|
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 - massman
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 ... 14
26
« on: September 23, 2010, 03:39 »
27
« on: September 11, 2010, 15:47 »
28
« on: September 11, 2010, 15:37 »
You won't be able to opt out of subscriptions, but only photos up to M size are included.
How sad. Most sales fall in the XS-M range anyway, so for most buyers this suits perfectly well. And there goes our images to rapidshare & such, as seen so many times.
Although there's some overlap, subscription buyers are a different market. You have to commit for over $200 per month on most sites. That doesn't work for the majority of users who just need a few images at a time. They might make a dent on PPD sales but won't replace them. On StockXpert most contrib complaints were about XL+ sub downloads because royalties are the same for each size and of course customers tend to download the largest sizes whether they need them or not.
As for image pirating, not having subscriptions doesn't make any difference. It's an interesting topic though because I'm sure many people here contribute to a stock agency that's pretty much connected to a Rapidshare-like service and nobody seems to have an issue with it. But that's a different story 
It may be worth a trip back to this thread, just as a reminder http://www.microstockgroup.com/stockxpert-com/revenue-plummeting-at-StockXpert/
29
« on: September 11, 2010, 08:22 »
I hope IS does nothing and the market, both buyers and contributors decide it's fate.
30
« on: September 11, 2010, 08:13 »
Just a quote from the IS forums, in relation to these ones...........
" Don't bother with that forum anymore.I found the same loonies over there that are on here"
Your ignored rate is growing.
31
« on: September 10, 2010, 04:59 »
Your reap what you sow.
32
« on: September 08, 2010, 14:58 »
33
« on: September 08, 2010, 14:22 »
I think it's a little crazy to link any image you have promoted to any agency. Would it not be better to sell it yourself?
Right, obviously, and I do. But it's not always feasible. Some clients want to license an image from a reputable company, and while I consider myself reputable, I'm not an incorporated company.
Whenever someone contacts me directly about an image, I try to sell them directly. But I'm not going to say "no" if they ask to buy through an agency, and if I have a choice in the matter, I'll send them to the agency that give me the biggest cut.
Why not use photoshelter, photodeck, clustershot etc.?
34
« on: September 08, 2010, 13:49 »
35
« on: September 08, 2010, 13:35 »
Well, I am one that mentioned changing direct links...
But I do think it's a little crazy to link to a single image, directing a buyer to an image you know they are going to buy, at a site that will pay 20% of that sale. When most of us are already involved with sites that pay much more and could just as easily send the buyer to that other site that will pay 30%, 40%, 50% or more.
I think it's a little crazy to link any image you have promoted to any agency. Would it not be better to sell it yourself?
36
« on: September 08, 2010, 13:29 »
Photoshow on the SS forum:
Well I see my portfolio not being there much longer. At those royalty rates having my port there will only canabalize my sales elsewhere on better paying agencies What have royalty rates go to do with cannibalization of sales?
37
« on: September 07, 2010, 05:50 »
I have a similar strategy. I have been approved, but I am going to wait 3 months before I start to upload.  + 1.
Excellent sales strategy.
38
« on: August 31, 2010, 04:31 »
Nice interview Leaf, and some interesting info. I decided to review some of my images at DT to see if making any changes made any difference to search placement and sales, however, when I went to edit, next to the keywords field there was this following message:
This image has been rightfully reported as having bad keywords and an editor approved the needed corrections. At this time you can add more keywords only through the key-mentoring system.
Everything is greyed out and I can't change anything, including titles, description and keywords. I went through two pages of images and they were all the same. Is anyone else experiencing this?
Come to think of it, did DT have some sort of system where contributors received reward for reporting keyword spam?
39
« on: August 26, 2010, 05:39 »
Does anyone know if the new payment method works with banks in Australia, and if so whether there is any fee?
Commonwealth dont charge me a fee. I had to ring them to get the international code. The C'wealth do send me a letter every month to say I had an international transfer 
I just got a survey from Alamy saying they are investigating online payments and please indicate whether I use Paypal, moneybookers, payoneer, other...
Here is the link http://www.zoomerang.com/Survey/WEB22B4DGRZW3L
40
« on: August 25, 2010, 14:54 »
"Nil volentibus arduum" (for those that really want something, nothing is impossible). 
Best reply I've seen so far.
41
« on: August 25, 2010, 14:50 »
So my question is: Can one person (photographer/contributor) do it ALL by him/herself?
- Creating content (editing, keywording, uploading and managing)
- create their own web presence like a personal/professional web site as an electronic business card to build their brand
- create, manage and add to a blog on a regular basis
- follow, un-follow, find new people to follow on Twitter and tweet about useful stuff
- create, maintain and update Facebook and mySpace
- educate yourself in terms of new photography gear, social networks trends, web site technology, marketing strategies
- advertise, promote and market yourself in person at the ball's game, supermarket, intersection etc.
- walk into galleries, restaurants small businesses and present yourself as the next big Sh!t who has the bestest images in the world that they have to buy.
Yes, all of it. I'm pretty sure the ones who figured all this out successfully don't hang around in any forum nor do they want to share this info but maybe we can put some pieces together.
Correct.
42
« on: August 25, 2010, 08:42 »
search engine placement.
Forget Google. Use the social media. By recommendation is the new search.
if the site is an elitist one, I am afraid I will not make the cut! 
Think to building a boutique shop window rather than a yard sale. You want it to be cool.
Why forget google?
43
« on: August 15, 2010, 07:06 »
What???!!!! I am absolutely astounded that a buyer doesn't have that option. It makes so much sense I can't believe the sites don't have that option.
I do not see why a paypal solution for small buyers would be such a bad idea. If they buy very few images, the fees would eat much of the profit, but I think it's a good way to attract new buyers, and give some of the thieves an easy legit alternative. Something similar to ebay (buy it now) could work, IMO.
Log in -> click on picture -> click on buy -> agree with legal -> pay with paypal.
Micropayment may be at last the solution: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100813/ap_on_hi_te/us_tec_paypal_micropayments
44
« on: August 14, 2010, 12:00 »
No! I find FT to be one of the few maintaining a good level. What I cant understand is, Ive got 12000 dls and yet they dont give me the Gold ( 10000) strange actually.
Subs only count as one quarter download. 4 x sub DLs = 1 x normal DL.
45
« on: July 08, 2010, 10:14 »
Just had approval.
Welcome aboard! Your contributor application was approved.
You can start uploading images and earning money right away!
We wish you great sales!
46
« on: June 06, 2010, 06:00 »
Show of hands .. how many people have ever forked over the $25 for a yearly copy of the photographers market ... and actually used it 
Don't like $0.25 sales then take business into your own hands .. you don't have to belong to a single agency micro or macro or whatever to pull in bigger sales ... but it takes motivation and you have to treat it as a career. Treat photography as a hobby and you'll bring in a hobby income which is nobodys fault but your own.
Face it people, no matter how many "pro shooters" become contributors microstock will always be at the bottom of the barrel in the overall photography industry .. that's where it was designed to be and that's where it belongs .. take it for what it is.
Quite right Randy. Didn't RF stock used to be the dumping ground of shoot leftovers?
47
« on: March 26, 2010, 09:08 »
Requested 17 March - Received 26 March - Paypal
48
« on: February 27, 2010, 13:30 »
The easy solution for him would be to quit microstock production, leave his portfolio to generate circa $1m for the next year or so and go shoot more lucrative real customer work. I think that's what I'd do.
49
« on: February 23, 2010, 16:10 »
Question is if it's worth competing with yourself? Do you have experience showing that "new" image will actually do better than "old" one? It also depends how search engines are tweaked. Would new image with similar meta data hide old one in search results or not?
There is only one way to find out.
50
« on: February 19, 2010, 12:33 »
Old credits?
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 ... 14
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
