Author Topic: Istock vs others (Read 19089 times)

vuk8691 · « **on:** September 07, 2012, 09:17 »

Does some non-exclusive photographer can tell me how much is he selling from various stock agencies in the last year? I am particularly interested in selling Istockphoto compared to other agencies.

markrhiggins · « **Reply #1 on:** September 07, 2012, 09:34 »

easy to say that SS way outsells IS. The thing is however IS limits uploads so most people end up having a lot more images in SS. With the changes to royalties IS only gets worse. IS used to be a great place to sell as an independent. Now it is just for a very exclusive crowd. I would not take images down but not keen on uploading. Still not sure how they sell an image for 8 cents commission to me. Alamy gave me more revenue over the last 30 days than the micros.

packerguy · « **Reply #2 on:** September 07, 2012, 10:03 »

Take a look at the poll results on the right.

vuk8691 · « **Reply #3 on:** September 07, 2012, 10:12 »

Quote from: markrhiggins on September 07, 2012, 09:34

easy to say that SS way outsells IS. The thing is however IS limits uploads so most people end up having a lot more images in SS. With the changes to royalties IS only gets worse. IS used to be a great place to sell as an independent. Now it is just for a very exclusive crowd. I would not take images down but not keen on uploading. Still not sure how they sell an image for 8 cents commission to me. Alamy gave me more revenue over the last 30 days than the micros.

Yes but SS sales photos for nothing. In addition, there taxes for non-US Citizens of oversize.

traveler1116 · « **Reply #4 on:** September 07, 2012, 10:23 »

Quote from: markrhiggins on September 07, 2012, 09:34

Still not sure how they sell an image for 8 cents commission to me.

http://www.istockphoto.com/help/sell-stock/rate-schedule You get paid based on your percentage and what the buyer pays.

ShadySue · « **Reply #5 on:** September 07, 2012, 10:26 »

Quote from: traveler1116 on September 07, 2012, 10:23

Quote from: markrhiggins on September 07, 2012, 09:34
Still not sure how they sell an image for 8 cents commission to me.

http://www.istockphoto.com/help/sell-stock/rate-schedule You get paid based on your percentage and what the buyer pays.

But note that the minimum amount payable by a buyer is not disclosed to photographers, i.e. the minimum amount is not visible on any page (and in any case the published prices can be different on different pages at the same time, though hopefully they sorted that out in the recent outage.

PixelsAway · « **Reply #6 on:** September 07, 2012, 12:38 »

my stats for the first half of 2012:

Payout Structure from Microstock Agencies in 2012

traveler1116 · « **Reply #7 on:** September 07, 2012, 13:08 »

Quote from: PixelsAway on September 07, 2012, 12:38

my stats for the first half of 2012:

Payout Structure from Microstock Agencies in 2012

Why aren't you exclusive? You would surely be making more money and doing less work.

EmberMike · « **Reply #8 on:** September 07, 2012, 13:38 »

Quote from: vuk8691 on September 07, 2012, 10:12

Yes but SS sales photos for nothing. In addition, there taxes for non-US Citizens of oversize.

SS sells subscriptions and on-demand single images and image packs. None of which are sold for "nothing". In fact, you'll see some forum posts around here talking about the recent addition of the sensitive use license at SS that is resulting in some individual $100+ sales for people. In addition to the increasingly popular single OD and multiple image OD pack, which generally result in sales royalties ranging from around $2 to $19.

Overall the RPD (return per download) at SS is low due to the subscription model. But even then, it's not as low as you think. My average RPD at SS is usually around $0.60.

If RPD is the most important thing to you, skip SS. If bottom-line overall earnings are more important to you, try SS.

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #9 on:** September 07, 2012, 15:38 »

Quote from: markrhiggins on September 07, 2012, 09:34

...With the changes to royalties IS only gets worse. IS used to be a great place to sell as an independent. Now it is just for a very exclusive crowd. I would not take images down but not keen on uploading. Still not sure how they sell an image for 8 cents commission to me...

I happen to have an image (#17206019) I uploaded last July (2011) to IS which provides some data on why it's still an agency worth contributing to, even for independents. I became independent again at the beginning of June 2011 so none of the sales of this image were influenced by me once having been exclusive. 117 sales for a total of $305.17 - an average of $2.61 per sale. There were no ELs for this image but it has been Photo+ for all but the first 3 or 4 sales.

I uploaded that image to SS (81634720) and it's had 101 sales for $83.90, an average of 83 cents a sale.

IS is a miserable excuse for an agency but it can still earn for us, so I'd say you'd do well to upload there if you're looking to maximize your earnings.

Edited to add that at DT the image (20451278) has sold 13 times for $17.38 (average $1.33 per sale). Rather lackluster showing IMO.

vonkara · « **Reply #10 on:** September 07, 2012, 15:54 »

Quote from: jsnover on September 07, 2012, 15:38

Quote from: markrhiggins on September 07, 2012, 09:34
...With the changes to royalties IS only gets worse. IS used to be a great place to sell as an independent. Now it is just for a very exclusive crowd. I would not take images down but not keen on uploading. Still not sure how they sell an image for 8 cents commission to me...

I happen to have an image (#17206019) I uploaded last July (2011) to IS which provides some data on why it's still an agency worth contributing to, even for independents. I became independent again at the beginning of June 2011 so none of the sales of this image were influenced by me once having been exclusive. 117 sales for a total of $305.17 - an average of $2.61 per sale. There were no ELs for this image but it has been Photo+ for all but the first 3 or 4 sales.

I uploaded that image to SS (81634720) and it's had 101 sales for $83.90, an average of 83 cents a sale.

In the opposite situation, did your old deactivated images at SS and DT kept selling after enabling them again, or did they lose their selling rate after going independent? This is particularly important at SS since their search engine advantage files performance I believe. I am concerned at files who has been deactivated and not selling for a long time on Shutterstock.

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #11 on:** September 07, 2012, 17:11 »

DT required everything to be re-uploaded - although they "deactivate" images, they do remove them after a while and my old ones were gone. So everything there was uploaded in May 2011 or after.

For SS I had about 600 of my images deactivated (I had removed the others before realizing I could just opt out). It's hard to know if the old best sellers have suffered - you can't get a list of sale dates on SS AFAIK. But I do see them in the daily sales summaries some of the time. I'm guessing they aren't selling at the same rate, but are selling.

heywoody · « **Reply #12 on:** September 07, 2012, 17:19 »

Are you currently an exclusive with IS and wondering what it's like to play the field or someone starting off? If the latter, IS is a tough place to start and, if the former, lot's of threads on the subject.

PixelsAway · « **Reply #13 on:** September 07, 2012, 21:18 »

Quote from: traveler1116 on September 07, 2012, 13:08

Quote from: PixelsAway on September 07, 2012, 12:38
my stats for the first half of 2012:

Payout Structure from Microstock Agencies in 2012

Why aren't you exclusive? You would surely be making more money and doing less work.

Exclusive? In IS? Seriously?

traveler1116 · « **Reply #14 on:** September 07, 2012, 22:23 »

Quote from: PixelsAway on September 07, 2012, 21:18

Quote from: traveler1116 on September 07, 2012, 13:08
Quote from: PixelsAway on September 07, 2012, 12:38
my stats for the first half of 2012:

Payout Structure from Microstock Agencies in 2012

Why aren't you exclusive? You would surely be making more money and doing less work.

Exclusive? In IS? Seriously?

Yeah you would be making at least 4x more as an exclusive than as a nonexclusive.

nicku · « **Reply #15 on:** September 08, 2012, 01:57 »

Quote from: markrhiggins on September 07, 2012, 09:34

easy to say that SS way outsells IS. The thing is however IS limits uploads so most people end up having a lot more images in SS. With the changes to royalties IS only gets worse. IS used to be a great place to sell as an independent. Now it is just for a very exclusive crowd. I would not take images down but not keen on uploading. Still not sure how they sell an image for 8 cents commission to me. Alamy gave me more revenue over the last 30 days than the micros.

Exactly.... I am accepted as a Contributor on IS, BUT at a upload limit of 18 pics/week it will take almost 3 years to upload my existing 2000+ port on the site, and that without producing any new content ( don't mention the commissions levels). I know is not the best business plan but i still keep my decision regarding IS until something changes; and they can start with the upload limit.

Nik

sharpshot · « **Reply #16 on:** September 08, 2012, 02:02 »

Quote from: traveler1116 on September 07, 2012, 22:23

Quote from: PixelsAway on September 07, 2012, 21:18
Quote from: traveler1116 on September 07, 2012, 13:08
Quote from: PixelsAway on September 07, 2012, 12:38
my stats for the first half of 2012:

Payout Structure from Microstock Agencies in 2012

Why aren't you exclusive? You would surely be making more money and doing less work.

Exclusive? In IS? Seriously?

Yeah you would be making at least 4x more as an exclusive than as a nonexclusive.

4x my istock earnings would be a big loss on my non-exclusive earnings. It's an option for some people but it wouldn't work for me.

ShadySue · « **Reply #17 on:** September 08, 2012, 04:30 »

Quote from: traveler1116 on September 07, 2012, 22:23

Quote from: PixelsAway on September 07, 2012, 21:18
Quote from: traveler1116 on September 07, 2012, 13:08
Quote from: PixelsAway on September 07, 2012, 12:38
my stats for the first half of 2012:

Payout Structure from Microstock Agencies in 2012

Why aren't you exclusive? You would surely be making more money and doing less work.

Exclusive? In IS? Seriously?

Yeah you would be making at least 4x more as an exclusive than as a nonexclusive.

That is a possibility, certainly; but there is NO guarantee.

PixelsAway · « **Reply #18 on:** September 08, 2012, 07:15 »

Quote from: traveler1116 on September 07, 2012, 22:23

Quote from: PixelsAway on September 07, 2012, 21:18
Quote from: traveler1116 on September 07, 2012, 13:08
Quote from: PixelsAway on September 07, 2012, 12:38
my stats for the first half of 2012:

Payout Structure from Microstock Agencies in 2012

Why aren't you exclusive? You would surely be making more money and doing less work.

Exclusive? In IS? Seriously?

Yeah you would be making at least 4x more as an exclusive than as a nonexclusive.

The IS contribution to my total microstock income dropped from 50% to 30% during last 1.5-2 years.
But ... it's not money what makes you happy

Since my living depends on microstock income I prefer to diversify.

EmberMike · « **Reply #19 on:** September 08, 2012, 09:19 »

Quote from: traveler1116 on September 07, 2012, 22:23

Yeah you would be making at least 4x more as an exclusive than as a nonexclusive.

How do you figure that?

If his istock earnings are currently 31% of the total, to hit 4x in exclusivity he'd have to see a jump of 13x current istock earnings. I've never heard of exclusivity giving that sort of boost.

heywoody · « **Reply #20 on:** September 08, 2012, 10:57 »

Quote from: nicku on September 08, 2012, 01:57

Quote from: markrhiggins on September 07, 2012, 09:34
easy to say that SS way outsells IS. The thing is however IS limits uploads so most people end up having a lot more images in SS. With the changes to royalties IS only gets worse. IS used to be a great place to sell as an independent. Now it is just for a very exclusive crowd. I would not take images down but not keen on uploading. Still not sure how they sell an image for 8 cents commission to me. Alamy gave me more revenue over the last 30 days than the micros.

Exactly.... I am accepted as a Contributor on IS, BUT at a upload limit of 18 pics/week it will take almost 3 years to upload my existing 2000+ port on the site, and that without producing any new content ( don't mention the commissions levels). I know is not the best business plan but i still keep my decision regarding IS until something changes; and they can start with the upload limit.

Nik

You could upload the guts of 1000 images in a year, acceptance is unlikely to be 100% but still should earn more than the whole 2000 on lower ranked sites.

ShadySue · « **Reply #21 on:** September 08, 2012, 10:59 »

Quote from: EmberMike on September 08, 2012, 09:19

Quote from: traveler1116 on September 07, 2012, 22:23
Yeah you would be making at least 4x more as an exclusive than as a nonexclusive.

How do you figure that?

If his istock earnings are currently 31% of the total, to hit 4x in exclusivity he'd have to see a jump of 13x current istock earnings. I've never heard of exclusivity giving that sort of boost.

If he got loads of unique lifestyle images promoted to Agency and selling at that price range?

I wouldn't hold my breath, but maybe Traveller knows the OP's port (I don't).

traveler1116 · « **Reply #22 on:** September 08, 2012, 12:38 »

Quote from: EmberMike on September 08, 2012, 09:19

Quote from: traveler1116 on September 07, 2012, 22:23
Yeah you would be making at least 4x more as an exclusive than as a nonexclusive.

How do you figure that?

If his istock earnings are currently 31% of the total, to hit 4x in exclusivity he'd have to see a jump of 13x current istock earnings. I've never heard of exclusivity giving that sort of boost.

Sorry what I meant was 4x more as an exclusive at istock than as a nonexclusive at istock which is around a 20% increase in total earnings. I got the number by looking at my own figures. Looking back at the last 100 sales of mine I found that I got 212% of the redeemed credits that I would have gotten if I was nonexclusive and that my royalty rate would have about doubled which comes to about 4x what I would have earned as a nonexclusive (at istock). I think for a lot of us a 20% increase in total earnings is very significant, especially when it involves less work.

Freedom · « **Reply #23 on:** September 08, 2012, 14:51 »

You are either very lucky or have a great port, Traveller. After I became exclusive, even though I have tripled the size of my port, my overall revenue is not four times more than when I was non-ex. However, in a couple of lucky month, it was close.

traveler1116 · « **Reply #24 on:** September 08, 2012, 15:25 »

Quote from: Freedom on September 08, 2012, 14:51

You are either very lucky or have a great port, Traveller. After I became exclusive, even though I have tripled the size of my port, my overall revenue is not four times more than when I was non-ex. However, in a couple of lucky month, it was close.

Read the post before yours.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Istock vs others (Read 19089 times)

vuk8691

markrhiggins

packerguy

vuk8691

traveler1116

ShadySue

PixelsAway

traveler1116

EmberMike

Jo Ann Snover

vonkara

Jo Ann Snover

heywoody

PixelsAway

traveler1116

nicku

sharpshot

ShadySue

PixelsAway

EmberMike

heywoody

ShadySue

traveler1116

Freedom

traveler1116

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors