|
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 - Lcjtripod
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 ... 14
126
« on: July 11, 2009, 05:47 »
Nice update- but I wish it would translate into sales for me! 
Sales depend on several factors: How many images on line. What type of images. Size and quality of the images. You do not have a link to your BigStock port so nobody can offer suggestions on improving your sales. Why hide links to sites your on (or anyone else for that matter) is it only so a person can talk here anomalously without fear of reprisals from the sites thay are on? If yes, make nice remarks about the sites earning money for you and let others see what you do. Best of luck to you, -Larry
127
« on: July 10, 2009, 11:00 »
I was just curious about my commissions with BigStock and went in to look at what sold for me . Comparatively speaking BigStock has sold the least number and is #3 earner. However, I quickly retain perspective after looking at the list of downloaded images. Many that earned me $1 are images that I submitted of the size that would be considered XS, S, and not even L.
Whereas with the Big 6 sites that have championed me "more downloads" the majority of my earnings were for L and up , earning mostly from subs. ie. a few cents.
Compared to my minimum earnings of 50 cents from BigStock, this looks very small.
Larry, I think I am going to have to rethink my priorities, and not just take into consideration HOW MANY DOWNLOADS a site gets me, but more like the accountant that sees the bottom line that says $ per dl.
I agree! Views do not count and the number of downloads is far less important than the dollars you are able to put in the bank. Money talks!-Larry
128
« on: July 10, 2009, 06:05 »
I have not signed up with them for two reasons: I have been told they are insistant on property releases even when all identifying information is cloned out. That kills my Real Estate sales. Model releases required even if the person is a little black spot in the distance and his Mother could not identify him. Kills my Golf shots. Without the above being corrected, I'm just not interested. Am I wrong? 
129
« on: July 09, 2009, 11:25 »
Larry, I noticed it was you who said some CEOs do read what we write in this forum. eg. BigStock just made an improvement wth their new search model.
So maybe voicing our opinions like Perry's article here isn't such a silly idea.
Fingers crossed.
Amen! eh?
130
« on: July 09, 2009, 11:14 »
I think there something that you have overlooked and that is to gain marketshare you need to have lower prices and better quality.
And to attract contributers you need to pay higher commissions at the very least (if not lower submission standards)
Unless you have a lot of cash to burn through its not go be a success.
You could look at offering contributers (and purchasers) a share of the business, so that the participate in your success)
FREE and LOWER prices are killing the earnings potential for all of us right now! Subs of full size images at .25 cents!!!!!Instead: Sell the highest quality at or slightly above the other sites prices, for run of the mill, me too images. Some buyers will pay the price for quality and exclusive originals. I'd have it where a buyer could also have the image for a year before being sold to anyone else. More money of course. I think many good ideas are being expressed on this thread. Lets hope someone (ceo any site) picks up some ideas. -Larry
131
« on: July 09, 2009, 09:28 »
I think those points are very interesting and valuable.
As an agency owner I wouldn't agree to point 3), though - editing takes time and effort. And customers don't like it because the image they added to their lightbox suddenly disappears. I would ask contributors to leave their images at least 3 months on the site and would try to find a way to pre-warn customers that the image is going to disappear (say take 14 days after removal request).
Also, I think all your points are very contributor driven. You don't mention a lot how you would attract customers (besides the fact that you don't have all the popular images everyone else has  ). So I assume your agency would fail quickly as you focus too much on the wrong side of food chain.
Point 3) Once in a lightbox images cannot be removed with less than a 30 day notice to the person with the image in a lightbox. Attracting customers comes after getting the images. Popular images that everyone else has is the reason NOT to be like them ... everyone else has already seen it or used it. There is two sides to a food chain. The eaters and the got eaten. You can't be both very offten!  -Larry
132
« on: July 09, 2009, 09:10 »
I just posted this on the FP forum, but I'll also post it here as well.
These new image sizes/prices seem a little whacked. Correct me if I'm misunderstanding this.
An 8 megapixel digital camera creates a file with pixel dimensions of 3504 x 2336 - that means the most we can make is $5 on the image, before the revenue split. Even on images that are 8-13 megapixels...same price? That leaves me a little confused. It definitely doesn't follow the trends of the industry. You guys need to reexamine this, because obviously a customer is getting a lot more image size for the money if the photographer shot it using a 12.7 megapixel camera, as compared to an 8 megapixel camera. Even the Canon 5D which is Even photoshop raster (jpeg) graphics never usually get larger than 25 megapixels. The 9600 max size - $20 seems a bit high. How many images are there even on the site that are this length on the longest side?
Here are some pixel dimensions of cameras that are widely used. All of these are going to be priced at $5 according to the current standards.
Canon 20D (8 mp) 3504 x 2336
Canon 5D (12.7 mp) 4368 x 2112
Nikon D700 (12 mp) 4356 x 2832 = All of these images will sell for $5 according to this pricing plan.
Canon 5dmk2(21 mp) 5616 x 3744 = $7 image sales. Are you serious? Let's all go out and upgrade to a 21 megapixel camera body just so that we can make $1 more per image sale, after commissions.
I don't give a flying crap about exclusivity. I don't do it, and never will. Most contributors aren't going to enter images into midstock rates if they have to be exclusive. Perhaps a better idea would be to make another option, like Panthermedia. Different percentage cuts on exclusive images vs images also offered at the other micros. I believe they offer 50% for exclusive midstock images, and 30% on those same images that are also being sold elsewhere.
I just copied the price break down for one image and your prices above look to be off a bit. -Larry Size (w x h) in pixels Price under subscription(*) $0.25 800 x 533 (0.4MP) under plan(*) $0.80 1000 x 667 (0.7MP) under plan(*) $1.00 1500 x 1000 (1.5MP) $3.00 2400 x 1600 (3.8MP) $5.00 3072x2048 (6.3MP) original size $7.00
133
« on: July 09, 2009, 07:28 »
FP has a new pricing plan and it is working! Sold images last night after sitting silent for months. I do think they are on to someting and big changes in opinions of FP will soon follow. I am uploading more today.
-Larry
134
« on: July 09, 2009, 07:20 »
I like the idea of a site with just exclusive images but is it possible? I would find it hard to upload exclusive images to a new site that isn't likely to have any buyers. I doubt many people would have the patience to upload exclusive images and wait a year for the site to get big enough to make it interesting to buyers.
Look at it from a long term view. Continue shooting as you do now, but add a shoot here and there to upload as an exclusive to the new site. In time it would pay off. If a new site had the money to get launched in a big way, they could advance pay to outstanding photographers against future commissions. This is a possibility and I do believe the buyers would be on it like a swarm of honey bees! -Larry
135
« on: July 09, 2009, 07:02 »
Not stupid!
But I would add:
3) When a photographer quits. the site pays them all the money due to them! If under $50.00 charge $5.00 service fee.
6) Adding keywords like nude, sexy, etc, would put them in front on a search, while a house sits in the back of the pack. Adjustments needed here.
I would add a premium price for images as they are exclusive and no subs!
Go ahead and start the site! I will sign up.
-Larry
136
« on: July 09, 2009, 06:25 »
Something really is happening at BigStock , since yesterday I had my BDE with 7 downloads, two of them for 2$. What's more, new and totally different images were downloaded compared with before. For me at least, the new search algorithm seems to work much better, with the same large variety of downloads as on Dreamstime.
I agree! BigStock is not messing around in this business. They do not make a lot of noise and brag about themselves ... they just keep making improvements and in my three years and one month at BigStock I have seen many changes. Mostly positive ones at that. For me BigStock sells more images at a higher average price than ALL the other sites combined that i have images on. This could be due in a large part the type of images I have and I have done some work to boost them along. I have golf, State of Wisconsin, City of Milwaukee covered fairly well, and I have contacted directly various agency's that use thees types of shots and let them know that they are on the site. (and a link to me ) Many of my photos are in the state and local guides to the tourist areas. I have also contacted local designers and informed them that BigStock has a bunch of State and Local images at a reasonable price. Helping BigStock also helps me and everyone else on the site. Some folks put down BigStock as not quite in the big six, so ignore them. MISTAKE! One person complaned that they are most likely putting a couple of million dollars a year in their pockets. Great, they are not going broke! Never underestimate the quiet ones .... they just may be thinking of a better plan! My 2 cents, -Larry
137
« on: July 08, 2009, 10:04 »
Larry, by checking up on the MSG archives, i know you are a big fan of Big Stock.
i am too.
however, i never really paid much attention to the search options.
can you shed some light to tell me why you think this is GREAT!... ?
I assume you have a port on BigStock. If so search your own images with the new search tools, with and without keywords. The results are fair when searching the full site. Before when searching the oldest images were given a push to the front! Some with numbers less than 100 !!! Now when I do a search using keywords that I know should bring mine to the front or very near the front. They are there!! Try it a while. -Larry
138
« on: July 08, 2009, 09:06 »
vonkara , agree. It may get you more views, not more dls. I doubt if buyers check those posts.
The buyers may not be here in any great numbers and opinions here would have little effect on them if they even read them. BUT the site CEO's DO READ THESE THREADS! And I for one have seen many big and positive changes on more than one site. Due to the opinions of the photographers here. If a site sucks for any reason and they do not want to fix it .... let everyone here know about it and together we can make changes happen! -Larry
139
« on: July 08, 2009, 08:56 »
You will find some new search options on BigStock and I for one just love it! Great for photographers and buyers as well. Try it!
-Larry
Copied below from the BigStock site:
New! Multi-View Search Results
Now BigStockPhoto gives you a variety of ways to locate the image you need: Standard Search, Hot Images, Popular Contributors and Most Downloaded. While you are viewing results, try changing your results view to "Hot Images" or "Most Downloaded". Your search results will change and clicking between search results buttons is a great way to see more variety of images within your search results.
If you don't see image results you like within one view - try a new image results view instantly. Play around with it!
Here are explanations of these important ways to view your image results:
Standard Search: Our standard search algorithm. This takes into consideration the words you entered, and a variety of other things like the image's keywords, title, how many times it was downloaded, etc.
Hot Images: These are images that match your search terms and have been downloaded a lot lately
Popular Contributors: These are images that match your search terms and are from our most popular image contributors.
Most Downloaded: These are images that match your search terms and have been downloaded more than any other images.
140
« on: July 08, 2009, 05:49 »
Why buy images if you can get thousands for free? ? Giving images away is stupid in my humble opinion. Free tank of gas at this gas station and $4.00 a gallon down the street .... where would you fill the gas tank? -Larry
141
« on: July 07, 2009, 16:57 »
YAYMicro gets my vote. Still no sales there. I only upload because it's easy.
Pissing on the floor is easy too .... but I don't do it anymore! I just had to do it, cuz you made it so easy! -Larry
142
« on: July 07, 2009, 16:53 »
Why customer have to pay whopping 25 cents for an image if they can only specify pixels they need? Would 5 cents per million pixels be right price?
Would they get 2 1/2 cents change if they only need a half million pixels? -Larry
144
« on: July 07, 2009, 05:53 »
I shoot all year but Autumn and Spring are my favorite times.
-Larry
145
« on: July 07, 2009, 05:51 »
400 Portraits of family's for a church directory is the first time I tried tethered and it worked great. Very few rejects, eyes closed, etc. I composed on a 24 inch LCD monitor and had a second one connected up for the customers to view as the shots were being taken.
Conclusion: Everone loved it, including me.
Try it.
-Larry
146
« on: July 03, 2009, 17:09 »
Anybody getting charged for a fee when cashing out via Paypal? I was never charged before but for the last cashout, I was.
For a reliable answer: Did it ever occur to you to ask Canstock and PayPal for the answer? I would think that is the first place I would go for answers. No one here can reliably answer your question. Your profile here on MSG does not even show what country your dealing from. -Larry
147
« on: July 03, 2009, 17:02 »
It is a myth that business advertise less when business is slow. That is when they advertise the most! (to get more business)
Has your TV station shut down due to lack of advertisers? NO!
Holidays: Any of them: Advertiser's work with their agencies and designers, planning sales advertising at least 6 months in advance. Christmas is my target today.
In fifty or so years of commercial photography before I retired and started playing with the Stock Photo Market, summer was always my busy months.
-Larry
148
« on: July 02, 2009, 19:35 »
I have never been charged anything from BigStock or Dt
From both I receive 100%
I have a business account at PayPal if that makes a difference. ( I have been an eBay dealer for 10 years. )
This is a USA to USA transaction and to other country's there may be big differences.
-Larry
149
« on: June 23, 2009, 10:16 »
Well ..... it has been over a month now and I see nothing changed. Is this an "on going" issue or a dead one?
Regards,
-Larry
150
« on: June 23, 2009, 07:26 »
I still have two 36 exp. rolls of Kodachrome, outdated five years ago. ....... Just don't have the heart to throw it away.
I have scanned all of my film and saved them to DVD's and place them in a safe deposit box at our bank. Sold all my film cameras for nearly nothing. 100% digital now.
Goodbye Film. May you rest in peace.
-Larry
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 ... 14
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
