My site is NOT a Micro Site.

[David Ewing-2]

Just looking for some advice. I have been looking for some more
contributors and a couple have replied saying that they do not work
with micro stock sites. I am also a photographer shooting stock and
have done for many years. Suffering the consequences of the
introduction of the micro along with all the other photographers
shooting high end imagery. I saw my sales drop. In no way am I
supporting this part of the industry. I sell images at one size which
is reasonably small. Around 8megs at prices upto $69usd and these
prices are set by the photographer. It really concerns me that people
think my site is a micro site. Is there anything I should change
about it so that this is not the case.

Any advice is appreciated.

Cheers David Ewing

Affordable Stock Photography.

www.affordable-stock-photography.com

[Tina Manley-3]

At 08:45 PM 8/14/2008, you wrote:
>I sell images at one size which
>is reasonably small. Around 8megs at prices upto $69usd and these
>prices are set by the photographer. It really concerns me that people
>think my site is a micro site. Is there anything I should change
>about it so that this is not the case.
>
>Any advice is appreciated.
>
>Cheers David Ewing

Sell based on usage, not size?
Sample calculator:

http://photographersindex.com/stockprice.htm

Tina



Tina Manley
www.tinamanley.com

[David Riecks]

At 07:45 PM 8/14/2008, David Ewing wrote:
>It really concerns me that people think my site is a micro site. Is
>there anything I should change about it so that this is not the case.

David

Have you considered using the "PLUS packs calculator"?

http://www.stockartistsalliance.org/  (in the Free Resources section).

David

--
David Riecks  (that's "i" before "e", but the "e" is silent)
Need Keywords for your database? Get the Controlled Vocabulary Solution
http://controlledvocabulary.com/products/ support for a dozen of the
most popular imaging applications from Adobe Bridge to Photo Mechanic.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[jamievoetsch]

Hi David,

Your site is not micro. Its midstock. People seem to think that if an
image is not RM or more than a few hundred dollars, its micro.

I've had the same responses, however, and it sounds like those
photographers probably wouldn't be easy to work with anyway. I
usually get tons of referrals from my existing artists so I dont have
to go out looking for them anymore.

I dont really know what you can change but if you feel that you
aren't micro, and you are not, then that's what matters. Eventually
the photographers will come to you.

Jamie Voetsch
http://www.imageenvision.com
http://www.clipartof.com

--- In STOCKPHOTO@..., "David Ewing" <dewing@...> wrote:
>
> Just looking for some advice. I have been looking for some more
> contributors and a couple have replied saying that they do not work
> with micro stock sites. I am also a photographer shooting stock and
> have done for many years. Suffering the consequences of the
> introduction of the micro along with all the other photographers
> shooting high end imagery. I saw my sales drop. In no way am I
> supporting this part of the industry. I sell images at one size
which
> is reasonably small. Around 8megs at prices upto $69usd and these
> prices are set by the photographer. It really concerns me that
people

> think my site is a micro site. Is there anything I should change
> about it so that this is not the case.
>
> Any advice is appreciated.
>
> Cheers David Ewing
>
> Affordable Stock Photography.
>
> www.affordable-stock-photography.com
>

[David Ewing-2]

Hey Jamie,
                Thanks for your feedback on my site I found it helpful.  I have  
photographers requesting inclusion to the site but more often than not  
I am finding that their work is substandard and I am looking for the  
right photographers to continue working with.  Also thinking about the  
perception of the site and how to improve upon it.  I have made the  
google adds not display any micro site.  I am trilling it to see if it  
helps with my google ranking.

Cheers David

Affordable Stock Photography.

www.affordable-stock-photography.com

[idmurray]

David,

I saw you post on the Alamy forum fishing for contributors before it
rightly got treated as spam and now you post your innocentt little
question here.

I don't think for a second that you would want me as one of your
photographers. Likewise I would not dream of offering any of my work to
an outlet such as yours which only sells RF.

I would warn any new photographer trying to build a career in stock
about offering their image to you or anyone else on an RF basis. I must
admit that I am against RF but I do understand why some experienced
stock shooters use it and make money from it for some of their images.
However, I would say that a 'default' position for stock should be RM.

I understand that you want to attract photographers because you hope to
make money from their images. Fine. But what about the return to the
photographers?

Ian Murray

[Ryan McGinnis-2]

On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 7:13 AM, David Ewing <dewing@...> wrote:
> Hey Jamie,
>                Thanks for your feedback on my site I found it helpful.  I have
> photographers requesting inclusion to the site but more often than not
> I am finding that their work is substandard and I am looking for the
> right photographers to continue working with.  Also thinking about the
> perception of the site and how to improve upon it.  I have made the
> google adds not display any micro site.  I am trilling it to see if it
> helps with my google ranking.

You're not micro?  "Most Images $9.95 High Quality for Print and Web"?
 What the heck would you call that?

Begone, spammer.

--
-Ryan
http://backingwinds.blogspot.com
Print sales at http://www.mcginnisphoto.com
Stock Photography at
http://psc.photoshelter.com/user/digicana (Photoshelter)

[Mark Blackwell]

Well I have seen several online price guides for RM, but nothing from RF.  Now there probably is a going rate and it may not need a guide in light of the fact that use isn't a consideration.  Yet its one thing to sell RF, though I understand why many here don't use that model.  It is totally another to just give it away like some of the essentially free sites do.

Does Fotoquote have a RF section and if so what determines the different charges?

Thanks for the help
 
         
       
       








       


       
       


     

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[David Ewing-2]

Dear Ian M and Ryan G,
                                        I apologize if you think this was spamming.  I was under the  
impression that this group was here for the exchange of ideas thoughts  
and feedback.  I also disagree that most images are available at that  
price because the average price is between 24 and 27 if you click on  
an image the price is indicated.  Anyhow I thank you both for your  
input, obviously not all positive, buts thats why its an open for  
discussion topic.  I had a look at your sites and have looked at your  
imagery.  And you are correct in assuming I would not be interested in  
representing you.  Stock imagery and snapshots are very different  
parts of the industry.  I am preferably dealing with photographers  
directly so that their royalties do not get diluted and thought this  
would be a better way to contact them.  I pay them 50% and think this  
is fair.  Being on the other side of this industry I understand the  
needs of both parties.


Affordable Stock Photography.

www.affordable-stock-photography.com

[Ryan McGinnis-2]

So you're saying you primarily market snapshots?  I guess I can understand a low price point for snapshots, though if the demand is there for the snapshots you represent, then I don't know why you'd set an artificially low price point. Unless that's all clients will pay you.

--
-Ryan
http://backingwinds.blogspot.com
Print sales at http://www.mcginnisphoto.com
Stock Photography at
http://psc.photoshelter.com/user/digicana (Photoshelter)
Message sent from smartphone

-----Original Message-----
From: David Ewing <dewing@...>
Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2008 9:43 AM
To: STOCKPHOTO@...
Subject: [STOCKPHOTO] Re: My site is NOT a Micro Site.

Dear Ian M and Ryan G,
                                        I apologize if you think this was spamming.  I was under the  
impression that this group was here for the exchange of ideas thoughts  
and feedback.  I also disagree that most images are available at that  
price because the average price is between 24 and 27 if you click on  
an image the price is indicated.  Anyhow I thank you both for your  
input, obviously not all positive, buts thats why its an open for  
discussion topic.  I had a look at your sites and have looked at your  
imagery.  And you are correct in assuming I would not be interested in  
representing you.  Stock imagery and snapshots are very different  
parts of the industry.  I am preferably dealing with photographers  
directly so that their royalties do not get diluted and thought this  
would be a better way to contact them.  I pay them 50% and think this  
is fair.  Being on the other side of this industry I understand the  
needs of both parties.


Affordable Stock Photography.

www.affordable-stock-photography.com


------------------------------------

----------------------------------------------------------------------
   Courtesy of The STOCKPHOTO Network - http://www.stockphoto.net/
    Reproduction of STOCKPHOTO posts require permission of author
  Posting Rules - http://www.stockphoto.net/Subscriptions.php#rules 
    STOCKPHOTO Archives - http://www.stockphoto.net/Archives.php
     STOCKPHOTO Bookstore - http://www.stockphoto.net/bookstore/
----------------------------------------------------------------------Yahoo! Groups Links