Author Topic: I don't get it - iStock seems to pay way more then everyone else (Read 14251 times)

azyr · « **on:** May 03, 2015, 12:35 »

I'm in no position to really make a statement, so please regard the title as a question.

From what I've gathered iStock took a huge nosedive around 2010 (+/- a couple of years maybe?). I used to buy everything from there back in 2004'ish to 2007 or so, also had a 1 or 2 images up but not that i had any faith they would sell

Anyway I recently started to upload again and mix my photo's with 3D renders suitable for stock (most of my files are pending at the moment, so you can only see a handfull).

I was hoping to get exclusive ASAP and fill out my portfolio as time went by. After I discovered this site and had a look around it seems that everyone agress that iStock is no longer a good Money earner (well no where near SS).

So i decided to diversify and applied to SS and started uploading to fotolia. Then i said "what ." and applied to DP and DT too.

BUT after reading through each forum I'm shocked (quickly deleted my pending files from DT and will cancel my account on DP when they accept).

I was thinking of going Shutter, iStock and Fotolia (made sure to turn DCP off there), but the royalties seem very very low compared to iStock where $1,5 to $4,5 is where you start at and with exclusive you're looking at $7 or so.

Comparing that to cents from SS made no sense to me. Are your files selling around 20x better on SS that it makes it worthwhile? What am i missing here?

Currently thinking really hard on building a portfolio exclusive to iStock and leaving it at that.

Please help

Noedelhap · « **Reply #1 on:** May 03, 2015, 12:57 »

Istock treats contributors very badly and has slashed prices regularly. Coupled with some very bad management decisions (now and in the past) regarding their site updates and pricing plans, their future looks very bleak from a contributor's perspective. As an exclusive, you'd be tied with your hands behind your back, in my opinion. My vector images give me a royalty of $1,50 to $2 nowadays (because vector contributors are at 20%).

SS does have subscription sales mainly, but no other agency has come even close in terms of sales volumes. So that makes SS very attractive; in fact, it's my best earner.
Besides, On Demand sales and Single Downloads will net you significantly higher royalties: On Demand earns me $2,70 per sale and Single Downloads may vary from $4-$100+ if you're lucky. Enhanced Licenses will net you $28. So it's not just a few cents

Copidosoma · « **Reply #2 on:** May 03, 2015, 12:59 »

I can only speak for myself and everyone's experience will be slightly different.

I average $0.71 per sale at SS "all time". That includes everything from the $0.25 sales I got when I first joined to $100+ SOD downloads and footage sales (SODs haven't been around for long).

Last month the average was $1.46 and typically it has been over $1.00 for the past year at least.

So, when people focus on the $0.25 royalty rate at SS they really are missing a big piece of the picture.

I closed my Istock account last year. While I was there (joined Istock before I joined SS) it consistently made me less than 20% of my SS earnings. Shutterstock not only gave me better average earnings, didn't require me to hit crazy sales levels to get an increased percentage of sales and generally treated contributors with alot less contempt (IMHO). Having a number of downloads which gave me a whole $0.09 turned me off too.

The number of sales at SS combined with a comparable income per image made it a vastly more profitable place for me.

Other people have done well at iStock as exclusives. Although I think alot of the sentiment is that it isn't nearly as good of a gig as it used to be. Lots of exclusives are there because they aren't able to risk "starting over" as independents just yet (but more get pushed over the edge all the time).

Your choice to go that route. If you have unique, highly commercial images, it might work out well for you. My work doesn't fit those descriptions generally so there is no point considering it for me.

Cheers.

shudderstok · « **Reply #3 on:** May 03, 2015, 13:00 »

my suggestion: before you start worrying about which site is better you might want to focus your efforts on producing work. 8 images since 2004 will get you nowhere on any site.

azyr · « **Reply #4 on:** May 03, 2015, 13:22 »

Quote from: shudderstok on May 03, 2015, 13:00

my suggestion: before you start worrying about which site is better you might want to focus your efforts on producing work. 8 images since 2004 will get you nowhere on any site.

like i pointed out in the OP, i've just recently started uploading and creating work (as of 2 weeks ago or so).

cobalt · « **Reply #5 on:** May 03, 2015, 13:36 »

I have 3800 files on istock and 1000 on ss. I earn more on SS.

I would suggest you build a portfolio of 500 files first, before you even consider going exclusive anywhere. also on fotolia and dreamstime (and i think a few others) you can add exclusive images which will help promote your portfolio. Fotolia now belongs to adobe and every designer on the planet uses their products. ss has no debts and loads of money to spend on marketing, so both sites will continue to grow.

if istock had exclusive images, you could then add them to your exclusive image mix. but unfortunately they don´t, although getty itself works that way.

if istock was the market leader, it would make sense to be exclusive, but right now we have a multipolar world and so working with the three biggest markets (ss,fotolia,istock) would make sense.

if things change and one agency that has an artist exclusive program dominates, it would be a different thing.

but anyway, your choice, if you think working with only one agency is best for you, go and do it. especially if you are not planning to build a large portfolio, but will only be adding 20 files a year. maybe then focussing on only one site is easier.

splitimage · « **Reply #6 on:** May 03, 2015, 13:41 »

Interesting. I just checked mine.

"All time average" since 2005

IS $1.22
SS $0.48

I've had twice as many downloads on SS, but IS has given me the most all-time total $

ShadySue · « **Reply #7 on:** May 03, 2015, 13:46 »

Bear in mind that most people who report say that new (last couple of years) photos are hardly selling on iS, if at all.
Maybe someone can tell whether 3D artists are also experiencing that.
That could better inform your way forward.

Shelma1 · « **Reply #8 on:** May 03, 2015, 13:58 »

As time has passed and SS has taken the lead, while iS has made poor decision after poor decision, my average earnings per sale on SS have grown to surpass my earnings on iS. I expect that difference to continue to grow as subs take over on iS and SS continues to look for ways to make higher-priced sales.

ShadySue · « **Reply #9 on:** May 03, 2015, 14:00 »

FWIW, it looks as though SS has started on the slippery slope vis a vis contributors that iS pioneered.

splitimage · « **Reply #10 on:** May 03, 2015, 14:19 »

Quote from: splitimage on May 03, 2015, 13:41

Interesting. I just checked mine.

"All time average" since 2005

IS $1.22
SS $0.48

I've had twice as many downloads on SS, but IS has given me the most all-time total $

The results are a whole lot different when looking at more recent numbers!
Average per sale 2014 (IS introduced subs)
IS $0.55
SS $0.77

heywoody · « **Reply #11 on:** May 03, 2015, 16:57 »

Quote from: ShadySue on May 03, 2015, 14:00

FWIW, it looks as though SS has started on the slippery slope vis a vis contributors that iS pioneered.

Is this right? I haven't seen anything to suggest that they have moved goalposts to the detriment of the contributor other than they are getting more choosy about what they want to add to their database.

In terms of the OP, IS pays around 1.50 for a credit dl for the lowest rank, less than SS and much less than DT. The subs are also lower commission than once you reach $500 on SS (fairly quickly achieved) and, again, much lower than DT. Their PP does generate similar volumes to SS but subs are subs wherever the come from.

I hate to say it but RPI hovers around or slightly below SS overall. I have been screwed twice by them in recent months and very reluctant to upload there. Reluctant also to remove my stuff altogether because the RPI is still better than most. Frankly I wish they would crash and burn / go out of business which would make the dilemma go away.

ShadySue · « **Reply #12 on:** May 03, 2015, 17:04 »

Quote from: heywoody on May 03, 2015, 16:57

Quote from: ShadySue on May 03, 2015, 14:00
FWIW, it looks as though SS has started on the slippery slope vis a vis contributors that iS pioneered.

Is this right? I haven't seen anything to suggest that they have moved goalposts to the detriment of the contributor other than they are getting more choosy about what they want to add to their database.

I'm only basing my opinion on many things I'm reading on here.
As previously with iS, the general mood of SS contributors has moved away from 'they can do no wrong'.

As for 'getting more choosy', what is being reported is that files are randomly getting rejected, then accepted on resubmission. Not the same thing at all.

heywoody · « **Reply #13 on:** May 03, 2015, 17:12 »

Yeah, THAT is peeing folks off big time but they haven't done the IS, FT, 123 changing pricing structure or commission levels to grab a bigger piece of the action.

Noedelhap · « **Reply #14 on:** May 03, 2015, 17:23 »

IS average: ~~$1,59 per sale~~ $0,60 per sale (including PP and image subscriptions)
SS average: $0,55 per sale

My overall income at SS is currently 9% higher than my overall income at IS (I joined SS 9 months after IS).

ShadySue · « **Reply #15 on:** May 03, 2015, 17:29 »

Quote from: heywoody on May 03, 2015, 17:12

Yeah, THAT is peeing folks off big time but they haven't done the IS, FT, 123 changing pricing structure or commission levels to grab a bigger piece of the action.

Still, their sub prices have stayed silly low, so feeding SS isn't likely to be, ahem, 'sustainable'.
And although for a while, some people, who became the SS lovers, were reporting a lot of non-sub sales (though others weren't), I see many of these same people are reporting fewer of the larger sales than before.

heywoody · « **Reply #16 on:** May 03, 2015, 18:17 »

Quote from: Noedelhap on May 03, 2015, 17:23

IS average: $1,59 per sale
SS average: $0,55 per sale

My overall income at SS is currently 9% higher than my overall income at IS (I joined SS 9 months after IS).

Yours may be - my RPD on IS is nothing remotely like that as the bulk is from PP. If you exclude PP you may as well exclude subs from the SS figures.

Quote from: ShadySue on May 03, 2015, 17:29

Quote from: heywoody on May 03, 2015, 17:12

Yeah, THAT is peeing folks off big time but they haven't done the IS, FT, 123 changing pricing structure or commission levels to grab a bigger piece of the action.

Still, their sub prices have stayed silly low, so feeding SS isn't likely to be, ahem, 'sustainable'.
And although for a while, some people, who became the SS lovers, were reporting a lot of non-sub sales (though others weren't), I see many of these same people are reporting fewer of the larger sales than before.

I’m no SS lover as such and, while true they haven’t given any increases, unlike the others they haven’t given decreases. Also, unlike the others, they seem to make good business decisions. Also true that the return on images is lower there than it was but that is not unique to them and more to do with the vast oversupply of product.

azyr · « **Reply #17 on:** May 04, 2015, 02:01 »

Big thank you to everyone who took the time to contribute and give feedback. Seems IS + SS + FT is the way to go from what I've gathered.

Like I said I'm just getting started serious about building a portfolio and don't want to end up with thousands of files stuck on one stock site and painfully add them to the others down the road. I also don't want my files everywhere so the buyer has the option to grab it from a cheap sub instead of a better earner for me.

Hence the questions before I started off

Thanks again.

ibogdan · « **Reply #18 on:** May 04, 2015, 02:30 »

It seems to me that iStock does NOT want to pay me. I'm still waiting for my March payout supposed to get it on April 25. It is May 4.

MichaelJayFoto · « **Reply #19 on:** May 04, 2015, 02:36 »

Quote from: azyr on May 03, 2015, 12:35

I was thinking of going Shutter, iStock and Fotolia (made sure to turn DCP off there), but the royalties seem very very low compared to iStock where $1,5 to $4,5 is where you start at and with exclusive you're looking at $7 or so.

That is only because what you get to see at first is the single credit sales. It's like comparing IS with only ODD & SOD sales on Shutterstock. Subscription and partner sales are added only a month later, so you have to add those to your numbers to make an honest comparison. And the volume for PP & Subs sales on iStock is much bigger than credit sales and still growing.

For me, the average revenue per download on IS in 2014 was $0,54 compared to an average RPD of $0,73 on Shutterstock. Fotolia, Dreamstime and CanStock have RPDs around $1 as they are selling less subscriptions but they all lack the volume of the big 2.

For exclusive contributors at iStock, the average RPD is quite a bit higher as they get more for subscription sales and the add on of GI sales. At the 40% rate, IS contributors are getting RPDs of about $4-5 these days.

Problem is: The RC system determining your percentage level was set up at a time with higher sales volume and most sales were counting against it. Today most sales (subs, GI, PP) don't count against the RC levels, so it is very unlikely to even reach the 30% when you start submitting now. So you'll most likely be stuck at the 25% level which will translate to an RPD of about $2,50 as a newbie iStock exclusive - maybe even lower if you don't manage to get many images into the S+ collection and transferred to Getty. All that with sales volumes that are probably less than half of what Shutterstock sells.

While I know a lot of old time iStock exclusive who are still making decent money from their sales (due to the fact that they are being kept at their higher percentage levels), I don't see why any new starter would want to go exclusive with iStock these days.

(and I forgot to mention that iStock pays you a month later for most of your sales than SS does; and they keep changing the rules every six months)

ShadySue · « **Reply #20 on:** May 04, 2015, 07:54 »

Quote from: azyr on May 04, 2015, 02:01

Big thank you to everyone who took the time to contribute and give feedback. Seems IS + SS + FT is the way to go from what I've gathered.

"A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest." (Paul Simon)

Quote

... I also don't want my files everywhere so the buyer has the option to grab it from a cheap sub instead of a better earner for me.

Each of the sites you mention sells cheap subs, which you can't opt out of.

Semmick Photo · « **Reply #21 on:** May 04, 2015, 08:05 »

Quote from: heywoody on May 03, 2015, 17:12

Yeah, THAT is peeing folks off big time but they haven't done the IS, FT, 123 changing pricing structure or commission levels to grab a bigger piece of the action.

But they did.

Noedelhap · « **Reply #22 on:** May 04, 2015, 09:57 »

Quote from: heywoody on May 03, 2015, 18:17

Quote from: Noedelhap on May 03, 2015, 17:23

IS average: $1,59 per sale
SS average: $0,55 per sale

My overall income at SS is currently 9% higher than my overall income at IS (I joined SS 9 months after IS).

Yours may be - my RPD on IS is nothing remotely like that as the bulk is from PP. If you exclude PP you may as well exclude subs from the SS figures.

You're right, I forgot to include the PP sales in the IS average. My bad. Fixed it.

azyr · « **Reply #23 on:** May 04, 2015, 10:01 »

Quote from: ShadySue on May 04, 2015, 07:54

Quote from: azyr on May 04, 2015, 02:01
Big thank you to everyone who took the time to contribute and give feedback. Seems IS + SS + FT is the way to go from what I've gathered.
"A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest." (Paul Simon)

Quote
... I also don't want my files everywhere so the buyer has the option to grab it from a cheap sub instead of a better earner for me.

Each of the sites you mention sells cheap subs, which you can't opt out of.

Fotolia let's you opt out of DPC (don't know if they have other affiliates though).
iStock let's you opt out of ThinkStock (as far as I'm aware? - please correct me, I'm new in this).
No idea about SS, never really liked them back then - but seems like it would be foolish not to upload there too.

Maybe I've gathered the wrong advice, but isn't this what the general consensus is on this thread? Go SS IS and SS?

Noedelhap · « **Reply #24 on:** May 04, 2015, 10:11 »

Quote from: azyr on May 04, 2015, 10:01

iStock let's you opt out of ThinkStock (as far as I'm aware? - please correct me, I'm new in this).

You can only opt out of the PP/Thinkstock if you're an exclusive contributor. If you're an independent contributor, your files will be opted in automatically.

SS is the most trustworthy agency of the three you mentioned (can ANY agency stoop as low as FT and IS? DP perhaps).

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: I don't get it - iStock seems to pay way more then everyone else (Read 14251 times)

azyr

Noedelhap

Copidosoma

shudderstok

azyr

cobalt

splitimage

ShadySue

Shelma1

ShadySue

splitimage

heywoody

ShadySue

heywoody

Noedelhap

ShadySue

heywoody

azyr

ibogdan

MichaelJayFoto

ShadySue

Semmick Photo

Noedelhap

azyr

Noedelhap

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors