Featurepics - a future?

Frame · #1 (**permalink**) 12-15-2007, 11:46 PM

Really gone slow over there!
How is it for you?

sharpshot · #2 (**permalink**) 12-16-2007, 06:32 AM

Still slow but some signs of life. Reached my first payout a few weeks ago and have had a few more sales in the last month. Lowering my prices to $4.99 seems to have helped. I am going to upload my higher priced work there to see if any of that sells.

thesupe87 · #3 (**permalink**) 12-17-2007, 12:37 AM

Slowly but surely. I sold two images the other day of a model car, that have never even been approved on any other micro site. $10 each, so I made $14 total. They were sucky photos I took with a 3.2 megapixel HP digital point and shoot - my first few months into selling stock.

rinderart · #4 (**permalink**) 12-17-2007, 04:36 AM

Im giving them 6 more months. I bailed out of LO a week ago after one year. Thats enough time. Life is way to short.

Karimala · #5 (**permalink**) 12-18-2007, 11:16 AM

It only took 21 months and a 1000 photo portfolio, but I finally reached my first payout at FP. That is entirely too long. Now I'm at a crossroads...either rethink my strategy at FP or bail out all together. I'm not one to leave a site after putting in all the work of uploading, but c'mon...$56 in almost two years is pitiful.

I also noticed that FP started using Google Adsense on the site. That's never a good sign.

jimiking · #6 (**permalink**) 12-18-2007, 11:35 AM

Personally, unless the sales are absolutely non-existent, I don't see the point of bailing out of a site if you've taken the time to upload a lot of images there. Unless there are other factors involved.

$50 in two years is still $50 you won't have in another two if you delete everything. Maybe FP will pull something out of the hat like 123RF who occasionally rally on the back of an ad campaign or something. Unlikely of course, as they give 70% of the revenue to the photographer, so that doesn't leave a lot of budget.

I think that FP is really a portal for photographers to link to and sell their images themselves primarily. I haven't actually done this personally, although I have noticed that by pricing everything at $4.99 (as somebody else on here suggested), sales have picked up a little.

Basically at $4.99 people can buy your images cheaper at FP than anywhere else and you get a bigger cut than you would at any of the other micros.

Karimala · #7 (**permalink**) 12-18-2007, 01:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimiking

Personally, unless the sales are absolutely non-existent, I don't see the point of bailing out of a site if you've taken the time to upload a lot of images there. Unless there are other factors involved.

$50 in two years is still $50 you won't have in another two if you delete everything. Maybe FP will pull something out of the hat like 123RF who occasionally rally on the back of an ad campaign or something. Unlikely of course, as they give 70% of the revenue to the photographer, so that doesn't leave a lot of budget.

I think that FP is really a portal for photographers to link to and sell their images themselves primarily. I haven't actually done this personally, although I have noticed that by pricing everything at $4.99 (as somebody else on here suggested), sales have picked up a little.

Basically at $4.99 people can buy your images cheaper at FP than anywhere else and you get a bigger cut than you would at any of the other micros.

If I give up that $50 every two years, what I am gaining is less frustration in exchange. It's incredibly annoying when I'm making the minimum payout on almost every single site every month, and then having one which only earned that much in two years.

I agree that FP does seem to be a site where contributors are expected to do their own marketing, and that's probably the reason for the high commission. Gracey and Flemish Dreams have both benefited from linking to their FP images, which is great! But that doesn't work for everyone...me included. I could probably find a way to promote my own photos at FP, but I've found it much more lucrative to drive in buyers to other sites, because they have much higher referral bonuses (FP is only 1.5% for new buyers and contributors alike). There is no guarantee that if a potential buyer is drawn to FP by one of my photos that they will actually buy my photo...they could find something better or cheaper, and all I would get is 1.5% of the sale. Compare that to 15% at FT and DT, 20% at SS, and even the lowly $5 at LO and $10 at IS...and well...that coupled with incredibly low sales doesn't leave much incentive for me to do the work of promoting FP. On an image like this one (Blue Strawberry Picture) that's priced at 75 cents and $1, we're talking about a 1 - 1 1/2 cent bonus for bringing in a buyer. That's not good enough for me. It takes work to drive in buyers, just like it does to create my photographs, and I'd like to be paid for that time as well.

So...in essence, FP and I just aren't a very good fit, and that's why I'm thinking about pulling my portfolio. I've tried pricing my images as low as $4.99 and as high as $15, and it hasn't made a bit of difference. The sales are about the same no matter how the images are priced.

RTimages · #8 (**permalink**) 12-18-2007, 01:41 PM

I really don't see a point in Featurepics, yes I know they pay 70% and you can set your own prices, but as has been pointed out you have to do your own marketing.

I make over ten times the payout amount on Featurepics every month through Alamy, I don't do any self marketing there and they pay 60%, the big difference is that they have a huge customer base, they actively market, they're extremely well known in the industry and if you want to you can market your own images through your website using the tools they provide.

Personally I think Featurepics biggest mistake is allowing people to set their own prices.

Gracey · #9 (**permalink**) 12-18-2007, 02:12 PM

I haven't done any active 'marketing' at FP for a couple of months, but I manage to reach a payout every two months at worst. Better than I'm doing at SS. I also have uploaded maybe only 4 images in the last month and a half at FP but sales are at about the same level for me. I actually haven't been on the site much in the last couple of months. The google adsense has been there for quite some time - Elena admitted it was a big mistake and gives them no return - they were planning to pull it and put the money into sponsored ads (they had sponsored ads on the msn search engine). Don't really know what's happening since I haven't talked to Elena in a while.

As for Alamy, I looked at that (twice in the past year), however you've got to upsize your images so dramatically to fulfil their size requirements that I hate the way my images look. I refuse to submit stuff that looks substandard when I know it isn't - particularly when it's got my name on it. When Alamy comes down to normal submission sizes, I might go ahead and submit a few, but not the way it stands now.

Better to stick with what I'm doing (not in micros any longer tho) for the time being.

sharpshot · #10 (**permalink**) 12-18-2007, 05:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gracey

..When Alamy comes down to normal submission sizes, I might go ahead and submit a few, but not the way it stands now.

Better to stick with what I'm doing (not in micros any longer tho) for the time being.

I don't think Alamy will ever reduce the submission sizes. My solution was to buy a 5D. It is only a small upsize from 12mp and the image still looks good. Hopefully Alamy and the other macro sites I am uploading to will pay off my investment in the future.