|
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 ... 24 25 26 27 28 [29] 30 31 32 33 34 35
701
« on: August 19, 2011, 12:38 »
Like a lot of folks here, I think I've got a blueprint in my head for what the ideal microstock company would look like. It really doesn't take a genius to come up with something better than what's out there.
Best line from The Social Network... Mark Zuckerberg tells the Winklevoss twins, "If you guys were the inventors of Facebook... you would have invented Facebook." No, it doesn't take a genius to come up with an idea. It takes a genius to act on it and make it reality and make it actually work. Lots of people around here saying they know what the problem is and how to fix it. But nobody's doing it. The agencies out there aren't perfect... a bunch of them are doing a bunch of things wrong. But they did something. You don't like what they did, and think you can do better, then do it.
702
« on: August 19, 2011, 11:07 »
At the end of the day, I care about one thing: is the agency making me more money than it did a month ago, or a year ago. Am I investing time and effort and getting more or less in return? As long as the answer is MORE, and especially by a sizable amount, then I will continue to contribute. For me, I'm doing much better at FT today (even a few days after the cut... maybe the V3 site works better and is actually driving a higher volume of sales, offsetting my commission cut) than I was a few weeks, months and especially a year ago. I spend just a few hours a day at this, and when I see my payouts each month, it feels like I'm receiving a healthy raise month after month, whatever cut recently happened.
So that's the bottom line. Am I financially better or worse off in the big picture? If you're worse off despite pouring more blood, sweat and tears into FT or any other site, no one would blame you for cutting the cord. But I'm doing better today, so I'm happily staying. If my trend lines reverse in the months to come, I could change my tune, but until then, it's business as usual and counting my money.
703
« on: August 19, 2011, 11:04 »
duplicate post.
704
« on: August 19, 2011, 10:57 »
All we're doing here is talking about things we'd like as contributors... accept more of my images, etc.
I think the point of the Hackathon is to think outside the box on how to grow Shutterstock's business. How can they attract more customers, offer a new product or service that better serves customer needs, etc. (I know some will reply that letting more of your images in will help grow their business... No. Still missing the point.)
Maybe some kind of engine in which a customer can enter his website URL and have Shutterstock crawl its content and then suggest images that match the themes and even style of the site? Can it be done? I'm no programmer, but it seems possible to me.
I think ides like this are more in the spirit of what the Hackathon is about.
705
« on: August 18, 2011, 16:24 »
The dials are relative I'm sure if I would input my data in it my Dreamstime dial would be on the maximum but I don't make much money at Dreamstime at all.
Um... what? If you were the top Dreamstime contributor among the forum posters here (who participate in the dials thing), you are saying you still wouldn't be making much money at Dreamstime? How's that?
706
« on: August 18, 2011, 16:12 »
Extremely well is relative (not saying that I don't believe you).
That's what the dials are for under our names... to show how well we sell, relatively speaking.
707
« on: August 18, 2011, 15:53 »
First: If you produce really unique AND in-demand stuff (and not just think you do - photographers do have a tendency to largely overestimate their work) than you would be extremely stupid to place it in microstock. Just speaking for myself, I would never get into the macros and Alamy doesn't want me. Yet I'm selling extremely well on the micros. Second: most of the so called top-contributors produce actually the most repetitive stuff, what make them to top-contributors is the large amount, the technical quality and the quality of props and models but certainly not their uniqueness. This is true of some of the top-sellers, but not all of them. And no one starting today could be a copycat and reach their level of success. It would take creativity and a unique sense of what customers want. Third: If any top microstock-company would have only half the images what they have now it wouldn't hurt them at all. You don't need to have double-digits million files to be a successful agency. I think you just reinforced my point. In fact, if an agency cut its offerings in half, reducing the redundant, unimaginative, zero-sales stuff, it would make for a better experience for the customer and might sell MORE with half the pics. So agencies could see an exodus of such contributors as a much-needed cleansing.
708
« on: August 18, 2011, 15:23 »
Despite the commission cut, my sales look like they'll be about 30% higher than yesterday.
Is it possible that the new site is more user friendly and encourages more sales than the old one?
How were your sales on this first day of V3?
709
« on: August 18, 2011, 15:12 »
Actually, little contributors add up. That's why they let them (us) in. If enough leave or focus their attentions elsewhere, then the agency might actually take a look at their business practices. Where did all our suppliers go? Why did they leave? What would it take to get them back? The survey that iStock sent out today is an encouraging sign that these stock sites might actually pay attention to the needs of the little guy.
I agree with you on ideological grounds. That's the way it SHOULD work. But I think the reality is that it would take a LOT of smaller contributors to make the dent that a single large contributor departing would create. A small (low-earning) contributor is small because he/she isn't connecting with the customer. Either the port isn't unique or it just isn't subject matter that the customer wants. What does an agency lose from a mass exodus of these contributors? By definition, the lost images are low-sellers and/or redundant subject matter. I think the agencies would see this as spring cleaning. I hate to be so cynical, but I'm just thinking like a business person, and I think every microstocker has to think that way these days. Otherwise, we're all just commodities and will continue to be treated as such.
710
« on: August 18, 2011, 14:17 »
1. get 1000 photographers to threaten to delete account on fotolia
Here's the thing. You can get 1000 upset contributors to delete their accounts, but they will all be lower level contributors, those making just a few hundred dollars a month there. The agencies won't care... they'll be happy to see them go. They see the lowest earning contributors as the ones submitting repetitive images that simply aren't needed and won't sell. Fewer Grand Canyon shots? Handshakes? Fruit on white? Agencies will say fewer of these will make for a better user experience. The agencies will only care if the top earning contributors pull out, those submitting the most unique and in-demand content and earning several thousand dollars a month. There are at least a hundred of these. How many of those will pull out? Zero. And they won't be joining a union, either. The only solution for the average microstocker is to take a look at what you're doing and decide to step up your game and meet a market need that isn't already being met 1000 times over. Doing something unique and actually in demand will start earning you much higher sales, and agencies will stop seeing you as a commodity. Create enough unique and in-demand stuff and you'll get to the point at which your departure might actually hurt the agencies.
711
« on: August 16, 2011, 19:45 »
P.S. To stockmarketer: FYI, we are not talking about IS/Thinkstock stats here.
Right, we're talking about StockXpert/Thinkstock, right? I reported the commissions I see when I log in to StockXpert.
712
« on: August 16, 2011, 15:28 »
I don't think the results posted by disorderly, or my results suggest a falloff. Keep in mind these numbers for August only show half the month. I only see a marginal decline over the past several months, and that's in line with a typical summer slowdown we experience everywhere.
My March, April, May and June were all in the $100-$115 range, and July and August will end up in the $80-$100 range. For comparison, I did about $50 in Aug 2010, so my Thinkstock earnings have doubled in the past year, but of course everyone's mileage will vary.
713
« on: August 16, 2011, 14:27 »
Seems to me there are three reactions people are having to this change (or any change any agency makes for that matter)... the first two are perfectly respectable, adult reactions... and the third, not so much... 1. You don't like the change, you estimate that it is bad for you either today or in the long run, and you are taking action in protest. You're deleting your port, you're gradually removing images, you're putting your money where your mouth is. Respectable response. 2. You accept the change after looking at your own personal situation, determining that you respect the agency's right to make the change and it's in your interest to continue the relationship. You keep your images there and keep uploading more. Respectable response. 3. You don't like the change and whine about how mean the agency is being to you, wishing the government or a union would step in to protect you, all the while preparing your newest uploads. You are the person that they are mocking with the below image... if you can't respect yourself enough to take a stand, you can't expect them to respect you... drink in your mockery... 
714
« on: August 16, 2011, 13:50 »
Can you believe this? I just turned emerald 1 week ago, after crawling up very slowly to 25000 downloads. So 1 week ago I went from 33 to 34 cents for subscriptions ...  ha ha ha, now I'm back to 33 cents! (with a larger loss for the XL subs).
Oh well, they did allow me to celebrate for 1 week ...
Congrats on going Emerald, for what it's worth.
Looks like you haven't decided to double your prices? Did you know that's an option? Just wondering if it's something you considered... and if you did, what your thoughts are.
Thanks for the congrats! Yes I know about the option of doubling my prices, and I already doubled them for 10 or 15 images. I think in the end I'll only do it for unique photos, and not for the ones where a customer gets 100.000 hits after typing his keyword(s)
That's an interesting approach... testing it out on some of the more unique images and not on the ones that have the most competition. Makes sense. Keep us posted to let us know if those images with increased prices see fewer downloads after the price change. I think if and when I get to Emerald (assuming the goal posts aren't moved before I get there) I'll have them switch all the images at once, test it for a month to see if I come out ahead, and decide whether to stay at that level or go back. I know I'll have fewer sales due to the higher prices, but I'm guessing it won't be a 50% decrease, which means I come out ahead.
715
« on: August 16, 2011, 12:22 »
Can you believe this? I just turned emerald 1 week ago, after crawling up very slowly to 25000 downloads. So 1 week ago I went from 33 to 34 cents for subscriptions ... ha ha ha, now I'm back to 33 cents! (with a larger loss for the XL subs).
Oh well, they did allow me to celebrate for 1 week ...
Congrats on going Emerald, for what it's worth. Looks like you haven't decided to double your prices? Did you know that's an option? Just wondering if it's something you considered... and if you did, what your thoughts are.
716
« on: August 16, 2011, 10:56 »
I've been able to claw my way up the ranks at FT so this will amount to a 5-10% hit to my FT earnings, based on a quick glance over my past 100 or so sales. I have to balance this against the fact that I seem to be dodging the FT trend... my sales have been shooting up in the past several months. So the commission cut stinks, but put in perspective, I can deal with it.
What would really stink is if they moved the goal posts (again) to get to the next level. Then I would revolt.
717
« on: August 15, 2011, 11:58 »
While I have also seen a steady decline in the "Distribution Regular" downloads in amounts like $19.80, the plain vanilla sales are making up for those.
I'm having a great August at CanStock so far, with sales up about 35% vs the first 15 days of July.
718
« on: August 10, 2011, 21:48 »
I did the bulk upload thing. To me, the incentive is that the sales have been pretty great, often topping BigStock and 123RF. Yesterday was my best day there, with about $36 in commissions. If you're not submitting there, you're missing out.
719
« on: August 01, 2011, 10:16 »
Surprised we're halfway through August 1 and no one has started a thread on this yet. So I guess I'll start off.
Anticipated a terrible month, so looking at it that way, I was pleased.
Total earnings:
July was down about 5% from June
July 2011 was up about 90% from July 2010
RPI:
July was down about 10% from June
July 2011 was up about 15% from July 2010
(I should point out, I've been at this for roughly three years)
As for my top earning sites, no big shake-ups here... pretty much the same order for the past several months:
1. SS
2. FT
3. ISP
4. DT
5. CanStockPhoto
6. BigStock
7. 123RF
8. DP
9. GL
10. SF
11. VEER
12. CRE
720
« on: August 01, 2011, 10:10 »
I warned in my original post that it would change in a moment (headlines are refreshed every hour or so) and it looks like that indeed happened. But if it happened once, it will happen again. Let's watch him.
721
« on: August 01, 2011, 08:55 »
Wow... rarely do you see such a high profile case of someone placing a watermarked image on the front page of a highly viewed website... I hate Matt Drudge, but I must admit I check out his right-wing diatribe of a website to see how he's spinning the daily news. This morning, he has a pretty clearly watermarked image he lifted from Dreamstime.com... The site will change in a moment, but check it out right now... http://drudgereport.com/Here's the image he has lifted... http://www.dreamstime.com/royalty-free-stock-image-dollar-flow-in-black-hole-image6797566Hey, mike_kiev, if you're on this forum, I'd be pretty miffed about this.
722
« on: July 28, 2011, 13:30 »
Fotolia is my 2nd top performing site after SS, so don't let anyone tell you it's not worth submitting there. It's true that new stuff takes some time to catch on, but if it's unique and in-demand it will get seen, make some initial sales, then take off. As has been pointed out here, your keywording needs some refining.
I'd say the biggest key to success at Fotolia, and anywhere else, is asking yourself "what use will this image have, who will buy it, why will it stand out." I think two of your images pass this test, and communicate strong concepts that I could see being put to good use in helping an image buyer get a message across: the woman on the computer (communication, social networking, etc.) and the boy and grandpa (generational, relationships, etc.) Those are concepts that sell and you can imagine someone buying that and placing it somewhere to make a point.
I don't see the other images telling a clear story or doing anything unique. The illustrated walking man has style, but what does it say? Who would buy it and why? I'm not trying to be harsh... I like the illustration and think you have a distinct, marketable style... but before you illustrate your next images (and I agree that you should focus on illustrations instead of photography, unless you have access to some really unique subject matter) ask yourself if it has a real, specific use to a buyer. Best of luck! You have the potential to do really well!
723
« on: July 26, 2011, 14:22 »
No, I don't care about image abuse.
Sure, I wish it didn't happen. I wish every case of someone stealing one of my images could be converted into a real sale. But do I lose sleep over it? No. I consider it a reality and something one must have a stomach for if you expect to do much business in microstock.
You can't expect agencies to police this. I think 123's response is reasonable. Think about it. Someone goes to 123RF sees your watermarked image, copies it and puts it on a website. It's the easiest form of theft there is, and there's virtually no way for 123RF to prevent it. Do you expect 123RF to go to great lengths to prosecute these cases? That's crazy. And if you take it on yourself to go after the offender and find justice, you're wasting time. That's time better spent generating new imagery.
And someone else here said it... the silver lining is that other potential buyers of your image could see it and decide they want to legitimately buy it. It probably doesn't happen that often, but it's possible.
I think the real danger here is making image theft the scapegoat to blame for why you're not making more money. You're looking at returns that don't satisfy you and wondering why they're not higher. Finding someone who has lifted one of your watermarked images suddenly becomes the answer! If all those thieves weren't stealing your images, you'd be rich. Don't waste your time and energy worrying about this. Instead focus on improving your port with greater quality (marketable) and quantity.
724
« on: July 22, 2011, 15:05 »
So how about this.
If you are making more than 50% of your income (ie.. if you are 'making a living with microstock) make a post in this thread saying you are.
As of right now, microstock is about exactly 50% of my income. A year from now I expect it to be about 70% if my trend lines hold (if I don't hit "the wall.") When I started, my wife would complain that I was spending too much time on this... now she regularly thanks me.
725
« on: July 21, 2011, 12:41 »
How can you be doing micro at a loss  only cost involved is equipment and I presume most serious photographers have the equipment anyway. Operating micro at a loss is impossible.
The only place you pay for uploading is the photographers-choice and everyone knows thats a scam anyway.
Some photographers have to pay for: models, props, studio time, transportation and other off-site, shoot-related costs, etc. That stuff could quickly add up, and would be tough to cover with microstock sales unless you're established or extremely savvy about what you're shooting and how you're shooting it.
Pages: 1 ... 24 25 26 27 28 [29] 30 31 32 33 34 35
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
