Author Topic: Sick of getting crumbs (Read 12809 times)

HappyBunny · « **Reply #25 on:** April 02, 2016, 13:27 »

For a side income Microstock is far too much work and time consuming. Does anyone make money by selling my images that get printed? I am not getting sales on FAA.

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

Dakota · « **Reply #26 on:** April 02, 2016, 13:52 »

People will tell you that we are living in the best times ever for selling stock.

The average income for shutterstock shooters is $1200 per year.

Let's have a party. Bring peanuts and water!!!!!!!

Firewall · « **Reply #27 on:** April 02, 2016, 14:35 »

I only give my rejects to microstock nowadays. Sick of all the agencies screwing their contributors. They pay me peanuts, they get peanuts.

candidcruiser · « **Reply #28 on:** April 02, 2016, 19:50 »

As with everything in life - If you are not happy with what you are doing, don't do it.

Harvepino · « **Reply #29 on:** April 03, 2016, 04:08 »

I've never studied photography, my gear is fairly average and I feel comfortable with what I achieved with it in microstock. Especially the freedom it gives me and doing what I like is priceless. I feel quite sorry for guys who spent years studying photography, invested in the best gear and then sell their creations for pennies. You are in wrong business guys, you must be able sell your work in higher places than microstock.

PaulieWalnuts · « **Reply #30 on:** April 03, 2016, 09:05 »

Quote from: HappyBunny on April 02, 2016, 13:27

For a side income Microstock is far too much work and time consuming. Does anyone make money by selling my images that get printed? I am not getting sales on FAA.

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

If you're asking if people are making money by reselling your micro as prints, maybe.

There could be a lot of different reasons for not getting sales on FAA. One reason could be because buyers can print it cheaper by buying your micro images. I've found that a lot of print buyers do price shopping. The problem with having stuff on both micro and POD sites is you're competing against yourself on price. Meaning if FAA has a print for $50 and the buyer does a quick search and finds the same image on micro for $5 they can buy the micro image, print it for a couple dollars at Walmart, and save $40. A 40x60 canvas on FAA can be over $600. Again, if they can buy the image for a few dollars on micro, print it at Costco for $275, they just saved over $300.

I'd suggest to anyone that you have a strategy with a consistent price model across all sites and all licensing.

etudiante_rapide · « **Reply #31 on:** April 03, 2016, 09:10 »

Quote from: PaulieWalnuts on April 03, 2016, 09:05

Quote from: HappyBunny on April 02, 2016, 13:27
For a side income Microstock is far too much work and time consuming. Does anyone make money by selling my images that get printed? I am not getting sales on FAA.

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

If you're asking if people are making money by reselling your micro as prints, maybe.

There could be a lot of different reasons for not getting sales on FAA. One reason could be because buyers can print it cheaper by buying your micro images. I've found that a lot of print buyers do price shopping. The problem with having stuff on both micro and POD sites is you're competing against yourself on price. Meaning if FAA has a print for $50 and the buyer does a quick search and finds the same image on micro for $5 they can buy the micro image, print it for a couple dollars at Walmart, and save $40. A 40x60 canvas on FAA can be over $600. Again, if they can buy the image for a few dollars on micro, print it at Costco for $275, they just saved over $300.

I'd suggest to anyone that you have a strategy with a consistent price model across all sites and all licensing.

good advice. i remember maybe it was you too, who once said the same thing about cannabalizing
micro port ...

HappyBunny · « **Reply #32 on:** April 03, 2016, 09:12 »

No, I don't have the microstock images on FAA. I have completely different photos on there. Microstock is not getting photos from me which I shot for hanging on someone's walls. Microstock is not getting sunrises or sunsets...from me when all I get is a few cent. These photos were taken specifically for hanging up inside someone's living room...

PaulieWalnuts · « **Reply #33 on:** April 03, 2016, 09:21 »

Quote from: HappyBunny on April 03, 2016, 09:12

No, I don't have the microstock images on FAA. I have completely different photos on there. Microstock is not getting photos from me which I shot for hanging on someone's walls. Microstock is not getting sunrises or sunsets...from me when all I get is a few cent. These photos were taken specifically for hanging up inside someone's living room...

Okay then, sounds like you have a strategy. There are a ton of posts about sales on FAA and there are a lot of reasons why people may not be selling. I sell quite a bit there and in my opinion the most important things that most artists seem to dismiss is SEO optimization. I believe an average image that has high visibility will outsell an amazing image that no one sees.

everest · « **Reply #34 on:** April 03, 2016, 09:28 »

Wise words. Unfortunately, too many people (and agencies) take buyers for stupid. They are not....... so to all those whining with with this huge discrepancies to their image pricing should listen to this advice.

Quote from: PaulieWalnuts on April 03, 2016, 09:05

Quote from: HappyBunny on April 02, 2016, 13:27
For a side income Microstock is far too much work and time consuming. Does anyone make money by selling my images that get printed? I am not getting sales on FAA.

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

If you're asking if people are making money by reselling your micro as prints, maybe.

There could be a lot of different reasons for not getting sales on FAA. One reason could be because buyers can print it cheaper by buying your micro images. I've found that a lot of print buyers do price shopping. The problem with having stuff on both micro and POD sites is you're competing against yourself on price. Meaning if FAA has a print for $50 and the buyer does a quick search and finds the same image on micro for $5 they can buy the micro image, print it for a couple dollars at Walmart, and save $40. A 40x60 canvas on FAA can be over $600. Again, if they can buy the image for a few dollars on micro, print it at Costco for $275, they just saved over $300.

I'd suggest to anyone that you have a strategy with a consistent price model across all sites and all licensing.

HappyBunny · « **Reply #35 on:** April 03, 2016, 09:41 »

Sorry to ask. What do you mean by SEO optimisation? Some photos I turned into digital art. I don't have a website of my own. I just add photos onto their website. I don't have a paid account there. I spend a lot of time on these photos. Microstock only gets the easy to shoot photos from me. They don't get holiday photos either from me unless it is one that isn't excellent for digital art or canvas prints. I went through a holiday brochure today and someone took a stunning photo in the golden hour in the morning. I wondered if the photographer had put this stunning image on microstock. I just hope he hasn't. He/she should get lots of money for it. It's just stunningly beautiful.

PaulieWalnuts · « **Reply #36 on:** April 03, 2016, 09:45 »

Quote from: Herg on April 01, 2016, 01:06

I don't know about anyone else here but I am sick of earning crumbs from under the table from the feast that the fat cats are getting from our images. Piddling little sales of a few cents (converted to UK pounds spells even less) I didn't study photography for 4 years as a student to be one day being reduced to earning a pittance from my images. As a student we were told of the lucrative career we could make from photography.

It's like everything online that has been devalued. Music, video footage and photography. Rant over.

A lot has been devalued but not all of it. You can choose to accept the crumbs or you can find the areas that haven't been devalued yet and make changes so you can feast at your own table instead of waiting for crumbs underneath someone elses.

PaulieWalnuts · « **Reply #37 on:** April 03, 2016, 10:03 »

Quote from: HappyBunny on April 03, 2016, 09:41

Sorry to ask. What do you mean by SEO optimisation? Some photos I turned into digital art. I don't have a website of my own. I just add photos onto their website. I don't have a paid account there. I spend a lot of time on these photos. Microstock only gets the easy to shoot photos from me. They don't get holiday photos either from me unless it is one that isn't excellent for digital art or canvas prints. I went through a holiday brochure today and someone took a stunning photo in the golden hour in the morning. I wondered if the photographer had put this stunning image on microstock. I just hope he hasn't. He/she should get lots of money for it. It's just stunningly beautiful.

There is a ton of information on SEO. It means Search Engine Optimization. And I don't mean the old methods of gaming or tricking the search engines. SEO optimization just really means adding the right content (titles, keywords, descriptions, etc) so that more buyers can find your images. If you respond with "I already do titles, keywords, descriptions, etc" I'm sure you do, but that fact that you don't know what SEO is means your stuff isn't optimized which is the important part.

I've seen plenty of contributors say they add titles, keywords, descriptions, etc. I then look at their work and their title for a picture of a cat on a sofa says something like "Furry Love" or even "DSC_1234.jpg". Search engines use all of this data to try and match your image to a buyer search. If a buyer is searching for "Cat on a sofa" it is going to give better search placement to an image that has more content of "Cat on a sofa" then "Furry Love" or "DSC_1234.jpg". And that's just the beginning. There are so many little intricacies of SEO that affect search placement such the order of your words. Meaning "Cat on a sofa" will get different search placement than "Sofa with a cat". And it also matters what buyers are searching for. If 1,000,000 people per month search for "Sofa with a cat" vs 10 people per month searching for "Cat on a sofa" it would probably be better to have "Sofa with a cat". I've been studying SEO for close to 20 years. It's a huge and complex topic. It also may be changing again because of new image recognition technology that may make titles, keywords, descriptions, etc less relevant.

Photoshelter has a good primer on it so I'd suggest searching "Photoshelter SEO" and reviewing the doc.

PaulieWalnuts · « **Reply #38 on:** April 03, 2016, 10:10 »

Quote from: HappyBunny on April 03, 2016, 09:41

Sorry to ask. What do you mean by SEO optimisation? Some photos I turned into digital art. I don't have a website of my own. I just add photos onto their website. I don't have a paid account there. I spend a lot of time on these photos. Microstock only gets the easy to shoot photos from me. They don't get holiday photos either from me unless it is one that isn't excellent for digital art or canvas prints. I went through a holiday brochure today and someone took a stunning photo in the golden hour in the morning. I wondered if the photographer had put this stunning image on microstock. I just hope he hasn't. He/she should get lots of money for it. It's just stunningly beautiful.

Also, if you don't have a paid account there, that's probably another reason. It's a numbers game. Unless you're already world famous or have the most amazing work, you're not going to get sales with 30 images. I have almost 2,000 images there and had around 300 sales last year.

HappyBunny · « **Reply #39 on:** April 03, 2016, 10:28 »

Thank you so much. I guess it's not so much my keywording and description. I don't have 2000 images. Maybe I shouldn't be so fussy. What I don't like and what I wouldn't hang up on my own walls I don't upload. Maybe I just need to go out take more photos and upload photos which I wouldn't buy. You are doing really well. I am happy for you. It gives me hope.

etudiante_rapide · « **Reply #40 on:** April 03, 2016, 11:49 »

Quote from: PaulieWalnuts on April 03, 2016, 10:10

Also, if you don't have a paid account there, that's probably another reason. It's a numbers game. Unless you're already world famous or have the most amazing work, you're not going to get sales with 30 images. I have almost 2,000 images there and had around 300 sales last year.

so you think the game rules change too???
i remember when you were with istock exclusive, you said it's not the number but the quality.
you said you sold more with less.

PaulieWalnuts · « **Reply #41 on:** April 03, 2016, 11:54 »

Quote from: etudiante_rapide on April 03, 2016, 11:49

Quote from: PaulieWalnuts on April 03, 2016, 10:10

Also, if you don't have a paid account there, that's probably another reason. It's a numbers game. Unless you're already world famous or have the most amazing work, you're not going to get sales with 30 images. I have almost 2,000 images there and had around 300 sales last year.

so you think the game rules change too???
i remember when you were with istock exclusive, you said it's not the number but the quality.
you said you sold more with less.

The rules always change. Obviously ideally the best thing to have would be a huge quantity of amazing sellable images. But I'd rather have 100 amazing highly sellable images than 10,000 pictures that nobody is interested in buying.

stockastic · « **Reply #42 on:** April 04, 2016, 11:17 »

Quote from: etudiante_rapide on April 01, 2016, 18:02

Quote from: stockastic on April 01, 2016, 16:30
Photography was a perfectly good career choice in the 80s and a nice field of study, combining art and technology. No one could have predicted where it would end up.

it's all about the availability , as you or someone else said in another thread.
remember in the 80's we were maybe one of what??? 50 photographers in the district...
some had photo studios, others go freelance. in NYC the freelancers were earning more money
freelancing there than many studio owners across the USA and Canada.
wedding and retouching were also a "professional" job.

then as every cousin's cousin's cousin got to be a "professional" because they could afford
an automatic camera with BIGGGGGG ZOOOOM lens with the coming of auto and digital
respectively, it became saturated with "professionals".

i remember how just before that, these same people could not even figure out how to use
the gossen luna pro or sekonic meter; never mind figure out the proper fstop for depth of field
manually,etc...

it also started the introduction of department store photo studio where the christmas portrait
with santa and the elves wearing purple suits (*underexposure*) ... and every customer was so
happy with their christmas portraits with those multi size pictures on one 8 by 10.

time capsule till today, it's quite a big step for mankind, isn't it???

personally, if i were to be a photographer today, i rather learn to do the jive, waltz, tango, rhumba,etc.. and become a dancer teacher.
it's highly unlikely there is going to be an automatic learn to dance invention to replace
the dance class.

Actually, photography is still a good field of study. The 'art' part hasn't gone away. New technology has made some aspects vastly easier. It has also created huge new areas of possibility. But the conceptual part is still there.

Dance instructor? Not a good bet. I'm pretty sure the Japanese are working on a robot that will teach dance as well as be the ideal partner, instantly adapting to your style and compensating for your mistakes.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Sick of getting crumbs (Read 12809 times)

HappyBunny

Dakota

Firewall

candidcruiser

Harvepino

PaulieWalnuts

etudiante_rapide

HappyBunny

PaulieWalnuts

everest

HappyBunny

PaulieWalnuts

PaulieWalnuts

PaulieWalnuts

HappyBunny

etudiante_rapide

PaulieWalnuts

stockastic

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors