|
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 - stockastic
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 15 ... 160
226
« on: September 07, 2017, 19:32 »
My 'earnings' the past month was 0.01 USD
Wow. According to IS your work was officially NOT WORTH 2 CENTS. And there's another thread going on now, titled "Why all the frustration"?
227
« on: September 05, 2017, 10:40 »
Several people have suggested I stop posting here too, because of what they perceive as negativity.
The word "troll" had a pretty specific meaning in the early days of the net: someone who posted wildly opinionated flames just to provoke a reaction. Today it's been redefined as "anyone posting strong opinions I disagree with". Also, anonymity was assumed in those early days; that was seen as a good thing, part of the spirit of the net. But every now and then, someone starts a thread here demanding that real names be used, backed up by the usual "if you have nothing to hide" justifications. I don't understand what's behind those demands.
Personally I've always enjoyed wild, over-the-top, unregulated exchanges on web forums and see no reason for anyone to be kept out, except for the obvious things like over-posting or obscenity. I've been online since before the internet went public (starting in the days of DOS and BBSes) and I've seen it all. I don't care if people attack my opinions, or hit me with cutting remarks, or use goofy handles, or tell lies - it's all part of the game and I've gotten a lot of laughs from it over the years. And, after all, it's just text on a screen.
228
« on: September 04, 2017, 13:40 »
I pop in occasionally to see what's going on or get a funny jab in, but don't expect anything substantive to happen. Just waiting for the end or the next journey to occupy my attention...
Me too.
229
« on: September 04, 2017, 09:47 »
Many of us here have concluded that microstock is a waste of time. I'd say there are 2 big reasons: enormous oversupply, and an online market pretty much controlled by a couple of companies that have become abusive middlemen. At this point it's hard to see how that might change anytime soon. Unless you can produce large numbers of photos that sell like crazy, it's not going to be worthwhile.
That said, there's something else that's true: in any endeavor, there are always new people coming along, with new ideas and fresh eyes, who do things better than 80% of the people already there, and find surprising new ways to succeed.
230
« on: September 02, 2017, 19:43 »
This "distributor" thing is just a way for agencies to add marketing people without paying them. They run their own web sites, work on commission, and their commission is entirely paid by the photographer. Meanwhile the "agency" still gets their usual amount on every sale. And always remember, "it's a sale you would otherwise not have gotten." 
231
« on: August 30, 2017, 21:13 »
Actually I didn't close all my accounts. I closed at IS and SS, and I'd left Fototolia, Envato, 500px and some others long before. I left my stock photos at Alamy, which still pays a few dollars, and at GL, which is currently dormant but might come back.
Any photography I do these days is either for the enjoyment of my friends, or to sell on FAA. I have no marketing, but I sell a couple big prints - sometimes more - every month through FAA.
I'm still interested in what's going on with microstock, but I see no chance of selling through those channels in the future. The market is broken, the perceived value of that kind of work has been destroyed.
232
« on: August 27, 2017, 18:50 »
I don't know about my dumbest moment, but my smartest was when I decided to close all my accounts and stop letting these parasites make money from my photos.
233
« on: August 22, 2017, 16:57 »
I think what many of us would really like to see is a curated 'art' photo site, where there's a channel to submit work for consideration. Yes, this represents some amount of work for the agency, and at this point I'm not aware of any where this is happening. FAA accepts anything, with predictable results. Crated.com started down that road but gave up and ultimately folded.
I can deal with rejection. I'd just like a chance at selling through a site that isn't stuffed with repetitious junk.
234
« on: August 19, 2017, 19:29 »
I no longer sell anything of value on ebay. Way too many scammers, flakes, and wingnuts. Not worth the hassles.
235
« on: August 15, 2017, 21:40 »
I haven't had a single sale from GL in almost three months! Are they on life support? 
Check some of the other threads on GL. They're online, but in a sort of holding pattern while they redevelop the site. The new owner has been pretty forthcoming in his posts here.
237
« on: August 01, 2017, 12:51 »
Then you've given me yet another reason to never have anything to do with those "agencies" again. Not that I needed one.
238
« on: August 01, 2017, 11:12 »
I have a hard time believing that an agency would make contributor sales figures available through a public API, even if they vetted and licensed users of that API and had them sign appropriate NDAs.
239
« on: July 31, 2017, 16:10 »
Hey,
thanks for mentioning keyword.io, I built that a while ago, happy to see it's helping!
I once made a quick test based on 30+ million stock photos in the database and there indeed was a strong correlation between the number of keywords and number of sales. In short: The more the better.
But:
1. Irrelevant keywords certainly don't help and might actually hurt by reducing your CTR
2. There might be a correlation between quality of the asset and number of keywords - more experienced and devoted artists may invest more in keywording.
So use tools like keyword.io to find keywords that you might have missed otherwise, but don't try to fill up all slots with tangential stuff 
Also, make sure to optimise your title/description and use the most relevant keywords there, too. Basic search engine optimisation...
How does one do a "quick test" of 30 million images? And where would one get these sales figures?
240
« on: July 31, 2017, 09:41 »
My 400 images haven't had a sale since... let me check... oh yeah April. And before that, I had one in January. It's over. I don't even waste time checking for sales, let alone jumping through more keywording hoops.
241
« on: July 20, 2017, 13:09 »
I moved from Lightroom to Capture One a year ago and never looked back.
242
« on: July 07, 2017, 21:03 »
Like I said earlier: let's get real. There's a pretty significant difference between being a supplier to a supermarket, vs. a "contributor" to a microstock "agency".
If you supply a product to a normal retailer, you can negotiate a price, based on your cost of production, and your knowledge of what the retail price will be. The retailer doesn't insist on paying the same price for every product. And typically, the retailer's goal isn't to grind you into dust and force you out of business; he wants you to keep supplying him, and knows that to do that, you have to make a profit just like he does. You face competing suppliers - but there are also a lot of competing retailers you can potentially sell through.
Yes some really big retailers have a lot of power, but at least all their cards are on the table. And if you decide you can't make it selling your product through Walmart, you probably have quite a few other options.
243
« on: July 07, 2017, 20:52 »
[wrong thread]
244
« on: July 07, 2017, 13:56 »
They are not agencies, they are more like some kind of online supermarkets (of which we are the exploited suppliers).
Absolutely correct, they've simply hijacked the term "agency" because it attracts photographers. A real agent is someone who represents you and your work, promotes it, and tries to secure the best price for it, in return for an agreed-upon commission. Microstock 'agencies' are basically big warehouses - you're allowed to put your product on shelf, and customers can come in and search for something they want. The so-called 'agency' does nothing but facilitate the transaction, in fact it can be almost totally automated. In return, it keeps as much of the money as it thinks it can get away with, while preventing you from knowing what the buyer actually paid.
245
« on: July 03, 2017, 11:42 »
Nothin' from nothin' leaves nothin'
You gotta have somethin' if you want to be with me
Nothin' from nothin' leaves nothin'
You gotta have somethin' if you want to be with me
I'm not tryin' to be your hero
'Cause that zero is too cold for me, Brrr
I'm not tryin' to be your highness
'Cause that minus is too low to see, yeah
Nothin' from nothin' leaves nothin'
And I'm not stuffin', believe you me
Don't you remember I told ya
I'm a soldier in the war on poverty, yeah
Yes, I am
Nothin' from nothin' leaves nothin'
You gotta have somethin' if you want to be with me
Nothin' from nothin' leaves nothin'
You gotta have somethin' if you want to be with me
You gotta have somethin' if you want to be with me
You gotta bring me somethin' girl, if you want to be with me
- "Nothing from Nothing", Billy Preston
246
« on: June 30, 2017, 14:25 »
FAA being a one-man operation is both good and bad. It depends I think on whether he's satisfied with the business. If not, it could go sideways real fast, as has happened elsewhere. Right now, the site is getting zero maintenance, there are some long-festering problems that people keep bringing up in the forum, they never get fixed. His wife just had their first baby and who knows what that means for his involvement in the business.
I just got the 'exciting announcement' email about how he's signed with Conde Nast to bring in their 10s of thousands of images to compete with me, and how he built them their own dedicated site on FAA, which is 100 times better than what we get for our $30 dollars a year. Wow, I'm so happy about that, um, thanks.
So whatever time and energy he has for the business is not being spent on making it better for tiny fish like me. And bringing in big commercial sellers only reduces my visibility in search. I suppose that on the plus side, he's not going out of business, and doesn't need to drive down our margins to increase his sales.
247
« on: June 30, 2017, 11:27 »
Just got the email. No surprise.
It's bad news, though, because FAA is already a creaky mess that's going nowhere, and seeing the competition folding only makes things worse.
I totally expect that at some point FAA will take the next step, and force their contributors down to tiny fixed markups like Zazzle did. And if that happens, that's it - I'll have no place to sell. No doubt the FAA guy (Sean Broihier) is licking his chops right now.
Their other site, CanvasPop, is about buying your own photos as wall art, pillows etc. Apparently that's where they think the POD market is going. What people really want is a giant framed photo of their kids, or their dog, or their vacation.
248
« on: June 30, 2017, 10:56 »
It's hard to process $0.00077 being described as "some money".
There is probably that much "money" in my lungs right now, in the form of atoms of gold drifting in the atmosphere.
Let's get real. This is zero.
249
« on: June 28, 2017, 11:59 »
FAA is basically one guy, and he's not an artist or photographer. He hires a few people to handle customer issues and police the forum, but other than that, the site is on autopilot, he does nothing but fix critical problems when they occur. It is what it is, and it's not going to change.
They don't screen what comes in, so they're flooded with repetitious and low quality stuff, and keyword spam, which hurts the search.
One thing that is happening: deals are being cut with big corporate sellers. Conde Nast (New Yorker magazine covers, cartoons etc) recently showed up with over 10,000 images (actual number not disclosed) and they're selling a lot. Naturally, Getty is in there too.
Bottom line, we need some new players in POD.
250
« on: June 27, 2017, 15:18 »
I've been on FAA for about 5 years. I sell a couple of sizeable prints every month, sometimes more.
How many images do you have on there, if you don't mind me asking? Is there any pattern to the ones that sell - specific locations, or types of image. I've often looked at their page of recent sales but it is hard to draw any conclusions from that. I did use it once to check if my pricing was out of line with the ones that sold and I came up with my current pricing strategy as a result of that analysis: http://www.backyardsilver.com/2015/12/fine-art-america-trying-new-pricing/
Steve
I have about 500. Can't really tell you what sells, because I have all sorts of subjects. I've sold a few of 'iconic' locations in and around my city, so some people are obviously finding those by searching for specific words. And a bunch of artsy shots of sea shells, a perennial 'wall art' subject'. A couple of classic/vintage cars. I have no marketing - zip - my only hope for a sale is someone finding me via keyword search. I learn nothing from the recent sale page - in fact it's depressing. Celebrities, sports figures, vintage photos in the public domain. Lots of horses and dogs. And recently, tons of Conde Nast images like New Yorker covers. Keep in mind that many POD sales are people buying their own work, or sales to friends and relatives.
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 15 ... 160
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
