling everywhere else. Maybe some of the members here could share their experience?
Tough question. I don't think iStock will ever be what it was again. That said, I don't think Shutterstock will ever be what iStock was either. I'd say go with your gut and what you think will be the best option for your future.
2039
« on: May 14, 2012, 12:29 »
That's what I'm trying to say to the ppl all along, XS should be sold for 5 or 10 cr, but they all start saying you're mad, no one is going to buy an XS for 50 (I guess they multiply what I'm saying 5*10), do macro and stop complaining etc.
I don't think you are mad (at least not for that view). I have a site where I sell the smallest size for $10 and the largest for $30, and it's my number one site now. I sell just the vector version on my own site, and I think that works very well too.
2040
« on: May 14, 2012, 11:56 »
Hopefully, this is a positive thing. I guess my conference call grumblings a few weeks ago to the Morgan Stanley guys didn't scare them off.
2041
« on: May 14, 2012, 10:44 »
Well, I am a rude person and YES, I can do nicely without, pimps, pontses and panders, cheapskates, scrooges, warewoolfs and vampires, well, maybe not vampires, they tend to live forever, suits me fine.
I always thought the ad agencies were the cheapskates because they have the budgets to pay more, but eat at the all you can eat buffet anyway.
2042
« on: May 14, 2012, 10:18 »
As a real world example, the last image I bought was a paintbrush with paint on it. It was $3 at Canstock. If it was $50-$100, I would have just got my camera out and some supplies from the closet and taken it myself. But if it was $10-$20, I would have still bought it.
My point is that buyers will pay more for the images up to a point. I don't think there is anything wrong with the agencies increasing prices to find that sweet spot. Most images have way more value than a couple dollars, so there really isn't any reason they should cost that much.
2043
« on: May 14, 2012, 09:21 »
Reading all this! its quite clear that most but a few, dont really know anything else then micro, or rather have no experience of any other form of photography then micro.
I keep reading stuff like " buyers would take their own pics, etc" , look, let me tell you, most buyers here, DO NOT, have a single clue of how to set-up, or take pictures, let alone all the raw, PP, PS and other programs, they dont even know what is involved in post-processing, theyre punters, not creatives and all they need is a pic, to promote whatever.
As a former graphic designer/art director at a small company, that doesn't sound so unusual. I'm by no means a photographer, but I used to take some of our product shots. Then, tweak them in Photoshop and isolate them out. Sometimes things have to get done (now) when you're running a project, so graphic designers have to wear a lot of hats.
2044
« on: May 13, 2012, 18:25 »
Why do you even bother with microstock? You knew what it was and what the price points were when you started, didn't you? Why don't you just put all your images at Getty in the macro collection?
That's what I don't understand about the people who are submitting to microstock who are complaining about the prices. You are certainly free NOT to sell your best, highest production value photos at microstock prices. So instead of complaining about how you submit them to microstock and don't get a return, why don't you submit to them to macro stock instead, if you are so intent on getting a bigger return?
But, what are micro prices? I can join sites and sell images from between $1 and a hundred dollars or so. That's a large range with a lot of different models and strategies.
2045
« on: May 13, 2012, 17:14 »
Graphic Leftovers tried the "one price" system, but they don't use it anymore.
iStock was fairly successful at selling vectors at one size (they had complexity tiers).
2046
« on: May 13, 2012, 15:40 »
You all know that print media has been in decline in the last years, and it will be declining also in future.
I see the average size of images sold is getting smaller and smaller. more xsmall and small sizes, less large and xlarge.
I think microstock sites should revise their pricing. Small sizes up and big sizes down. What do you think?
I've always been a fan of the one size approach.
2047
« on: May 13, 2012, 13:55 »
Different pricing models work for different contributors. The problem is that it's a one size fits all model and we don't have much choice or say in how our files are priced. Which is a shame because I think most of us know more about selling our images than most agencies do.
2048
« on: May 13, 2012, 11:46 »
I think they've changed their upgrade policy now so that upgrade discounts will only apply if you're upgrading from the most recent version. No more skipping versions so you'd have to upgrade each time they have a new release or pay full price. The real benefit goes to those using multiple programs. Lightroom is supposed to be added later this year so if you're using LR, PS, and InDesign it becomes more economical. Definately a win if you're using more than a few programs.
That was basically my thinking. That and they want to release new versions every year. It's a shame to be forced into buying more often, but it's not so bad of a price. I do get a lot of use out of a variety of programs in the suite. I guess it's just another business expense.
2049
« on: May 12, 2012, 13:09 »
I took the plunge and bought their cloud service. It took a little while to download everything, but it ran smoothly while I went out to dinner. I got a discount of $30 a month (instead of $50) too because my CS4 qualified for their upgrade discount.
Now, the fun part of exploring all the different programs and changes begins.
2050
« on: May 11, 2012, 11:31 »
This Getty Images "It takes more" ad campaign still cracks me up. I just saw one while surfing.
Pages: 1 ... 77 78 79 80 81 [82] 83 84 85 86 87 ... 145
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
