|
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 ... 12 13 14 15 16 [17] 18 19 20 21 22 ... 35
401
« on: June 26, 2012, 05:25 »
for the ones that dont read that often on FT forum take a look at the following link:
http://www.fotolia.com/forum/viewtopic.php?pid=579103
Hi guys,
There have been a lot of posts about sales trends changing for contributors so I did some poking around and got confirmation on something I think most of you will find interesting.
In order to maintain priority placement in the database you do need to consistently upload and submit images. The more you submit the better your chances of visibility. If it's been several months (or years) since your last upload there is a good chance that the sales of your existing images will taper off as they will be pushed back deeper in the search. There is some sort of algorithm that prioritizes contributors that upload more frequently.
What that means is that you cannot expect to passively succeed. You need to constantly work on your images and uploading. The harder you work, the greater your success. I have noticed this in my portfolio here and it's my intent to get off my butt and start shooting more and shooting better.
Good luck and happy shooting!
Mat
Thanks for digging this up and posting it here, Luis... but I have two reactions to his findings... 1. Duh. I've always considered it to be common sense that you have to keep uploading to maintain a decent exposure level, not just at FT but everywhere. 2. This common sense approach to uploading doesn't explain the sudden cliff we all fell off a few months ago at FT, unless FT just rolled out this "constant uploading" algo recently. I suspect there's something else that would account for many of us (especially Emeralds) getting knocked down all at once. In fact, I have been steadily uploading like clockwork for pretty much four years, and my earnings charts for FT (and DT) look like a steady climb up a mountain, then all of a sudden falling into a valley a few months ago. At all the other sites, my trendlines look like pretty consistent upward arrows... but FT and DT had been my #2 and #4 earners, so they're holding me pretty flat overall. Very frustrating, since it's not from a lack of uploading, I assure you.
402
« on: June 21, 2012, 06:43 »
Has anyone noticed a positive change in their DT sales in the last few days.
I'm now on my third day of doubled sales (both quantity and overall earnings). One of those "faucet turning on" moments. Maybe there was another best match shift this week that boosted best sellers?
403
« on: June 18, 2012, 11:34 »
Yep! DT, is selling alright, no doubt about that and big sales as well.
I meant FT, should have put it down. I'm not even sure I've had that many sales so far in June at DT, they're so pathetic I don't even check the stats lately.
Same here... FT sales have exploded today... nearly 100 already, while over at DT... 2. Can't believe these sites used to run neck and neck for me.
404
« on: June 15, 2012, 22:53 »
You don't seem to understand (and I don't understand why this is so hard) that any kind of advertising is branding, even your local plumber's.
Um, no. I've worked in advertising for many years, and regularly discuss with clients whether a given campaign will be branding or direct response. These are the two primarily types of advertising -- institutional/branding and direct response/product advertising. They really are distinctly different, with different primary objectives and different tones and messaging. Branding ads aim to give you warm fuzzies about the company and keep them top of mind, or associate them with something positive. Direct response or product advertising focuses on a specific product and wants you to take action in a specific way. A simple Google search on the topic could help clear this up further and give you some good examples of both types, but I'll offer a few... Think of the Chrysler ad during the Superbowl starring Clint Eastwood. It barely featured the products, instead focusing on concepts and values Chrysler wanted you to associate with it. That's institutional/branding advertising. Then think of local ads for the Chrysler dealership in your town yelling about a cheap lease price on a new Chrysler 200 and urging you to come in for a test drive. That's direct response/product advertising. Of course, these are black and white examples, and sometimes ads will be grey... trying to cover all the bases (perhaps like your local plumber -- though I'd argue that if he's urging you to call him to fix a leaky sink that's call to action rather than branding)... but people in advertising can typically spot the differences a mile away.
405
« on: June 15, 2012, 10:12 »
On FT, is it not the case that higher ranks can set higher prices (the punter pays more as well as / instead of just a higher cut for the contributor)? If so, is it not just possible that buyers are simply taking cost into account thus favouring the small timer?
No, at least not in my case. When I raised my prices, my number of sales did not fall at all. My sales at FT did not fall until they messed with search results. I guess it depends on whether your work is a "commodity"... are there dozens or hundreds more just like it? If so, then maybe a buyer would say "Why would I buy this one for $5 when I could get a virtually identical one for $3?" But if your work has a unique style and has not been duplicated effectively by copycats, then the price difference between your $5 image and the next closest image at $3 should not really sway a buyer. Imagine if you're a buyer and you see the perfect image for $5... you see others on the page at $3, but if they're not quite as effective as the $5 shot, does that extra $2 matter to you? And to the original point, do you wonder, "That one seems more popular, maybe I shouldn't use it because it may have been used elsewhere?" My buyers have kept on buying, that is, until FT and DT started burying my shots a few months ago.
406
« on: June 15, 2012, 10:01 »
The first priority is to stand out, to be very-very-very easily recognized and told apart form the competition, at a glance. That's what branding is all about, this is the most basic principal of identity and ad design. I worked for years and years as an art director, and this was The Code to live by and it's perfectly logical too. We always avoided commonly used shots as far as possible. You get the same smiling blonde pop up on different brand ads, it's enough to confuse would-be-costumers on who's who, and the client might even deny paying for the work, saying it's useless coz everbody thinks the ad he paid for is from the 'other guy'. Very embarrassing.
This is a fairly narrow view of how buyers are using microstock. In fact, I'd say any company or agency turning to microstock for branding is foolish, for exactly the reasons you point out. Even if you bought a new image and used it to brand your company or client, that image could soon be bought by hundreds or thousands of others. Truly professional agencies and clients instead turn to RM or shoot their own stuff for all the reasons you describe. The people buying my stuff are not big companies using it for branding. They're small businesses, consultants, bloggers, publishers, etc., using my images to help them make important points, to give them an extra punch. They appear in sales presentations, brochures, web and print articles, etc. I believe this is the type of use that makes up the bulk of microstock usage for all of us. And I'll make the point again... these folks care first about an image with "punch"... something that effectively drives the point home... by and large they're not concerned about whether the image has been used before. The proof is in my overall sales. They've been rising steadily everywhere for the past four years, even at DT and FT up until the last few months when they implemented best match changes. The market was not asking for these changes, at least according to my data.
407
« on: June 15, 2012, 07:23 »
I have to think that the average buyer's first thought is "find something good" as opposed to "find something new."
The first priority is to find an effective, powerful image that best communicates a particular message. Best sellers are best sellers because they do this very well. If a buyer does a search and sees a variety of images that have proven that they meet the immediate goal very well, isn't that going to be more compelling than a mix of unproven pictures that may or may not get a message across effectively?
I see what you're saying about the importance of something fresh, but I just don't buy that this is the #1 priority of the average customer. I'm also a customer, and when I have to quickly find something, I'm not first thinking "I must get something that hasn't been used before." I just want the best image for my needs as quickly as possible.
FT and DT are putting short term profit over the needs of its customers. I believe it is backfiring. For instance, my overall FT rank is much higher than it was one year ago, yet my earnings are about half what they were a year ago. This suggests most or all the biggest sellers are also down about 50% since last year. FT can't be coming out ahead with this strategy.
408
« on: June 15, 2012, 06:53 »
The biggest and most disturbing trend when I look at my numbers right now is that things are going along just great everywhere -- except at DT and FT, where sales are dramatically plunging. My sales at both are about half what they were in June 2011. Incredibly frustrating since these are my #2 and #4 agencies, and my plunging sales are NOT the result of me no longer knowing what sells or producing bad work. No, I'm being punished because my work sells too well.
It's pretty clear that both sites are punishing top sellers because they make too much money when their best selling images sell. DT and FT must figure they profit more when a brand new image by a newbie is bought by someone who may have otherwise bought a best seller from a top contributor.
But does this provide a better experience for the customer? By default, any given search will bring up a dearth of brand new images, mainly from newer, unproven contributors. No offense... some of the work will be good, some OK, and some garbage. A real grab-bag of quality. Before the changes, customers would have seen images that have proven to be popular... images that have served customers well in the past and would likely continue to do well if they weren't buried.
What is better for the customer? I am very curious to know how DT's and FT's overall revenue is these days. I have to think that their strategy is backfiring, and customers now think the overall quality of their stuff is very scattershot, and are leaving in droves for SS and maybe some smaller players (I'm guessing BigStock or 123RF, since both those sites have posted solid gains for me in recent months.)
409
« on: June 13, 2012, 06:59 »
For the first 12 days of June vs the first 12 days of May, I'm up about 10%.
BUT...
First 12 days of June 2012 vs first 12 of June 2011... DOWN ABOUT 12%.
Every other top or mid tier agency is up a healthy margin for me from 2012 to 2011. DT is the ONLY one in the red.
410
« on: June 12, 2012, 12:59 »
Here is a new contributor who truly gets it.
She is doing everything right. Her stuff sells because:
1. She has a unique style. Her work is not a commodity. You might find somewhat similar art on the same topics, but it stands out with a look that can't be easily duplicated.
2. She is covering marketable topics. Looks like she actually did her homework before creating and uploading, and it's paying off for her.
3. She is covering a broad range of topics, so she is not cannibalizing her own sales.
4. Oh yeah, she's also good. (This is number 4, because frankly, quality is not a differentiator any more... uniqueness, marketability, and broad scope of subject matter are far more important to generating big sales... quality just gets you in the door.)
Keep up the great work, focusing on the top three points above (#4 seems to come naturally to you) and you'll see higher and higher sales!
411
« on: June 12, 2012, 12:51 »
The strange thing I've seen is a lot of Medium sized credit sales lately. I never used to see them, now I'm getting several a day for the past few days. Anyone else seeing more Medium credit sales all of a sudden?
412
« on: June 08, 2012, 09:16 »
Wow must have dug down deep to find this 6 year old thread.
6 Years are a very short time in the life of microstock. 
6 Years are an eternity in the life of microstock... it's almost the age of the entire industry. Anyway, to the 6-year-old question, which is still a valid one: 123RF is a very solid performer for me. Consistently, almost every month is a new BME. In terms of consistent growth, they're right up there with SS for me.
413
« on: June 07, 2012, 14:20 »
Not too many comedies represented in this thread.
So here's my favorite comedy of the last 10 years or so: In the Loop.
Side-splitting, very sharp and intelligent tale of government hawks in the UK and US conspiring to make the case to go to war in Iraq... probably not too far at all from the truth. Peter Capaldi is amazing in this... one of the best comedic performances I've ever seen. He needs to be in more stuff, at least in things people can see outside the UK.
If you see it and like it, check out episodes of The Thick of It, the UK series that preceded the film. They're available on YouTube (last I checked) and are equally fantastic.
414
« on: June 07, 2012, 13:26 »
Seems like this encourages someone who has 100 shots from a photo shoot of "older couple holding hands on the beach" or "handshake from 100 angles." Just more stuff for buyers to sift through, rather than the very best shots from a shoot.
Never thought that I'd defend DT, but it seems like the two agencies are going in completely opposite directions. As a buyer, I think I prefer DT's approach... that is, if they were actually fair in how they defined "similars." In my experience, they have been idiotically literal-minded about it... a similar subject but composed in different ways to convey totally different concepts (and thus have totally different keywords and appeal to totally different buyers) all get rejected for being too similar.
I'll have no use for the FT tool, as I don't submit "similars" in the way I think they should be defined and FT seems to be welcoming... and my DT uploads have been reduced to nearly nothing since their opposite approach is equally flawed.
SS just looks better and better every day.
415
« on: June 06, 2012, 15:26 »
I've been very downbeat about DT lately. They've been doing terribly for me since the recent change. But today, there seems to have been a "faucet turning on" moment. Sales should end up about 4x what they have been on weekdays lately. The volumes are large enough to be statistically significant... we're not talking 2 vs 8 sales. And the prices, sales timing, sizes, etc. suggest they are not from the same buyer. The difference I'm seeing suggests that something has happened to cause an increase in sales.
Anyone else?
416
« on: May 31, 2012, 14:02 »
Worst month of the year for me.
All due ENTIRELY to FT and DT sabotaging me. Sales at both FT and DT are about half of what they should be, due to recent best match shifts that are punishing good-selling pics (plus, perhaps, the turmoil in Europe?)
The good news? My May 2012 grand total is still up about 50% over May 2011, so I won't cry too much.
Plus...
SS is as strong as ever
ISP has been bouncing back
BigStock, 123 and DP all on hot streaks
In a nutshell, I'd be feeling really great if it weren't for FT and DT being such party-poopers!
417
« on: May 31, 2012, 13:55 »
All the 'suggestions' and 'similia' are very recent uploads (and most are neither sensible as 'suggestions' or in any way 'similar').
People must have been complaining that their new uploads just weren't being seen, so they turned everything upside down and show only new work ( thinned down a little by their insertion of 'infinity' images; the price of which only serves to induce apoplectic fits in potential, budget-minded buyers)!
The more likely answer is that Fotolia wants to bury the high-priced, high-commissioned work of Emeralds and above, because they make less money on those. Perhaps they think that if a customer initially sees a lot of images at high prices, they will flee to a site offering the same or similar images for half the price. So by showing newest stuff first, they ensure only the cheap stuff sells... another way of punishing Emeralds who are supporting the "cheap" sites. (Remember the email?)
418
« on: May 25, 2012, 10:21 »
Yes, ELs are WAY down.
This is not a seasonal variation. I do a large volume of all types of downloads at SS, so it is clear that there is something going on.
For each month of this year from Jan to April, I had around 20-30 ELs. So far in May, I have one. (I do have a bunch of those $18 downloads, so that's a welcome sign.)
Actually this question goes back to one I raised many times since I noticed a big wave of ELs start in September. Prior to Sept 2011, I would see just a few ELs a month, then like a faucet turning on, the ELs started pouring in. They held pretty steady until this month, when the faucet was turned off. Very, very strange.
419
« on: May 23, 2012, 12:44 »
Who is going to shell out a whole lot of cash for Getty and its debt? KKR? Private equity firm selling to another private equity firm for what purpose? To consolidate FT and Getty?!? That's why KKR way overpaid for FT, so they could overpay for Getty too? Does KKR have that much better insight into the microstock business to figure out how to make that much more money then H&F could?
One result of consolidating ownership of ISP and SS under a single company would be to reduce downward price pressure in the market and allow both to actually increase prices. Which could be good for us, assuming the new management doesn't also try to boost profits by trimming contributor commissions.
420
« on: May 18, 2012, 12:48 »
I'm just using the search bar at the top left.
Searched a few of my more popular images, and I'm finding NON-WATERMARKED versions all over the place. Multiple times each.
This is going to be a HUGE PROJECT to come up with a complete list, and I'm sure I won't get everything. Looks like I will have a list a mile long.
I am copying the URLs and doing screen captures. I plan to submit both with my required form. Looks like you can provide multiple examples with one form.
If anyone is up to looking into a class-action lawsuit, COUNT ME IN.
421
« on: May 18, 2012, 12:21 »
Now, this theory only holds if the watermarks are effective. There are a bunch of worthless getty watermarks that could be easily cropped out of those garden shots.
It also only works if it is watermarked. You assume most people search their Pinterest photos at stock agencies. If a Pinterest member is interested in - let's say - food recipes, he/she will not visit Dreamstime, but recipe sites. There he'll find our unwatermarked images, and whoever clicks on those images will never be redirected to a stock agency.
Exactly. What makes you think they will be linking to a watermarked version? Just as likely, if not more likely they will be linking to a non watermarked version on the site of the one guy who actually bought an image.
On a related note, here's an idea, a subs agency that stores the files and lets people hotlink to them using their unique customer code as long as they keep up their subscription. End subscription and all your hot linked images disappear. I now want a cut when this happens.
The example given in the post shows all watermarked images. I figured this was mainly what was happening. But after searching Pinterest for some of my more popular images... yep, they're on there without watermarks, with sources like "Google.com" listed. I'll also be filling out the form and submitting.
422
« on: May 18, 2012, 11:56 »
There's actually a mistake on top of a mistake.
Many people received emails about the wrong accounts.
So the first email you received stating an amount being adjusted was probably incorrect.
Double check your account info on BigStock to see what the actual amount being credited is.
But it certainly is nice seeing mistakes being owned up to, and that the adjustments are in our favor and not just being kept by the agency. Other agencies might have treated these differently.
423
« on: May 18, 2012, 11:46 »
It's not the kind of "good" I want. For instance, I shouldn't care when my image: http://pinterest.com/pin/202943526928682144/ gets put on 100 blogs for free using the embed code on the side?
Is that really happening? Do you know it's been posted on any blogs, let alone 100? I ask because there have been a lot of out-of-proportion worst-case scenarios discussed regarding Pinterest, and I'm just wondering if this is another one.
As for whether you should care of not, well, if it's my image, I personally don't care. It's watermarked, for starters. I think the usefulness of it in any situation is greatly diminished due to the watermark. But if someone is inclined to post a watermarked istock image on their blog, I doubt they'd have been a buyer anyway. I don't view it as a lost sale or anything. And of course the lack of intention to license the image doesn't grant a license to use the watermarked version for free, but it does make a strong argument for the "why should I care" side of things.
Obviously you care enough to justify taking the time to pursue any unlicensed use of your images, from Pinterest or anywhere else it seems. I don't have the time, nor do I care enough, to pursue tiny little infringements like these. I let this stuff go, along with misuses like Hero Turko and such, because they're not lost sales, they don't really matter, and they don't have any negative impact on my earnings. And as mentioned, in the case of Pinterest I view these things as positives, providing some promotional value.
+1. Look at the case of the person with the community garden pictures. That person would have never bought dozens of photos for the purpose of putting together a page of pics he/she likes. And if someone else stumbles on this and likes some shots, they can either embed the watermarked version and look like an idiot (and this person also would likely never buy a shot anyway) or the person will follow the link and properly buy the picture. To me, it seems like a net positive, and Pinterest has driven sales that you wouldn't normally get. Now, this theory only holds if the watermarks are effective. There are a bunch of worthless getty watermarks that could be easily cropped out of those garden shots.
424
« on: May 18, 2012, 11:38 »
I believe they havent punished emerald and superior ranking, there was a time because of DP that they were going to decrease their pricing but nothing happened actually, so they are still respecting top contributors
Believe me Emeralds have been punished. Some of us were pushed so far back in the search that my I lost 75% of my earnings virtually overnight and it never has recovered. I know others that had similar treatment at the same time it happened to me so it wasn't anything that I did or didn't do that caused it.
+1. Most days on FT I'm down 50-60% from where I was just a few months ago. Very discouraging. But given how poorly I'm doing at DT since their recent changes, and how I've all but given up on ISP, these reduced FT sales still make them my #2 seller. Very frustrating to know that things are down not due to anything I'm doing wrong... it's most of the big players sabotaging me. Here's hoping SS remains steady.
425
« on: May 18, 2012, 06:57 »
I have some experience with KKR. It is indeed its mission to enter an industry and consolidate many existing players, attempt to put them all under one infrastructure to eliminate a lot of costs, and thus maximize profits. For example, if they bought ten companies and have them all operate as one unit, you don't need ten accounting departments... you could fire nine of them.) With the agencies, there can't be that much infrastructure to eliminate... I'm guessing they would instead maximize profits through commission cuts.
I felt pretty good about Shutterstock's news the other day. But the Fotolia news has me feeling this is the beginning of the end. Oh well, it's been a fun ride.
Pages: 1 ... 12 13 14 15 16 [17] 18 19 20 21 22 ... 35
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
