|
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 - stockmarketer
Pages: 1 ... 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 14 15 16 17 ... 35
276
« on: May 25, 2013, 06:45 »
To me, most of the answers above don't get it quite right.
It's not about the size of your port (though of course "more" is always better).
It's not about the quality of your port (though "good" is always beter).
It's 99% about: are you uploading stuff that people NEED? And if there's a shortage of stuff like yours, and the need is great, you'll see A LOT of downloads.
Make that your number one goal... research what is selling the most, and put yourself in the mind of the buyer. WHY is the buyer downloading that shot? HOW is he/she using it? WHAT will that buyer need tomorrow? (And I'm not saying COPY what is already selling. That's NOT the road to success. Look at the top sellers to get a sense of the subject matter that is in demand, and figure out how you can portray these concepts DIFFERENTLY or even BETTER.)
If you make this your number 1 mission, and practice it every day as you upload IN DEMAND pics, the quantity and quality issues will take care of themselves.
Unfortunately, your living situation in a national park is tempting you to focus on wildlife shots. Think like a buyer. How often will those tree or animal shots be needed? Doubling your challenge is the matter of oversaturation. What will make yours stand out from the thousands of others just like them. The demand is not there and the supply is too overabundant for you to hit your target in wildlife photography.
Still, best of luck. Your goal is achievable if you follow these simple rules. I'm proof of it. I have pretty average skills, but I'm earning about 5 times your target income. You just have to think like a business person, always focused on the laws of supply and demand, and anticipating your customer's need.
277
« on: May 18, 2013, 05:07 »
The only thing that matters to me:
How will customers react?
1) "Hmm... that pic I wanted of a doctor next to a smiling patient is gone from (insert agency name here)... oh wait, there are several hundred just like it. I'll buy one of those."
or
2) "I've investigated and found that I can buy that pic of the doctor and smiling patient for much more money by opening a new account at a different site. Take my money, please!"
Answer: customers will stay right where they're at, and my income will not go down one dime (perhaps will go up a few dimes due to less competition).
278
« on: May 17, 2013, 19:39 »
Not sure if I'm the first to declare this... and the poll results at the right don't quite reflect this yet... but that might change when we vote based on our May results, so here I am to say it "real-time."
As I'm concerned, 123RF is now in the top tier. (I know it's not a popular thing to say, given the reaction to their recent changes, but you might as well start getting used to the idea. They're officially big time.)
For me, and I'm suspecting many others given the rise in the poll, 123 has been on a strong rise lately. This month, they're neck and neck with FT (my #2 and falling fast), and quite a bit ahead of DT and IS.
If we still think of the Top Tier as the Big 4, I could easily push DT down... at least that's what my numbers say.
What say you?
279
« on: May 17, 2013, 15:01 »
I'm back to normal. All is right with the world again. At least in this little piece of it.
280
« on: May 17, 2013, 14:49 »
Funny... now things are reversed. My Earnings Summary page shows the total for the number of images the Downloads page had showed me earlier, but the Downloads page shows a much smaller number now. The Downloads page ALWAYS shows a higher (or same) number of downloads than the Earnings Summary page... I've never seen it show a lower number. Things are still goofy.
281
« on: May 17, 2013, 14:39 »
Mine just updated and appears to be correct.
Not me. My Summary remains unchanged for at least two hours, and my downloads page showing the images has gone down by several dozen downloads.
282
« on: May 17, 2013, 14:22 »
I was just about to start the same thread. When I look at the actual downloads, then the Earnings Summary page, the count is about 35% lower on the Summary.
In fact, when I refreshed the Summary earlier, I lost .38 in the refresh. I don't recall that ever happening on SS.
283
« on: May 17, 2013, 10:10 »
I'm having a normal to good month at SS.
Things normal here as well... first 17 days of May 2013 the same as first 17 days of May 2012 almost to the dollar.
284
« on: May 17, 2013, 10:07 »
This has been happening to me with SS in Chrome for a few months now. I brought it up to SS' attention and they said they're looking into it. In the meantime, hold shift when you refresh, and it will return to normal... until it happens again.
285
« on: May 14, 2013, 17:54 »
Only 2 hours a day? Wow, I find that hard to believe. Sorry. If thats true you have found the perfect workflow and cracked the code to HCV images.
The code is this: figure out what buyers want, and a way to give it to them with as few costs (equipment, time spent, etc.) as possible. Anyone can do what I'm doing... I'm nothing special in terms of skills, but maybe just in how I look at the market.
286
« on: May 14, 2013, 17:49 »
Stockmarketer can count himself very lucky in being just a part time photographer. that way not much is or will be expected of him and every nickel and dime is a big bonus. 
Trust me, it's a lot of nickels and dimes, my friend. The number of hours I put in is irrelevant, if what I'm creating is in high demand. The trick is to work smarter, not harder.
287
« on: May 14, 2013, 16:39 »
Looks like you have covered all points and your returns continue to be idyllic.
1. You work part time but you earn enough on ms to support a "large family" on your stock income
2. You are able to consistently upload images that sell
3. The SS search change affected your results... but previous top sellers are lower and previous underperformers are now doing better.
4. Your bottom line hasn't changed.
5. You fully discount that anyone @ SS could be experiencing a downturn. Unless of course it is their own fault as a result of being poor business people who utterly fail to maximize revenue and manage costs.
Almost got it all right! I work a regular full-time job that pays well and I enjoy, and I work about two hours in microstock every night, and those ms earnings have now eclipsed the full-time job. I consider myself very fortunate, but it wasn't luck... I've worked hard at it (well, two hours a day for several years) and I've figured out a thing or two about what will sell. And on that last point... that's overstating things quite a bit. I feel for anyone experiencing a downturn. After all, with further tweaks from SS, I could be pinched next. But what I'll do if that happens is take a close look at what is or isn't selling and base future shoots and image uploads from there. That type of thinking has gotten me this far... learn from today's results and anticipate tomorrow's needs.
288
« on: May 14, 2013, 15:15 »
$168 so far this month... I typically get 2-4 payouts per month. I've been there several years, with several thousand images in my port. For me, they're smack in the middle of the middle tier.
289
« on: May 14, 2013, 14:32 »
Clearly you do not have a good understanding of the time, hard work or committed resources it takes to make a full time living from microstock. It is easy to swamp SS with snaps off your hard drive, but much harder to consistently produce images that make it to front page searches.
Actually quite wrong on all counts. I earn enough on ms to support a large family, but also maintain the 9 to 5 job "just in case." I'm consistently uploading images that sell. The SS search change affected my results... but previous top sellers are lower and previous underperformers are now doing better. My bottom line hasn't changed. Lisa's points, however, are valid. SS has up until now rewarded our hard work on merit, while a few other agencies have taken steps to punish their top sellers. SS has done nothing to shake my trust in them... so far I don't see them taking the course of hostility toward their best performers. Until then, I'll support them against all ridiculous claims.
290
« on: May 14, 2013, 13:50 »
I don't see it as SS' concern whether I can afford health care, retirement, etc. (And I certainly don't begrudge them offering those benefits to their employees... looks like it's a good company that takes care of its workers.)
It's my responsibility as a business person working as a supplier to SS to be maximizing my revenue and managing my costs to allow me to support myself and my family. SS shouldn't be worrying about my own personal situation when making its business decisions. My work should be judged (promoted and sold) based on its merit (attractiveness to customers). If I'm doing a good job, I'll have enough money for health care. If not, I better have another line of income for that.
291
« on: May 13, 2013, 16:37 »
experimenting with live portfolios shouldnt be done. Whatever the outcome may be.
The guy supplying blank CDs to Target probably said the same thing... "taking my stock off the endcaps should not be done... whatever the outcome may be." He thought Target was to blame for the fact that customers didn't want blank CDs anymore.
Change is not what I am talking about, its about the fact that Anthony said they are experimenting and if it doesnt work out, they will change it back. Its the experimenting part that doesnt sound good. Your example of the CDs only applies to a certain point. You are dealing with digital goods here subject to an algorithm. If putting the CDs in the back of the store turns out to be a bad idea you can easily put them back in the front. But it doesnt work like that with an image that has now lost sales over another image that did pick up sales. The life cycle of that image is then forever changed. There is plenty proof of that around, just check the SS forum, people reported drops before and they never recovered.
It sounds to me like Shutterstock is doing A/B testing, as evidenced by him saying that the changes are not affecting every search result. This is really intelligent marketing stuff that lets you get real-time results, gain knowledge about customer preferences at any instant, and constantly readjust based on what you learn. You have a point that a good image can be harmed by being pushed to the background... it will see less sales during this experiment, and if the system is put back to the way it was, that image now has fewer sales than it had before, and will not (at least initially) rank as highly as it did before. But I contend that if the image is good, people will find it again, and it will rise again in the popularity ranking. To say this should never change is to never allow in fresh content, and SS will start being seen as a behind-the-times marketplace of imagery... the kiss of death for an agency.
292
« on: May 13, 2013, 16:11 »
experimenting with live portfolios shouldnt be done. Whatever the outcome may be.
The guy supplying blank CDs to Target probably said the same thing... "taking my stock off the endcaps should not be done... whatever the outcome may be." He thought Target was to blame for the fact that customers didn't want blank CDs anymore. But I do share your frustration about constant uploads resulting in not much change. I used to rail against the idea that we had to "feed the beast" to keep sales up, but I've come to understand that it's simply what has to be done to maintain sales. I just compared my first thirteen days of May sales (just SS) for 2013 vs the same period in 2012. I'm up $20 for the period (which is well over $1,000... so a very tiny margin). I'm encouraged that my stuff is still selling despite the change... but I've added several hundred new images this past year and the needle has barely moved. Still, this strengthens my conviction that this business is about constant change.... to survive you have to have a keen awareness of what customers want today, and tomorrow... what they wanted yesterday no longer matters.
293
« on: May 13, 2013, 15:49 »
I'm trying hard to understand what any of this debate means. Is there a recommended action? Is this reaching any conclusion?
I think both sides have decided "someone on the Internet is wrong" and we're furiously typing away trying to sway hearts and minds. Just like all good web debates.
294
« on: May 13, 2013, 15:30 »
Hi All,
Just wanted to concur with everyone here my ShutterStock sales that have been solid ( within $100 a month for years, averaging about $1400-$1500 a month ) have taken a dramatic drop for the first time ever this month, sad to see the best of Micro following the pack. ShutterStock was the one micro agency that gave me hope in this model of stock, now ...they can talk about adjustments but this one was a doozie.
Cheers,
Jonathan
Thanks Jonathan! you just underlined it all.
Yes, he underlined that sales for many people are down. That settles it.
You are trying to hard; to not be invested in some way stockmarketer.
Aren't we all "invested in some way"?
You beat me to it, dave. Absolutely I'm invested in SS' success. I'm earning quite a bit from them month in and month out. I desperately want SS to stay relevant and grow as much as possible. I'm encouraged by their explanation of the recent changes. That's a business on top of its game, and I'm glad to see its commitment to doing whatever it takes to meet its customers' needs. Any business that is going to blindly push its tried-and-true contributors' work to the top without seeing if there's other even better stuff (in the eyes of its customers) is one doomed to fail.
295
« on: May 13, 2013, 15:21 »
Hi All,
Just wanted to concur with everyone here my ShutterStock sales that have been solid ( within $100 a month for years, averaging about $1400-$1500 a month ) have taken a dramatic drop for the first time ever this month, sad to see the best of Micro following the pack. ShutterStock was the one micro agency that gave me hope in this model of stock, now ...they can talk about adjustments but this one was a doozie.
Cheers,
Jonathan
Thanks Jonathan! you just underlined it all.
Yes, he underlined that sales for many people are down. That settles it.
296
« on: May 13, 2013, 15:17 »
SS is doing exactly what is expected of them. Trying desperately to find a way to satisfy the shareholders. Manipulating the search for quick and speedy gain. Thats all. Yes, exactly as they should. Shouldn't every company want to increase its profits as quickly as possible, as long as it's not doing anything illegal or unethical? (You'll say SS is being unethical with these changes, but how so? Because your stuff is selling less?) Here is something interesting for you. My wife is a fairly wealthy woman and stock-broker, she actually lobbied for this media and so far its a big flop as far as dealers look upon it, not private individuals, there is a difference I believe. Thats her words and she is a senior dealer since twelve years.
Actually, I don't find this interesting. How does this prove your point? If I were investing, I'm not sure I'd invest in any micro -- SS or otherwise -- as I think there are many more changes coming soon for this industry and the big players today may not be the big players (or even still around) tomorrow. Do you still think I work for SS?
297
« on: May 13, 2013, 15:07 »
sad to see the best of Micro following the pack.
Following the pack as in sales going down, or as in sticking it to contributors? I'm assuming you mean the former... as there is zero evidence to suggest SS is engaging in anti-contributor shenanigans as we've seen at sites such as IS and FT.
298
« on: May 13, 2013, 14:55 »
A good number of us are buyers as well sellers. It has been demonstrated @ another site that we don't buy from or stock companies that do not treat us or our fellows fairly. So yes companies quickly become expendable when they treat their suppliers fairly.
This is what I don't get... how are you not being treated fairly? SS is testing to make sure the pics that used to be good sellers are still good sellers. If it turns out that different pics sell better, then they are doing a better job serving the needs of their customers. Should their priority be to support the needs of suppliers over customers? These tests are the ultimate fairness. The cream will rise to the top, no matter who produced it -- the veterans who sold well in the past, or the rookies with new ideas. I'm certainly not saying all the "cream" will be produced by rookies... people who have been at this a long time, and taking careful notes along the way, should be adept at sensing the changing needs of customers. Theoretically, SS is treating everyone equally here... elevating stuff that may be popular among its customers but otherwise might not get seen because the veterans have been getting all the limelight. (FWIW, I'd put myself in the veteran camp... the recent changes have resulted in different pics in my port selling better, but my total sales have been about the same.)
299
« on: May 13, 2013, 14:48 »
Thats fine. I have no problems with that. However they do not need the suppliers to participate. Do they? I mean we are expendible. Right? since as you put it, " they do not provide"
Companies need suppliers to participate in supplying stuff that sells. Companies don't need suppliers who supply stuff that doesn't sell. If your stuff sells great, it should get great placement. If your stuff sells OK, it should get OK placement. If your stuff sells little to none at all, it should be pushed to the back or dropped altogether. Blank CDs used to sell by the boatload, getting prominent placement on the endcaps at Target, Best Buy and similar stores. When times changed and they stopped selling, what happened? They slowly moved from the endcaps to spots down the aisle, and in many stores now, they're gone completely. Did these stores forget how much those CD suppliers supported them in the past? Should they still give those companies prominent shelf space to recognize those past contributions? If those blank CD companies didn't adapt and put out another product that Target customers want today, they don't deserve the shelf space.
300
« on: May 13, 2013, 14:42 »
 Do you work for SS or own large quantities of stock, you seem to fear Union organizers lurking in every corner.
No, but I took a few business courses in college, and just remembering the 101 stuff. As for unions, I used to be in one. I support them in general, as long as they don't get in the way of a business adapting to the laws of supply and demand. When that happens, they are a lead weight pulling a company down into an abyss. Smart companies support merit and when they don't they quickly lose the very thing that made them a success.
Smart companies constantly test new products and watch customer feedback, and are nimble to meet customers' needs better than any of their competitors. From where I sit (on the outside, not inside) this is exactly what SS is doing.
Pages: 1 ... 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 14 15 16 17 ... 35
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
