pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Does it help your sales when ditching the dime royalty agencies?  (Read 3579 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

SpaceStockFootage

  • Space, Sci-Fi and Astronomy Related Stock Footage

« Reply #25 on: October 01, 2021, 04:08 »
+4
Yeah but if they have a subscription at SS then it's highly unlikely they're going to download something from AS instead, or anywhere else... they'll just go with the best they can find at SS as they won't want to shell out any extra. And if they don't have a subscription at SS then that increases the chances that they might buy elsewhere, but what are the odds they can't find anything suitable on the whole of SS, but they can find it in your portfolio elsewhere? And if they don't have a subscription at SS then they're paying $20+ for HD. Not sure where you're getting the 'a few dollars at most' from. 


« Reply #26 on: October 01, 2021, 04:28 »
+4

Contributors: Provide millions of images to low paying sites.

Also Contributors: The problem is that for some reason low paying sites have millions of images so theres no point trying to improve our lot by stopping uploading to low paying sites.

 ::)

« Reply #27 on: October 01, 2021, 07:21 »
+4

Contributors: Provide millions of images to low paying sites.

Also Contributors: The problem is that for some reason low paying sites have millions of images so theres no point trying to improve our lot by stopping uploading to low paying sites.

 ::)

Indeed, we are our own worst enemy.  But I think there are a couple of dynamics in play for those who upload continuously. 1. They rely heavily or solely on that income and cannot just easily walk away and 2. many contributors shoot average assets or low commercial value work and MS is a good platform for that kind of content.  Honestly, I liked the way Istock used to really scrutinize images and limit how many could be uploaded each week.  It was harder for LCV to get by the reviewers and it kept the collection a bit cleaner.  But those days are gone and here we are.

« Reply #28 on: October 01, 2021, 09:33 »
+1


Contributors: Provide millions of images to low paying sites.

Also Contributors: The problem is that for some reason low paying sites have millions of images so theres no point trying to improve our lot by stopping uploading to low paying sites.

 ::)

Indeed, we are our own worst enemy.  But I think there are a couple of dynamics in play for those who upload continuously. 1. They rely heavily or solely on that income and cannot just easily walk away and 2. many contributors shoot average assets or low commercial value work and MS is a good platform for that kind of content.  Honestly, I liked the way Istock used to really scrutinize images and limit how many could be uploaded each week.  It was harder for LCV to get by the reviewers and it kept the collection a bit cleaner.  But those days are gone and here we are.

Totally agree. Stock photography was once a place where the motivation for learning and improving was far greater but even then, when I first started, there were 3 million contributors and counting! That was 12 years ago! I dumped the SS after they dropped commissions and still find my existing portfolio providing hundreds of dollars payout every month. I stick with two agencies, Depositphoto and Dreamstime. They compliment each other making submission protocol very fast and easy. I continue to do what I enjoy with half the hassle. No regrets. I think a lot of veterans will find an ongoing income. Slowly decreasing but always there.

« Reply #29 on: October 01, 2021, 09:45 »
+2
Honestly, I liked the way Istock used to really scrutinize images and limit how many could be uploaded each week.  It was harder for LCV to get by the reviewers and it kept the collection a bit cleaner.  But those days are gone and here we are.

Likewise both iStock and Shutterstock had challenging requirements for new contributors to be accepted.

I remember my pride in 2008 at being accepted by both of those agencies on my first try. It meant something to be an iS or SS contributor in those days. And yes, building photo portfolios with them was proof that I was "good."

Then the agencies began admitting anybody with a camera and then, once there were so many competing contributors, changing the terms and conditions to screw us. I left iS in 2011 and SS in 2020.

I'm still proud of my images and videos and keep making them, but it's hard to have as much sense of pride in being a contributor.
« Last Edit: October 01, 2021, 10:00 by marthamarks »

« Reply #30 on: October 01, 2021, 09:47 »
+1
Hi everyone,

I've found this thread really interesting.

I started uploading footage on SS, AS and pond5 since July 2021. I've uploaded less then 50 clips so far and I've only sales on SS (4 downloads).

My video footage is very niche as I shoot the farming and processing side of spices in remote locations of Indonesia. This is to say that there is not a lot of high quality footage from my niche.

I'm wondering whether I would have made more money just uploading to Adobe Stock and nothing to Shutterstock. I've read that the royalties are higher on AS.

Do you think the buyers navigate between these two agencies and buy where it's the cheapest when clips are available in both agencies?

Well, I'm doing a trial now to get to the bottom of this. I've deleted all my specialised clips on SS (not many as I've just started). And I'll exclusively upload future specialised clips to AS to see whether I'll start making sales there at better price.

If I make no sales on AD in the next 3-4 months then I'll upload all my clips back to SS.

« Reply #31 on: October 01, 2021, 13:03 »
+3
....

Well, I'm doing a trial now to get to the bottom of this. I've deleted all my specialised clips on SS (not many as I've just started). And I'll exclusively upload future specialised clips to AS to see whether I'll start making sales there at better price.

If I make no sales on AD in the next 3-4 months then I'll upload all my clips back to SS.

unfortunately, that's not an experiment that can produce any real conclusions, as it doesnt allow a control (and such would be difficult due to low volume of sales in general and other factors - outside events, time of year, etc) - removing from SS & making sales on AS are independent variables esp'ly with such a small sample. a possible study would be to have a significantly arge number of artists, half removing SS videos, and half not. (even then there'd be different results due to quality, topic, etc) 

your choose how to proceed, but you cant make any conclusions based on resulting sales

« Reply #32 on: October 01, 2021, 14:16 »
+2
....

Well, I'm doing a trial now to get to the bottom of this. I've deleted all my specialised clips on SS (not many as I've just started). And I'll exclusively upload future specialised clips to AS to see whether I'll start making sales there at better price.

If I make no sales on AD in the next 3-4 months then I'll upload all my clips back to SS.

unfortunately, that's not an experiment that can produce any real conclusions, as it doesnt allow a control (and such would be difficult due to low volume of sales in general and other factors - outside events, time of year, etc) - removing from SS & making sales on AS are independent variables esp'ly with such a small sample. a possible study would be to have a significantly arge number of artists, half removing SS videos, and half not. (even then there'd be different results due to quality, topic, etc) 

your choose how to proceed, but you cant make any conclusions based on resulting sales

Exactly right. Well said, Steve.

« Reply #33 on: October 01, 2021, 20:05 »
+1
Thanks for your insights.

I understand that as an experiment, we wouldnt be able to conclude anything.

However, as a strategy, do you think it makes sense to focus only on Pond5 and Adobe stock especially considering what I shoot is not widely available and there is a demand for it? Im talking here as a long term strategy.

I have nothing to lose as Im just starting out so your insights from years of doing this would be appreciated.

Cheers,

Daniel

« Reply #34 on: October 02, 2021, 02:33 »
+3
1- Many large corporations have subscriptions and deals with ALL the major stock sites. They use as they need. They scout on the 4 big ones (in video) and buy what they need: usually they don't compromise on quality because of 20 or 100$. For the smaller clients they shop around and they will find very easy the file they are looking for if it has a cheaper price in another agency. They do care about 20 or 100$.

2- I have never ever had a video sale for les tha 20$ net on Adobe. I had plenty and I mean plenty of video sales below 1$ net at SS. I think in video Istock/Getty are exactly the same. At Pond5 it is very rare sales under 10$ net unles you price your files in the lowest 50$ UHD 25$ HD price range.

But I get that some might still believe in the "you will make it up in volume" approach that I think nowadays is not longer true on any micro site. 9 years ago I had files at Istock with over 5000 downloads (those precious blue flames" Those days are long over and many with over 1000 and 500 sales. And that meant thousands of dollars in revenue with that approach.

In video you rarely reach over 50 sales for video files so at those low numbers start crunching because maybe you are operating at al loss. Yes i get that those of you that do renders use your time and from time to time change computers ...the rest we do the same, pay props, models , travel expenses etc. So for a few dollars video I would say it is a big waste of time.

Yeah but if they have a subscription at SS then it's highly unlikely they're going to download something from AS instead, or anywhere else... they'll just go with the best they can find at SS as they won't want to shell out any extra. And if they don't have a subscription at SS then that increases the chances that they might buy elsewhere, but what are the odds they can't find anything suitable on the whole of SS, but they can find it in your portfolio elsewhere? And if they don't have a subscription at SS then they're paying $20+ for HD. Not sure where you're getting the 'a few dollars at most' from.

« Reply #35 on: October 02, 2021, 02:39 »
+1
Thanks, Everest.

I'll stick to my strategy for the next 12 months.

I'll not upload my best content to SS so that it is only available on AS and Pond5 at better prices.

All the best

Daniel

SpaceStockFootage

  • Space, Sci-Fi and Astronomy Related Stock Footage

« Reply #36 on: October 02, 2021, 20:05 »
+3
In video you rarely reach over 50 sales for video files so at those low numbers start crunching because maybe you are operating at al loss. Yes i get that those of you that do renders use your time and from time to time change computers ...the rest we do the same, pay props, models , travel expenses etc. So for a few dollars video I would say it is a big waste of time.

I have dozens of clips with more than 50 sales (with my top sellers having over ten times that), my best selling clip has made over $10K, I make almost $5 per clip per month, and I work an average of two days a week. So, while it may be a big waste of time for you... it works for me.

« Reply #37 on: October 03, 2021, 03:02 »
+2

And as I said previously. customers go for the file they need for the project and not the agency they are in,


This is a thought process I can't follow.

Most sales nowadays happen with subscription plans, so why would a customer who has a subscription with one agency even go searching for a video on another agency? I can understand maybe browsing around on sites with free videos or photos first and I can also understand searching somewhere else if you really need a very very specific video of something and can't find it or anything similar to it anywhere else. But if you have to buy the video from another agency where you don't have a subscription, it will cost you an extraordinary higher amount, while on the agency where you have the subscription it would cause no additional costs at all. And with 22 million videos available on Shutterstock, what are the chances that, even if you can't find one specific video there, you will not at least find some suitable substitute for it?
« Last Edit: October 03, 2021, 04:43 by Firn »

« Reply #38 on: October 03, 2021, 13:55 »
+1
It depends on the customer and of course what he is looking for. If you need to download a clock timelapse rest assured that no client is to look anywhere else if he/she has a subscription at Getty SS Envato Elements p5 or Artgrid, he will surely find plenty of alternatives. But things are quite different if they search for workers in a nuclear plant, diving in a pool or drone shots of rock climbers. He will pay who ever has the video he likes best for the ProJet . It doesn't matter if he is subscribed with any other library.

Myself I was preparing not so long ago my first short film. I needed Latin chants. I was subscribed to 2 audio libraries.: soundstripe and audiio.com. I didn't like or find anything in them so I bought individual music files at Pond5. So unless you do ultra generic stuff in video people will hunt for your files if what you have is different of what other copycat and redo a 1000 times.

Remember that about hose 22 million files at SS most of it is content repeated to death : splashes, clocks, skies, etc. There is a reason that agencies like Artgrid for example are growing even if they arrived very late to the party. The same can be said of agencies like Stocksy or Arcangel in the photo department. They have nothing to fear from SS and the likes. They have different content and SS will not replicate it because 1- It is too expensive to do for the paltry returns (you just need higher payments to be viable). 2- That huge number of files just demonstrates that 99% is of very low quality and searching is a frustrating experience for many clients where time is money.

Again I am almost directing my advice to pros although we are a vanishing breed in stock. For amateurs that produce very simple stuff what you say holds true and a model smiling to a camera with a mask, the fake Covid vaccines,.... it really doesn't matter that content is everywhere. Amateurs what they have to compete is the growing free libraries that slowly have this same simple content and give it away for free.





This is a thought process I can't follow.

Most sales nowadays happen with subscription plans, so why would a customer who has a subscription with one agency even go searching for a video on another agency? I can understand maybe browsing around on sites with free videos or photos first and I can also understand searching somewhere else if you really need a very very specific video of something and can't find it or anything similar to it anywhere else. But if you have to buy the video from another agency where you don't have a subscription, it will cost you an extraordinary higher amount, while on the agency where you have the subscription it would cause no additional costs at all. And with 22 million videos available on Shutterstock, what are the chances that, even if you can't find one specific video there, you will not at least find some suitable substitute for it?

« Reply #39 on: October 03, 2021, 14:31 »
+3
It depends on the customer and of course what he is looking for. If you need to download a clock timelapse rest assured that no client is to look anywhere else if he/she has a subscription at Getty SS Envato Elements p5 or Artgrid, he will surely find plenty of alternatives. But things are quite different if they search for workers in a nuclear plant, diving in a pool or drone shots of rock climbers. He will pay who ever has the video he likes best for the ProJet . It doesn't matter if he is subscribed with any other library.

Myself I was preparing not so long ago my first short film. I needed Latin chants. I was subscribed to 2 audio libraries.: soundstripe and audiio.com. I didn't like or find anything in them so I bought individual music files at Pond5. So unless you do ultra generic stuff in video people will hunt for your files if what you have is different of what other copycat and redo a 1000 times.

Remember that about hose 22 million files at SS most of it is content repeated to death : splashes, clocks, skies, etc. There is a reason that agencies like Artgrid for example are growing even if they arrived very late to the party. The same can be said of agencies like Stocksy or Arcangel in the photo department. They have nothing to fear from SS and the likes. They have different content and SS will not replicate it because 1- It is too expensive to do for the paltry returns (you just need higher payments to be viable). 2- That huge number of files just demonstrates that 99% is of very low quality and searching is a frustrating experience for many clients where time is money.

Again I am almost directing my advice to pros although we are a vanishing breed in stock. For amateurs that produce very simple stuff what you say holds true and a model smiling to a camera with a mask, the fake Covid vaccines,.... it really doesn't matter that content is everywhere. Amateurs what they have to compete is the growing free libraries that slowly have this same simple content and give it away for free.





This is a thought process I can't follow.

Most sales nowadays happen with subscription plans, so why would a customer who has a subscription with one agency even go searching for a video on another agency? I can understand maybe browsing around on sites with free videos or photos first and I can also understand searching somewhere else if you really need a very very specific video of something and can't find it or anything similar to it anywhere else. But if you have to buy the video from another agency where you don't have a subscription, it will cost you an extraordinary higher amount, while on the agency where you have the subscription it would cause no additional costs at all. And with 22 million videos available on Shutterstock, what are the chances that, even if you can't find one specific video there, you will not at least find some suitable substitute for it?

I've been around the block in the world of stock photography, pre-Getty. You are correct is saying that the 'pros are a vanishing breed in stock'. The industry has forced that upon us and it is no longer sustainable to go out and create great work. The expenses of doing so simply can't be recouped at the paltry rates all agencies pay these days. You know when so called 'microstock rock stars' sell their work to Adobe for $5 a pop just to survive that the industry is a sinking ship.

« Reply #40 on: October 03, 2021, 17:23 »
+3
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?

one coincidental sale of an image in a pool of a billion images.... yes that is the kind of odds to bet your house on

« Reply #41 on: October 03, 2021, 17:25 »
+3
....

Well, I'm doing a trial now to get to the bottom of this. I've deleted all my specialised clips on SS (not many as I've just started). And I'll exclusively upload future specialised clips to AS to see whether I'll start making sales there at better price.

If I make no sales on AD in the next 3-4 months then I'll upload all my clips back to SS.

unfortunately, that's not an experiment that can produce any real conclusions, as it doesnt allow a control (and such would be difficult due to low volume of sales in general and other factors - outside events, time of year, etc) - removing from SS & making sales on AS are independent variables esp'ly with such a small sample. a possible study would be to have a significantly arge number of artists, half removing SS videos, and half not. (even then there'd be different results due to quality, topic, etc) 

your choose how to proceed, but you cant make any conclusions based on resulting sales

Exactly right. Well said, Steve.

but you were happy to use your sale of one image as proof  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

« Reply #42 on: October 05, 2021, 13:55 »
+3
October earnings for video files...not only $0.25  :)

Previous month are about the same, I know this mean nothing, but there is a reason if someone is still uploading to this agency

« Reply #43 on: October 06, 2021, 03:08 »
+2
Graphic studios, newspapers and other professionals know the market and choose better options, but I guess that each agency really tries to hold them with subscription, discounts or so, so they don't go elsewhere without real reason.
There are also casual customers. I think that many people barely know about the option to license images on internet, they find some image they like on Google and click on it to get/buy it on the linked agency, or they look at the only/first agency they know.
So only informed small customers without subscription are really searching over the internet trying to find the cheapest option.

I upload on 16 agencies (I don't upload new work on SS since the incident), most of them because it's easy via StockSubmitter. If I stay only with the nice four agencies, then I will lost 2/3 of my income and I have to find fulltime job again. Yes, it should be better. 15% on Istock and 10c on SS thats crime. I should earn at least 2x more in total. But the world is not working this way now. And I still sell about 800 images on SS every month...

Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #44 on: October 06, 2021, 09:04 »
+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

Quixotic?



Yes, "no one will notice my missing images among millions", and from what most of us have seen, buyers do not search price or for other agencies. Anything any of us can suppose is personal observation.

Here's mine. I sold an image on Alamy for $100 that is also offered on SS, AS and probably was everywhere else Microstock, at the same time. Obviously NOT shopping images or price. Now if someone can show actual examples of how they know that buyers do shop around? Or is that back to if everyone boycotts SS, IS and anyone else that we are unhappy with the latest changes, then buyers will find us on ???

Buyers search for what they need and not for what Pete shot last Winter, that's a must have. There are very few artists that actually have buyers who search for their work, by name. And still, if it's not on the agency where they have a contract or subscription = No Sale.

Does it help your sales when ditching the dime royalty agencies?

My opinion is NO. Anyone would only hurt themself by removing best images or boycotting a top earning agency. Especially one that has a good volume earnings potential.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
16 Replies
3792 Views
Last post December 06, 2012, 06:23
by gillian vann
56 Replies
25956 Views
Last post August 31, 2015, 22:48
by tickstock
19 Replies
8964 Views
Last post June 02, 2018, 19:27
by Brightontl
13 Replies
5158 Views
Last post May 07, 2018, 04:41
by Brasilnut
34 Replies
11934 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