Author Topic: How to Close Account (Read 23654 times)

epixx · « **Reply #25 on:** April 23, 2008, 04:38 »

Dan,
When I compare 123rf with FP, I don't compare number of downloads, but earnings. I need 20 subscription DLs at 123 to match one sale (most of my photos are priced at $10) at FP.

FP has been a very slow starter, but time seem to work well for me there. I compare it a bit to macrostock, where sales are even less frequent, but pay better still.

Crestock sold a bit for me to start with, but now, it's just the occasional subscription sale. Ytd 2008, they haven't even generated half of what FP has generated for me. The other Norwegian agency, Scanstockphoto, is doing much, much better for me.

It must be added though, that these things are very dependent upon portfolio. I don't have many "isolated on white" photos, but lots of industrial, travel etc., and a growing editorial portfolio. "Unique" photos are rather pointless at places like Shutterstock if they only sell once in their lifetime, while one sale at FP (or a macrostock agency) changes the picture dramatically.

DanP68 · « **Reply #26 on:** April 23, 2008, 05:28 »

Quote from: epixx on April 23, 2008, 04:38

Dan,
When I compare 123rf with FP, I don't compare number of downloads, but earnings. I need 20 subscription DLs at 123 to match one sale (most of my photos are priced at $10) at FP.

Agreed, although in fairness I tend to get a 2:1 credit to subscription sales ratio at 123RF. Looking at earnings only, it was $35 to $0 between 123 and FP. Again, no contest. What I found even more telling however was that my 123 earnings were showing a little growth, whereas my FP Views barely budged.

Quote from: epixx on April 23, 2008, 04:38

It must be added though, that these things are very dependent upon portfolio.

So true. Even in the little time I have been around, I am amazed at the differences in performance contributors experience at various sites. For the life of me, I cannot get the wheels to move at Stockxpert. They are always at 2% to 5% for me. Others claim they are their fastest grower, and put them in the Top 3. Fotolia is solid for me, but not nearly as spectacular as some experience. It took an EL sale from them to nudge up to #4 this month.

And despite so many people listing IS as their clear #1, this is the 4th consecutive month SS is clobbering them in my portfolio. It's not even close, and the gap is widening. Weird.

madelaide · « **Reply #27 on:** April 23, 2008, 16:41 »

Quote from: PaulieWalnuts on April 22, 2008, 22:48

While I'm beginning to understand FP business model of being marketed by contributors, I don't see the value in it.

It's a way to do it, but I don't currently market myself (except for soem eventual link in my website, but I don't get much traffic). I intend to, however, once I have a decent amount of my travel images there.

Regards,
Adelaide

RacePhoto · « **Reply #28 on:** May 06, 2008, 13:33 »

Quote from: madelaide on April 23, 2008, 16:41

Quote from: PaulieWalnuts on April 22, 2008, 22:48
While I'm beginning to understand FP business model of being marketed by contributors, I don't see the value in it.

It's a way to do it, but I don't currently market myself (except for soem eventual link in my website, but I don't get much traffic). I intend to, however, once I have a decent amount of my travel images there.

Regards,
Adelaide

The value I can see in FP holding my images for me, for free, is that I don't have a website for selling my photos, or the format to take payments or all the extras. They get 30% as a handling fee and percentage for taking care of payments..

Also since there are other people who have photos up there, and a search engine, there's also the potential for sales when someone comes to look for something else. Small but possible. Otherwise I'd only have them on some personal site, lost in the morass of other personal sites, which makes them nearly impossible to find. FP is a marketing advantage.

As far as marketing my own photos, one way I could do it would be have a link on my website (which I have a few) that offers "buy photos here" with a link to my FeaturePics portfolio. This is the direction I'm going with FP photos.

Smugmug charges to store and sell pictures. Of course they offer much more, including prints and other items. But the point is, they charge the photographer $150 a year, to enable this service and individual pricing for profit. FP charges nothing except a percentage of the sales.

By the way, I only offer feature/editorial/news photos on FP. I have no RF photos up there. That's my plan for how to best use their service. I also have the images priced the same as small publications already pay me for their use, which is $20 an image. I'm not price cutting or competing with myself by selling the same photos for a dollar on some Micro site. They are only on FP.

RT can you help me understand this? You decide how best to confuse buyers by pricing and licensing them how you want. Since you listed it as your major objection?

Am I avoiding this objection by only selling editorial and always selling at a set price.

BTW I agree with the point that numerous people have made. 70% of nothing is still nothing! The standard phrase I like to use is, 20% of something is much more than 100% of nothing!

Then there's another point of work and profit, and why I price my pictures the way I do. I'd rather sit for nothing than work for nothing! So I won't sell out and reduce the prices of my work, down to nothing. If someone can't pay a fair price for a photo, I'd rather not sell it at all.

RT · « **Reply #29 on:** May 06, 2008, 18:03 »

Quote from: RacePhoto on May 06, 2008, 13:33

RT can you help me understand this? You decide how best to confuse buyers by pricing and licensing them how you want. Since you listed it as your major objection?

Hi Pete,

Where do I start:

Firstly, the actions of one have a reaction on the appearence of others, so for example and without wanting to insult anybody else, you and I may understand the difference in image licensing but as Featurepics is a site that attracts a lot of amatuers there are many that don't, and as a result of this there are images on Featurepics being sold as RM that are also on offer at other sites as RF.

Secondly, take the position of a potential buyer who is sourcing images for a client, like on any other site they go through the search results and put some desirable images in a lightbox to show the client, the client picks a few and the discussion comes round to pricing, "Well Mr..... if you choose this image it will be X amount, if you choose this one it will be Y amount" etc etc, or you can go to 99% of any other site and be able to give one quote, which site do you think a buyer would choose?

Thirdly, there's the competition amongst fellow contributors trying to undercut each other, and even themselves by pricing images above other sites where they sell the same stuff. This wouldn't be a problem for a long established agency with a loyal customer base because people will pay extra for known reliability, but Featurepics is a nobody in the stock world trying to attract customers from other agencies ( by telepathy I presume ) or first time buyers through the self marketed leads of the contributors.

I compare their whole pricing system to going into a shop and selecting six Oranges, then getting to the checkout to be told 'that one is 50cents, that one is $12 those two are $4.50 and the last two are $100 each and can only be eaten indoors on a Sunday'! Would I buy them there or go next door where Oranges are $1 each?

Obviously I've generalised in my examples and there are exceptions to the rules, but that is/was my fundamental objection and reason for leaving Featurepics, IMO they will never be a success but will probably continue at the rate they are now and have been since they started because they don't appear to have much in the way of overheads and the small amount of sales probably cover that nicely.

You asked my opinion and I gave it, I'm not saying it's right or wrong and no doubt others will disagree, good luck whatever you decide to do there.

Richard

RacePhoto · « **Reply #30 on:** May 06, 2008, 21:36 »

I love a good analogy, even if it is about oranges.

But it does explain what you meant.

I was looking at the site from my own perspective, and not watching what others may be doing, or thinking from a buyers viewpoint.

I don't sell anything RF that I sell RM elsewhere. (or visa versa)

All my photos are the same price, and if they are on FeaturePics, they are not anywhere else. If they are larger and meet the higher standards, they go to Alamy, where nothing that's on Alamy RM is anywhere else on the web. (I have one RF photo up there from my member application photos)

It's a nice way to separate my first tier editorial from the smaller size and possibly not as high quality. That makes FeaturePics and outlet for one part of the market, that I wouldn't have up for sale otherwise.

I'm sometimes teased by the thought of going to SS for the same photos, which would mean close the FP account, and then I'd have to have 56 sales to get the same profit. I'm not sure I want to sell out my work yet for a quarter.

For the stock, that I enjoy and produce just for stock, that's fine. I know coming in that it's going up on Microstock.

For motorsports, or automotive, I'm not going to do that. They are a smaller selective market, with limited access. I'm not going to get into a price war in that area.