|
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 - PaulieWalnuts
Pages: 1 ... 10 11 12 13 14 [15] 16 17 18 19 20 ... 120
351
« on: July 19, 2016, 06:45 »
in the end us pros ruined our own business by submitting content to the micros, dont blame the amateur, blame your fellow pro shooters, like me, made a bundle in micro but its getting tougher, no business lasts forever, unless you are coca cola
Most pros had no choice. With amateurs submitting pro quality work to micros, macro dried up, and you could either join and make pennies or find something else to do other than stock photography.
352
« on: July 17, 2016, 12:06 »
Well, I just deleted all files in my exclusive account. After almost 10 years I'm closing it down.
I just don't want to deal with Getty/iStock's bs any longer. Locking my files up and not allowing to change keyword was what did me in. I didn't upload that much compared to most others but it got to be not worth the effort any more. I'll be looking for somewhere else to post and sell my stock pictures. Anyone have any suggestions, I'm all ears.
After 9 years I'm considering closing my account. I dropped exclusivity a year ago and deactivated over half of my images. Last month I did $50 in sales. I used to earn that on a slow day or weekend day a couple years ago. I just went back and checked some old stats. When I was new and still independent back in 2007, I had 50 files uploaded in the first few months and had $100 in sales the fourth month. Now I still have over 10x the images and make half that amount. The images are old and outdated but the trend was still the same. Royalties weren't keeping up with upload quantity. Besides sales, lack of control of my images was one of the main reasons I dropped exclusivity. This is a another step in the wrong direction. I have images with SS, FT, and Alamy. I don't really think any of the rest are worth the time. SS is the only one of those three where I'm making decent sales.
353
« on: July 17, 2016, 08:57 »
It's obvious by now that they think they can change the contract any way they wish and at any time.
Now? I think most agency contracts have always had language in them that says they can change the terms at any time without notification or contributor approval.
354
« on: July 17, 2016, 08:50 »
Your idea sounds good. However photographers have been lied by Leo and Symbiostock recently!!! You must give much more proves about your site.
Not my site. Our site. But sadly i noticed there`s no way to start something like that at MSG.
So let`s wait for "another bruce". Maybe we just have to wait a few years. 
You got it. There are some nice, intelligent, and talented people here but working as a team toward a common goal hasn't been a strong point. There's little unity. Which is why every time someone comes here and suggests a co-op, union, or anything else that requires organizing a team, this is usually how it ends up. So yes, this group really needs a leader with a ready-made business like a Stocksy.
355
« on: July 17, 2016, 07:45 »
I went back and looked at my stuff that's selling. They all have one thing in common. They're all somewhat difficult to get shots or have higher production costs. All of it is probably older than 2011 when I stopped shooting for micro.
It's interesting that even with buffet style subscriptions none of my old newbie snapshot stuff is getting downloaded. It's all stuff that probably would have been good as macro a few years ago.
356
« on: July 17, 2016, 07:19 »
I'm not familiar with how Westend works but many of these types of secondary agencies work with multiple other agencies like Getty. So they may be able to get your work into other agencies that you may not have been accepted into by yourself.
357
« on: July 17, 2016, 07:00 »
I said a while back they would remove the ability to deactivate/delete. After all of the coordinated contributor deactivation days I'm surprised it took this long to happen.
358
« on: July 17, 2016, 06:54 »
There is a lot of strategy and research tied to SEO. Photoshelter did an SEO primer a while back that I remember did a good job of covering the basics. That should give you enough to know where to dig deeper. Do a search for Photoshelter SEO.
359
« on: July 15, 2016, 07:27 »
Then what is the problem with differences between sales July and June. It's very big differences!!!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
It is a big difference for me...WAYYYYY down. Today I made $12 with 5000 assets.
This kind of ties into the other comments I made about getting to the point of it not being worth it. I only have a few hundred images on SS. It took a ton of time to create, edit, keyword, upload, and then go through all of the SS configuration stuff to get the images live. It must have been a massive effort and expense to do 5,000 images. I'm not directing this question at you but in general for all people who are getting similar results. Is this level of effort worth the return for you?
360
« on: July 14, 2016, 12:40 »
My prediction is microstock will always be a money maker for the agencies themselves, but will slowly but surely become less and less profitable for the contributor, and the contributors who have their game on will migrate to the midstock and macro stock sites.
In order for the agencies to stay profitable they will need suppliers. If they don't nurture the suppliers, they will eventually be left with a library of dated, sub-standard images. If they want to remain in the game, they need to start taking a longer view to protect their position.
True, but how long will it take to get to that point where things get stale? Doesn't seem like we're even close. At what point do contributors as a whole stop submitting because it just isn't worth it? As it is now things seem to keep getting worse for contributors but SS is reporting record library growth.
361
« on: July 14, 2016, 08:30 »
There are three things you can do with frustration. Change it, accept it, or leave it.
362
« on: July 13, 2016, 10:11 »
Been using Bay Photo for a few years. They're great.
Fast processing, fast shipping, reliable, and good quality products. Plus they offer large and custom sizes.
They also offer a drop shipping option that doesn't include any mention of Bay or pricing.
Another thing I like is no minimum order. Want to drop ship a 4x6? No problem. Some of the other labs have $20 or more minimum orders. I sell a lot big prints but also a lot of 8x12s.
Support has been great. Anything damaged during shipping they've immediately replaced and handled the issue with the carrier behind the scenes.
I've tried a few other labs with mixed results. One lab "overlooked" my order and after probably a week I called and they gave me a "so what oh well" attitude. Never used them again.
363
« on: June 30, 2016, 19:09 »
Some pretty impressive growth.
364
« on: June 30, 2016, 10:42 »
Hi everyone,
I'm just about to enter the world of multi agency and am wondering about this, how do you split and sort your portfolio between micro / macro stock and fine art for prints. Do you upload everything to all types of sites, or do you upload everything to micro and then make a judgement on what you think is then suitable for macro / print...
Thanks for your input
For my stuff I have a clear split in subject between macro and micro. Macro/Prints goes to my personal site and some art sites. I'm also experimenting with Alamy. Everything else goes to micro. But it's a judgement call. Macro should be something unique that isn't already covered heavily in micro. Unique could mean a lot of different things and not just subject. If you upload everything everywhere my experience is that buyers do look for the cheapest option so you're competing against yourself. IMO maintaining consistent pricing across multiple sites is important. I avoid certain sites because they don't offer enough control over pricing or their static pricing doesn't match the price model I've come up with for my macro.
365
« on: June 30, 2016, 10:23 »
What i do, i offer you a working and ready to go microstock agency. No costs to setup for anyone of you. Owned by us and decisions made by us.
How the agency looks like, yes, this WE have to decide. Yes i saw all the earlier post. But do we have an agency now? No.
So now we could start. Iam ready to start right now. We have to find answers for your critics but we do not need to have them right now. Because there is no business plan out there that could guarantee success.
If we setup the site and get our content online, we maybe could earn more than 30%.. this is a good reason to think about it.
The idea was a agency made by us. So i am not sure why anyone should expect all answers only from me (?). We are a team? I hope so.
I can understand everyone only wants to jump on a ready-to-go system and start selling. But come on, if WE start a agency everyone should think about solutions too. If there is some SEO guy, hey welcome. Please help us.
There could be so many good ideas. E.g. upload only 1% exclusive at our website. Send customers to our website. Place a link at your homepage to our website. I realy have to say iam a little bit sad about the first replies and the expectations for a final solution.
I'm not questioning what the final solution is. Just what about the business makes it a viable idea. I get your approach. Some people will just jump into things, do stuff, and success just happens along the way. I've been part of a couple startups before so I'm looking for a little more than "let's do something". People here have invested a lot of time and money in new opportunitites most of which didn't work out so you may need to be a bit more persuasive. It sounds like an exciting idea and I wish you the best of success.
366
« on: June 30, 2016, 09:07 »
The questions you're asking are operational. What about marketing and general viability?
What's the purpose of the agency?
What is unique about this agency compared to others?
Why would buyers use this agency over the dozens of other well established agencies and other general options?
What is the profile of the target buyer?
How will you attract buyers?
Maybe you're new here but you're getting a luke-warm response for a reason. Fairly regularly someone posts about starting a new agency. And it's usually the same type of post as this. Starting up a business with no mention of why the agency should exist or how it will attract buyers.
If I were going to invest time and money in someone's idea here's some examples of what would at least get me interested in talking more seriously about it.
"Hi, my name is [name] and I'm the former [title] of popular agency [company]. I successfully helped grow agency [company] from concept to multimillion dollar company. I'm planning to start a new co-op agency and would like to gauge the level of interest of MSG members in becoming contributors and part owners"
OR
"Hi, my name is [name] and I'm a stock photographer who's planning to start a new agency. My day job is [title] at [company] which is a leading SEO and Social Media marketing business. I've helped over 100 new startup company clients increase traffic by 10,000% and grow sales by 1,000% and I believe I can use my experience to start and grow a successful co-op stock agency but I'll need some help. Is anyone interested in discussing the details?"
Not sure if those example would even generate interest. But the point is if anyone wants to get attention here you need to talk about the business model and how you will attract buyers.
367
« on: June 29, 2016, 20:29 »
It's funny to see the "remember when you had 10 TV channels" Memes but it sucked back then.
I wish I had ten. NBC, CBS, ABC, PBS and the local independent.
We had 2, 5, 7, 9, 11, 26, 32, 44, 60, and 66 from what I remember. Now you can get an HD antenna and get over 50 channels depending on where you're at.
368
« on: June 29, 2016, 16:47 »
For people who consume content, no, this is the gold rush of content. I've always had an instant gratification type of personality so having access to what I want when I want it is amazing. When I was a kid we had the old giant Zenith cabinet TV with probably ten channels via roof antenna. I had to watch what was on. It's funny to see the "remember when you had 10 TV channels" Memes but it sucked back then. I remember being yelled at for constantly skipping channels trying to find something worth watching. For music I made cassette tapes through a microphone recording from live radio which I then had to carry around a big boom box to play the tiny cassette. Again fun to reminisce but it sucked. I just layed in my hammock watching a live baseball game on my phone. Never would have dreamed that would ever be possible when I was a kid. Incredible.
For the producers of content it's a different story. It's easier to produce and distribute content but seems to be more difficult to make big money. The elite few photographers, musicians, etc used to make huge money. Now that's spread over a lot more people and more people are making a little money. I think it was the Who's Roger Daltry who recently said something like there's no point for him to make a new album. They used to get a big money record contract. Now he would need to pay money out of his pocket to create an album without knowing if it would be profitable. Maybe he's doing things the old school way. Seems to be a lot of new music so somebody has got to be making money. I think the days of content producers getting filthy rich are about over. Movies may be the exception but that's because of theatres. How much longer will it be before todays theaters go the way of the drive-in move theater? I'd rather watch a movie on an Ipad then go to a theater and pay $20 per person and $10 for a 25 cent bag of popcorn. Drop $100 to bring the family and then have people talking, yelling, kicking my seat, and being distracted be a sea of people looking at their bright phones. It's only a matter of time before theaters mostly disappear and when they do so will the multi-million dollar payouts that go to the actors. Imagine the day when actors are complaining about making .25 subscription commissions.
For future content producers to make it, they will need to be social business go-getters who know how to work every angle available.
369
« on: June 24, 2016, 20:06 »
Middle aged white male, paunchy, florid, saying 'Im not a racist, but...'
We've got the same guys here in the US. You can identify them by the red "Make America Great Again" caps they all wear.
Scary times.
Oh yay. A politics post. Imgonna pull up a chair and some popcorn, count how many times the word racist is used, and see how far the liberal vs conservative insult carnage goes.
370
« on: June 20, 2016, 11:06 »
Apart from anything else, do you remember when this was fun? It was a great community and sales pinged in regularly.
It was fun when there was community, special treatment, and seemingly endless potential. To me it felt like I was part of something special. They had a line that said something like "go ahead and quit your day job" and for a while things were so good it actually seemed totally doable. When I first started I had no expectations other than to give it a try and see if I could make money. The money started rolling in. I decided to give IS exclusive a try and the money really started rolling in. Then I got accepted to Getty's early IS program and for a few months I had over $10 RPIPM. I felt like I had got into something life changing. Then shortly later in 2009 the fun stopped and the reality of business set in. They started making changes and everybody knows the story. The Disney magic was gone and the stats I kept track of showed things were headed downward and that at some point the exclusive crown would turn into an anchor. That happened probably in 2012 but like a bad relationship I hung on hoping it would improve but it didn't. I started working on Plan B. Glad I did. The fun part for me these days is seeing growth in direct sales. I'm glad micro gave me the learning experience but the fun there is long gone.
371
« on: June 20, 2016, 07:32 »
Hard to say what to expect but here's my experience. Was exclusive from 2007 to 2014. My RPIPM as an exclusive was $1.50-$2.00.
When I went independent I only went to Shutterstock and Fotolia with micro type stuff and Alamy and direct sales for what I consider premium stuff.
RPIPM for SS is about .60 cents, Fotolia is about .20 cents, and Istock is now about .30 cents. That's $1.10 total but I'm sure if I joined a few more sites that probably have .10 cent RPIPM I could probably match my exclusive RPIPM.
So to answer your question, if I was just uploading to SS, no I didn't see an increase in income. My SS file performance is about a third of what it was at as an exclusive. I'd need to upload to another handful of sites to see breakeven or increase.
Regarding what percentage of a drop at IS, mine dropped to under 20% of what I earned as an exclusive. Dropped like a rock.
But for me I'm ahead as an independent. I separated my work into micro and premium. Premium I only sell direct at macro prices and overall I'm doing better as an independent. I'm now free to do what I want with my work and price it how i want.
During the early boom Istock's exclusive program was great. Over the years as they removed benefits, changed the royalty model, and faced more competition, it's not quite as clear if it's worth doing/keeping.
373
« on: June 05, 2016, 11:33 »
Hey guys,
This is another episode of the quantity vs. quality discussion I guess. I would be very curious of how many images you select, process and submit per shoot. The poll only asks the percentage of raw material you pick, but the other interesting aspect obviously is how much you get out of a shoot. If you want to reveal that please comment the amount of images :-) Both questions bring light to two entirely different aspects I assume. The first shows how strictly you edit the material, the second how much quantity you produce, how long you shoot etc.
Furthermore: A lot in the stock market has more to do with search ranking and database ranking than anything else. Do you think you get a better ranking due to submitting volume or do you think it is better to submit few, great shots which rise up in the search results?
Personally, I get about 400-600 shots in a shoot and select about 60, 70 for submission. In the past it was way more, but now I edit more tightly.
Thanks for participating!
It's about 10-15% for me too. I used to do a lot higher percentage until I had to search for images and I literally skipped over contributors who posted what looked like twenty nearly identical versions of the same image.
374
« on: June 05, 2016, 08:17 »
I've been looking into other ways of selling prints. I've researched for weeks trying to find the cheapest print lab here in the US. Even looked into labs in China but after shipping the cost isn't much different.
Most of the stuff that's on Ebay is listed at a price lower than what it costs me to buy the print. And I mean true cost. Costs for the print plus shipping, taxes, Ebay listing fee, Ebay 10% sale fee, and Paypal fee. If a cheapo print lab lists the price at $20, by the time you add in all of the fees the cost is really $40. And I see similar stuff on Ebay for $15. I cant see how these people are making a profit. Even if they found an ultra cheap supplier, for say $7, the true cost is still probably $15.
Anybody here selling prints profitably on Ebay?
375
« on: May 27, 2016, 07:25 »
This is Adobe's online portfolio sharing site. It has been around for a long time and I've heard almost nothing about it. Anybody use it? If so, do you ever get contacted by buyers?
Pages: 1 ... 10 11 12 13 14 [15] 16 17 18 19 20 ... 120
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
