|
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 - PowerDroid
Pages: 1 ... 9 10 11 12 13 [14] 15
326
« on: September 08, 2009, 14:11 »
Wrong. Actually it shows this info for US contributors as well. Click on payment history and you'll see the breakdown.
I just got my payment for the last month and there is no breakdown of earnings, only the total is displayed.
That's odd. Are you clicking on the link on your stats page at the bottom that reads: Gross Earnings (click here for your actual payment history)? That should take you to a screen that gives the breakdown. Did your last payment include downloads going back to a date prior to July? Maybe because the payout includes some downloads from a period when they weren't tracking and reporting this data, so they're not showing a breakdown?
327
« on: September 08, 2009, 12:29 »
Wrong. Actually it shows this info for US contributors as well. Click on payment history and you'll see the breakdown.
328
« on: September 08, 2009, 12:28 »
I think this type of thinking leads into the "feed the beast" mentality, which is a negative one for microstock... contributors, buyers, even the agencies.
A well-executed image -- new or old -- will sell if it is unique and meets some unique needs of buyers. It will sell on day 1, and it will sell on day 1001 if buyers still need it. If it's well-keyworded and offers a creative take on a specific topic that's in demand, age doesn't matter.
This makes it essential that you find some underserved part of the market and cater to that niche.
If you're just doing plain old model shots, food shots, stuff isolated on white, etc.... then the "feed the beast" approach is your only hope... cross your fingers that someone will download it before it gets buried by many more just like it.
This is not the way to succeed in microstock. As many more contributors sign up every day, it will only make things harder for those focused on volume.
To thrive, don't think of your images as new or old, but rather WANTED or UNWANTED. Wanted images will sell, unwanted won't. Only produce wanted images. What are those? That's the tricky part. Spend more of your time researching that, as opposed to churning out high volumes of the same thing everyone else is doing, and you'll see your sales soar.
329
« on: September 08, 2009, 12:18 »
Yup, same here... about 2/3 non-US. Was an eye-opener. It made me think that I need to pay more attention to news in Europe to make sure I'm capitalizing on any trends there that might be different than in the US.
330
« on: September 04, 2009, 14:08 »
Is no one else seeing any sales larger than $.25? Two of my last sales there were for $3 and $4.50 ea.
I had stopped uploading there until a week or so ago when things picked up for me. Now I'm playing catch-up to get a few months worth of stuff up there. But they're a relatively easy site to upload to, so I'd encourage others to hop back on board. Maybe they're doing more advertising, or maybe some buzz is building... but something is clearly stirring things up there.
I wish I hadn't stopped a while back, otherwise I'd be seeing an even bigger upswing now.
331
« on: September 04, 2009, 12:20 »
Certainly usefulness is key. To me it's a built-in assumption... I wouldn't even consider doing the image if I didn't think it would sell. As I brainstorm, I try to come up with useful image ideas, then employ a strategy focusing on quality, quantity and variety to manage a successful port. If you're creating images that aren't useful, no strategy focusing on quality, quantity or variety -- or anything else for that matter -- will help you.
332
« on: September 04, 2009, 11:45 »
I'd like to make the case that a "quality vs. quantity" argument loses sight of a third, equally important element that will determine the staying power of your port: variety. Whether your upload strategy focuses on quality or quantity -- or both -- you're certain to plateau quickly if your subject matter is not varied. I've only been at this for about ten months, so I don't have the experience that many of you have, but it seems to me that you can put off stagnation for much longer -- perhaps indefinitely -- if you are constantly providing images that cover new ground. For those who have reached their plateaus, isn't it logical that if you started providing images that are nothing like anything you've done before, that your sales will increase? Of course, this assumes that your current top sellers remain popular moving forward... certainly an argument that quality is essential for an image to have a long life. Anyway, that's the strategy I currently follow -- one that gives equal importance to quality, quantity and variety -- and so far I've had ten straight months of growth (including a pretty explosive start to September... let's hope it lasts!  )
333
« on: September 04, 2009, 06:04 »
BigStock represents about 4% of my total sales. Not sure why I'd want to track just that one in isolation.
BTW, anyone else having trouble seeing their commission log? Mine is showing up as a blank screen, though the total revenue number in the top left of the screen keeps updating, so I know sales are still happening. I'm going to contact support.
334
« on: September 02, 2009, 19:53 »
Anyone else notice their larger downloads at FT go away?
My quantity of downloads seems to be consistent, but I haven't had a sale larger than $0.68 since Aug 29. Since then, I've had about 60 downloads ranging from $0.32 to $0.68, nothing larger. Prior to Aug 29, I'd say about half my FT downloads were well over $1.00.
Did something happen right around Aug 29? Did your larger FT sales dry up over the last several days?
335
« on: September 02, 2009, 12:03 »
I've been bad-mouthing Crestock lately, saying in a number of posts that Veer has leapfrogged over them and I was thinking of cutting Crestock from my upload schedule.
But over the past week, my sales have exploded at Crestock (relatively speaking). I had a $13.50 day late last week, yesterday did $4.75 and today $3 so far. I've been there for about 6 or 8 months, with a port of under 400 images that has been slowly growing, and nothing like this has happened up to now.
Anyone else noticing a burst of activity? I wonder if they just launched a big marketing campaign?
336
« on: September 01, 2009, 14:26 »
I also just got paid today, so that part is still running OK, if a bit slower than it used to.
Approvals, however, seem to be very much delayed. It's as if Getty cut review staff or money to pay freelancers, and a backlog has been building up. Current waiting period for reviews seems to be about 8 days. Not too long ago you only had to wait about 24 hours.
Oh well, the sales are still good, so I'll keep uploading there every day.
337
« on: September 01, 2009, 13:30 »
I've been slowly building a portfolio there... sending them everything as I do it... they seem to accept 100%.
A few months back I started getting these $19.80 commissions about once a month, with some $.25 to $1.00 commissions showing up about every other day or so.
It's pretty infrequent, but it sure is nice when a $19.80 sale shows up in your daily downloads!
338
« on: September 01, 2009, 12:12 »
I share many of the same concerns, but every so often when I think about giving up on Veer, I check the stats page and see another sale. Yesterday I did $3.50 from two sales, but the four days before that, nothing. All in all, I think I'm putting Crestock on the chopping block soon (just got my first payout after nine months... probably not worth continuing at that rate) and putting Veer on the "wait and see" list.
339
« on: September 01, 2009, 11:39 »
I'm pretty pleased with my August, after a July that was flat to June.
I track my earnings every which way imaginable, but here's the measurement that matters most to me...
I started in Nov 2008, and here's my growth to date:
Nov 08 - $4.02 per day
Dec 08 - $9.80 per day
Jan 09 - $13.65 per day
Feb 09 - $20.86 per day
Mar 09 - $26.97 per day
Apr 09 - $26.80 per day
May 09 - $39.36 per day
Jun 09 - $47.79 per day
Jul 09 - $47.50 per day
Aug 09 - $51.35 per day
I have two revenue goals: short term ($100 / day) and long term ($300 / day).
My projections show me hitting my short term goal around April 2010. I don't project more than a year out, so I don't know if or when I'll ever hit my long term, but as long as my growth keeps going, anything is possible.
340
« on: August 31, 2009, 15:07 »
I guess the real question here is "how do you define microstock."
I'm of the opinion that it's "whatever the buyers on a microstock website want."
Clearly Konradbak is meeting a need... he has some good sales, especially considering he/she has been on Dreamstime only 5 months.
What I think others are getting at is the fact that this is a top-notch, talented artist offering breathtaking work for pennies. Clearly there's an evolution happening between stock and microstock that's been argued to death in this forum.
What this debate tells me is that there are a lot of people shooting models for microstock who are concerned that as the world's most talented photographers start uploading their ports to the microstock sites, it raises the bar for everyone else. For every Konradbak who jumps into this crowded pool, several whose skills don't measure up will be pushed into obscurity.
341
« on: August 27, 2009, 15:41 »
The best way to increase earnings is to think of all the simple images the sites are missing that wont cost much to produce and the buyers will want. Do those using the equipment you already have.
Agreed, and I'm still doing that, now and then. My fear though is that the recent de-emphasis of new images, combined with popularity-based ranking, makes this an exercise in futility.
No, Sharpshot has it exactly right. It's Marketing 101... look to fill a need, give the buyers something they can't find from your competition, and you'll get the sale. If you're offering something unique, the whole "de-emphasis of new images, popularity-based ranking, etc." doesn't matter because your work will be unique and buyers will find you. This is what I am doing every day, and I can guarantee you that it works. Don't rely on your same-old same-old images appearing at the top of the "newest" list, which will make a few bucks and slip into obscurity. In a marketplace that is more competitive every day, there will be only one way to be successful: STAND OUT FROM THE CROWD and when the crowd sees your success and follows you, FIND ANOTHER SPOT AND STAND OUT AGAIN. The microstock success stories of tomorrow will make this their mission, and everyone else will fail.
342
« on: August 27, 2009, 14:18 »
If my memory serves...
Shortly after Brian made the promise that we'd see a sales page by the end of August, a Veer support staffer told someone in the forum that the sales reporting would come sometime in September.
343
« on: August 26, 2009, 16:44 »
What do we get if we mix 123RF, canstock and crestock 
Elaborating on my previous post, I checked on how these stand as percentages of my total sales to date. 123 = 3% CanStock = 2% Crestock = .5% Once I factor Veer into this mix (if we ever get the sales stat page!), they'll be about tied with Crestock, but that's comparing one month of Veer to one year of Crestock.
344
« on: August 26, 2009, 16:00 »
What do we get if we mix 123RF, canstock and crestock
If I do it, I get one promising site, one that has fits and starts, and one that's entirely worthless. In that order.
345
« on: August 26, 2009, 12:15 »
I have done a lot of work getting images up on flickr and promoting them and all I ever get is people asking if they can have them for free.
I've found that being friendly and giving several reasonable options can go a long way in turning a freeloafer into a paying customer. I do get a lot of "can I get the image for free" requests, but I've been able to turn a number of them around with a standard reply that is friendly and points out how economical a 25-per-day subscription is at Shutterstock, plus I give the option to purchase directly through me for a very reasonable price. Finally, I give permission to use the small watermarked version wherever he/she would like to use it. I'd say my success rate with this approach is about one sale for every four requests... I'm happy with that.
346
« on: August 26, 2009, 08:47 »
I have definitely had sales I can attribute to having a port on Flickr.
Every day I get one to three messages asking to use a photo (I have small watermarked versions on Flickr, so people ask for the non-watermarked ones.)
I have a standard message I reply with, stating that my non-watermarked work is available on sites like Shutterstock, and they should consider a subscription which entitles them to 25 downloads a day for a reasonable price. I provide the link with my affiliate code in it, and I have seen about three referred sales come through that way in the past month since I started posting to Flickr.
Also, I've been contacted to do custom work and sell images directly to people. I recently invested the $25 to upgrade to a pro account. I know there's a risk that Flickr won't like what I'm doing and will close my account, but I've already made back the $25, so I'll be fine with it.
347
« on: August 26, 2009, 06:49 »
LuMaxArt (creator of the popular gold guys) is pretty up-front about its commercial usage of flickr... http://www.flickr.com/photos/lumaxart/3503978843/#in/photostream/When I was researching the flickr options, I too saw the language about no commercial use, then I found LuMax and figured if he has been allowed to do what he's doing for so long, building up quite a large port there and a big following, I figured I can do the same. At least that's what I'm going to explain if the admins there shut down my account for doing essentially the same as LuMax is doing. If anything happens to me, you can be sure I'll post an update here.
348
« on: August 25, 2009, 15:18 »
You have to think about it from the buyers' perspective. If you search "older couple walking on beach" and see 30 images from one photographer's shoot, then 40 images from another photographers' shoot, than 30 from yet another photographer's shoot, etc., etc., you'd get annoyed at the lack of variety and go to a competing site.
Space for copy and horizontal vs. vertical are just a few factors a buyer considers... and I bet they are secondary to finding the ideal subject matter in the buyer's minds. If the buyer has to go through 30 pages of shots of the same people at different angles before finding the people with just the right look the buyer had in mind, that's poor content selection on the agency's part and it deserves to lose a buyer.
349
« on: August 25, 2009, 14:54 »
I would take a different approach.
There IS money to be made in microstock. All one has to do is do some homework to see what people are buying and find a niche.
You will not succeed if you simply upload the types of things you LIKE to shoot and pay no regard to what buyers NEED. It may be tough for some to hear, but no one wants your rainbow or puppy dog shots.
Nor will you succeed if you look at someone like Yuri and decide you can do the same thing and make a fortune like him. To beat him at his game, or come anywhere near him, you have to do what he does BETTER than he does it. But he's perfected his processes. You're not going to come near him.
But you CAN succeed if you:
1) Find your niche - find out the types of shots that sell and are not currently flooding the market. There are underserved niches out there. I've been finding them, and so can you if you do your homework.
2) Be creative - approach subjects differently than anyone else is doing them. Again, if you're just doing model shots or static objects on white, your stuff better blow away everything else out there if you have any hope of succeeding.
3) Build your own style and you'll develop a following. When others catch on and start copying you, abandon that style and come up with another. To survive you must eveolve.
4) Concepts sell. The image should be symbolic of something meaningful to the buyer. It's not hard to figure out what concepts sell better than others.
Anyway, that's what I'd say. Not all doom and gloom. If someone has business sense and an ounce of creativity, he/she can do very well in microstock.
350
« on: August 25, 2009, 14:41 »
Since my original post to start this thread one week ago, I have seen five more sales, totaling an additional $2.45. Size of port remains the same while I wait for the crazy reviewers to settle down and figure out what they want. For perspective, this puts Veer neck and neck with Crestock ($2.75 in past seven days) for the title of "Worst Performing Agency" for my work. (CanStock is relative miles ahead of both with $20.85 in past seven days.)
MY VEER STATS TO DATE
Images online: 418
Rejections: 82
Purchases: 26
Revenue: $29.40
Pages: 1 ... 9 10 11 12 13 [14] 15
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
