March was our best month ever on SnapVillage doubling February numbers. I'll post our March sales chart tomorrow.

Interesting to hear. Probably a portfolio thing then.

Is it only me, or....?

Until February, I had very slow, but rather regular sales at SV. Not so anymore. In March, I haven't had a single sale, and even the number of views seem to slow down. This is one of the high seasons of the year, so I would believe that it should be the time for SV to get going as well. Have they forgotten where they've hidden the key?

I don't understand all the negativity.

The negativity may partly be due to the fact that, while most agencies are most agencies are either good or bad with some individual variations, LO varies a lot. For some, it's just a "normal" slow site, but for others, it doesn't seem to move at all. I've been there for nearly a year and a half now, and with a portfolio of 572 images, I've made an astonishing 11 or 12 dollars.

Even stranger than that: I have only 1955 views in total, while at SV, where I've just been a little over 6 months, that's the number of views I've had on my top 25 or 30 images combined. Considering the fact that SV isn't a fast mover either, this puts LO in a rather strange light: why on earth is my portfolio nearly invisible at LO?

They have improved recently, particularly credit sales. March is my second best month ever with them, and just past the limit for a new payout.

Quote from: lisafx on March 25, 2008, 18:08

I hardly think the fact they pay in dollars is pissing anyone off.  They are a US company after all.

Don't all the sites pay in dollars - even the ones headquartered in other countries?  What's so different about Shutterstock doing that? 

Charging the customers in Euro's, that's the difference! None of the other agencies do that, not even the agencies who have an office in Europe, like Dreamstime and Stockxpert.

I believe all the Scandinavian agencies charge and pay in Euro, even if Euro is not the currency in any of those countries. The German agencies also charge and pay in Euro.

The fact that none that are launched after 2005 have succeeded, doesn't mean that none will in the future. I agree that few will, but the existing "successes" have enough weaknesses for someone with the right concept and enough money to fight his way through.

The editorial market is one obvious way in, a way that would hit traditional stock where it hurts the most, but it requires knowledge, skills and money. Then there are regional needs and a whole bunch of niches.

A little reminder: As late as 1980, most people still believed that IBM was untouchable in the computing business, and most computers were at least large enough to fill a room. In 1990, hardly anyone had heard about the internet, and fax was considered hi-tech. In 2000, microstock didn't exist, and the price of a photo was several hundred dollars.

Things change, not necessarily to the better, but they do change.

Quote from: epixx on March 25, 2008, 11:14

Very smooth indeed, and Norwegian... how can I resist? Gotta support those poor souls up there in the freezing north   

I'm in. First photos approved already. But how do I tell them that a photo is editorial?

when you are editing the info for an image there is a box where you change it from being 'artistic' to 'editorial'

Found it, thanks 

I opted out as well. If I opted in, and there were few subs dls, it wouldn't matter. If I opted in, and I had tons of subs dls, I would potentially lose at least as much as I gained, since some full price hi-res sales would undoubtedly be replaced by subs.

So, I'm out. Permanently   

Sales at FT are so reliable it's almost boring   

Quote from: FlemishDreams on March 18, 2008, 21:46

It occurred to me lately that no new stock agency really made it after 2005.

StockXpert, or not?  When did they start?

Regards,
Adelaide

Some time during 2005. A friend of mine advised me to join StockXpert the autumn of 2005. I didn't then. Thought microstock was a bad deal, but look at me now   

Agree with the first. Regarding the "People have to die for western ideals..." - if you mean our people - then not necessarily. Rather make the other *insult removed* die for it.

The other *insult removed*? Have I misunderstood something here? I thought we were discussing people....

In which case you would think that the micro-stocks could figure out a better pricing structure that would benefit everyone, photographers and the stock company.

Many agencies won't do that. They want to sell subscriptions: higher, regular payments from the customers, lower payouts to the photographers.

There is one important difference between SS and DT/StockXpert: at SS, I can upload minimum sized photos without hurting my sales significantly, since it's all subscription anyway. At StockXpert or DT, that would lower the sales potential as well as the income from regular sales.

Another thing is the principle: the photos that I uploaded to SS, I uploaded there knowing that it was a subscription site. When I uploaded to DT and StockXpert, at least before subs, it was in the belief that this would all be regular microstock sales, generating normal microstock profits.

The agencies change their contracts as they find suitable, while the photographers are just sitting on the bench, watching as their cut of the cake is reduced. Sorry to say, but I don't see that as an ethical way of doing business.