MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Does it help your sales when ditching the dime royalty agencies?  (Read 3494 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

SVH

« on: September 28, 2021, 15:41 »
+1
Just wondering here.

If you have the same photo's on different agencies and one pays 10 cents and the other 33 cents at minimum, did it help your revenue for the same photo not to have it available anymore on the 10 cent agency?

Personally, I have only a relative small portfolio but I see different photo's taken by customers from one agency to another. But if you have a big portfolio will the same buyers go to the cheapest agency or are customers loyal to their agency and do not shop around?

In other words, does it it make sense, as a contributor, to not post the same photo at low royalty sites because you would have earned more when selling it only at higher royalty sites?


Noedelhap

  • www.colincramm.com

« Reply #1 on: September 28, 2021, 16:13 »
+9
Not really. Individual buyers may shop around looking for the cheapest option, but most companies have subscriptions at certain sites and tend to stick with these long term.
Other aspects like customer service, payment options and supply also play a role in choosing a certain agency.

So even though some people may find your photos cheaper elsewhere, you won't notice it significantly.

« Reply #2 on: September 28, 2021, 21:06 »
+6
I'll jump in to tell you about this very recent experience.

One of my images that Adobe Stock selected a few weeks ago for its "free" collection, and for which it paid me $5 today Dreamstime paid me a royalty of $1.75 for it.

That DT sale was obviously not huge, but the buyer paid more than they would have as a "free" image on AS.

So I'm pleased that, in just the last couple of weeks, I've made $6.75 off that image more than it earned over several previous years.

Does that insight help?
« Last Edit: September 28, 2021, 21:13 by marthamarks »

« Reply #3 on: September 29, 2021, 03:47 »
+6
The sites can compete on price or on the quality of their collections. If you want to be continually paid less and less for your content keep on supplying the sites that pay less with your best and newest content.
Buyers would soon have to start shopping around if the sites that treated us like s**t stopped having the best work.

« Reply #4 on: September 29, 2021, 05:30 »
+3
The sites can compete on price or on the quality of their collections. If you want to be continually paid less and less for your content keep on supplying the sites that pay less with your best and newest content.
Buyers would soon have to start shopping around if the sites that treated us like s**t stopped having the best work.

I agree with that. Which is why I've abandoned iS, SS, and a few others I can't even remember now, and am focused on my own personal "big three": AS, DT, and P5.

« Reply #5 on: September 29, 2021, 10:19 »
+3
If I ditch the dime paying royalty agencies there goes half the agencies I submit to  :-\

« Reply #6 on: September 29, 2021, 11:54 »
+2
If I ditch the dime paying royalty agencies there goes half the agencies I submit to  :-\

Well, that's exactly what I did over time, and I don't believe I'm missing much.

« Reply #7 on: September 29, 2021, 17:35 »
+6
The sites can compete on price or on the quality of their collections. If you want to be continually paid less and less for your content keep on supplying the sites that pay less with your best and newest content.
Buyers would soon have to start shopping around if the sites that treated us like s**t stopped having the best work.

first, problem is linking 'best' with more sales - it's subject that meets buyers need, not the technically or aesthetically best.

but bigger point is, whether or not i give my best or newest images to an agency makes absolutely no difference to the agency's sales - no one will notice my missing images among millions, so buyers won't "have to start shopping around if the sites that treated us like s**t stopped having the best work."

and, the idea of getting 'everyone' to participate is, at best, quixotic, based on all the previous attempts that forced no change to the agencies

« Reply #8 on: September 29, 2021, 19:19 »
+1
The sites can compete on price or on the quality of their collections. If you want to be continually paid less and less for your content keep on supplying the sites that pay less with your best and newest content.
Buyers would soon have to start shopping around if the sites that treated us like s**t stopped having the best work.

first, problem is linking 'best' with more sales - it's subject that meets buyers need, not the technically or aesthetically best.

but bigger point is, whether or not i give my best or newest images to an agency makes absolutely no difference to the agency's sales - no one will notice my missing images among millions, so buyers won't "have to start shopping around if the sites that treated us like s**t stopped having the best work."

and, the idea of getting 'everyone' to participate is, at best, quixotic, based on all the previous attempts that forced no change to the agencies

Good points, all.

Tyson Anderson

  • www.openrangestudios.com
« Reply #9 on: September 29, 2021, 22:22 »
+4
I don't think it helps sales on the bigger agencies.  It does become a question of it being worth the time when the smaller agencies bring in a small amount each month

« Reply #10 on: September 29, 2021, 23:46 »
+1
I don't think it helps sales on the bigger agencies.  It does become a question of it being worth the time when the smaller agencies bring in a small amount each month

That's a good point, too.

« Reply #11 on: September 30, 2021, 03:23 »
+4
first, problem is linking 'best' with more sales - it's subject that meets buyers need, not the technically or aesthetically best.

but bigger point is, whether or not i give my best or newest images to an agency makes absolutely no difference to the agency's sales - no one will notice my missing images among millions, so buyers won't "have to start shopping around if the sites that treated us like s**t stopped having the best work."

and, the idea of getting 'everyone' to participate is, at best, quixotic, based on all the previous attempts that forced no change to the agencies
Entirely up to you (and people like you). It is you (and people like you) providing the "among millions" of images. If you weren't giving your images they would have literally nothing to license.

« Reply #12 on: September 30, 2021, 05:31 »
+4
For me leaving Shutterstock gave very quickly more sales on Adobe Stock so for me yes without a doubt.

« Reply #13 on: September 30, 2021, 06:03 »
+5
For me leaving Shutterstock gave very quickly more sales on Adobe Stock so for me yes without a doubt.

Yup, SS has nothing from me that isn't at least a year old. AS increasing. Am on my best rolling 12 months ever and have been doing this since 2006. But I guess all these people are raking it in hand over fist giving their work around to any site that will have them  ::)

wds

« Reply #14 on: September 30, 2021, 08:47 »
+1
For me leaving Shutterstock gave very quickly more sales on Adobe Stock so for me yes without a doubt.

Yup, SS has nothing from me that isn't at least a year old. AS increasing. Am on my best rolling 12 months ever and have been doing this since 2006. But I guess all these people are raking it in hand over fist giving their work around to any site that will have them  ::)

So just to be clear, are you folks claiming that your overall stock income went up when you left SS or that leaving SS increased your sales on AS?

« Reply #15 on: September 30, 2021, 09:16 »
+5
For me leaving Shutterstock gave very quickly more sales on Adobe Stock so for me yes without a doubt.

Yup, SS has nothing from me that isn't at least a year old. AS increasing. Am on my best rolling 12 months ever and have been doing this since 2006. But I guess all these people are raking it in hand over fist giving their work around to any site that will have them  ::)

So just to be clear, are you folks claiming that your overall stock income went up when you left SS or that leaving SS increased your sales on AS?

Theres no way for me to know if the reason my AS income is increasing is because I stopped uploading to SS. My income at AS is increasing though and I have stopped giving SS my new work. What I am saying is that I dont give my new work to these low-balling sites (SS among them) and I have managed to sustain and grow my income for many years.

« Reply #16 on: September 30, 2021, 09:41 »
+1
For me leaving Shutterstock gave very quickly more sales on Adobe Stock so for me yes without a doubt.

Yup, SS has nothing from me that isn't at least a year old. AS increasing. Am on my best rolling 12 months ever and have been doing this since 2006. But I guess all these people are raking it in hand over fist giving their work around to any site that will have them  ::)

So just to be clear, are you folks claiming that your overall stock income went up when you left SS or that leaving SS increased your sales on AS?

Theres no way for me to know if the reason my AS income is increasing is because I stopped uploading to SS. My income at AS is increasing though and I have stopped giving SS my new work. What I am saying is that I dont give my new work to these low-balling sites (SS among them) and I have managed to sustain and grow my income for many years.

I stopped uploading to other sites recently as well since they pay horrible rates. My best work- which isn't anything special- go to AS first.

« Reply #17 on: September 30, 2021, 11:14 »
+1
No.

« Reply #18 on: September 30, 2021, 11:46 »
+1
my SS sales have  have decreased slightly AND  my AS sales have increased - sales on the 2 sites are not likely connected as the SS boycott did not decrease SS sales or holdings overall

« Reply #19 on: September 30, 2021, 11:49 »
+3
first, problem is linking 'best' with more sales - it's subject that meets buyers need, not the technically or aesthetically best.

but bigger point is, whether or not i give my best or newest images to an agency makes absolutely no difference to the agency's sales - no one will notice my missing images among millions, so buyers won't "have to start shopping around if the sites that treated us like s**t stopped having the best work."

and, the idea of getting 'everyone' to participate is, at best, quixotic, based on all the previous attempts that forced no change to the agencies
Entirely up to you (and people like you). It is you (and people like you) providing the "among millions" of images. If you weren't giving your images they would have literally nothing to license.

how does my sending a few thousand images affect the millions SS receives?  solipsism results in artists thinking they can have an effect in a commodities market. to contribute or not is a personal decision, but shouldnt be made based on thinking any action is going to affect SS

« Reply #20 on: September 30, 2021, 12:26 »
+2
I'm still uploading to the 'dime royalty agencies' (IS and SS) simply because i can't afford to lose five figures earnings every year.
AS is growing and it's by far my best earner. P5...is 'stable' :)

« Reply #21 on: September 30, 2021, 14:20 »
+4
Yes everybody has to pick their battles. I am very glad that I left SS and Istock behind and my videos are now selling for good amounts. Also they are ranking every time better so that might one of the reasons of the increase. Every dime sale made at SS not only kills a good sale at P5 or Adobe but also kills the ranking of that files at those better paying agencies so the choice was easy for me.

Some still think that buyers don't shop around. that is completely false, they do, and if they find what they want on another site cheaper the bite the hook. Specially freelancers and smaller companies. So yes for me the laughable rates at SS and Istock gave me an easy to choice to not participate on their exploitation.


I'm still uploading to the 'dime royalty agencies' (IS and SS) simply because i can't afford to lose five figures earnings every year.
AS is growing and it's by far my best earner. P5...is 'stable' :)

« Reply #22 on: September 30, 2021, 16:46 »
+3
.... Every dime sale made at SS not only kills a good sale at P5 or Adobe but also kills the ranking of that files at those better paying agencies...

false logic -- 'every' sale of your file on SS would take away a sale from YOU at another site?

?? and why/how does an SS ranking affect ranking at other agencies??
Quote
Some still think that buyers don't shop around. that is completely false, they do, and if they find what they want on another site cheaper the bite the hook. Specially freelancers and smaller companies. ...

once again, how do you know that ? some may do so, but someone with a subscription wouldnt want to spend time looking somewhere else where they'd have to pay the single DL price.  more likely, if your remove files, they'll choose one of many thousands of other images available that fit their needs - they'd never know you have a better image on another site.
 

« Reply #23 on: September 30, 2021, 21:38 »
+5
No, I don't think so - although I think I have had a few decent sales at Alamy refunded because they were bought at a much cheaper micro site.

That said, if everyone left the dime agencies, then they would either stop being dime agencies or else they would just cease to exist. Sadly everyone didn't / doesn't.

At some point I couldn't stomach getting paid so little and such a small percentage, so I left. This cost me $. Fortunately I already have a table and have other ways to put food on it.

At least I am not overly pained now each time SS and Getty do something to screw the artists more.

« Reply #24 on: October 01, 2021, 01:14 »
+5
I think it is you that got the logic wrong. Every time I sale a video file at Adobe *minimum of 24 ,the ranking of that video goes higher at Adobe. If the seller would purchase it on a sub at SS that file at Adobe would sink as if you don't sell it goes down as in every agency. Now you would say that it would go up at SS. Yes right but what would you prefer a video file that goes up in a place that you get 25$ or a video file that goes up in a site where you get paid a few dollar at most. Easy choice.

And as I said previously. customers go for the file they need for the project and not the agency they are in, specially on video where there are many time not so many alternatives as it is not so saturated. They look around in the 4 sites that have decent video content and pick the best one. Now if that same content is everywhere they are not stup.d and pick the cheapest choice.



.... Every dime sale made at SS not only kills a good sale at P5 or Adobe but also kills the ranking of that files at those better paying agencies...




false logic -- 'every' sale of your file on SS would take away a sale from YOU at another site?

?? and why/how does an SS ranking affect ranking at other agencies??
Quote
Some still think that buyers don't shop around. that is completely false, they do, and if they find what they want on another site cheaper the bite the hook. Specially freelancers and smaller companies. ...

once again, how do you know that ? some may do so, but someone with a subscription wouldnt want to spend time looking somewhere else where they'd have to pay the single DL price.  more likely, if your remove files, they'll choose one of many thousands of other images available that fit their needs - they'd never know you have a better image on another site.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
16 Replies
3788 Views
Last post December 06, 2012, 06:23
by gillian vann
56 Replies
25914 Views
Last post August 31, 2015, 22:48
by tickstock
19 Replies
8956 Views
Last post June 02, 2018, 19:27
by Brightontl
13 Replies
5147 Views
Last post May 07, 2018, 04:41
by Brasilnut
34 Replies
11917 Views
Last post July 31, 2019, 12:33
by increasingdifficulty

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle