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 there�s no point trying to improve our lot by stopping uploading to low paying sites.

 

Quote from: Justanotherphotographer on October 01, 2021, 04:28

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 there�s 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.

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.

Quote from: danielstassen on October 01, 2021, 09:47

....

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.

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.

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.

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'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

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

Quote from: Justanotherphotographer on September 29, 2021, 03:47

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.