|
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 - EmberMike
Pages: 1 ... 12 13 14 15 16 [17] 18 19
401
« on: June 17, 2014, 21:36 »
You get tons of emails from buyers every week and you don't direct them to your own website? I think that's the opportunity you're missing.  Offer zip files with editable vectors!
I was when my Symbiostock site worked. Now I just direct them to the next best option.
402
« on: June 17, 2014, 20:22 »
In my opinion, anyone who is buying a vector file is doing so because they have enough knowledge to edit the pieces and parts, change colors, etc. Otherwise they would buy the jpg. They know how to delete the type outlines and add their own fonts in the same or in a different area to suit their needs... They might know enough, but they're also lazy. Part of the lure of microstock to begin with was what some of this stuff was the kind of things that buyers (largely designers themselves) could do but it was more cost-effective to just buy it. So they want something that saves them time. They often don't want to be bothered with replacing text, finding similar fonts, etc. They'd rather just open the file, type right over the exiting text with all formatting intact, and be done with it. I get tons of emails every week asking about what font I used in some image, how to change the text in an image someone got from SS, etc. It is definitely a problem and a hassle for a lot of buyers to not have a more easily editable file.
403
« on: June 17, 2014, 20:18 »
Have you tried explaining the text is editable in the description? If so, has it resulted in more sales? I haven't. But I might try that at Stockfresh. I know some people do it at iStock, and I've done it there for just a couple of images. I can't say if it makes a difference on such a small sample of images in which I've tried it yet. ...But I shy away from anything that creates more work unless it also creates more sales. I'm not sure I'll ever have enough data on this to say that it generates more sales, since there are so many other factors that also contribute to whether an image gets a lot of sales or not. Maybe over the course of a year or something I might see a trend emerge. But more importantly I think that having images with editable text is something that will generate more income for me at sites where it is expected that images with text can be easily edited. Just try uploading some text-heavy images at GraphicRiver and you'll be flooded with comments from angry buyers that all of the text is outlined. I'm not even sure that they allow any new images to be uploaded without including a version with editable text. To me this is more about creating added incentive to purchase my images at places where I want buyers to go. If a buyer knows they can get my work at Shutterstock and Stockfresh, but at SF they'll get a more useful and easily editable file, maybe they're more inclined to go there. I do know this for sure: I have had buyers tell me that they will always buy my stuff at x agency after I've explained to them that x agency has editable versions of my images while whatever other agency they bought my work from does not offer that option. Some buyers absolutely will move to agencies that offer additional file options, including editable text options.
404
« on: June 17, 2014, 20:08 »
...Some agencies worry about font licenses too. Not all fonts are available for commercial use so converting them to outlines is safer since they don't know where every font was obtained. That's kind of a misconception on the part of agencies. Font licensing is never an issue with stock, contrary to what some agencies might have you believe. Stock artists are not redistributing the font itself, which is the part of the font that is protected by copyright. A font designer can't own representations of the font in outline form. If they could, that would require every logo designer to create custom type for every logo they do. Otherwise how would a company ever trademark their logo?
405
« on: June 17, 2014, 15:04 »
I've gotten into the habit of keeping a working "editable" version of all of my vector images that include text. By "editable" I mean that the text isn't converted to outlines, you can edit the text if you have the necessary fonts (or substitute others). Some agencies require the inclusion of this type of file (GraphicRiver, Creative Market). Others allow it as an additional file (iStock, Stockfresh).
This seems like an opportunity being missed all around in stock. On the one hand, the agencies that don't allow this file type are limiting buyers' ability to edit vector files. On the other, the agencies that do allow these types of files don't seem to be making much of a big deal about it. Which is surprising to me since it seems like a huge advantage for them.
Shutterstock doesn't allow editable text vectors, and I would have thought that the competition might want to use this distinguishing factor to their advantage. And yet we never hear much about this, nor do any companies (as far as I can tell) inform buyers of this distinction.
On the contributor side of things, this seems like a golden opportunity to sort of vote with your images. In cases where I don't have to upload an editable file for text-heavy vectors, I usually don't. I've uploaded a couple to iStock, and GraphicRiver requires it but I don't upload there as much lately. I can upload them to Stockfresh but even when I do it doesn't seem to trigger any sort of change in how the image is presented to the buyer. It just indicates the EPS buying option but doesn't say what else is included, or that an editable text vector could be included.
Why don't they mention it? This seems like a huge opportunity for companies to set themselves apart from competitors on something other than just price. Take Stockfresh for example. Wouldn't they want to say to buyers that they offer a file type that makes it far easier and faster to just open the image and change the text to whatever you want? It's a huge time-saver. No deleting outlined text and setting your own text in the image, trying to match styles and effects. No guessing at what font was used or needing to contact the artist to find out.
If I'm a buyer, I'll gladly pay more for an editable file that I can open and quickly find out what fonts were used, change the text while retaining any styles, effects, arcs, etc., and probably be able to do what I want to do in a fraction of the time it takes if I get the same image elsewhere.
Any thoughts on this? Do you include editable text vectors in uploads to agencies that don't require it?
406
« on: June 16, 2014, 20:11 »
Sales seem to be deflating across the board. I do wonder if designers are getting sick of the plastic look of stock imagery, if its over used in marketing it can make a company look artificial and untrustworthy. It doesn't matter if designers are tired of it, because clients seem to be and that's what really matters. I don't do much client work these days, but I've had a client ask me to look for images for a project that "aren't too stocky looking". Microstock has a look, and it's getting tired. But that's not a bad thing necessarily, unless you're intent on doing shots in the near future of smiling receptionists wearing phone headsets while looking directly at the camera, smiling businessmen enthusiastically shaking hands, hands reaching out of computer screens shaking hands, apples isolated on white, etc. Demand for something different means that there is an opportunity to deliver something different and not "stocky looking."
407
« on: June 16, 2014, 14:43 »
like image exclusivity,
and massive advertising on Facebook (DPC has 73 000 likes, Shutterstock has 195 000 - isn't worrying?)
I don't know, I am not paid to think about it... They must know better than me what could be done to refrain them...
I'm not sure why anyone would expect a response already. DPC is pretty new still. They showed up when, in January I think? That's not nearly enough time in this business to know if something is a threat, trend, etc. And Shutterstock, being rather masterful at collecting data about customers and acting on it when appropriate/necessary, almost certainly have some means of knowing whether DPC is (or becomes) a legitimate threat to them and if they need to do anything about it.
408
« on: June 16, 2014, 08:32 »
I am a little bit worried about the massive advertisement DPC is making. I really wish Shutterstock would make something about it. Like what?
409
« on: June 13, 2014, 19:44 »
...I completely side with other here who have mentioned image exclusivity. In my humble opinion content will be the next differentiator... I think this came about sort of organically. Not long ago the idea of any sort of exclusivity was a lot more unpopular. Image exclusivity was always talked about, but not with the same enthusiasm we see today. The "organic" part of it I think is that it's not that opinions changed, but more that the market has changed to such a degree that we feel compelled to look to this sort of option with renewed interest. ...The only gap I see is do buyers care? Will they simply be happy with a 25 cent point and shoot image, shot without skill, planning, thought by joe blow sand his digital 110 instamatic? That's, to be, the bigger debate. I think buyers absolutely care. If they didn't, niche shops wouldn't stand a chance. And now more than ever I think that they have good reason to care, when it seems like more and more of the content they find at these big agencies is more of the same stuff that Joe Blow has been doing. If they're content with what Joe produces, then maybe they have no need to look elsewhere. But I suspect that more and more often buyers are expressing an interest in other options. I would almost guarantee that Offset came about from exactly these types of conversations with buyers. One of the things that Shutterstock does better than pretty much anyone in the business is talking to buyers and contributors. On a daily basis they interact with members of both groups. And since Shutterstock doesn't seem like the kind of company that would make a big move like Offset without at least some indication that buyers wanted it, I'm very inclined to believe that Offset was born out of buyers saying that they do care about quality, planning, concept, skill, etc., and that they want more choice.
410
« on: June 12, 2014, 22:50 »
...Exclusivity will be a thing of the past, as the actions of 2014 are already putting that in motion. (istock subs) A flat 20% (or less) for everybody... This is one thing that I can't believe hasn't happened already. Even though there may be value in a partially exclusive collection (especially today when so many of these companies have almost the exact same content) I've just always suspected that Getty must hate the idea that iStock pays their exclusive contributors more than 20%. Can't say I blame them. For years they've paid 20% and demanded exclusivity in the Getty house collection, and yet they're paying the same percentage for non-exclusivity at iStock and paying more (in some cases double) for exclusive content. It has to drive them a little crazy. I agree with you, it could go away in the next 3 years (or far less). Or at the very least restructured in some way. Whatever they do, I can't imagine that anyone at iStock will ever get more than 30%.
411
« on: June 12, 2014, 16:51 »
Experts on the SS critique forum will continue to teach and nurture newbies who don't know an F stop from a bus stop. The newbies go on to become experts competing with them and flooding the market even more... Who says that any of them are experts? If they can be outdone by some newbies who pick up shooting tips on an internet forum, then they deserve to be outdone and surely they're not experts.
412
« on: June 11, 2014, 19:02 »
I agree with what Mike said and that sets up a strong likelihood for "voluntary exclusivity". Basically, no formal agreement, but contributors feel it is in their best interest to submit to some places because they have such a higher RPD and earnings potential. I do this now, and if more lucrative places come online, I could see more contributors going this route. Voluntary exclusivity is a strong possibility for some of my stuff. Especially as some of these niche companies start to really move. I feel pretty good about a couple of small companies. If things really pick up, I could easily justify focusing significant amounts of my time and effort on just those few companies and leave the random other images for the lower-paying places. It's almost impossible for me to believe that I'm actually talking about exclusivity in some form for myself as a real possibility. A year ago I would have laughed at the idea. Now, with it being harder to keep up and "feed the beast", and especially with the new "nanostock" DPC type stuff around, voluntary (or even formal) image exclusivity might be the answer. Heck it might be the only thing that pulls some of us out of the fire as we try to differentiate ourselves from these new stock image dollar stores.
413
« on: June 11, 2014, 15:24 »
I think there will always be opportunities to make a living at this, but not in the same ways we've been able to historically. Can I even use the word "historically" in microstock? Doesn't seem old enough yet.
Looking ahead, the writing is on the wall for some companies. There are a few you can count out already. Crestock should be gone in 3 years. Maybe Cutcaster as well.
DPC is kind of a wild card in all of this. Succeed or fail, either way it changes things. I think it will succeed, for Fotolia anyway. Maybe at the cost of Fotolia itself but I've always suspected that DPC was a bet on "nanostock" as the future of the business. They just wanted to be first to market.
However I don't think DPC still being around in 3 years means that very many other places won't be. Shutterstock is almost too big to fail at this point. iStock pulled all kinds of shenanigans with buyers and contributors over the years and they're still around. Shutterstock will be at least as resilient, even if DPC becomes wildly successful and poaches customers from SS. They might falter, but SS will be around for a long time, even if not always as the market leader.
I think in less than 3 years we'll see a lot more growth in premium agencies with higher standards and niche collections. I hear Stocksy is doing well. Offset, I'm not so sure but there have been rumors of artists seeing some good sales. There are some interesting companies emerging that sell some non-traditional stock products, graphics, fonts, texture packs, etc. Some are doing pretty well. GraphicRiver (Envato) could have been this kind of company but they price things too low and they aren't seen as a premium content provider. They got too caught up in gimmicky stuff like nightclub flyer templates.
I think there is a real market for these smaller premium-quality collections. I expect to see more of these kinds of companies emerge. I look at companies like these as being the means by which I might survive this very uncertain time. I keep hoping that Stocksy will offer some sort of premium vector/illustration option. I'm not totally thrilled with the idea of image exclusivity, but I like the possibilities of what Stocksy might offer. Bruce indicated that vectors were something they'd offer eventually. Hope that's still the plan.
In 3 years I expect to still be doing this. But I think a lot will change in those 3 years. I don't think that an individual company will represent more than 30% of my monthly stock income by then. And I think that will be the result of expansion into other areas and types of stock marketplaces, emphasis on places that pay better, and possibly due to Shutterstock losing some of their market to places like DPC.
414
« on: June 11, 2014, 14:52 »
Ron? What happened with Ron? I got a message on fb from Ron that he left because of the negative responses/votes he got when he was discussing his weight loss and hiking adventures. Can't say I blame him. You can't even talk about something non-microstock around here without some down votes just because someone doesn't like you. It's sort of indicative of the whole atmosphere around here lately.
415
« on: June 11, 2014, 13:28 »
I really don't get why anyone quits GL. It's exactly the kind of site we should be hoping somehow turns things around and grows. That won't happen if people are leaving.
416
« on: June 11, 2014, 12:51 »
The + / - system has devolved into a schoolyard popularity voting system. It's not based on the actual post being read, it's about whether or not people like you and whether they agree or disagree with your general views on things. I'm not exactly popular in the DPC thread but I'm sure I'll get down votes on this post just because of what I've said about the DPC issue.
Straight-up facts get down votes. You could post 2+2=4 and someone will click that arrow.
This is just a hostile forum lately. I don't blame anyone for leaving. I've left and (reluctantly) come back. I've considered anonymity, but not because I'm worried about what agencies think of my views. I'm more concerned with just being associated with this forum lately. The more this turns into the pitchfork brigade, the more I consider needing to distance myself from that stigma.
417
« on: June 11, 2014, 12:36 »
So you suggest everyone break the Flickr TOS in order to promote an agency. They may not have caught on to you yet, but imagine hundreds of us suddenly linking our "photos" to our commercial portfolios at one site. How long do you think it would take them to catch on?
If it bothers you to use Flickr in this way, there are other options. Pinterest, Google+, whichever site you prefer for sharing photos. My point is more about the strategy than which service someone uses.
418
« on: June 11, 2014, 10:02 »
"Dont use Flickr to sell.
If we find you engaging in commercial activity, we will warn you or delete your account. Some examples include selling products, services, or yourself through your photostream or in a group, using your account solely as a product catalog, or linking to commercial sites in your photostream"
https://www.flickr.com/help/guidelines
That said, I've seen photostreams which are, literally, a product catalogue and nothing else.
I've been doing it for years without an issue. I also don't abuse the service. My account looks like a portfolio. I do include a link in the description, but that's it. I think as long as you aren't being overly promotional with your account they really don't give you a hard time about it. If anyone does want to try this, though, I do suggest using a URL shortener like bitly. I prefer to have a non-descript link in the description as opposed to an obvious agency link.
419
« on: June 11, 2014, 09:35 »
...But for the support to really work what you need is for the good agencies to have stronger collection than the bad ones so there is a place for boycotting the bad agencies too... That's a good point. I still don't think that boycotts work on their own, but in combination with other efforts they certainly play a role in shifting the balance of power in microstock. Instead of saying that I don't think boycotts work, I should say boycotts alone don't work. Not to make the kind of significant change we hope to see, anyway. ...I have struggled in the past to understand how you can be for supporting good agencies while at the same time being an apologist for graphicstock or vectorstock (far worse and a bigger threat than DPC especially GS). You can't have it both ways. If you support decent agencies while at the same time propping up the bad ones we aren't going to get anywhere. I don't support Vectorstock. I still have a small portfolio there, but I don't upload there anymore and even when I did, I uploaded modified (stripped down) versions of my vectors. I also tried to work with them on their pricing problems and for a while they were receptive to increasing prices upon request. They stopped honoring their promise to have all of my work priced higher so I stopped uploading. Graphicstock isn't that bad. I don't like their unlimited downloads thing, I think that's a potentially harmful precedent to set for what people should expect from subscriptions. But I also don't think that makes them the worst thing in the business. How many people will really care if they get unlimited downloads or not? Few people ever use their download quota up anyway. But I do think people have made some good deals with them. $15,000 isn't bad for a lot of people. Some people won't make that much with places like DT or FT ever. It's surely a heck of a lot more than most people will ever get from DPC.
420
« on: June 11, 2014, 09:16 »
The thing is, it's not enough if we (the contributors) support fair agencies by uploading to them. We need to either get the buyers to support them, too... I agree. And it is possible to drive buyers to the agencies we choose. In that thread from 2 years ago in which I suggested we all get behind Stockfresh and try to push them up the ladder, I mentioned my Flickr promotion strategy. I put most of my recent work in a flickr account (watermarked of course) and in the description I link to the corresponding image page at SF. I also include my referral in the URL so I get referral credit. It is pretty common that when I get a sale at SF, I also have a referral bonus with it because the buyer saw my stuff on Flickr, clicked over to SF, signed up, and bought my image. Often buying other images too. I agree that it's not enough to simply upload our images. It will take some effort from us to really make a difference, but I truly believe that it can be done. We all just need to be a little more willing to not see immediate gratification. If the expectation is always going to be that uploading should equate to short-term return on the time spent, we're not going to get anywhere.
421
« on: June 10, 2014, 23:10 »
However, Mike thinks that supporting some agencies will take effect.
Well, if that strategy is true, GL or Stockfresh will dominate all market share by now.
This is more obvious that this strategy did not work AT ALL. You've missed my point completely. I've been saying that we don't adequately support good agencies. Recent comments are evidence of that. Ron bailed on GL after 6 months. People don't want to upload to places where they don't get an immediate return on their time invested. If we did support these agencies better, we might see something change. But we don't, so I'm not sure why you think my suggestion of rallying behind one or two good companies "did not work AT ALL" when it hasn't even been tried.
422
« on: June 10, 2014, 20:02 »
Yeah if you don't expect or need a ton, then there are still possibilities. Most of the market seems to be tenuously held together by the notion that SS will always be a great earner. I see a lot of cracks in that theory, but that's probably the place to start for any new contributor. There are a lot of cracks in that theory and there is also very little reason for any contributor to actually want that. Shutterstock has a lot to like in terms of sales volume. But that volume comes at a steep price to us. The percentages that Shutterstock pays out are nothing to be really happy about. As a starting point, sure, Shutterstock is a must-have agency. But down the road? Let's just say I feel better seeing the percentage of my monthly income coming from SS dropping as opposed to rising.
423
« on: June 10, 2014, 11:08 »
I took part of such a plan once, after IS D-Day we all submitted to Graphic Leftovers, it brought me nothing. I ended up deleting my account. I am not sure who's idea it was that GL was a good agency, I mean they are, but nice people and fair royalties dont buy me a studio lighting set if there are no buyers.
Why'd you leave GL? Just because sales were low? GL was a decent earner a few years back but some more recent Google shenanigans hurt them in image search. If they can bounce back, they might be a decent earner again. Honestly Ron this is kind of my point. People don't support these efforts to help agencies because they want something immediate in return. We're never going to see a company like GL (or similar) become a success if everyone wants to see the money first. It doesn't work like that. And really, how hard is it to upload to GL? Has to be one of the easiest uploads in the business.
424
« on: June 10, 2014, 09:45 »
I'm not at all convinced that the EL was in the works, although FL may claim it was. It would have been rolled out with the initial site launch if it was in the works... If something isn't in an initial launch that that doesn't mean it's not planned. Sites launch every day with planned future features, enhancements, etc. Raising the initial buy-in is still a possibility, if enough people withdraw their work they will have to do it. It's not. FT has said so. That $10 price point is critical to their plans of getting rapid adoption of DPC among buyers. A higher price point would cost them a lot of early adopters, and they're not going to take that chance. In any case, I am not sure why we are arguing about this, we don't have to decide if it is preferable to support the better sites or boycott the bad ones. We can do both. What's the point of spending all this time disparaging the anti DPC efforts. I am not saying that as an attack, just literally what are you achieving? You are wasting more of your time than you would be if you were still part of the action, which is what you want to avoid doing right? Why not come up with an action plan for supporting the better sites that we could also get behind.
I've tried suggesting a plan of action, and it didn't go well. I'm trying to refocus some of the effort here. The point I made earlier in this discussion is that if people took the energy they put into protesting Fotolia and DPC and put that into something more positive, I think we could jump-start an effort of encouraging fair-trade companies who offer good royalties and prices. We're pretty good getting people fired up when things go bad. As much as I feel the DPC opt-out effort isn't working, I have to recognize that there is a lot of enthusiasm for it. I wish it wasn't an "either/or" thing. It shouldn't be. But it's really hard to get people on board with the "support a good company" effort. And if the average person here is going to do one thing in support of change in this business, it's more likely to be pushing for opt-outs and image deletions than for uploads and support.
425
« on: June 10, 2014, 09:23 »
It's seems contradictory that on one hand you claim to have opted out of DPC and deleted half your Fotolia portfolio, while every single post on this thread seems to be to dismiss the efforts of the collective photographers efforts against DPC. It doesn't make any sense at all. Why? I can be opted out as a personal protest even if I don't agree that the opt-out effort will do anything. What makes no sense is that if I'm not in the crowd with a pitchfork in my hand then I'm clearly with DPC. It makes no sense that when I suggest that we need to think of some other ways to push back DPC, that turns into the implication that I support DPC. How exactly does that make any sense?
Pages: 1 ... 12 13 14 15 16 [17] 18 19
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
