|
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 ... 31 32 33 34 35 [36] 37 38 39 40 41 ... 145
876
« on: October 21, 2013, 10:42 »
I mean, build something like Zoomr, that never came to fruition: http://rising.blackstar.com/an-interview-with-thomas-hawk.html
What every happened to that?
Buyers aren't interested in socializing on a photo sharing site. They're looking to buy an image and get back to work.
Agreed.
Growing the market needs more customers, not more suppliers. Figure out what will attract those customers and maybe you can build a business. But it won't be social networking, unless somehow you can find some way that it lets those customers get their work done faster or better or ideally both. The problem is that social networking is anti-productivity, and business is the opposite.
The social networking aspect is not necessarily about having somewhere for buyers to hang out. It's about having something interesting that attracts potential buyers in.
877
« on: October 20, 2013, 22:01 »
You just have to make something that attracts contributors and offers something that buyers want.
This would seem to suggest something innovative...
Not for me. Innovation would be actually creating something worthwhile. Sadly, I have trouble saying that about more than a few sites (and they are not the ones on the top of the list to the right). It's rare that I get interested in a new site because all the deals are so poor.
878
« on: October 20, 2013, 21:30 »
I don't understand. Why is everyone here so pessimistic about trying to do something innovative in this industry?
Is there anything innovative that can be done in this industry?
I don't think you have to make anything innovative. You just have to make something that attracts contributors and offers something that buyers want. I know that is overly simple, but it seems incredibly complex at the same time.
879
« on: October 20, 2013, 00:00 »
That was 61% of only 500. How were the 500 chosen? How representative are they?
We got a pseudo-newspaper in last week from the Yes campaign with the big headline something like, "68% of Scots want independence". When the small print was read, fewer than 200 people were sampled and the question was something like, "Do you think it would be feasible for Scotland to operate as an independent country?", which is not at all the same thing.
Beware of vaunted statistics.
I saw Braveheart. They all want freedom. Seriously though, I think Google buyers are the majority for smaller or new agencies, but once you establish a contributor base those frequent and repeat buyers are the real money makers. On the original point, I'd say that if there is anything holding back the market from achieving higher earnings potential it would be price. I think there is enough content or content providers, but the prices are still too low. Too much content is devalued.
880
« on: October 17, 2013, 10:26 »
I'm still not seeing any chains attaching me to any one agency. All of us non-exclusives have options to come and go as we want. Most of us can agree that the microstock business was created to minimize image costs for both the user and the provider, including a sustainable profit margin, and subject to the immutable laws of supply and demand.
yes and? leaving BigStock?
I left. When my RPD dropped to 50 cents, the alarms went off.
881
« on: October 16, 2013, 23:49 »
Sure you can make a quick one time stash of $15K but how will that affect your your other income?
This is the part that worried me. It was definitely a tough decision though.
882
« on: October 15, 2013, 22:01 »
I tend to think if your images are 'too precious' to be sold at sub rates, then they shouldn't be on microstock at all.
To me, it's not really about my images being too precious. I sold at a variety of different prices for a while. What I learned was that higher prices worked better for me. It doesn't make my images special or better than anybody else's images. It just means it is better for me to sell them at higher prices and less profitable to sell them at lower prices. I'd love the option to turn off subs at a number of sites and even set my own prices. It would most likely improve my income drastically overnight.
But isn't it the fact that the 'Big 5' agencies have way more data than any of will ever have, and they also have the same desire as us to optimise prices and profits ... and yet all of them have pretty much ended up embracing subs in one form or another. Nowadays your stuff needs to be really unique and special to warrant making it unavailable on subs.
I always assumed their deal was volume. I was never really able to do that massive volume as an individual (especially outside of SS), but they crowdsource so they can. The massive volume works for some though. It just didn't work that great for me (at least, not as well as other methods).
883
« on: October 15, 2013, 20:21 »
I tend to think if your images are 'too precious' to be sold at sub rates, then they shouldn't be on microstock at all.
To me, it's not really about my images being too precious. I sold at a variety of different prices for a while. What I learned was that higher prices worked better for me. It doesn't make my images special or better than anybody else's images. It just means it is better for me to sell them at higher prices and less profitable to sell them at lower prices. I'd love the option to turn off subs at a number of sites and even set my own prices. It would most likely improve my income drastically overnight.
884
« on: October 14, 2013, 20:47 »
I just want to say, thanks very much for all the informative and thoughtful posts. I find myself nodding in agreement with nearly all of them. A picture is definitely emerging.
To the folks who are doing well, Cory and Tickstock, honest congratulations to both of you. Tick, since you are anonymous, I don't know what your secret to success is, but if your numbers are improving, I can see why you are still so positive on Istock.
Cory, I think you are the best case study for the benefits of building and promoting your own sales channels. Between your talent for illustration and your marketing skills, you seem to have found the sweet spot.
Interesting that those of us relying most heavily on the micros are the ones taking the worst beating.
Also thanks, Tyler, for letting this mid month sales talk happen. I know some folks don't want to hear about sales until the end of month thread, butd when things are this bad it's hard to keep quiet and wait it out.
I think I'm more stubborn than savvy. I really can't say if it was the right decision to pull away from the market and focus on higher RPD sites. The summer was brutal for me. I'm still pretty irked about all of it. I think it all still has potential, but it isn't growing like I want. Also, there is always some new obstacle in the way.
885
« on: October 14, 2013, 14:53 »
...what I observe too is the amazing quality nowadays found on the sites. A level of professionalism which is not easily to be achieved if you are a one man show. Companies formed like mushrooms in the past years and most likely will leave not much space for individuals.
I find it a little hard to believe that you'd make much money as a company these days. I'd think they'd be seeking out special deals and higher prices or they'd downsize.
886
« on: October 14, 2013, 11:07 »
...if you check the monthly earnings topic here at MSG you will see that many are still growing and are certainly doing more than 1k $...
I'd like to think I'm still growing, although it seems like a couple steps forward and a couple steps backward. I think there are still more steps forward overall though.
887
« on: October 14, 2013, 10:27 »
Hopefully, I'm not the only one with positive news. October has been a lot better. The summer and September were pretty terrible though.
888
« on: October 13, 2013, 13:39 »
Yeah I don't get the question. It's like saying "I want to breathe air, but not through my mouth or nose. What are the other options?"
There are only 2 ways to distribute images. Either you do it yourself or you get someone else to do it.
Gills?
889
« on: October 12, 2013, 10:18 »
Hi all,
I would like to clarify a doubt. I don't want to ask you if I should or not became an exclusive at Istock. I know that nobdy have the right answer to his question and I also know that, this days, this aswer would probably be no more than yes.
I want to make a practical example and have anwers based on your experience. So I am refearing to people how became exclusive or leaved his exclusivity.
Let say that I am a Gold level, with a portfolio of high quality 3d renders and elaborated pictures, and that I earn, from Istock, 1000$/month. So I am at a 18% royalty level. Going exclusive I will jump up from 18% to 35% royalty. This means that, only by that, my income will swich from 1000$ to 1944$. And so far it is ok.
Now the question: what else more (from higher prices, vetta, getty, more visibility, other things I don't know...) should I aspect to earn?
I don't want pricise amounts, but only rough estimations. I think this is not a difficult question to answer for how have an experience about that.
So, let's go with your experience...and thank you for that.
I'd think if you are doing $1000 a month at IS, then you are probably doing well at the other sites too. Especially if you've hit the point where you can adjust your prices at FT. I'd think that you'd be giving up more than you gain. I'd say to look at your year over year and look at where you are growing, shrinking, etc. Then, plot out where you think you'll be in another couple years and compare that to how you think you'll do as an exclusive. If it is close, you may be able to squeeze out that same amount of money from adding a self-hosted site, finding new sites, or doing image exclusive deals. In the end, you are really the only one that can decide what is going to be the most profitable.
890
« on: October 11, 2013, 18:59 »
Credit card, although either is fine.
891
« on: October 10, 2013, 13:47 »
No, I wont give away my ideas on how to do it.
It's not a secret. It's been discussed around here often. It takes money, period, and lots of it. Even a coop needs to be run like a business, and businesses need money to get off the ground. Especially a web-based business that deals in digital assets, things that take up lots of space on servers and require significant IT systems to distribute.
Look at Stocksy. They spent probably tons of money on systems, office space, website design and development, branding, etc. All before they even opened their doors and started doing any business.
I don't think you necessarily need money if you are running something small. Money always helps though.
892
« on: October 10, 2013, 13:24 »
It has to be open for everyone.
It has to be free.
It has to be easy and straightforward.
It has to be 100% royalty to contributor.
An agencies killer model. Ok, change to; New opportunity model.
Now go figure out how to do it. IT'S DOABLE I TELL YOU.
All I want is EVERYTHING. No big deal. 
893
« on: October 08, 2013, 16:05 »
I've pretty much given up on everyone working together harmoniously. If you could somehow figure out how to fuel an agency by bickering and arguing, I think it might work.
It can work but you probably need one person or small group of people to just do it and then others can join up.
Like, ermmm... I don't know ... let me think..... Stocksy ?!?
Is Stocksy powered by angry arguments? 
894
« on: October 08, 2013, 13:32 »
I've pretty much given up on everyone working together harmoniously. If you could somehow figure out how to fuel an agency by bickering and arguing, I think it might work.
895
« on: October 08, 2013, 09:25 »
I'm not really familiar with StockBoxPhoto, so I can't really comment on them. Ktools has worked pretty well for me, but I'd probably make a Symbiostock store if I was going to start from scratch today.
896
« on: October 03, 2013, 16:45 »
I think people are thinking way too much about poll results. The poll is a very broad picture of what's going on out there. Remember it isn't that precise, it can be manipulated (no one has to prove they earned what they said they did), and it's capped (you can't enter anything above $2500).
So keeping in mind that the poll isn't perfect, nor could it ever be, I don't see why anyone would look at it and think one way or the other about Self-Hosted. Some people may be doing ok, some not so much, but you'd be hard-pressed to draw any real substantial conclusions about if it's worthwhile or not.
For me, it's worthwhile. I made $80 today on my site. Think I'll stick with it.
So you're the one making all the money. Good job.
Whew! Mystery solved. Mike has all the money. Seriously though, I think you are reading too much into all the little crumbs of facts and figures people are dropping.
897
« on: October 03, 2013, 13:12 »
Sorry to disappoint, but I've never been a big fish.
From now on I request that people stop referring to each other by fish size, and simply acknowledge that we are not professionals. 
Dang, but I already drew this: http://www.mystockvectors.com/Fish_Underwater_g82-Cartoon_Big_Fish_Royalty_Free_Vector_Illustration_p20.htmlWith 20,000 vectors? It's hard to believe that the average is $70 then.
It probably could be that the people who would be early adopters of self-selling would be people who know that they have a personal buyer base, therefore not so surprising.
Could be, I wonder who the mystery big sellers are. Oh the intrigue!
My theory would be that there are a dozen or half dozen people similar to me. There are a few Illustrators out there who are likely candidates. I don't know who votes on the poll though because some of them only pop in here now and again. Then, there a bunch of people that sell one or two images a month, but they sell them for at least $10 a piece (as opposed to 50 cents a piece like at Big Stock or 123RF). There might be a giant whale out there (does that count as a fish?), but I think it is probably just a lot of individuals having modest success growing their business.
898
« on: October 03, 2013, 12:54 »
...and the person I would assume is making the most by far is at $300.
Sorry to disappoint, but I've never been a big fish. My income has always been fairly spread out too. As far as the numbers, I actually thought they would have come in lower. Maybe, at 5.5 or 6, so I'm pleasantly surprised to see it so high on the poll. So, I guess it exceeded my expectations.
899
« on: October 03, 2013, 12:29 »
To get these results with 50 respondents you could have 1 person say $2500 and 1 person say $1500 and 48 people say $0. 14.6x$5 is $73 average, total earnings for 50 people would be $3650. I think cthoman and sjlocke might be inflating the results. From what little I've seen it seems a lot of people aren't even covering the cost of hosting their sites. That said, I guess it's good that at least 50 people are trying to license their work without an agency.
Thanks for the compliment, but... My numbers from last month were under $300, so I'm definitely not propping it up all that much.
900
« on: October 03, 2013, 11:37 »
Awesome! Every month, I kept wondering if this going to be the month where it gets enough votes. Well, I guess it was the month. Thanks everybody that voted and that took the effort to make a site for themselves.
Pages: 1 ... 31 32 33 34 35 [36] 37 38 39 40 41 ... 145
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
