MicrostockGroup
Agency Based Discussion => Shutterstock.com => Topic started by: lagereek on May 02, 2011, 00:16
-
It seamt to me that John Oringer of SS, simply gets in right in just about everything, at least for contributors and buyers, just look at the new editing system where keywords comes up in little squares and the entire interface for that matter, brillant! followed by the keywords that were used to find youre shots.
At the moment he is by far the market leader and got it all in the palm of his hand, so why doesnt he do a clever move and take over the whole damned micro thingy, Im sure we would be a lot happier.
The differance between how SS, is run, compared to the computer-nerd clowns at IS, is staggering, frightening! actually!
Leads me to speculate that if SS, introduced exclusivity, they would have a line-up of 70% of all contributors in the entire Micro industry. A down out Kill !
-
Yeah, Shutterstock is the only site I completely trust and I would actually consider for exclusivity, yet I'd prefer to stay independent. Tomorrow never knows.
-
Yeah, Shutterstock is the only site I completely trust and I would actually consider for exclusivity, yet I'd prefer to stay independent. Tomorrow never knows.
Sure! but IF you ever consider exclusivity, thats the one to go for.
-
I'm not interested in complete exclusivity like istock have but I might be interested in exclusive images. The problem is that SS aren't going that way. They are great but they have really lost out to Pond5 with footage and as Pond5 pay 50% commission, that's worked out well for me.
-
By far the best site, easiest to use and what's most important it's the best earner for me. I'm only submitting to IS and SS so if there was an exclusive option, I'd go for it. IS can't get anything right (and on top of that the new best match favours exclusives even more heavily) and SS couldn't get that * up even if they try. Really hard.
-
Shutterstock are great in what they do, but for me they still have the lowest RPD compared to iS, Fotolia & Dreamstime which as an independant is the one and only thing that matters. Easy upload, good editing tools and everything else that Shutterstock do so well is fine but when it comes to the bottom line it's money that counts.
To go exclusive there would see me out of business.
-
I just wish they would drop the categories.
-
Shutterstock are great in what they do, but for me they still have the lowest RPD compared to iS, Fotolia & Dreamstime which as an independant is the one and only thing that matters. Easy upload, good editing tools and everything else that Shutterstock do so well is fine but when it comes to the bottom line it's money that counts.
To go exclusive there would see me out of business.
Well Im not so sure anymore, I get plenty "demand" sales and ELs per month and the way some of the others are going, in a years time???? who knows.
-
.
-
They could ofcourse consider, Picture-exclusivity, same as DT has. A little more in commissions, etc, just that alone would be a giant leap.
-
I just wish they would drop the categories.
+1
-
but when it comes to the bottom line it's money that counts.
I agree, but couldn't possibly care less about RPD. I only care how much my payout is at the end of the month.
-
but when it comes to the bottom line it's money that counts.
I agree, but couldn't possibly care less about RPD. I only care how much my payout is at the end of the month.
Once you have been in business for a longer period, you will find that the payout is secondary, stabillity and security is worth just about 1000 times more, why? because without that your payout will soon drop.
This is where IS finally failed and became the most instable and insecure place in the business, regardless of exclusive or independant.
-
I love Shutterstock, and certainly agree they are doing things right. No drama over there. However I can say the same about Dreamstime too. Everything just works at both sites.
I nearly got suckered into exclusivity at Istock last year. That was a close call. I don't expect I will be considering exclusivity anywhere else, even if it were offered.
-
...I don't expect I will be considering exclusivity anywhere else, even if it were offered.
+1 If you can, it is good to avoid putting all your eggs in any one basket; diversify in every way possible. This leads to stability. The more good microstock agencies there are, the better off we will be IMO.
-
'Jon' Oringer for president!!!!!! ;D
-
...but the RPD is only (under) 20 % from the RPD at istock, dreamstime or fotolia for me. And this is horrible for me as a free illustrator !
-
Yeah, Shutterstock is the only site I completely trust and I would actually consider for exclusivity, yet I'd prefer to stay independent. Tomorrow never knows.
I would definetly consider Exclusive images with Shutterstock. I am lining up a lot of images for sale only there (as some other sites (Ex: Dreamstimes, iStock) say those images a irrelevant if not modified from their original source. Fact is, those images are getting sold like hot pancakes on Shutterstock and are making more than 1/2 my sales there.
I agree what Lagereek says. Great stats, great and STEADY sales, and they keep an ear open for the contributors. Definetly a leader! :)
-
I love Shutterstock, and certainly agree they are doing things right. No drama over there. However I can say the same about Dreamstime too. Everything just works at both sites.
My big compliant with DT currently is their stupid upload limits; 36 a week is to constraining, 18 if you are below 80% approval.
-
Shutterstock is OK!
But I can't forget their reaction on our comments when taxation started...
-
Leads me to speculate that if Shutterstock, introduced exclusivity, they would have a line-up of 70% of all contributors in the entire Micro industry. A down out Kill !
SS won't introduce exclusivity. Why would they? They'd have to increase commissions to pay for it ... that means they'd have to introduce additional price tiers for customers ... the additional cost does not confer any benefit to the customer (who just want an image that suits their purpose) ... thus making SS less competitive ... etc, etc, etc.
The reason that SS are so successful is precisely because they haven't introduced exclusivity, or price tiers, or expensive imagery. That's exactly where most of the other agencies have gone wrong, Istock being a current extreme case-in-point.
-
mmh Shutterstock is okay but I think they are responsible to same extend for the state of the industry (oversupply and too low prices). Their referral-program did a lot too the oversupply and wouldn't they have been so successful with their subscription-program no other microsite (i.e. FT, DT etc.) would have ever introduced subscription. I have nothing against Shutterstock but I really think without them the overall market would be better.
-
I just wish they would drop the categories.
+1
I donīt see the problem on categories, you can even pick a few pictures and add the same category
-
I just wish they would drop the categories.
+1
I donīt see the problem on categories, you can even pick a few pictures and add the same category
Choosing categories takes seconds (or few minutes depending on how many images you upload). You can select multiple images of the same categories and apply them in batches. Nothing like fotolia 1 images at a time submission, or Dreamstime for that matter. (won't talk about iStock :) )
-
but when it comes to the bottom line it's money that counts.
I agree, but couldn't possibly care less about RPD. I only care how much my payout is at the end of the month.
Once you have been in business for a longer period, you will find that the payout is secondary, stabillity and security is worth just about 1000 times more, why? because without that your payout will soon drop.
This is where IS finally failed and became the most instable and insecure place in the business, regardless of exclusive or independant.
I'm not really sure where that "been in business for a longer period" comment came from. I've been submitting since 2004....
-
Sure Lisa! DT and also in a sense FT, as well are doing things right, although I wish FT would stop following in the steps of IS, with their search-changes, as we see right now, its suicide.
Pure speculation! but what would happen if SS, DT, FT and some others would join forces? at present with all the GettyIS shambles, would they blast hem off the map? in the Micro world, that is?
-
mmh Shutterstock is okay but I think they are responsible to same extend for the state of the industry (oversupply and too low prices). Their referral-program did a lot too the oversupply and wouldn't they have been so successful with their subscription-program no other microsite (i.e. Fotolia, Dreamstime etc.) would have ever introduced subscription. I have nothing against Shutterstock but I really think without them the overall market would be better.
I tend to agree. I think there are all these successful models that propagated that aren't exactly in everyone's best interest. Hopefully, the industry can course correct at some point. I think people's disdain for Thinkstock says a lot about how they feel about subs in the back of their mind.
-
but I am under the impression that with subs people are downloading more pictures than they actually need
which means that real RPD is actually higher than it seems, and cannot be directly compared with credits
-
but I am under the impression that with subs people are downloading more pictures than they actually need
which means that real RPD is actually higher than it seems, and cannot be directly compared with credits
Of course they do. Long-term subscribers just use SS as if it was their own server. If they store the images themselves it just creates work to find them again without an index as effective as using the keywords. For a significant business with a continual need for images, especially fresh ones, the cost of a subscription is peanuts. I wouldn't mind betting that up to 80% of sub downloads are never actually used.
-
The one thing Shutterstock is not getting right is their new acceptance policy (seemingly not applied to everyone the same way so your mileage may vary). My acceptance rate is something like 35%. My stuff sells well on Istock and has been accepted at FT and DS, but not on SS.
I'm seriously considering participation at Thinkstock since its clear that I will never get the vast majority of my 4K plus existing images onto SS. I never thought I'd say that as I hate the role that TS seems to be set up for in terms of gutting Istock.
I don't understand how it helps SS to encourage former IS exclusives to feed TS?
-
The one thing Shutterstock is not getting right is their new acceptance policy (seemingly not applied to everyone the same way so your mileage may vary). My acceptance rate is something like 35%. My stuff sells well on Istock and has been accepted at Fotolia and DS, but not on Shutterstock.
I'm seriously considering participation at Thinkstock since its clear that I will never get the vast majority of my 4K plus existing images onto Shutterstock. I never thought I'd say that as I hate the role that TS seems to be set up for in terms of gutting Istock.
I don't understand how it helps Shutterstock to encourage former IS exclusives to feed TS?
I agree with you on that point, I have a pretty high acceptance rate at SS but sometimes I can tell the reviewer in question dont know what he is doing, example: mistaken toning for wrong WB, etc. No good.
Also with this TS business, SS should really open the doors a bit more and think ahead.
Skip TS ! its a downhill ride.
-
Shutterstock is fabulous, I agree. Exclusivity with any agency is suicide. I have been shooting stock professionally for 30 years. I have seen the changes (I wish I had seen them sooner). I have seen exclusivity put photographers out of business. Even with RM it is insane. With RF and micro it is catastrophic. The agents are in no way exclusive to you. With 50,000+ photographers they do not care about you. They don't need to. Someone else can shoot what you shoot, and they do not care whose picture sells.
I have only been in Microstock since November 2009, and I wish I had done it sooner. I started when my best RM agent said "We're getting killed by microstock." We? No way. I started submitting and shooting for the micros as well as the RM's. The income is well below what I earned a decade ago, but the micro income is very important and covers the drop in income from the RM's. I have no idea where stock is going. I'd like to think it couldn't possibly get any cheaper, but I do not know. Do you?
Please, fellow stock shooters, do not even consider exclusivity with any agent. If you do please research and study the possible outcomes. I have always wished I could have just one agent. It would be so much easier. It doesn't work. We cannot be lazy if we wish to succeed. Take the time it takes to upload to ten agents. All your eggs in one basket is an exit visa. Don't do it.
In the two and a half years I have been shooting for micro I have accumulated ten agencies. I have never spoken with a single human being at any of those agencies. Ever. That tells me something.
Aloha,
Tomás
-
Tomas! same here been shooting stock for 25 years! Im sure if IS started all over they would have dropped this exclusivity business like a hot potatoe, in this digital era with tens of thousands of photographers its madness and look where its landed them? nothing but trouble. Oh they will still have their exclusive generic cats and dogs people and their isolations on white but any serious, nieched portfolio, will stay well out of it.
-
Shutterstock now rejects everything! That can not be right!
-
but I am under the impression that with subs people are downloading more pictures than they actually need
which means that real RPD is actually higher than it seems, and cannot be directly compared with credits
Yes having a quota of 25 images per day to fill, most buyers if they care about their money will simply make lists of images they THINK they might need, ths more download for us. Some images they would download where in other in pay per download they might hesitate before buying. Cuts the hesitation in half ;p.
Since it's all numeric, there is no environnemental cost at this encouraged consumerism ;)
-
Shutterstock now rejects everything! That can not be right!
Still at 99% approval at Shutterstock for the 3 years that I have been there, I don't find they are too harsh, maybe it depends on the topic or content you submit.
-
Shutterstock is OK!
But I can't forget their reaction on our comments when taxation started...
+1
This isn't a 'stable' company, it's run by a guy who's shown he can totally lose his cool.
-
Shutterstock now rejects everything! That can not be right!
That suggests to me that there's something about your images that the reviewers don't like. When I get mass rejections, I can generally find some common quality to explain it. I've been able to get my acceptance rate back up by concentrating on those characteristics SS reviewers find objectionable. If you can't, I'm guessing you aren't trying very hard.
-
Shutterstock now rejects everything! That can not be right!
That suggests to me that there's something about your images that the reviewers don't like. When I get mass rejections, I can generally find some common quality to explain it. I've been able to get my acceptance rate back up by concentrating on those characteristics Shutterstock reviewers find objectionable. If you can't, I'm guessing you aren't trying very hard.
------------------------------------
Seems a little harsh don't you think? Do you really know how hard anyone else here tries? Are you that sure that you know what SS is doing that you can say its the contributor's fault? There are a number of threads here and on the SS forums suggesting that there is a significant change in SS acceptance policies for some but seemingly not all contributors.
-
I see reasons for some of my rejects but mainly almost everything enter these days there, I do shoot average stuff and average quality, as long as they are happy I am too :)
-
Shutterstock now rejects everything! That can not be right!
That suggests to me that there's something about your images that the reviewers don't like. When I get mass rejections, I can generally find some common quality to explain it. I've been able to get my acceptance rate back up by concentrating on those characteristics Shutterstock reviewers find objectionable. If you can't, I'm guessing you aren't trying very hard.
------------------------------------
Seems a little harsh don't you think? Do you really know how hard anyone else here tries? Are you that sure that you know what Shutterstock is doing that you can say its the contributor's fault? There are a number of threads here and on the Shutterstock forums suggesting that there is a significant change in Shutterstock acceptance policies for some but seemingly not all contributors.
If it comes off as harsh, it's just in a "truth hurts" kind of way. I've been submitting to Shutterstock for six years now and have accumulated a portfolio of over 12,000 images. I've experienced periods of high rejection and have adjusted my subjects and my workflow to bring my acceptance rate back. And although I've disagreed with some of the rejections, I've generally been able to see what they didn't like and then to stop doing it. In any event, I'm not suggesting that borg or anyone else isn't working hard. But if someone is getting high rejections ("Shutterstock now rejects everything!"), I can only conclude that he or she isn't working effectively. And my advice stands: go back to your rejections, figure out what they saw that they didn't like, change your shooting or your processing to reduce the problem, submit better images and repeat until your rejections drop to a more reasonable level. I am confident that assuming that the reviewers all have it wrong and continuing to submit the same kind and quality of work isn't likely to help. Unless you really don't want to get more images accepted. In that case, carry on.
-
sorry but I disagree with you disorderly.. perhaps you should open borg portfolios and look into them, all his pictures have a clear concept and are well executed, so I think that SS is now only interested in isolated objects and people pictures even if they arenīt on spot and I am obviously not talking about your work, I am just saying that agencies keep on wanting same pictures they have online and not excited about some conceptual work like borg does so well IMHO
-
sorry but I disagree with you disorderly.. perhaps you should open borg portfolios and look into them, all his pictures have a clear concept and are well executed, so I think that Shutterstock is now only interested in isolated objects and people pictures even if they arenīt on spot and I am obviously not talking about your work, I am just saying that agencies keep on wanting same pictures they have online and not excited about some conceptual work like borg does so well IMHO
Sorry Mate but you're wrong and Disorderly is right. Do a search on SS, sort by Newest First and you'll scratch your head wondering why they did accept so much utter crap. If that's what they are accepting then I've no idea how bad they stuff they are rejecting must be.
-
Nah! Gostwyck is getting to old in the hat for this but im a youngster so I know, right.
In all fairness, I have yet to find or see good and great reviewing and it doesnt matter what agency it is, perfect reviewing just doesnt exist, plus the fact, its a human process, youy know, has the guy just had a beef with his wife? screaming kids in the background or has a hang-over? personal tase or distate, there is no end to it.
-
I'm having a big problem getting anything accepted with SS now but I have been sending my best to alamy and I'm building an RM portfolio. Most of what I have been uploading to the micros would of been accepted by SS a year ago but they have definitely raised the bar. It's a bit annoying because I sell lots there and I know most of my rejects would make money. I just have to decide if it's worth me working harder with microstock or should I try something else? I get really bored doing the sort of concept photos that sell well with microstock but they do make money. I'm probably going to do microstock 2 days a week and focus on other things the rest of the time.
-
I havenīt said that is fair or unfair, mainly I said that they keep on approving the same old stuff, when someone try something different (not talking about crappy pics with cats and dogs in the middle of them) those will be rejected once they keep on looking for the usual pictures that they know it will sell at least once or a little more, I do think they should be strict (as they are somedays) but perhaps looking into old pictures badly executed, not well isolated and so on
some are just trying to hard and pulling up new stuff, thereīs no need of it (and the more certain is getting it rejected unless it is on WHITE), again as we know stock is like having a "factory" and upload and upload without even thinking and sometimes enjoying it, again do average stuff it will get in :)
-
Shutterstock now rejects everything! That can not be right!
That suggests to me that there's something about your images that the reviewers don't like. When I get mass rejections, I can generally find some common quality to explain it. I've been able to get my acceptance rate back up by concentrating on those characteristics Shutterstock reviewers find objectionable. If you can't, I'm guessing you aren't trying very hard.
------------------------------------
Seems a little harsh don't you think? Do you really know how hard anyone else here tries? Are you that sure that you know what Shutterstock is doing that you can say its the contributor's fault? There are a number of threads here and on the Shutterstock forums suggesting that there is a significant change in Shutterstock acceptance policies for some but seemingly not all contributors.
If it comes off as harsh, it's just in a "truth hurts" kind of way. I've been submitting to Shutterstock for six years now and have accumulated a portfolio of over 12,000 images. I've experienced periods of high rejection and have adjusted my subjects and my workflow to bring my acceptance rate back. And although I've disagreed with some of the rejections, I've generally been able to see what they didn't like and then to stop doing it. In any event, I'm not suggesting that borg or anyone else isn't working hard. But if someone is getting high rejections ("Shutterstock now rejects everything!"), I can only conclude that he or she isn't working effectively. And my advice stands: go back to your rejections, figure out what they saw that they didn't like, change your shooting or your processing to reduce the problem, submit better images and repeat until your rejections drop to a more reasonable level. I am confident that assuming that the reviewers all have it wrong and continuing to submit the same kind and quality of work isn't likely to help. Unless you really don't want to get more images accepted. In that case, carry on.
sorry but I disagree with you disorderly.. perhaps you should open borg portfolios and look into them, all his pictures have a clear concept and are well executed, so I think that Shutterstock is now only interested in isolated objects and people pictures even if they arenīt on spot and I am obviously not talking about your work, I am just saying that agencies keep on wanting same pictures they have online and not excited about some conceptual work like borg does so well IMHO
Sorry Mate but you're wrong and Disorderly is right. Do a search on Shutterstock, sort by Newest First and you'll scratch your head wondering why they did accept so much utter crap. If that's what they are accepting then I've no idea how bad they stuff they are rejecting must be.
It is easy to judge people by your own limited experience, make surface snap judgements and then say that those who are complaining should raise the bar, but the fact remains that numberous long term submitters who are very good photographers with excellent ports as well as very high acceptance and sales numbers are recently getting images rejected that are much better than most of those which ARE being accepted.
These rejected images have very little or no room for improvement and while the review process has always been subjective this inequity in the review process IS a problem that is costing Shutterstock credibility in more than a few submitters eyes.
If you have not been receiving these type of rejections you should count your blessings and consider that not everyone is gifted with reasonable reviewers who would accept anything close to 12,000 average images.
-
I LOVE Shutterstock.
But you all know that already
Heck with 10,324 (and growing) images in my gallery's as apposed to a few hundred at Istock, Dreamstime, Canstock, Fotolia, 123 royalty free, bigstock, and what ever other sites I'm on I forgot about I am basically already exclusive with SS (by choice)
They make uploading easy, no limits, Sales a AMAZING DAILY, The forums are awesome, the submission process even though can be time consuming is easy and works like clock work, I get my monthly pay outs with no issues ever.
Life is good on Shutterstock if you ask me
:)
-
I LOVE Shutterstock.
But you all know that already
Heck with 10,324 (and growing) images in my gallery's as apposed to a few hundred at Istock, Dreamstime, Canstock, Fotolia, 123 royalty free, bigstock, and what ever other sites I'm on I forgot about I am basically already exclusive with Shutterstock (by choice)
They make uploading easy, no limits, Sales a AMAZING DAILY, The forums are awesome, the submission process even though can be time consuming is easy and works like clock work, I get my monthly pay outs with no issues ever.
Life is good on Shutterstock if you ask me
:)
Well said Mike
-
Shutterstock now rejects everything! That can not be right!
They're rejecting everything that is common and over-done, and I'm all for it. I'd have a hard time getting an icon set approved these days, but for good reason. How many of the same thing does any one agency need?
Besides, we've been getting away with murder at SS for years. They had the most lenient approvals, and the overall quality of the collection suffered because of it. I say this new, stricter policy is overdue.
-
Shutterstock now rejects everything! That can not be right!
They're rejecting everything that is common and over-done, and I'm all for it. I'd have a hard time getting an icon set approved these days, but for good reason. How many of the same thing does any one agency need?
Besides, we've been getting away with murder at Shutterstock for years. They had the most lenient approvals, and the overall quality of the collection suffered because of it. I say this new, stricter policy is overdue.
True but they're now rejecting work from many serious contributors that meets much higher quality standards than older files in the collection. They probably don't want to lose their 15m images byline - but it makes business sense (to me) to clear out the crap that isn't selling first and judge new work on it's merit...not because they have a glut of images.
-
Shutterstock now rejects everything! That can not be right!
They're rejecting everything that is common and over-done, and I'm all for it. I'd have a hard time getting an icon set approved these days, but for good reason. How many of the same thing does any one agency need?
Besides, we've been getting away with murder at Shutterstock for years. They had the most lenient approvals, and the overall quality of the collection suffered because of it. I say this new, stricter policy is overdue.
True but they're now rejecting work from many serious contributors that meets much higher quality standards than older files in the collection. They probably don't want to lose their 15m images byline - but it makes business sense (to me) to clear out the crap that isn't selling first and judge new work on it's merit...not because they have a glut of images.
Lets not forget the FACT that they are STILL accepting Huge quantities of technically inferior images from some submitters while expecting technical image perfection from others.
-
"Lets not forget the FACT that they are STILL accepting Huge quantities of technically inferior images from some submitters while expecting technical image perfection from others."
True enough. I've just seen some new food images that look like they were lit with a desk lamp. Really poor work.
-
"Lets not forget the FACT that they are STILL accepting Huge quantities of technically inferior images from some submitters while expecting technical image perfection from others."
True enough. I've just seen some new food images that look like they were lit with a desk lamp. Really poor work.
Hmmmm guess I'll trash that desk lamp. ;D
-
Lets not forget the FACT that they are STILL accepting Huge quantities of technically inferior images from some submitters while expecting technical image perfection from others.
Yes I agree. That is very confusing to me too. (Even though I love them).
-
...they're now rejecting work from many serious contributors that meets much higher quality standards than older files in the collection. They probably don't want to lose their 15m images byline - but it makes business sense (to me) to clear out the crap that isn't selling first and judge new work on it's merit...not because they have a glut of images.
This point has been made before and IMHO it is absolutely correct. And it is true of both photos and illustrations, and of other sites as well as SS.
If SS has 'too many' of a certain kind of image, such as icons (an example used above by Helix) then SS should go back and delete those old, technically crude images which never sell, instead of rejecting well-made new images, just because they are of icons. Buyers still want icons, and photo isolations, and so on. It is the old images which are the excess.
If Kroger has expired milk on the shelves which no one is buying, they throw out that milik. They don't tell suppliers to stop delivering fresh milk.