Macro Stock / Midstock > General Macrostock
NEW - MyMarketplace access on ImageBrief
ShadySue:
Yup, after they've got your money, what incentive do they have to market your images (so long as they see it as a get-rich-quick scheme and wouldn't expect you to pay again next year).
tickstock:
It's really not a huge amount to spend. If you make $250 in a year at Shutterstock you paid them more than $600.
ShadySue:
--- Quote from: tickstock on June 23, 2015, 20:01 ---It's really not a huge amount to spend. If you make $250 in a year at Shutterstock you paid them more than $600.
--- End quote ---
Not upfront.
SS has to sell your files before they get a penny.
Huge difference, they have an incentive to market files.
If you make nothing on SS, you've also lost nothing.
tickstock:
--- Quote from: ShadySue on June 23, 2015, 20:15 ---
--- Quote from: tickstock on June 23, 2015, 20:01 ---It's really not a huge amount to spend. If you make $250 in a year at Shutterstock you paid them more than $600.
--- End quote ---
Not upfront.
SS has to sell your files before they get a penny.
Huge difference, they have an incentive to market files.
If you make nothing on SS, you've also lost nothing.
--- End quote ---
They have an incentive to sell your work because they want you to sign up for another year, if you aren't selling they won't make any more money. Also SS doesn't need to sell one photo to get their money, if you buy a subscription and never use it they get paid. $500 per year sounds like a lot until you compare it to what you are already spending on other sites, if you make $10,000 a year on SS you're paying nearly $25,000 for that privilege.
Jo Ann Snover:
There is a fundamental difference between paying up front with no guarantee of sales or any refund if they're useless at marketing their images and someone who does sell your work taking a commission from the price.
You're not spending anything to sell on Shutterstock. You're not getting 100% of the sale, but for the fledgling agency, 100% of nothing is still nothing. The agency portion of a sale is not money we spend; the full sale is not our income with the agency commission an expense (Envato tried to make it that way, but that was them indulging in fiction).
Even if you assume good faith on the part of the agency, we have lots of examples of failed agencies - where they can't generate sales from known sale-capable portfolios. If they fail, you're out your time to upload plus $500. Getty was able to get photographers to pay to place their images with them because Getty had a track record (at the time) of generating sales. I doubt they could get many people to give them cash up front today.
If a new agency is after content, asking the contributor for money as a way to get it is, IMO, the equivalent of a contributor IQ test.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version