|
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 - gwhitton
26
« on: June 08, 2011, 17:55 »
Thanks! I think your style is suited to Zazzle very much... now you just have to select which of your stuff, and create new stuff, that appeals to consumers (its a totally different market than microstock), and once you have a pulse on that, your sales take off.
Alright, you've talked me into it. I'm putting a few designs up there in iPhone and iPad products. We'll see what happens.
This has seriously intrigued me to... it looks like i have to log onto my zazzle account i opened up 3 yrs ago. I think the potential is there for the ipads and the iphones
I am not sure the iphones and ipads are best place to start. Their base price is pretty high. At a minimum I would try a few other things...take advantage of their multiple offerings, and put the same design on several...where it make sense of course. For me the worthwile items have been stamps. There multiple examples I can point you two where themed products whether its Christmas, Graduations, or Wedding, are great sellers if you have very appealing designs.
27
« on: June 08, 2011, 13:32 »
Once I put my designs, which there are about 1500 of, I don't have to think about them anymore. Yet despite this I haven't touched the site in several months, but the sales continue to march on. Have I paid for all my efforts, probably not, but unless the sale dry up unexpectedly, eventually I should. The same could be said for the micros.
hmm .. so with 1500 designs on sale you make less than 300$/month ?
Black Sheep, I do not make $300 a month on those, no. However what I should have said is rather than designs, is products. I may have 500 designs up there spread across 1500 products, but probably fewer. So I wouldn't expect to make $300 a month. That said, I think those with far more creative designs then my, particularly a good graphic artist could make a killing. Straight photography I think has far less potential.
28
« on: June 08, 2011, 13:22 »
The biggest flaw that I see with the Dreamstime system is that you could have a boat load of subscription sales that launch you into Level 5 territory where most people won't buy your image, and instead will look for level 0 or level 1 alternatives. Under this situation you'd almost make nothing except subscription sales.
29
« on: June 07, 2011, 15:51 »
Wiseguy,
If I ever got seriously into this business, the lesson i have learned so far is to never count on anyone site for your survival. I would never ever consider going exclusive, as the agency has all the power and you have none. However by spreading yourself out, you decrease the impact any one site has on you. I would also make sure that micros aren't my only source of income. You almost have to branch out if you don't want to become a victim of this race to the bottom that seems to be occurring.
I've always thought of my photos as a product that if I am careful I can sell forever at as many outlets as possible. The main thing I have to be careful of is not spread myself to thin trying to sell at shops that don't have any customers. And we've all run into those.
30
« on: June 07, 2011, 14:22 »
Its funny how the experience on any given stock site is so different for each person, as I was about to ask the question in a different thread, what has changed at Fotolia recently? Not in a bad way, but in a good way.
For a long time I had the same experience of a friend, we called Fotolia the "one hit wonder" site, because we each had a few images that sold like crazy, and nothing else seemed to sell at all, or very rarely.
Now, in the last month, I am getting a lot of original sales, plus EL's...and I only have 153 images on the site. I have never really cared for Fotolia, one because its sales potential was really weak for me, and because of its crazy rejections. I have a 70% plus approval rating with everyone else, and like 35% with Fotolia. It was annoying enough that I finally gave up, and decided I'll just wait for payouts with what I have up.
Now I am beginning to wonder if I should try again, and post some newer stuff.
31
« on: June 06, 2011, 12:52 »
The prices on Zazzle aren't too expensive. There are a lot of people that would pay those prices. There's a lot of crap on there that should be scrapped and not worth a dollar but good design and artwork are worth their value usually.
I sell microstock, zazzle and 99designs. I love zazzle and recently got back into 99designs. I was wondering if I should give you guys this feedback because I would hate for you all to sign up and make it harder for buyers to find my products but let me put things in perspective for you.
I'm new at this game... have only been in it for just over a year. I have a tiny portfolio... about 89 images and I use these to make my zazzle products. Sometimes I make Zazzle products and end up with artwork for microstock that I would never have thought of. I design on 99designs and have won 3 contests in 4 days. I get a lot more out of it than just prize money, I get ideas, I get a bigger understanding of design, I get inspiration, I learn new skills hanging around top designers and anything that loses leaves me artwork I can pop onto Zazzle and microstock. I'm smart about it. I avoid logo designs where I can (unless it includes a useful icon) and only enter comps where I can reuse the image or part of the image elsewhere. I'm also in the process of creating a logo for someone who contacted me yesterday via Zazzle to create a logo for them similar to an image on my business cards.
Here's a breakdown of last May's paycheck:
Microstock: $134.46
Zazzle: $347.82
99 designs: $410.00
I love Zazzle. I hope none of you join! I also love 99designs so please stay away from there too 
Based on my experience, I would have to agree with Pseudonymous. While I make nowhere near what he/she does...there is definitely money to be made on Zazzle for those, who are smart, creative and like to work hard. Their prices are expensive, I agree wholeheartedly, but I have seen folks drop hundreds of dollars on products I've created, and I also get regular sales there...though more on the small side then the large. Those who make a living on Zazzle, are the same ones who make it on the Micros. If you offer something really unique that matches up with what people want to buy you are going to make a sale. If you know how to really promote yourself, you are going to make even more. For my part I treat Zazzle, like I do all the other sites, another outlet to sell the photos I produce. Once I put my designs, which there are about 1500 of, I don't have to think about them anymore. Yet despite this I haven't touched the site in several months, but the sales continue to march on. Have I paid for all my efforts, probably not, but unless the sale dry up unexpectedly, eventually I should. The same could be said for the micros.
32
« on: June 06, 2011, 12:30 »
Something else that plays into this, is that supposedly, unless a sculptor was given public funds, the copyright resides with the state or federal government and is thus in the public domain.
Its those exceptions that muddy the water...
33
« on: June 04, 2011, 15:43 »
Anybody notice a sudden jump in sales at Bigstock the last few days? I have been with them for a couple of years, and this last few days has gone far beyond what is normal for them, especially if it continues. Which I hope it does.
34
« on: June 04, 2011, 15:41 »
Sharp,
I get your point, but the reducing taxes only holds up to a point, just like raising taxes beyond a certain point is detrimental. Its finding the happy medium that is important. Part of the reason I responded originally is because I think at least in the US, that the "reducing taxes will increase government revenue" has been taken way beyond where this holds true, into where its become detrimental. For much of America's recent history taxes were way higher, and we did just fine...and now they want to take it down to 25% with a 14 trillion debt...they are crazy.
35
« on: June 03, 2011, 14:55 »
"In my mind, its kind like a lumberjack who sold his log to a furniture maker for a $100, demanding more money after he found out the log was turned into a chair and sold for $1000."
That's a ridiculous analogy .
To say more the image was a 3d render , already retouched and as clean and big as it gets .
"...providing anything beyond the original image ..." . 
For a vector I would totally agree the analogy is bogus...but for a photo that needed any serious touch up to look good at larger sizes, you are talking about paying for the time to make it salable at those sizes. That is a value added service that 123 has a right to be compensated for. And are you really losing anything? Without this service you would have gotten the standard 50% of the 5 credit maximum, instead you are getting more, without the buyer having any more rights to do something with the image than the standard license. Now when the time comes that you pull out the $45k Hasselblad and deliver a much larger image, then you are the one adding the value, and should get credit for it. I really have never personally understood the whole TIFF offering thing anyway, especially if it wasn't produced from the original RAW file. A JPG to TIFF conversion to me is like garbage in garbage out, and upsizing it only makes it worse. I wouldn't buy one, I would contact the artist directly and see if I could get one for a reasonable price from the RAW file.
36
« on: June 02, 2011, 19:46 »
Thanks Phil , I must've missed this one . So a third party is enlarging an image that I created and gets 75% every time  this tiff is downloaded and I get 13.3% ? It's a good idea but the royalty model is seriously flawed . I mean where do we apply for this enlargement job ? 
Yes ,13.3% is better than zero but that same logic is sending the industry into a dead end .
They are basically getting paid to clean up your image, and make a huge TIFF of your smaller image usable. So are you really providing anything beyond the original image that you would have gotten paid far less then $34 for. Something to think about. In my mind, its kind like a lumberjack who sold his log to a furniture maker for a $100, demanding more money after he found out the log was turned into a chair and sold for $1000.
37
« on: June 02, 2011, 19:40 »
^^^It seems to work in Monaco, there's no tax there and they did have people racing around this weekend in the Grand Prix
Monaco has that luxury, because its a tiny country surrounded by millions of potential tourists, and gamblers. And I am sure they collect taxes from someone, if not individuals. Cars can't run without gasoline, and governments can't run on hot air...forever. ;o) It also doesn't have much in the way of expenses...when's the last time it had a to raise its own army?
38
« on: June 02, 2011, 16:34 »
It's a bit like the tax system, governments usually make more revenue by cutting taxes, because it gives people an incentive to work and earn more. The higher taxes go, the less motivation there is to work hard.
Then as taxes approach zero I'm guessing you'll start seeing people racing around working so hard, their hair is on fire...and government's will be making 100s of trillions. ;o)
39
« on: June 02, 2011, 16:23 »
Glad to see alert and responsive agencies! Thanks.
40
« on: May 27, 2011, 16:44 »
All your images are taken at ISO 200, which is unacceptable in most cases. Lower ISO to 100.
You've gotta be kidding me. ISO 200 is the native ISO used by one of the two major camera makers in the world (on most of its cameras). And that setting works just fine if you've correctly exposed your shot.
41
« on: May 25, 2011, 12:40 »
I really couldn't care less about review times. Sales are all I'm concerned about. I have seen a drop in sales since the site was swamped with microstock images. Hopefully they will bring in more buyers and things will pick up but everything seems to happen slowly there. It's not as bad as Snap Village but I'm still not confident that they are doing things right there. With Corbis behind them, I expected more by now.
If I had a small portfolio, I would just concentrate on the big 4 sites until I had a big portfolio and then I would be looking at CanStockPhoto, 123rf and BS before Veer.
If you want to know how sad it is, with roughly the same number of images online, I have more sales at Canstock in a month or two, then I have had in a year at Veer. I to don't know what their problem is.
42
« on: May 23, 2011, 14:29 »
I have about 200 images there, and up until their redesign of the back end I was getting fairly regular subscription sales (4-5 a month)...now I am lucky if I get one a month. Given how little the redesign improved the upload process, and the lackluster sales lately I haven't been to enthusiastic, especially when I get a lot more return for my efforts at other mid-tier sites like Canstock and 123.
43
« on: May 20, 2011, 18:17 »
the world was supposed to end on May 21st... tomorrow. Dang, I thought I had at least another year and a half to go. Oh well.
Was versus is? You speaketh of the future in the past tens,e as if you have seen that which us mere mortals can not know?
44
« on: May 19, 2011, 18:19 »
Must be something new, as there are quite a few panoramas that are over 25. I even saw one that was 44mp.
Given their pricing structure I can see why they would limit the sizes, as they don't make any more money for these mega files. But I have to imagine the mexapixel size is only going to increase or they are going to be excluding the high end camera shooters.
45
« on: May 18, 2011, 16:25 »
My guess would be that its probably on par with imagekind or similar sites. Although what does marketing really mean? Showing it on a website? Selling Google ads about the site in general? Representing specific images like an agent would a book? etc.
There are definitely some people on that site with pretty fat heads? $2700 for an unframed, unsigned 30x40 inch print. Are you kidding me.
46
« on: May 13, 2011, 19:07 »
Paypal make a small charge to your bank or credit card to to verify the account is valid and get a registration PIN but this is refunded immediately once the account is set up - perhaps this is what they mean?
Yah, basically Paypal deposits small amounts of money into your account that you have to verify through your bank before your account is activated.
47
« on: May 13, 2011, 13:32 »
Heading over to the dark side are we... ;o)
48
« on: May 13, 2011, 13:25 »
Does anyone have some insight in to what the "All of Alamy" feature is really showing us?
I ask because if this really is "All There Is"...things look pretty dismal. It would lead me to believe there were only 600-1000 sales on Almay in the last month.
I also did a search for "business", and stretch my search back for a year. The phrase "Business People" floated to the top, with just 4 sales. Fours sales, and 28k views in an entire year!!!! The same term on SS I would guess would generated I suspect 10's of thousands of sales, of not 100's of thousands.
Thoughts?
49
« on: May 12, 2011, 12:36 »
I wouldn't give up on editorials though. Probably the place where you are going to get the biggest bang for the buck is Alamy or some other RM site that takes editorial.
50
« on: May 12, 2011, 12:32 »
The answer to the actual question appears to be yes, IS are the only reviewers who know what they are talking about and all the other big sites reviewers are idiots
pretty much correct when it comes to illustration and 3D especially in the case of Shutterstock
Lets examine this. The vast majority of stock images (note: I say the vast majority, there are millions of exceptions) are technically excellent but aesthetically sterile and boring with zero artistic value but very commercial and, like top 40 music, they are simply product. Therefore the role of the reviewer is to select product that is likely to sell. If that product sells, the reviewer got it right, otherwise not. On that basis, Shutterstock, Dreamstime, Fotolia appear to have the edge.
Well clearly you aren't getting sales on IStock for stuff they didn't accept, it isn't on the site! Getting a couple of sales on Shutterstock, where the marginal cost per download is zero for the customer really doesn't prove an awful lot.
Microbius, yours is the only comment to which I take exception as nothing gets up my nose quite like condescension. Can you post a links to some of your ports on some of the sites so that I can see your credentials. Dated and middle of the road in comparison to what? Ball headed stick figures? Youre obviously pretty successful but Id like to form an opinion on your creativity and quite prepared to eat humble pie if you are producing something more than the ubiquitous visual muzak. My middle of the road crap is at least a little different and in page 1 (mostly) on Shutterstock by most popular searches by subject matter.
Dated and middle of the road in comparison to what is accepted and sells on IStock. I am being kind here by not giving you a critique on specific work in your portfolio with better examples from other artists. Ball headed stick figures can be well executed or poorly executed. I was referring to the quality of the craftsmanship, not the subject matter. You can choose to listen or not, I prefer not as it means a little less competition for me 
You'll notices bald headed stick figures...by the same artist...everywhere on the web, so apparently someone likes them, and in the end all that matters is the customers opinion.
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
