Only 30 days in the stock business

cshack

« on: April 04, 2008, 20:18 »

#link

Not that it matters much but I just have to vent a little.

I’ve been a portrait/wedding photographer for a little over 30+ years. Until the past few weeks I never gave this business of microstock a second thought. A few weeks back I decided to give it a try. Here’s my experience so far;

First I signed up at Shutterstock and iStock because I found the information here about the “big 6”. I was rejected by SS and accepted by IS. I began uploading to IS as soon as I was accepted. At first my acceptance rate at IS was about 35%. ( I will admit I have a lot to learn about this business) Last week I was up for review at Shutterstock and got in. Since then I have been submitting to the following sites:

(Ranked by personal success rate)

Shutterstock
Fotolia
Dreamstime
123rf
Stockxpert
BigStock
Crestock
iStock
CanStockPhoto
LuckyOliver

As a newbie I wanted to share my experience so far. First and foremost, Shutterstock is by far number #1 for me. After only one week of uploading it’s taken off like a rocket. I say this because I’ve only been uploading there for a week and my at SS sales blow the others away by about 300%. I have about an 80% approval rate at SS as well. Second place goes to Fotolia. While my numbers are small there I have been very pleased so far. Third place has to go to Dreamstime and fourth would be 123RF. Fifth place goes to Stockxpert. The rest aren’t worth the trouble right now.

Without boring you with anymore details I want to say this. iStock is a JOKE for me. Rejection after rejection and because of that, poor sales. They are by far the slowest to approve or reject as well. I still have images sitting in the Q from 2 weeks ago. The strange thing is every image that sells on SS and the other sites were rejected by IS. IS is also very inconsistent with approvals and rejections. What gets approved today will be rejected tomorrow. I also think the CEO of IS has a brain malfunction with his business model. Only accepting 15 images per every 168 hours is just dumb. Why would any business put a restriction on the incoming product. If they stay on the same track for much longer, SS is going to pull way out in front and own the market even more than they do now. I’ve read all the reasons IS does what they do and why. But I still don’t see the logic in it.

In closing I’ll say to anyone just starting out, stay away from CanStockPhoto and LuckyOliver. CanStockPhoto is very slow and sales are unseen. LuckyOliver is too busy trying to be funny. Sales there are basically nonexistent. I only say this because you’re better off taking great images for the big 6 rather than wasting your time with the others for now. I know lots of you love IS and I can understand why. But for me they don’t measure up. Maybe I got in too late. Nevertheless, they are very low on my list.

I wish everyone here huge success no matter where you’ve found your gold. I just had to tell my story. I mean no harm if anyone has taken offence to anything I’ve said.


	Ignore \| Logged

hatman12

« Reply #1 on: April 04, 2008, 22:03 »

#link

Good luck with your project cshack.

To be fair, everyone is impressed with initial success at SS. But SS is a 'wham bam thank you ma'am' shop where all the customers scramble to buy the latest uploads; once those customers have bought, your sales will drop massively.

IS, DT and FT are more solid longer term investments; for any given portfolio size you will earn far more money over the long run with those agencies than you ever will at Shutterstock.

You can try this theory for yourself - simply stop uploading to SS for a couple of weeks and see what happens........


	Ignore \| Logged

sjlocke

« Reply #2 on: April 04, 2008, 23:48 »

#link

Quote from: cshack on April 04, 2008, 20:18

iStock is a JOKE for me. Rejection after rejection and because of that, poor sales. They are by far the slowest to approve or reject as well. I still have images sitting in the Q from 2 weeks ago. The strange thing is every image that sells on SS and the other sites were rejected by IS. IS is also very inconsistent with approvals and rejections. What gets approved today will be rejected tomorrow. I also think the CEO of IS has a brain malfunction with his business model. Only accepting 15 images per every 168 hours is just dumb. Why would any business put a restriction on the incoming product.

Sounds pretty smart to me. Why let you fill the queue with images that are going to be rejected. This way, you learn what will get accepted and will stick to that. Helps to avoid wasting the inspectors' time.


	Ignore \| Logged

RacePhoto

« Reply #3 on: April 05, 2008, 01:06 »

#link

Quote from: sjlocke on April 04, 2008, 23:48

Quote from: cshack on April 04, 2008, 20:18

And what if I have 150 great images for iStock, do I want to take ten weeks to upload them? You seem to find the negative side towards photographers and for some reason defend a site that is holding back their supply of items that would sell, and make them more profit faster?

Are you and exclusive at IS, a stockholder, or maybe both? Are you an IS reviewer? Grin

I can understand that IS may have limited resources and they want to keep from getting a flood of junk, or getting so many photos that they can't keep up their high standards. Good reason to keep things at an even flow.

But by the same token, they are driving away contributions and putting a ball and chain on the ankle of sales. Less new photos = less new sales. IS is in essence saying, please take your photos someplace else.

I've found all my rejections at IS to be justified by the reasons from the reviewer. I may not agree with all of them 100%, but they are the site and they regulate what's in their offerings. No problem for me, they are justified and valued advise and information for future submissions.

cshack, you have figured it out pretty well for only 30 days. Grin

Someone new could just go to the big six and do just fine. Save the other sites for when they have more time and more experience.


« Last Edit: April 05, 2008, 01:13 by RacePhoto »	Ignore \| Logged

hatman12

« Reply #4 on: April 05, 2008, 01:26 »

#link

Are you and exclusive at IS, a stockholder, or maybe both? Are you an IS reviewer? Grin

[/quote]

Ahem, as you seem to be not aware RacePhoto, let me point out that sjlocke is one of the world's most successful stock photographers; he is one of the top five iStock exclusives and has sold 300,000 images.........

I think he probably knows what he is talking about........


	Ignore \| Logged

PaulieWalnuts

« Reply #5 on: April 05, 2008, 07:24 »

#link

Quote from: RacePhoto on April 05, 2008, 01:06

And what if I have 150 great images for iStock, do I want to take ten weeks to upload them?

Maybe they want people to only submit their best stuff and not continue to submit problematic images, such as ones that have poor lighting.

cshack, IS can take a couple of months to figure out what they like/dislike and for sales to start building. At SS, my first month was unreal. Sold stuff like crazy. 6 months later I have 10x the number of images as my first month and am earning half of what I made my first month. I think your opinion will change after a few months.


	Ignore \| Logged

holgs

« Reply #6 on: April 05, 2008, 10:16 »

#link

I guess IS must be doing something right, seeing as they appear to make more money than the other sites. The limits are a pain for contributors, but it does mean that you can't afford to submit anything but your best material - for the site it means that quality remains arguably higher than other competitors. It also means that exclusives have an advantage - ie more uploads - and therefore a lot more exclusives.

IS certainly doesn't give instant gratification in terms of downloads, but I've found over time you get more $ per image and a longer lifespan for an image than other sites, which is far more important.


	Ignore \| Logged

ozbandit

« Reply #7 on: April 05, 2008, 10:38 »

#link

As Hatman said, Istock is a longer term investment. I too had similar issues with them at the start but found sales picked up after the first few months and have been consistently my number 2 for over 7 months now with my number 3 getting only one third the total income of Istock over the space of that time. Otherwise you pretty much got it Wink


	Ignore \| Logged

sharpshot

« Reply #8 on: April 05, 2008, 10:53 »

#link

It depends on your images. Some people like istock but others don't do so well.

SS accept just about everything I upload but isock reject lots of my best sellers and now I am selective with my uploads. SS makes twice as much as istock for me every month.


	Ignore \| Logged

gbcimages

« Reply #9 on: April 05, 2008, 11:38 »

#link

Quote from: cshack on April 04, 2008, 20:18

I agree,they don't measure up. I've tried to get in with them ,well lets say 4 times and with each rejection i get a different reviewers acessment of my images. I quit trying to please them they are to big.


	Logged

Dreamframer

« Reply #10 on: April 05, 2008, 11:45 »

#link

I have similar experience with istock. Rejections,, and very low profit. SS is by far best for me, and dreamstime is second. On fotolia, I sold only two images...that's several times less than on 123rf.


	Ignore \| Logged

sharply_done

« Reply #11 on: April 05, 2008, 11:53 »

#link

IS is, for me, a kind of litmus test. People who are successful in this industry are successful on IS. It's inevitable that people who don't take this industry or their work seriously don't fare well on IS.


	Ignore \| Logged

gbcimages

« Reply #12 on: April 05, 2008, 12:09 »

#link

Quote from: sharply_done on April 05, 2008, 11:53

I was looking at your portfolio and it's obvious you take your work serious. But everyone is not like you and don't have the means, they do it as a hobby and a chance to make a few bucks, they don't have the passion.


	Logged

Waldo4

« Reply #13 on: April 05, 2008, 12:26 »

#link

I like IS, it is the cream of the crop of my port. I have a soft spot in my heart for them because they are the only site where when I think that a picture is excellent, they do as well. And sales there are quite good. Though my port is far smaller, they outsell all non-SS sites for me, and SS is just beginning to depress me. I had such high hopes, but until yesterday (and an EL deal) my BDE was the day that I was accepted. My 2nd BDE was 4 days later. Since then I haven't even hit half of those #'s for a day even though my port is nearly 5x as large.

The passion is what defines a good photographer, IMO you will never be successful unless you love what you are doing, if it is just a drudgery done as a means to an ends it will show plain as day in your work.


« Last Edit: April 05, 2008, 12:28 by Waldo4 »	Ignore \| Logged

ozbandit

« Reply #14 on: April 05, 2008, 23:39 »

#link

It took me over three months to get into IS and I nearly gave up. Glad I didn't as when I look at it now in terms of my total income, IS total is still more over the space of past seven months then DT, FT, SX and 123 combined! This is also with 1/5 images that I have on other sites, making it my best overall ROI site. Mind you I do believe that DT has the potential and will get there eventually....


	Ignore \| Logged

Graffoto

« Reply #15 on: April 06, 2008, 00:21 »

#link

IS is my #2 earner behind SS.
Not that I am getting rich at either place.

However, that is entirely my fault. I know what IS likes and whats sells there.
But I shoot what I like and then if it sells there, so be it.
The same shots sell better. faster and longer for me on SS.
Nevertheless, what Hatman12 said is correct. You need to keep feeding SS some new product every few days in order to keeps sales steady.

I wonder if the same sort of thing will begin to happen at IS when they adopt the subs model?


	Ignore \| Logged

Waldo4

« Reply #16 on: April 06, 2008, 10:03 »

#link

Quote from: nosaya on April 06, 2008, 00:21

I wonder if the same sort of thing will begin to happen at IS when they adopt the subs model?

I think that it has more to do with the search engine than the buyers. What pops up on page 1 when they search is the most likely target of their money. SS's search engine likes new files much more than the other sites.


	Ignore \| Logged

RacePhoto

« Reply #17 on: April 07, 2008, 13:12 »

#link

Quote from: hatman12 on April 05, 2008, 01:26

Ahem, as you seem to be not aware RacePhoto, let me point out that sjlocke is one of the world's most successful stock photographers; he is one of the top five iStock exclusives and has sold 300,000 images.........

I think he probably knows what he is talking about........

Yes I am, and I have complimented him more than once, in a few places, for his sales volume and number of photos. I respect that and I'm impressed. Someone who worked hard and is getting the rewards for his efforts. No complaints!

You answered the question. He's an IS exclusive. That's what I was wondering. He seems to be very defensive about anything critical of IS and the new program. (which actually looks good to me on paper)

What set me off was someone pointing out the IS was shorting themselves on new photos by limiting submissions, to 15 a week. Sjlocke basically came back and suggested that it kept people from uploading crap and filling the que with junk. Not very nice and it doesn't address the point.

Of course if I had over 4000 photos on IS, (or is it 5000?) as an exclusive, and hundreds of thousands of downloads, I'd defend less competition and less new uploads. Wink

Which brings us full circle. The question was, why doesn't IS have ftp uploads and why do they limit people, who aren't exclusive, to 15 photos a week? It does appear counter intuitive to have less product to sell and therefore make less profit? I might be wrong.

Hello J Walter Thompson? Sorry Mr. Gates we have enough clients at this time, we can't take your business.

Hello this is Dell computers. We've closed for the rest of the month, because we reached our sales quote and don't wish to sell more products. Please call back.

This is iStock photo. We know you have a portfolio of 1000 great photos, but you can only send us 60 a month. Please be patient, you'll have them all uploaded and reviewed in a year and a half.

OK that's my point. No disrespect towards sjlocke and his photos or IS. It's just unusual for a business to limit production, which lowers their sales expectations and lowers their annual profits.

From a business perspective it seems strange?


	Ignore \| Logged

sharply_done

« Reply #18 on: April 07, 2008, 13:40 »

#link

I agree with racephoto: IS needs to rethink their uploading procedure.

Although I don't really mind the current one-at-a-time uploading, it certainly would speed things up if they implemented FTP. But that's not the real problem. What I'd like to see is a system that takes into account not only sales volume, but sales and acceptance rates as well. Like the current system, you'd get upload slots based on your canister level, plus you'd get additional slots based on how many images you sold in the past x weeks as well as the acceptance rate of your previous x uploads.

If they revamped the system like this, those with commercially viable images that surpass IS's standards would be able to build their portfolios faster than the run-of-the-mill wannabes: definitely a win-win situation.


	Ignore \| Logged

leaf

Premium Member

« Reply #19 on: April 07, 2008, 13:44 »

#link

yeah i find it quite surprising that they don't tier it like this. it would definitely be be better for both the contributor and istock if the proven submitters could upload more.

perhaps they have a reason to limit things.... i just can't think of what it could be!


	Ignore \| Logged

shutterdrop

« Reply #20 on: April 07, 2008, 13:58 »

#link

Quote from: cshack on April 04, 2008, 20:18

The transition from portrait/wedding photographer to stock photography can be a rough road for some photographers. You must learn the stock market just like you must learn the portrait and wedding market.Portrait and weddings are a control events. Look at what is selling on SS and IS. You must retrain yourself! and learn what the reviewer are looking for and avoid the reviewers from hell.

Good Luck

If I live to be 120 years old.... it will be entirely too soon to do another WEDDING.


« Last Edit: April 07, 2008, 14:03 by shutterdrop »	Ignore \| Logged

fotoKmyst

« Reply #21 on: April 07, 2008, 14:35 »

#link

Quote from: shutterdrop on April 07, 2008, 13:58

very true shutterdrop, and i learnt very fast about the REVIEWERS FROM HELL, as my first batch of
25 submissions = 2 accepted. and everyone came back THIS IS A SNAPSHOT

in my business of photography, what we consider SNAPSHOTS and contrived are exactly what your reviewers from hell call ACCEPTABLES, and vice versa.

i had to do a 180 degrees. send all snapshots as contrived as ever... all must be sharp sharp sharp..like the reviewers from hell want it. lol

the second batch came back with a higher percentage of acceptance, far less rejections.
i like the CONGRATULATIONS YOUR PHOTOS HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED...
on my "snapshots".

YES, it sure is different.
but that's the reality. the buyers of stock photos are NOT photographers, they are advertisers and marketing graduates. their eyes are very NON PHOTGRAPHIC.

i don't shoot wedding either... and no offense meant,.

but if we want to branch out to stock photography, we have to play by their rules.

i think you have to not get your ego in the way.


« Last Edit: April 07, 2008, 15:06 by fotoKmyst »	Logged

sjlocke

« Reply #22 on: April 07, 2008, 14:51 »

#link

Quote from: RacePhoto on April 07, 2008, 13:12

Thanks!

Quote

You answered the question. He's an IS exclusive. That's what I was wondering. He seems to be very defensive about anything critical of IS and the new program. (which actually looks good to me on paper)

I think you'll find my opinions on IS varied depending on the topic.

Quote

What set me off was someone pointing out the IS was shorting themselves on new photos by limiting submissions, to 15 a week. Sjlocke basically came back and suggested that it kept people from uploading crap and filling the que with junk. Not very nice and it doesn't address the point.

Well, I didn't say it exactly like that, but that is part of the equation, I'm sure.

Quote

To entice them to become exclusive.


	Ignore \| Logged

Vonkara

« Reply #23 on: April 07, 2008, 15:14 »

#link

Quote from: sharply_done on April 07, 2008, 13:40

. What I'd like to see is a system that takes into account not only sales volume, but sales and acceptance rates as well. Like the current system, you'd get upload slots based on your canister level, plus you'd get additional slots based on how many images you sold in the past x weeks as well as the acceptance rate of your previous x uploads.

I will agree whit a such system, as far as they don't include this in the best match like whit Dreamstime. Because since I got around 63% there I stopped uploading to don't make it worst. My sales have improved when I got over 60% and I don't think to upload some more anymore, what is bad anyway. I think their search engine s""k. But having more uploads to IS would be great


« Last Edit: April 07, 2008, 15:16 by Vonkara »	Ignore \| Logged

shutterdrop

« Reply #24 on: April 08, 2008, 07:53 »

#link

IS should look at the submitters instead of the images.

Limit the amount of submitters instead the amount of images. New contributors should submit a URL of their website and then a decision is made on their portfolio. Review someone portfolio is very quick way to judge the merits and quality of image and artist or photographer.

The big macro agencies do not have 10,000 contributors, they have a limited number who do Quality and Quantity.

It is the old 80....20 rule; 20 percent of the contributors are doing 80 percent of the work.

Why are the other 80 percent mudding the water?


	Ignore \| Logged

Pages: [1]

« previous next »

MicrostockGroup

Microstockgroup Sponsors

Topic: Only 30 days in the stock business

Microstockgroup Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results