|
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 - cthoman
Pages: 1 ... 20 21 22 23 24 [25] 26 27 28 29 30 ... 145
601
« on: May 20, 2014, 09:24 »
Interesting stats. Thanks for sharing.
602
« on: May 19, 2014, 13:27 »
I guess it poses the question of... Does it really matter?
I'm saying this just to play devil's advocate. With that said, how many images from a subscription plan does the average buyers really download a month? 10, 20, 50, 100, 1000?
The answer to that really determines how much your images are being sold for (and what you are being paid for them). Also, if this deal is worse or just the same thing being sold in a different way.
603
« on: May 17, 2014, 20:22 »
You are wasting your time! I was trying to explain people here that we all need to promote agencies with better deal for us, but people like more "regular" money from big houses...
What does it mean promote? I upload the same pictures at the same time to all the agencies. I gave them all chance to earn me money. Some made it, some didn't. What's wrong with that?
There's nothing wrong with it, but you can also try to stack the deck and upload to places that make you more money per sale first (and delay those uploads at other sites for a few months or more). It gives some of the smaller sites that pay better a chance to compete with the larger sites with larger marketing budgets (budgets that you pay for). If you can find a couple good paying sites or start a site to sell your own work, it is worth experimenting with.
604
« on: May 17, 2014, 16:19 »
Self-Hosted.
605
« on: May 12, 2014, 14:18 »
I could see myself doing more free work or discounted work if I got paid a lot and wanted to work with new or less financially affluent clients. But, I'm typically not getting paid a ton for jobs, so it's hard not to charge most of the time.
I did do a quick alteration to a stock illustration because a mom wanted a robot dinosaur ballerina for her daughter's birthday. Even if it never sells again, I couldn't resist making that.
606
« on: May 12, 2014, 10:38 »
What happened to Tickstock (Audi 5000)? Did he get a conscious?
I guess Audi 5000 does mean you're out of here. I'm going to credit Vanilla Ice for coming up with that, but I'm not sure.
607
« on: May 11, 2014, 12:48 »
These are not people that would buy images before. It's a non-issue.
While I don't necessarily agree with this, I do agree that bloggers aren't really the most profitable group for selling stock images to. That said, giving images away isn't a very healthy solution.
608
« on: May 10, 2014, 00:08 »
I guess you could just sue them too. I'm sure Yuri has deep enough pockets. Professionals sue professionals.
609
« on: May 09, 2014, 15:05 »
Now I'm finding Shutterstock images on Adobe Voice. Like this one. And this one.
Adobe says they only source Creative Commons images, but that doesn't mean that everything marked CC in Google or Flickr is really CC.
It's sort of funny. Adobe tries so hard to stop copyright infringement and piracy of their IP, but here they're just assuming that everything on the web marked CC is truly CC. Wonder if someone were an Adobe software pirate and used the argument that they thought it was CC because they found it on a website that said so, if that would make it ok. 
I thought it was strange that the free Behance account I get with the Creative Cloud subscription recommends you publish images under creative commons. Adobe seems like a natural fit for selling stock, but their head doesn't seem to be in it at all.
610
« on: May 09, 2014, 10:49 »
Ah, I see. Thanks for humoring my slow brain on a Friday. I always have trouble with my stats at SS because of the way they handle the raster versions of vectors. I'm never sure if it is best to count just the vector version or the raster version as well (since they are two separate files in my portfolio).
611
« on: May 09, 2014, 10:29 »
Maybe, I haven't had my coffee yet, but I'm not sure I understand the question.
Your Q1 downloads at SS divided by your portfolio size at the end of Q1.
And what is that supposed to tell me?
612
« on: May 09, 2014, 10:25 »
613
« on: May 09, 2014, 10:22 »
Maybe, I haven't had my coffee yet, but I'm not sure I understand the question.
614
« on: May 08, 2014, 10:42 »
If you go to their photos department and sort all photos (7 million) by sales, the top selling file has 41 downloads. So I really dont think that at the moment photos is a strong subject for them.
http://www.pond5.com/photos/1/*.html#1/2176/
But they are a fair trade agency and their business is going up. I only have 127 images there, but already got a few sales.
So i think before you upload 4000 files, why dont you just upload 300 and see how it goes?
It would be wonderful if pond5 became a stronger photo agency. They do really well with video, so who knows.
I'd echo this sentiment. It probably won't be an instant financial success, but I think Pond5 seems like a good agency to build with for the future.
615
« on: May 07, 2014, 12:34 »
Sounds interesting.
616
« on: May 07, 2014, 09:10 »
Hi all,
I'm a bit puzzled as I logged in today and noticed that the two action options I can select for my image with 0 downloads are "donate free" and "keep online".
Not long ago they were donate free and disable the image.
What does this mean?? If these are the options who would want to donate them free?
BTW, this image has 506 views.
Yeah, those are my options now too. It must have changed in the last week or so. Ah, I guess it says they are testing it: http://www.dreamstime.com/thread_37300
617
« on: May 05, 2014, 08:29 »
... it was also an observation of the rapid about face of some shooters...
Who is doing an about-face? Someone can turn away from microstock and not necessarily be going back to "traditional" pricing. There is a lot of room in between.
sure there is lot's of room. but there are many now that are totally contradicting what they advocated and pontificated several years ago. i won't mention any names here but i seem to recall one fellow who was idolized and deified by far to many, and now only works with "professionals" and now another comes out and says how they have not shot for microstock for a year and a half. i just see a pattern forming so please forgive me. and i do find it interesting how the about face is distancing itself from what was once advocated by many the only way to go. nice to see actually. finally people are starting to realize that microstock is not such a good thing if you are serious about photography/stock photography as a profession.
I don't think that it is that everyone wants out of micro or into traditional stock. It's that there are a broad range of people that want different things from it. We've evolved with micro and have certain expectations now of what it should or shouldn't be.
618
« on: May 04, 2014, 11:35 »
For contributors, I predict that we'll see smaller co-ops and smaller agencies trying to make a go of it in the next few years. I doubt very many will succeed initially, but sooner or later something will click and we'll see a big swing from agencies once there's money involved.
I've been waiting for this for a few years, and I'm starting to feel like Linus waiting for the Great Pumpkin.
619
« on: May 03, 2014, 14:27 »
Well ok then - if it's all up to me - just let me opt out of subs, and I'm back on board. :-)
More control would be nice. I think that is my message to all agencies this year. I'd like more control over where and how my images sell. I don't see it happening though.
620
« on: May 03, 2014, 13:54 »
Hello,
Obviously, the broad point across the entire thread was to increase your quantity of customer downloads, which increases your income and revenue. When I'm referring to success, I'm directly relating that to your portfolio performance in terms of getting you the highest possible financial returns.
Best,
Scott
Definitely true. Making new and great images is the best part of my job, but the most profitable part of my job is figuring out how to get better returns on my existing images. Whether that is higher royalties or joining a new agencies, those are the quickest way to making more money. It's also the hardest to implement because there are a lot of forces working against those goals. Which I think is part of the reason for this thread and others like it.
621
« on: May 03, 2014, 13:30 »
We're here to help, because if you understand better what customers need, they're happy, you're happy, and everyone succeeds.
LOL. Now, I feel like I've been missing out on all the happiness because I'm too focused on the financial part. 
622
« on: May 03, 2014, 12:59 »
Scott,
As I've said in a similar thread, there's a significant supply/demand gap that is inevitably widening. The growth in supply is massively outstripping the growth in demand. That's not going to be good for contributors and ultimately will probably hit the agencies too.
The emergence of DPC is evidence of just one potential threat to the incomes of both contributors and other agencies. It seems that FT themselves have effectively 'given up' on trying to grow the main Fotolia site and now want to 'disrupt' the microstock industry with a new lower-priced business model (which, if successful, will also kill their main brand).
If DPC succeeds, or even if it does not, then you can be sure that others will follow and introduce their own disruptive model. IS have become pretty desperate of late to breathe life into their ailing business. If the new subscription thing doesn't work for them, as it probably won't, then a mega-low priced model could be the next thing they'll try.
I'm a huge optimist by nature but I struggle to see much of a long-term future for microstock contributors who undertake it as their main occupation.
Unless the focus shifts away from volume and low prices, I fear the same thing.
623
« on: May 03, 2014, 11:05 »
Sure there are some specialized requests, but to take your examples of regionally specific homes or school uniforms, there isn't going to be enough sales volume to make it worthwhile to shoot these for the micro market.
I'll occasionally do custom work for low prices, but it definitely can be a slippery slope looking like you are on call for the price of a subscription royalty. I definitely don't want to give that impression.
624
« on: May 02, 2014, 11:09 »
I don't think that is true. I'm always on the look out for some small but good selling agencies. They don't have to make an impact on the market to make an impact on my wallet.
I don't know a way to check if small agency is good seller except uploading my work to many small agencies and watch them. Very time consuming and not effective so I tend to ignore them.
Yeah, uploading to them is the only way to check. At the same time over 50% of my stock income comes from a few small sites, so they can be worth it too.
625
« on: May 02, 2014, 09:45 »
So you need big money to invest and really fresh approach.
I don't think that is true. I'm always on the look out for some small but good selling agencies. They don't have to make an impact on the market to make an impact on my wallet.
Pages: 1 ... 20 21 22 23 24 [25] 26 27 28 29 30 ... 145
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
