|
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 ... 27 28 29 30 31 [32] 33 34 35
776
« on: March 14, 2011, 13:34 »
I've actually been running at 100% acceptance for some time. Only a few rejections a year.
I think that if Shutterstock tells you it has too many of the type of image you're submitting, they are doing you a big favor. It's a big wake-up call that you need to stop providing more of the same-old oversaturated subjects. Take this opportunity to branch out, and you'll be far better off.
Otherwise, even if they did accept those images, they wouldn't sell... you'd be happy for the moment that they took your latest batch... but worse off in the long run because they're just buried in the bunch of thousands more just like them, and you'll make no money from them.
In other words, don't be offended by it, be empowered.
777
« on: March 14, 2011, 09:38 »
When you make a business plan you take into account the most probable outcome, in your case be it 30c. If you get more than that, well that's a bonus. (You should also consider what will happen if you're RPI will drop! will you be able to sustain yourself)....
Your assumption that if you have 10x port size you will make 10x money is wrong. The rule of diminishing returns applies here. In addition in large portfolios there is always self-cannibalization of your own work.r...
First part... yes, make a business plan. Forecast a "probable outcome" over weeks, months, years. This will give you a good target to shoot for. Assume a certain RPI, like 30 cents in this example, and project it out against a set number of daily uploads. Hitting this revenue target should be your goal as time goes on. This is what I did three years ago, and I'm right where I'd projected I would be now. (Some months like April - Aug I lag a bit under the goal line, but in great months like Jan - Mar, I'm riding well over it.) Second part... if you are doing things right, you can increase your port 10x and make 10x the money. But as you can tell by the majority of responses here, very few can make this happen. The big risk, as many point out, is cannibalizing your own work. You have to constantly cover new subject matter. Plus, if you are perceptive, you will learn pitfalls to avoid -- stylistic techniques that don't sell, subjects that are overcovered or not worth covering -- and this will help you maintain or grow your RPI. People who tell you that maintaining RPI is impossible just haven't figured out how to do it. They close their eyes and ears to those who are doing it and say "na na na, can't hear you! Can't be done!" You need to recognize these folks when you see them, take their words with a grain of salt, and stay on task.
778
« on: March 14, 2011, 09:24 »
My conclusion from reading the advise and helpful stats of others is, there is not a one to one relationship between the number of images and income. The more you upload, the lower the RPI will be. Also if it matters, someone can delete images that don't sell after a year and their RPI will go up.
Nonsense. That's like saying the more you work, the lower your hourly rate is. If that's happening to you, you'd be crazy not to QUIT. In my experience, my RPI has gone UP over time, not down. I've been doing this for three years. In my first months, my daily RPI was about 10 cents per image. It's steadily risen, and today stands at 14 cents. I have not deleted ANY images from my port. My goal is not to increase RPI but to increase revenue. Watching my RPI tells me whether I am doing things right, and helps me forecast for the future. Yes, I could delete my worst selling images and RPI would increase, but that would defeat the purpose! If my RPI is gradually increasing, that means I'm creating less images like my worst selling images. You use RPI as a learning and forecasting tool, not bragging rights! If your RPI is falling, you are doing things wrong. Maybe you're not learning as you go along. Maybe you're uploading more of the same that is simply competing with your existing images. Either way, why are you doing it? RPI should be flat or growing, or you're wasting your time.
779
« on: March 12, 2011, 00:34 »
Totaling all the sites, I'm doing close to $4 per image per month these days, but I expect that will dip to more like $3 from April to August or so, if the past few years are any indication, then come back to current levels in Sept. So if you're doing what I'm doing, you should get $300-$400 per 100 images.
But this number is on the high side, from what I've read here. I believe the average was more like $1 per image per month. But of course, it all depends on what you're uploading. Expect more for vectors (assuming you know what subjects sell). And if you're doing photos, and don't know what sells, you could do more like $.50 per image per month... meaning most photos don't sell at all.
780
« on: March 09, 2011, 07:23 »
Even if the photog union prevails, and even if this spreads to all nations and kills microstock as we know it, some other form of low-price image selling will emerge and fill the void.
Whenever I find myself wondering what the future holds for this little industry, I think of two things:
1. The world will continue to rely more and more on visual communication, rather than written. Does anyone think there will be some monumental shift back to words describing everything, rather than powerful images -- either still photos or moving video? No, good images will be in demand more and more, all around the world.
2. As people in western countries as well as developing countries form their own businesses, they'll need images to get their messages out, and will they be able to afford high-priced images and video? No, there will need to be low-priced options for finding the pictures they need.
So, a rising demand for images plus a demand for low prices = a need for a cost-effective option like microstock. Even if somehow microstock crashes and burns tomorrow, something similar will rise from the ashes to replace it. And whatever this new business is, it will need our images to succeed.
781
« on: March 08, 2011, 14:23 »
Jan 2011 = $.81 RPD
Feb 2011 = $.84 RPD
Mar 2011 = $.88 RPD
Independent
These seem low compared to everyone else. But I'm doing decent volume, so I guess I can't cry too much.
782
« on: March 08, 2011, 10:00 »
This one: A really large rough oily hand shaking a real feminine delicate hand with perfect nails
Or, how bout a business suit arm shaking the flipper of a sea lion.
I want to play... but why limit it to parodies of shots that sell well? I think it would be even funnier to lampoon the overproduced stuff that no one actually wants, yet people still produce in vast quantities. How about this... a cute puppy standing at the edge of the Grand Canyon, with a rainbow in the sky above it. Oh, and the puppy is in lingerie, with an alluring look in its eyes.
783
« on: March 07, 2011, 13:57 »
Just checked... I've had one rejection in the past 100 submissions, which has been fairly consistent for the past three years. I wonder if they look at a contributor's sales as guidance into how closely to examine submissions. Fotolia has become my number one agency for sales. I'll be unpopular for saying this, but keep it up Fotolia, whatever you're doing!
784
« on: March 06, 2011, 13:37 »
It is not valid to compare RPI with RPD.
I has just checked my last 20 sales, only 4 were not subs, and those were 3 XS and one M. Of my last 50 sales, none of the non-subs were L or above.
I never said RPI was comparable to RPD. Clearly these are different types of measurement. My point is that in 12 months my port increased by about 50% in size, yet my total revenue went up 200%. Anyone telling me I should be upset with Fotolia because my RPD might have gone down is crazy. FT is my top agency now, with sales and revenue through the roof, far outpacing the increase in my port. Frankly, I don't care what the RPD is now compared to a year ago. The proof that matters to me -- money in my pocket -- is looking great.
785
« on: March 06, 2011, 07:37 »
I guess I'm in the minority here (I usually tend to be).
I don't track number of downloads. I only care about revenue, so I track that on a daily basis and calculate daily and monthly RPI, so it's easy to pull these numbers:
Feb 2010: $.52 RPI for month
Feb 2011: $.97 RPI for month
Yes, the commission cut sucks, but I have very warm feelings for Fotolia these days. In the past year they went from being my #4 earner to #1, leapfrogging over SS, IS and DT.
I have no explanation for this, but am hoping it continues!
786
« on: March 03, 2011, 15:29 »
>>>>>>:>So I say focus foremost on the first part of the advice I gave: "Find under-represented subject matter." And if you can truly marry that with part two: "offer a bold and unique approach" you'll not only have some of the few available pics for a given search, but you'll secure yourself "best of the bunch" status for some time.
missing in this and other suggestions is any recognition that the images alsoi have to be something that buyers will want and need! i've got plenty of under-represented subjects, but there's a reason they're under-represented! they're not images that designers need!
Yes, of course that is an integral part. My whole mantra is "Put yourself in the mind of a buyer. What image is going to help you most effectively get your message across. What makes one stand apart from the others?" To even get to this point, of course you need to be uploading subjects that people actually WANT. Will your puppy dog or rainbow pictures help a lawyer win a new client? Help a sales manager motivate his team? Help a data provider convey the power of data? It slays me when I see someone say something like they have 50 new pics to upload from their latest trip to Yosemite, or something like that. Really? Does anyone need more shots like that? Do those help anyone, aside from an outdoorsy calendar printer? That's just asking to be buried in the bottom of search results.
787
« on: March 03, 2011, 15:21 »
You have to understand Shutterstock and how it works. I'm selling extremely well on Shutterstock. I know exactly how it works. And I know that people who submit stuff that can't stand on its own will obsess over timing their submissions so they appear in New Uploads search results at peak buying times, and if the photos are lost after that, they blame it on the site. Wrong. If the photos get buried it's because there are too many like them and they are not needed. Is it Amazon's fault if you write a book on something extremely generic like "Making Money" and it is buried under 10,000 other books just like it and you never sell a single copy? Maybe you should have created something more original, or at least put a unique spin on it to grab attention. Don't blame the site, blame the author. You wrote: "I had about 30 uploaded in a single batch and non ever sold. In fact, I could not find them with a keyword search. Then a day or two later they were there but no DL's. shame we work so hard on creating images and get nothing in return." To me, that sounds like you rely on getting into the "most recent uploads" search results to make sales. If you do, I stand by my comments above.
788
« on: March 03, 2011, 12:52 »
Not to be argumentative, but it's not really the best products that reach the shelves. It's the best marketed ones. 
Nail. On. The. Head. We all like to strive for quality in our work, but the people who really thrive are those who put even more effort into thinking like a marketer -- what do buyers actually want, and how can I be the best/first/most unique person to provide it?
789
« on: March 03, 2011, 12:29 »
Recipe for success: Find under-represented subject matter. If you can't, at least offer a bold and unique approach or style to well-covered subjects. Think like a buyer and ask yourself "Why would I buy this image over the countless others just like it?"
I agree - that's good advice. But it can only take you so far, if your "bold and unique" photo appears on page 37 of the search results. The combination of years of accumulating junk, plus popularity-based ranking, is a big problem. Imagine if microstocks were like traditional retailers, and when a supplier offered them something better than what they had, they gave it some choice shelf space, instead of a dusty niche in a warehouse...
Yes, this will always be an issue. So I say focus foremost on the first part of the advice I gave: "Find under-represented subject matter." And if you can truly marry that with part two: "offer a bold and unique approach" you'll not only have some of the few available pics for a given search, but you'll secure yourself "best of the bunch" status for some time. Sooner or later, the copycats like Ken (see other thread) will catch on, but by then you'll already be on to other subjects that no one else has seen coming.
790
« on: March 03, 2011, 12:01 »
Same here, Slovenian. I had about 30 uploaded in a single batch and non ever sold. In fact, I could not find them with a keyword search. Then a day or two later they were there but no DL's. shame we work so hard on creating images and get nothing in return.
Microstock is not "falling apart." What needs to be fixed is how contributors are going about it. The sentiment above is a symbol of the biggest problem. Relying on "Most Recently Uploaded" status to get your new images noticed is a recipe for failure. It's admitting that your images are nothing special, and that the only way buyers will find them is if they appear at just the right moment in a Recent Uploads search. Quit uploading more of the same old stuff that is just like thousands of other pics already online. What are you contributing? Noise. It doesn't help buyers and it bogs down the agencies (no doubt contributing to the very problems that prompted this thread.) Recipe for success: Find under-represented subject matter. If you can't, at least offer a bold and unique approach or style to well-covered subjects. Think like a buyer and ask yourself "Why would I buy this image over the countless others just like it?" If you can't come up with an answer, then microstock will forever seem "broken" or "falling apart" to you.
791
« on: March 02, 2011, 16:05 »
Anyone else seeing a sudden, noticeable string of good sales on BigStock this week? Since Sunday, my daily sales are at least double what they've been lately, and February was a good month to start with. As a point of reference, most weekdays I do about $10 at BigStock but for the past three days I've seen more than $20 a day. Something going on there? Whatever it is, let's keep it up!
792
« on: March 01, 2011, 12:04 »
Are the levels of both images the same?
Yes, both the same level. Credits bought in the same year, so both used 1 credit. Warren Price says this was discussed before. I must have missed it. But it doesn't make sense to me. OK, a buyer gets more credits for his money the more he spends, and that allows him to buy more pictures with his additional credits. But then the price of pictures also comes down when he buys a large credit package? Seems like that's double savings... or at least we're bearing the brunt of the discount he gets?
793
« on: March 01, 2011, 11:26 »
I'm used to seeing a wide range of earnings for Dreamstime, but one I got just a moment ago made me wonder...
Just got a .25 earning for an extrasmall download, using 1 credit (2010).
Moments earlier I got a .30 earning for an extrasmall dowload, using 1 credit (2010). Different pic, but everything else seems the same.
Both pics are at the same image level.
What's up with that? Am I missing something?
794
« on: March 01, 2011, 10:52 »
My BME in terms of RPI and total revenue for the month, pretty great considering Feb had just 28 days. I'm about 2.5 years into microstock, and the growth continues at roughly the same pace as my very first months, though some sites are performing much better than others.
Shutterstock - steady growth
Fotolia - fantastic growth
Dreamstime - steady
IS - peaked for me in Oct/Nov 2010 and has since been on a steady decline
All the rest - steady growth
I think it says a lot about iStock's position in the industry right now. My port is posting great and steadily rising numbers on just about every site except IS. I think my numbers are proof that buyers are slowly turning away from IS and buying elsewhere.
Not sure I'd say proof although I'm only on IS now, my feb. 2010 to 2011 is +80% although I did add about 120% images.
My Feb 2011 is also up significantly over Feb 2010, by about 60%. But the proof of a decline I'm seeing is the fact that for the past four months every agency but IS has posted steady, solid gains for me while IS has posted slow, steady losses. When every runner is sprinting forward, but one is crawling backward, clearly there's something wrong with that one under-performer.
795
« on: March 01, 2011, 10:00 »
I keep a graph of sales per site on my blog - I'll work out to post that here for the next month. I've noticed that most people only post the percentage of sales from each site - is there some risk in posting actual numbers?
I used to like to post my numbers, but ultimately realized it served no real purpose. Everyone's ports are so different that comparing yours to mine won't really tell you anything. If you think my earnings are great, it could give you unrealistic expectations or make you feel like you're failing. That doesn't help anyone. Plus, as has been pointed out countless times, big dollar amounts are flags to people who want to "get rich quick" and think they can copy the success of others. None of us needs that.
796
« on: March 01, 2011, 09:46 »
My BME in terms of RPI and total revenue for the month, pretty great considering Feb had just 28 days. I'm about 2.5 years into microstock, and the growth continues at roughly the same pace as my very first months, though some sites are performing much better than others.
Shutterstock - steady growth
Fotolia - fantastic growth
Dreamstime - steady
IS - peaked for me in Oct/Nov 2010 and has since been on a steady decline
All the rest - steady growth
I think it says a lot about iStock's position in the industry right now. My port is posting great and steadily rising numbers on just about every site except IS. I think my numbers are proof that buyers are slowly turning away from IS and buying elsewhere.
797
« on: February 23, 2011, 13:35 »
I don't know why I continue to be surprised by human nature. I know there isn't any kind of rule (here) about not posting links to someone else's work for the sole purpose of drawing attention to what you perceive as a mistake/injustice/I've-run-out-of-charitable-reasons-behind-your-intention. And as there is no such rule, other than common human decency, my opinion counts for nothing. But I have to wonder at the motivations of posting, and commenting on these. We all make mistakes, I'm sure we have images that wouldn't pass inspection today. I'm sure we can all find examples of images that were accepted in error. I'm also sure, however, that in my own little book, singling out a photographer's work for this kind of ridicule is crass. Not that Yuri needs me as an apologist.
Agreed. This is pretty pathetic. Akin to scouring over the graded paper of the top student in class, hunting for a mistake... while your own test marked "F" sits on your desk mocking you.
798
« on: February 16, 2011, 08:07 »
Interesting... so it may boil down to how the microstock agencies classify the payments they're sending to us. I can't imagine they're setting these up as payments for goods and services, as Sean points out. Hopefully when PayPal answers my question they can shed some light on how the payments I've been receiving are categorized. (I just looked at some recent payments and could see no indication of category.) I'll write back with what I hear.
UPDATE:Got this message from PayPal support: "If these payments get sent to you as a good or a service then this would apply to you. If these payments get sent to you as a personal payment then this would not apply to you." So it does boil down to how the agencies classify the payments when sent. To any agency personnel reading this post... can you please respond with an explanation of how you classify the payments you send to us? Thanks!
799
« on: February 15, 2011, 12:48 »
Luckily we dont sell goods or services...
Maybe I missed something. Are our commissions considered "royalties" making us exempt from the whole PayPal 1099 issue?
When I go to paypal, under the send money tab, I can choose "Purchase" which includes options for goods or services, or I can choose "Personal". Since incoming payments are not "purchases", I assume they fall under the "Personal" - > "Payment Owed" category.
Technically speaking, I guess.
Interesting... so it may boil down to how the microstock agencies classify the payments they're sending to us. I can't imagine they're setting these up as payments for goods and services, as Sean points out. Hopefully when PayPal answers my question they can shed some light on how the payments I've been receiving are categorized. (I just looked at some recent payments and could see no indication of category.) I'll write back with what I hear.
800
« on: February 15, 2011, 12:02 »
* Receive more than $20,000 in gross payment volume from sales of goods or services in a single year, AND
* Receive over 200 payments in a single year.[/b]
I thought it was both $20,000 and 200 (combined) payments in a single year? So if you had 201 payments but made $19,999.99 you would still be exempt from the 1099.
That is correct. So if you make more than $20,000 and would normally receive more than 200 payments (both happened to me in 2010) you would be affected by the change. Of course, I'm still trying to verify if we're even covered by this... are we being paid for "goods or services?" or are the "royalties" we receive something different? I sent an email to PayPal asking if microstock payments are covered by the change.
Pages: 1 ... 27 28 29 30 31 [32] 33 34 35
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
