MicrostockGroup

I don't think SS is as much the active cause of iStock's problems but the lucky recipient of the customers as iStock has systematically pissed off group after group of buyers.

I am back as an independent because of my educated guess at where iStock's bad decisions would leave them in a year or two. I'm still no fan of subscriptions but if you look at the November stats thread here you'll see that (a) the SS average per sale is more like $1 these days and (b) SS walloped IS for me

I can't do anything about iStock's choices, so pursuing the best option out there right now - which is independence with SS as the lead earner - is the best I can manage.

To Be Honest, I always wondered why Istockphoto was still #1 the way that there's a cult / yes men like culture there of being blindly positive and not questioning "dear leader", but it seemed to me like the exclusives at Istockphoto were making a lot more money three years ago.

My other issue with Shutterstock is that at least back then, more than three years ago, Shutterstock had these stringent noise standards (of near zero noise but cannot look overfiltered) that I felt was hard to meet.  Istockphoto had a more lenient policy on noise.  Is it still like that in shutterstock?

My third issue was about tracking the hundreds of images on several websites, how do you all here that are non-exclusive do it?

I have a portfolio that is available on both SS and IS. On SS it makes far more money for me each month. Therefore, as far as I'm concerned, SS's business model is more successful.

It wasn't always like this. I've been doing microstock for about 7 years and for the first 5-6 years or so IS always made the most money. But then IS's greed eventually became too great, with ever-increasing prices and cuts to commissions, and so they blew it both for themselves and for their contributors. You can't blame SS for Istock's actions.

Istock did not 'raise prices slowly but surely' as you contend. In the time that I've been in microstock they've gone from a maximum image price of $1 (when credits actually cost $1 or less) to nearly $400 now (for an Agency XXL with the minimum credit package needed to buy it). Ask any buyer. Istock weren't doing that 'for the contributor' either as they kept most of the money for themselves although there's no reason why their own costs would have risen so spectacularly.

I've never felt uncomfortable with SS's subs model anyway and nor do I feel I'm 'being paid peanuts' for my work. I think it is very likely with the subs model that 3 or 4 images are downloaded for every one that is actually used (in the early days it was like that on IS too but images became too expensive). Sub images can only be used during the period of the subscription and, unlike with IS, cannot be hoarded and used forever and a day with the original license.

Btw, if I was exclusive on IS now and I was receiving the same average of $3.50 per image that you and others have quoted, then my income over the last few months would have been barely more than half what I actually earned in total. I know, as an exclusive, my images would have had better positioning in the best match __ but would that have doubled my sales? I doubt it.

we all love money. Yes it does bring some of us happiness. Istock was doing that for many. Exclusives mostly. Often with royalty rates that were unsustainable. It changed that and now most are not so happy. Because of the poor relations with everybody (except a few fan club members) it lost business. To help exclusives stay loyal it pushed their images to the front of searches. So some are not so unhappy.

For independents old files sell if the customer searches by "downloads". New ones are now buried. Whilst it is self destructive to remove images from IS it probably is no longer worth the effort to put new images up (unless they are in  a very small niche category). best match strongly favours exclusives.

If you are exclusive and leave you will lose from IS big time. This is a penalty for dropping exclusivity rather than a reward for staying. The wrong sort of motivation in business long term. SS meantime has made it harder to get images accepted. Many exclusives would find that old favourites with good search positioning would not be accepted into SS.

It is not that Shutterstock is great it that IS has been self destructive. You can quote rubbish figures all you want about average sales amount at IS but for most of us it will end up being 25 cents per image at IS. Most will be sold through TS not IS itself. An increasing percentage are being sold through partner program. Customers may at times be dumb but they are not stupid. They will buy of TS or try to buy using "downloads" to search. Dodgey price sliders and other reluctly introduced search features do little to appease customers. Long term it looks bleak the longer it takes to drop excusivity the more it will cost you and the longer you wait the lower your rewards will be at IS. They have gone as far as they can to milk money with higher prices to compensate for lower sales..

You can not change what is. Just deal with it. Exclusives at IS should try to get accepted at SS. You do not have to put images for sale, just get accepted. I believe most may get a shock. Many if they put up their best ten by downloads would not get in. Standards have lifted.

Everyone has been saying that for several years, and prices continue to go UP. Even the cost of subscriptions have gone up (which has raised concerns for SS contributors since our commissions have been frozen). At some point you have to look at the facts, which show that prices have been going up. Dreamstime raises their rates every year. At Warmpicture, we don't try to under cut anyone. The buyers we do have seem more than willing to pay for quality. Our average selling price is over $6 per image, with 50% going to the photographer.

What we need are some of these smaller agencies (which many of us champion) to start raising their prices.

Neither are necessarily a good thing, but they both have strong sales. You can just accept it as "that's the way it is" or you can try something else to see if it works for you.

I've been trying to reward the the fair paying sites with my newest work. Everyone else gets old stuff or nothing. The main places I upload to now are MyStcokVectors (my own site), Clipartof and Graphic Leftovers. I've been thinking of adding Cutcaster to that list and maybe experimenting with some of these new smaller sites that keep popping up.

I have to admit my monthly earnings look less and less like the chart to the right every month and I think that's a good thing.

all ten of my images were accepted on the first try at SS. I am an iS exclusive but thought it prudent to set up accounts everywhere else just in case. conversely, it took me five months and six tries to be accepted at iStock. granted there were two years in between but still.

Insert Quote

You can not change what is. Just deal with it.

I agree, too late now.
If when subs had just started, we all (or most) said "heck no, i will not upload to your site for sub prices". Then mabey something would be diffrent now.

BUT yes "You can not change what is. Just deal with it"- i agree.
What is the best thing to do now i think, is get as much out of every co. as we can. while this boat is still afloat.


i dont know about that (I might b wrong?) but i dont recal any raises lately.
maybe some co's. have increased the cost to the customer (charging more) but they have kept the diffrence for themselves.

lets just ride this (watered down) gravy train till the end of the line.
and see where we end up.

The same could be said about outsourced labor and people working for cents in third world countries.

I haven't had an SS rejection for noise in ages - either I have figured out how to avoid it or they don't care so much. A lot of this was when I switched from a p&s to dslr, but I think I still had noise rejections for a while after that. I also used to get "distorted pixel" rejections from IS - I never really did figure out what made the pixels anything other than square though.

SS seems to have tightened acceptance lately, I have no idea about IS, but back when I was submitting to both it often felt like what IS accepted SS would reject and vice versa. In general SS liked saturated colors and IS liked it less so. SS has always been tough on shallow depth of field.

I would have preferred customers pay IS prices and I get 50% of that, but that doesn't seem to be happening much, so I'll accept subs at SS and others and hope that customers avoid the sites that seem to be primarily concerned with skimming as much as they possibly can from each sale while moving the goalposts whenever they feel like it <cough>IS FT </cough>

If you are stuck in the IS basket with all your eggs you still might be making more than you would outside, but if the trends continue eventually that will not be the case.

I think that the dropping contributor commissions has been a much more damaging trend in the last 2 years than dropping prices - we aren't in a race to the bottom price war, we are in a race to the bottom commission war and contributors appear to be losing.

thanks Lisa, but actually I don't think that is the case. Obviously I can't comment based on any great deal of experience, since I have only literally submitted to SS once. but from much of what I read on their forums, and from what i see in their newest acceptances, SS is still accepting a lot of work that would never meet iStock criteria for acceptance. despite what some say here, it seems feeding the beast is a constant necessity still at SS....whether you're feeding it processed food, gourmet or utter crap doesn't always seem to matter