|
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 - chromaco
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... 16
76
« on: July 23, 2014, 15:13 »
Maybe, but I would still like to get some on-demand sales at DP, 123, DT and Istock. Your argument seems to be based around SS being the only place you get decent sales so nowhere else really matters (its just extra income). SS doesn't exist in a vacuum and if you are down to just one agency selling for you, eventually you are in trouble.
77
« on: July 23, 2014, 14:40 »
Yes, but we don't know what impact DPC is having. Everyone just assumes. I can tell you from my part, it hasn't had any impact other to increase my FT sales a little, maybe. I don't know for sure because FT doesn't report if a sale is coming from DPC or if it's a standard sub off of its site.
I don't think it's accurate to assume that all people who buy OD packs on Shutterstock will all of a sudden jump over to DPC. Some might. And some might also buy cheap packs on 123RF and Deposit Photos. My OD sales certainly haven't dropped. I haven't had a day yet this month without an OD sale, and most weekdays get me from 6 to 12 OD sales. The only thing I know for sure is that if my photos aren't on DPC, then buyers there will be buying someone else's images instead of mine.
RPD doesn't matter to me because there's no extra cost to me to put the files there. I upload primarily to make money on Shutterstock and everything else is just a bonus.
Consider this: Right now DP, DT, 123, and Getty are in meetings saying "Wow, look what Fotolia got away with!" I bet we could do this "amazing plan which would earn us market share and help our bottom line, because at the same time we can cut commissions by x%. Do you think we could have marketing ready to go within 3 months?" So right around prime selling season of Sept, Oct, Nov, four "new" dollar photo clubs appear with huge marketing campaigns. All of a sudden On-Demand sales are non-existent and every sale is earning a commission of $.25 to $.38. Still think DPC won't have any measurable effect on SS or other on-demand sales? You don't have to be clairvoyant to see this one coming down the pipeline.
78
« on: July 23, 2014, 13:36 »
RPD is the most meaningless stat that you could possibly use. It doesn't account for volume.
I've found my volume has been decreasing over time, so RPD has become important to me. I don't know if that has been the case for others, but that is the trend I'm seeing.
This is kind of how I see the brief history of micro:
1. Started with high volume and low prices with little competition.
2. Prices increased and volume decreased. Competition also increased, but incomes were increasing.
3. Prices plateaued or decreased, royalty clawbacks started, volumes and incomes decreased or leveled off. Competition continues to increase.
Maybe, this is just how it has gone for me, but the recent trend is sort of disturbing. It certainly has sustainability problems. RPD doesn't fix that alone, but sales at higher RPD sites are a start.
Shutterstock has been conspicuously absent from this conversation due to huge volume. That is not DPC right now. Also shutter is one of the few sites where RPD is actually going up. That is due to increased on-demand sales. I think that is why people are so concerned about DPC. They see it as stealing the on-demand from SS.
79
« on: July 23, 2014, 13:12 »
One comment. I applied and they didn't like my style. That's Ok. Actually I think that makes them a more viable option to be successful. They know their target market and are seeking artists who cater to that market. Odds are my sales would be slow there anyway because their customers aren't looking for images like mine. These are the types of new agencies that are likely to be successful. It makes marketing easier because they are reaching a specific type of customer and offering them precisely what they want to buy.
80
« on: July 23, 2014, 12:43 »
Absolutely agree! The argument was that all agencies offer the same RPD so what's the difference? My point was they don't offer the same RPD. Even for photos. Wrong!
RPD
ToonVectors $18.67
Self Hosted $9.83
Clipartof $6.91
StockFresh $3.80
GLStock Images $5.50
Stockami $4.00
Dreamstime $3.36
Even Canstock comes in at $2.83
FT $.44
DPC $.29
Your choice, but you have to sell well over 10 times the amount of images I do to make the same money.
You can't compare illustrator numbers and outlet variety with photographer numbers. Totally different animal. Photographers have fewer options.
Not saying that means opting in to DPC, but photos are more plentiful and prices for photos are driven down because of that.
81
« on: July 23, 2014, 12:29 »
Fair enough, but you can see where FT and DPC fall when compared to other sites with roughly the same images.
DPC is by far the worst choice for selling your images. Why don't you share your numbers? How many agencies do you support that are averaging $.29?
@robhainer
That was his measure not mine. Also, volume means more theft and illegal free offers out there. I'll take one $10 sale over 33 $.29 sales every time.
82
« on: July 23, 2014, 12:20 »
Wrong!
RPD
ToonVectors $18.67
Self Hosted $9.83
Clipartof $6.91
StockFresh $3.80
GLStock Images $5.50
Stockami $4.00
Dreamstime $3.36
Even Canstock comes in at $2.83
FT $.44
DPC $.29
Your choice, but you have to sell well over 10 times the amount of images I do to make the same money.
83
« on: July 23, 2014, 11:26 »
See... this is the difference between you and me. I see all sorts of viable options outside of the big guys. As I was thinking about your perspective last night I realized that all of my favorite agencies/venues have all been started by illustrators with an illustration bias. That is why they work for me. Toonvectors, clipartof, symbiostock, GLstockimages. All built by illustrators but also actively and aggressively supported by illustrators. About the only new photo agency that fills this criteria is Stocksy. I'm just reading between the lines but I think illustrators have a more positive outlook on the future because we have some new options that actually work for us. Photographers seem less likely to give new agencies a chance. Maybe you guys have been burned more? I could be wrong, but that is the way it seems to appear.
84
« on: July 22, 2014, 18:02 »
About 3 years ago you started hinting about a better way. I decided to follow your lead and looked for my own options. I have to say that you are probably right about needing to see it for yourself. I think it's all going to come crashing down and explode. I've built my life boat I just want it to be stronger.
85
« on: July 22, 2014, 17:16 »
But don't you agree that you and I are better off if we work to protect our long term interests against tactics that undercut our potential sales. It seems to me that saying "produce good product and everything will work out" is a bit optimistic. If we would collectively say "no" to bad industry policies everyone would be better off. The problem here is that too few people are willing to say no. The agencies know this and are exploiting it. The OP is quite happy to get sub commissions for on-demand purchases because he has decided that it is OK. I have decided that it isn't OK. I wish he had my point of view but I respect that he doesn't. Nevertheless, I do feel that his perspective will in some small way hurt my sales in the future.
It's really not about 1 person... it's about 10,000 with the same attitude. That is where the problem lies.
86
« on: July 22, 2014, 16:53 »
@etudiante_rapide
I couldn't agree more. But you also won't find my images in the DT free section, I only have 8 images at vectorstock and its been almost 2 years since I have uploaded to a sub site. I think Envatos pricing is to low and I stopped uploading to Bigstock when they introduced their new system.
There are other ways to make money in this industry. Although, I will admit that I am certain I will make far less this month than I would have had I uploaded everywhere. I am also quite certain that I will make more money in the long run by being selective about who gets my images.
87
« on: July 22, 2014, 16:41 »
Quote
"but many of these top sellers say one thing in common: don't worry over the little things,
just make sellable images. if you make images clients need, you need not have to come up with an excuse why you suddenly are losing money."
Maybe but if my images have a life of say 100 sales I would much rather be getting $7 to $15 per sale instead of $0.29.
The crux of the matter here is there are three types of contributors
1) Those who are all about today and are looking to max out this month's income and don't really care about the future.
2) Those who would rather make less today but still be making money 5 years from now
3) Those who have uploaded 100 images or less and have forgotten they even have files for sale.
I fall into the 2nd category and feel like the agencies will just keep chipping away at my income until there is nothing left. I prefer to say no and choose other outlets rather than just accept that my images are only worth $1. And yes customers do seek out images because if they didn't my personal sites would not be garnering any sales at all.
You can argue that DPC may not be harming your sales or mine but it is hard to argue that DPC as a concept isn't likely to hurt all of our sales in the long run. You (contributors in general) are entitled to choose today's sales I personally am more interested in sustained future ones.
88
« on: July 18, 2014, 11:57 »
Me too! Although, there are times when I wish you would express your opinion on a broader array of subjects. Regardless I read every single one of your posts.
89
« on: July 15, 2014, 14:48 »
Leo told me today he is currently working on transferring the forum and the collective to their respective new homes. Hopefully both of those will be back available soon.
The .org site is working for documentation only right now. The forum side is locked for commenting. So if you need some guidance it should be working for you.
90
« on: July 15, 2014, 14:38 »
I know. Me too. My sites are still making me money so I have a different impression than a lot of people here. Leo had a vision for what he wanted symbio to be. He had thought that other programmers would jump on board and it could be a larger community developing a project together. Multiple people all working together to create a great outcome. As soon as it became clear that it was just him it started to become a burden that he simply could not bear. I think we need to cut him some slack because his theme really has a lot of cool features and works remarkably well. And it's still free. Maybe someday Symbio will have a rebirth in a new form. Hope so.
91
« on: July 15, 2014, 13:53 »
This is what Leo posted just after shutting down. You can download the latest version here: https://github.com/orangeman555/symbiostockI think the premium upgrade you previously downloaded should work for this new project as well.
92
« on: July 06, 2014, 10:05 »
Symbiostock has run it's course and no one/everyone is to blame. Hopefully people have been paying attention and have learned from the mistakes. If so the next idea will be better and we will all benefit.
Call me crazy, I take ownership of that, but I don't think it has even begun to run it's course. It's had it's rug jerked from under it. SymbioStock is NOT a failure. It is just not yet matured. It may never now because of decisions taken that affect all of us, but that we are powerless to change.
The mistake was in thinking that SymbioStock was going to compete with iAnySite. It could not ever do so. It could, however, give you your own power back. I finally got my own site. I haven't made money, but I have my wish fulfilled. In the future, when I have the time to spare, I am going back to grow my site that has been dormant for a while now.
Jo
Well having some behind the scenes knowledge I do think this version had run its course. My sites still run great and will for a long long time. Symbio v2 whatever it is called will be better but still not perfect. Maybe Leo is involved maybe not. I think you are right though. This isn't the end just the beginning. Time simply isn't a luxury that this theme and its developer had. Leo gave as much as he could and I am certain he will be willing to help anyone who is brave enough to follow in his footsteps.
93
« on: July 06, 2014, 07:53 »
So far everything I have read here I agree with. It was rushed and probably mismanaged. Also for many people there were little to no sales. It was difficult for people without Wordpress experience to launch and yes sadly there were a lot of emotional decisions which were counter productive.
However, there also were/are a lot of good things that came out of it.
1) Nearly 200 people have decided to try self hosting
2) some of those people have changed the way they view microstock because of it
3) a community of pioneers (so to speak) started a new possible direction for contributors to follow
4) people are now more receptive to alternative ideas for selling images
5) current symbio sites are still making sales and will continue to for quite some time
Was symbiostock as a business destined to fail? Probably. There was to much going against it and no matter how hard myself or others tried there were factors that just couldn't be overcome. Personally I think 90% of symbiostock was done correctly and 10% was mismanaged. Turns out that last 10% is pretty important. Everyone tends to take a lot of ownership in projects like this. Truth is it isn't about 1 person or ten people or even 100. It's about the project itself. Symbiostock has run it's course and no one/everyone is to blame. Hopefully people have been paying attention and have learned from the mistakes. If so the next idea will be better and we will all benefit.
94
« on: July 05, 2014, 23:11 »
You've been a big supporter and a solid voice of reason throughout. Most of what you are saying isn't wrong. However, I really doubt these decisions were made because last weeks proposal wasn't met with open arms. Pretty sure this started 6-9 months ago when more or less every attempt Leo made to move the project forward was met with at best limited excitement and at worst downright hostility. Sure there was some growth but any enthusiasm Leo might have had tended to be squashed like a bug by naysayers. There was even a good amount of discontentment amongst some active site owners.
Multiple times in the last six months I have proposed various ideas to help make this program viable for Leo. Many of them were very reasonable and nearly all of them wound up killing the thread. The ones that didn't turned into "what about me" comments.
My recent comment here was simply to state that what we seem to accept from the agencies seems to be unacceptable for self hosted. Until we change our perceptions of how we want the agencies to treat us we are doomed to be at their mercy.
95
« on: July 05, 2014, 21:38 »
There are still lots of ways for Symbiostock to make money. That is not the problem. The real issues is that right now people are happy to pay Istock $800 for the opportunity to keep $200. The reality is that one sale a month on a symbio site would generate the same income. People should be jumping up and down to pay $100 per year for a self hosted site that actually works. But for whatever reason any time fees get mentioned no matter how reasonable the community screams in outrage. These sites make sales even without any marketing. Sean Locke has said so and so do I. Not everyone has sales but enough do that I can confidently say Symbiostock should have been worth paying for. Maybe in the future a project like this will be embraced by the larger community. I know how to make it work but I don't have the coding skills. Leo has the skills but no longer has the time. If there are a group of people out there with the desire and ability we should get together. In the meantime I will be preaching change at the collective which I will be pimping shamelessly once it has been transferred.
96
« on: July 04, 2014, 15:54 »
The collective isn't dead just moving. I have a new domain and Leo is going to transfer it for me. Ill keep you all in the loop. Hopefully it will be up and kicking in about a week. Thanks for your patience.
97
« on: June 26, 2014, 11:16 »
That is what I mean. If all of those contributors would just be vocal enough on a regular basis so we could show our strength it would be amazing. The DPC thing was pretty bad and the outrage was huge. It is a shame that it takes something so incredibly bad to get a reasonable sized response.
98
« on: June 26, 2014, 10:40 »
This is a bit of a loaded question- Technically we control all of the images but in reality industry perception is swayed by a very small number of contributors. The "Microstock Collective" - www.symbiostock.org/collective/ - currently has 89 participants and just over 100k images. The average vote on initiatives and agency ratings is 30 participants. That is roughly about the same amount of people who contribute here on a regular basis. I think many many contributors are content just to create and upload images and come here to find information. I would bet that less than 10% of the people here actually participate at all. It's a shame because if we could convince some of these quiet people how important they are it might go a long way to helping us collectively make a change. What is even more concerning is that it is becoming apparent that those few contributors with the loudest voices don't necessarily speak for the majority. Yet because they are the loudest and most vocal people assume what they are saying is the mass opinion. I am beginning to think this is anything but the truth.
99
« on: June 20, 2014, 13:04 »
Earnings without portfolio size doesn't really help. So showing an actual number is sort of misleading. I have seen over and over new contributors who mistakenly expect to make hundreds of dollars on Shutterstock just because that is what the poll shows. They don't realize that many people here have thousands of images. In reality this system works fine for what it shows (how one agency relates to another in terms of earning potential). Once you try to assign a $value to it the results break down. The same issue happens when trying to compare exclusives to non exclusives. Without a port size (not to mention port quality) you really can't compare the results.
100
« on: June 20, 2014, 11:17 »
Update
The collective had its soft launch about one week ago. 6/12/14
Since then there are:
74 participants representing 62861 images
Average Port size is around 850 images, this number has been pretty steady as membership grows. This number feels small to me but I would be interested to hear others thoughts on this. Obviously not everyone has included their port size but I still find this average port size fairly interesting.
A number of agencies now have enough votes to make the results somewhat trustworthy. A couple of interesting things I have noticed.
1) Even when earnings are only a fraction of the rating criteria certain agencies are still showing very high results which to me indicates those agencies are doing much more than just delivering good sales.
2) The agencies who only deliver good sales are not fairing so well in the results which also shows that contributors do care about more than just sales.
3) A few of the agencies with only a few votes are either severely disliked or are getting skewed by a couple of disgruntled voters. The more participation we can get, the more we can trust the results.
4) Some of the results from the "voting initiatives" disagree with the conventional wisdom presented here on the forum- in particular the one about how people feel about the future- there is less doom and gloom than is currently evident in the forum here.
Interested to hear your thoughts about the information we have so far.
@Shelma- sent you a PM to try and help
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... 16
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
