Author Topic: Partner sales vs iStock Sales (Read 16357 times)

ultimagina · « **on:** April 10, 2015, 09:47 »

I'm wondering what is iStock doing wrong, if a photo sold >400 times in a year, a photo that made me <$400/year through the iStock partners, has never been sold on iStock! Not once! Nada!
The same photo also is doing fairly well on SS (>200 sales/year >$160)

I'm sure that, with a little effort, iStock could use that valuable sales information available from Thinkstock and Getty to enhance their popularity algorithms, and make sure that the best photos are presented in front of their customers first.

Anyway, it is obvious that spreading your eggs over multiple baskets is the best strategy.

ShadySue · « **Reply #1 on:** April 10, 2015, 10:07 »

Quote from: ultimagaina on April 10, 2015, 09:47

I'm sure that, with a little effort, iStock could use that valuable sales information available from Thinkstock and Getty to enhance their popularity algorithms, ...

You're mistaking them for an entity which gives a d*mn.
This is the company which is in the process of preventing customers from reading descriptions.
Also the company which deliberately targetted its biggest buyers to move over to cheap subs at TS, then worked to move remaining customers over to cheap subs on their main site.

shudderstok · « **Reply #2 on:** April 10, 2015, 10:53 »

you might be putting the cart in front of the horse... is IS really doing anything wrong? it might have more to do with you enabling a site such as SS to sell your work 200 times for a pittance of $160. the more people that enable the selling of imagery at such ridiculous pricing, the more the likes of IS will further drop there pricing to compete and survive as they already have started to offer subs, hence fewer buyers to actually buy an image for what it is worth. microstock completely cannibalized a once very sustainable industry, and now subscription sites are in the process of cannibalizing the microstock pricing. sadly the genie is out of the bottle and too many people enable it.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #3 on:** April 10, 2015, 10:59 »

Unless your work is fabulously unique it's just the luck of the search. If you slide down the list before someone buys your work then it's pretty much doomed. One of my best pp sellers also has zero sales on iStock - but other people have similar images that will keep the buyers happy. There's probably somebody somewhere with a similar shot that sells amazingly well on iS and they can't understand why it gets no sales on PP.
Just because a shot is stuck in a position in some search where it keeps selling over and over again doesn't actually mean that it is the "best photo" of that subject available. Searches tend to be self-reinforcing.

ultimagina · « **Reply #4 on:** April 10, 2015, 11:03 »

Quote from: shudderstok on April 10, 2015, 10:53

you might be putting the cart in front of the horse... is IS really doing anything wrong? it might have more to do with you enabling a site such as SS to sell your work 200 times for a pittance of $160. the more people that enable the selling of imagery at such ridiculous pricing, the more the likes of IS will further drop there pricing to compete and survive as they already have started to offer subs, hence fewer buyers to actually buy an image for what it is worth. microstock completely cannibalized a once very sustainable industry, and now subscription sites are in the process of cannibalizing the microstock pricing. sadly the genie is out of the bottle and too many people enable it.

Interesting point of view.

Let me understand: you are active on a microstock forum but you don't sell your stuff through microstock agencies?

StanRohrer · « **Reply #5 on:** April 10, 2015, 11:23 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on April 10, 2015, 10:59

Unless your work is fabulously unique it's just the luck of the search. If you slide down the list before someone buys your work then it's pretty much doomed. One of my best pp sellers also has zero sales on iStock - but other people have similar images that will keep the buyers happy. There's probably somebody somewhere with a similar shot that sells amazingly well on iS and they can't understand why it gets no sales on PP.
Just because a shot is stuck in a position in some search where it keeps selling over and over again doesn't actually mean that it is the "best photo" of that subject available. Searches tend to be self-reinforcing.

So I've wondered if it makes sense to re-upload a non-selling image and delete then original at IS. Do I have any better selling chances the second time around? Do I leave both images thinking they will show at different times due to the Best match age algorithm?

ultimagina · « **Reply #6 on:** April 10, 2015, 11:30 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on April 10, 2015, 10:59

Unless your work is fabulously unique it's just the luck of the search. If you slide down the list before someone buys your work then it's pretty much doomed. One of my best pp sellers also has zero sales on iStock - but other people have similar images that will keep the buyers happy. There's probably somebody somewhere with a similar shot that sells amazingly well on iS and they can't understand why it gets no sales on PP.
Just because a shot is stuck in a position in some search where it keeps selling over and over again doesn't actually mean that it is the "best photo" of that subject available. Searches tend to be self-reinforcing.

I understand that, it is rather obvious.

I'm only saying that by combining the stats from the sites controlled by iStock, the chances for the truly superior photos to be offered first to their customers will increase.
More data means lower error margins.

shudderstok · « **Reply #7 on:** April 10, 2015, 11:32 »

Quote from: ultimagaina on April 10, 2015, 11:03

Quote from: shudderstok on April 10, 2015, 10:53
you might be putting the cart in front of the horse... is IS really doing anything wrong? it might have more to do with you enabling a site such as SS to sell your work 200 times for a pittance of $160. the more people that enable the selling of imagery at such ridiculous pricing, the more the likes of IS will further drop there pricing to compete and survive as they already have started to offer subs, hence fewer buyers to actually buy an image for what it is worth. microstock completely cannibalized a once very sustainable industry, and now subscription sites are in the process of cannibalizing the microstock pricing. sadly the genie is out of the bottle and too many people enable it.

Interesting point of view.

Let me understand: you are active on a microstock forum but you don't sell your stuff through microstock agencies?

i am a "trad" shooter from before GI was around. i was with a bunch of wonderful agencies before that and GI bought them all up. very sustainable times right up till the point of microstock. after 5 years or so of microstock being around and noticing sales plummet cause you can't compete against next to nothing, i threw my "rejects" from GI onto IS.

to give you an ideal, a very good friend of mine is an editor of a company that produces 12 magazines. they used to use IS and spent $350-$500 per month per magazine from IS. when we last met he told me they dropped IS because they could get all the images they needed from SS for less than $50 per issue. that comes out to 3-5K less per month in expenses for a publishing group that has just shy of 2 million in ad revenues, and in his words 300K profit from online ads alone.

when big publishers like this start thinking photos are worth that much, we are all doomed. all i am suggesting is that this bottom of the barrel pricing and enabling it is essentially digging your own grave sooner or later. i can't afford to sell my work 200 times for $160.

shudderstok · « **Reply #8 on:** April 10, 2015, 11:34 »

Quote from: StanRohrer on April 10, 2015, 11:23

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on April 10, 2015, 10:59
Unless your work is fabulously unique it's just the luck of the search. If you slide down the list before someone buys your work then it's pretty much doomed. One of my best pp sellers also has zero sales on iStock - but other people have similar images that will keep the buyers happy. There's probably somebody somewhere with a similar shot that sells amazingly well on iS and they can't understand why it gets no sales on PP.
Just because a shot is stuck in a position in some search where it keeps selling over and over again doesn't actually mean that it is the "best photo" of that subject available. Searches tend to be self-reinforcing.
So I've wondered if it makes sense to re-upload a non-selling image and delete then original at IS. Do I have any better selling chances the second time around? Do I leave both images thinking they will show at different times due to the Best match age algorithm?

they catch you playing that game and they will suspend your upload limits to 1.

ultimagina · « **Reply #9 on:** April 10, 2015, 12:05 »

Quote from: shudderstok on April 10, 2015, 11:32

i am a "trad" shooter from before GI was around. i was with a bunch of wonderful agencies before that and GI bought them all up. very sustainable times right up till the point of microstock. after 5 years or so of microstock being around and noticing sales plummet cause you can't compete against next to nothing, i threw my "rejects" from GI onto IS.

So I understand that you only work with GI and IS, but you are complaining about SS.

Now, if I had to drop an agency that would be IS. My RPD with IS is the lowest by far. IS the the one that underpays me.

Here is what I get:
1. DT - $1.45/DL
2. 123- $1.02/DL
3. FT - $0.88/DL
4. SS - $0.85/DL
5. IS - $0.65/DL !!!

Despite underpaying their contributors by so much, IS is not able to compete with the rest of the players, losing customers (like your friend) to SS?

They are definitely doing something wrong! And maybe you are enabling them.

tickstock · « **Reply #10 on:** April 10, 2015, 12:09 »

Quote from: ultimagaina on April 10, 2015, 12:05

Quote from: shudderstok on April 10, 2015, 11:32

i am a "trad" shooter from before GI was around. i was with a bunch of wonderful agencies before that and GI bought them all up. very sustainable times right up till the point of microstock. after 5 years or so of microstock being around and noticing sales plummet cause you can't compete against next to nothing, i threw my "rejects" from GI onto IS.

So I understand that you only work with GI and IS, but you are complaining about SS.

Now, if I had to drop an agency that would be IS. My RPD with IS is the lowest by far. IS the the one that underpays me, by far.

Here is what I get:
1. DT - $1.45/DL
2. 123- $1.02/DL
3. FT - $0.88/DL
4. SS - $0.85/DL
5. IS - $0.65/DL !!!

So, despite underpaying their contributors by so much, IS is not able to compete with the rest of the players, losing customers like your friend to SS?

They are definitely doing something wrong! And maybe you are enabling them.

As an exclusive I get more like $10 for credit sales, $20 for Getty sales, and $1.50 for subs. Don't be surprised to see your RPD drop going forward nonexclusive work competes almost completely on price. The new adobe/fotolia/dpc will probably see that accelerated and if they are successful at moving sales from SS what will happen? You've already seen SS dropping daily limits and increasing the amount of copies for the standard license, it's just going to continue.

StockPhotosArt.com · « **Reply #11 on:** April 10, 2015, 12:59 »

Quote from: shudderstok on April 10, 2015, 11:32

i am a "trad" shooter from before GI was around. i was with a bunch of wonderful agencies before that and GI bought them all up. very sustainable times right up till the point of microstock.

Oh man... How tired am I of this BS! We all get it that "trad" stock photographers miss the days of film, sending negatives by mail and the agencies printing paper catalogs for designers.

But the world evolved! Internet was invented allowing for worldwide commerce especially for digital goods, and then digital photography was invented and it multiplied the number of photographers by the billions if you consider mobile phones.

In a few years time you got hundreds of thousands of new photographers, many of which more talented than the old school photographers used to play and "compete" on a closed elitist club, and distribution channels provided by the internet. Even before micro, photographers were being contacted in photo sites like Flickr to license their images outside the agencies. It was just a question of time new agencies would appear and start competing in price.

Microstock was an inevitability. Something impossible not to happen.

And don't get me started on traditional agencies being completely close minded, and shutting the doors to many aspiring stock photographers, pushing them to the agencies that would accept them, i.e. micro, thus allowing this side of the business to grow.

Besides, it was your beloved Getty that invented RF and subscriptions back in the 90's. If you want to complain you probably know the right e-mail address to do it for decades now.

I'm not saying that micro is perfect, and subscriptions are awesome, but they were inevitable. And even if micro had started with a $100 price point, with the constant price wars we see among agencies we would still be discussing RPDs of less of $1 in 2015.

shudderstok · « **Reply #12 on:** April 10, 2015, 13:27 »

-perhaps you don't comprehend english, but nowhere did i say i miss the days of film or sending negs by mail etc.

-never has it been a closed shop or as you claim an elitist club - EVER. you just needed to have a skill and either you had it or you didn't. micros removed that barrier. i sense that those who are most vocal about it either got rejected or never tried for fear of rejection.

-you sure Getty started RF?

-yes the world sure has revolved and one must adapt or perish. but no matter what you say or how you slice it subscription usage for very low pricing is going to get us all in the long run - it has basically crippled the valuation of the commercial usage of an image to nothing.

-in conclusion, don't sidetrack, it's annoying.

shudderstok · « **Reply #13 on:** April 10, 2015, 13:30 »

Quote from: tickstock on April 10, 2015, 12:09

Quote from: ultimagaina on April 10, 2015, 12:05
Quote from: shudderstok on April 10, 2015, 11:32

i am a "trad" shooter from before GI was around. i was with a bunch of wonderful agencies before that and GI bought them all up. very sustainable times right up till the point of microstock. after 5 years or so of microstock being around and noticing sales plummet cause you can't compete against next to nothing, i threw my "rejects" from GI onto IS.

So I understand that you only work with GI and IS, but you are complaining about SS.

Now, if I had to drop an agency that would be IS. My RPD with IS is the lowest by far. IS the the one that underpays me, by far.

Here is what I get:
1. DT - $1.45/DL
2. 123- $1.02/DL
3. FT - $0.88/DL
4. SS - $0.85/DL
5. IS - $0.65/DL !!!

So, despite underpaying their contributors by so much, IS is not able to compete with the rest of the players, losing customers like your friend to SS?

They are definitely doing something wrong! And maybe you are enabling them.
As an exclusive I get more like $10 for credit sales, $20 for Getty sales, and $1.50 for subs. Don't be surprised to see your RPD drop going forward nonexclusive work competes almost completely on price. The new adobe/fotolia/dpc will probably see that accelerated and if they are successful at moving sales from SS what will happen? You've already seen SS dropping daily limits and increasing the amount of copies for the standard license, it's just going to continue.

i am the same roughly on RPD, maybe a bit more on Getty sales via IS, closer to $30. from Getty sales direct it is more like $60 on average.

and yes the further decline will continue as the greedy companies make millions of sales and make lots of money on volume, and i just don't want my images to be rewarded with pennies and pray for volume.

ultimagina · « **Reply #14 on:** April 10, 2015, 13:32 »

Quote from: tickstock on April 10, 2015, 12:09

As an exclusive I get more like $10 for credit sales, $20 for Getty sales, and $1.50 for subs. Don't be surprised to see your RPD drop going forward nonexclusive work competes almost completely on price. The new adobe/fotolia/dpc will probably see that accelerated and if they are successful at moving sales from SS what will happen? You've already seen SS dropping daily limits and increasing the amount of copies for the standard license, it's just going to continue.

Possible.

I am also a GI contributor, but I stopped uploading since I don't like their exclusivity terms.
I still have, on GI, a selection of (what I considered) my best photos.

My RPI/year from GI is inferior to the RPI/year from non-exclusive agencies:

$21.2/image/year from GI under exclusivity, vs
$30.7/image/year from the non-exclusive agencies combined.

This why, I'm a little surprised to see that, for sudderstock, $160/image/year seems low.

Maybe exclusivity works for you guys, but not for me.

shudderstok · « **Reply #15 on:** April 10, 2015, 13:54 »

Quote from: ultimagaina on April 10, 2015, 13:32

Quote from: tickstock on April 10, 2015, 12:09
As an exclusive I get more like $10 for credit sales, $20 for Getty sales, and $1.50 for subs. Don't be surprised to see your RPD drop going forward nonexclusive work competes almost completely on price. The new adobe/fotolia/dpc will probably see that accelerated and if they are successful at moving sales from SS what will happen? You've already seen SS dropping daily limits and increasing the amount of copies for the standard license, it's just going to continue.

Possible.

I am also a GI contributor, but I stopped uploading since I don't like their exclusivity terms.
I still have, on GI, a selection of (what I considered) my best photos.

My RPI/year from GI is inferior to the RPI/year from non-exclusive agencies:

$21.2/image/year from GI under exclusivity, vs
$30.7/image/year from the non-exclusive agencies combined.

This why, I'm a little surprised to see that, for sudderstock, $160/image/year seems low.

Maybe exclusivity works for you guys, but not for me.

just so that we are reading from the same page...

The same photo also is doing fairly well on SS (>200 sales/year >$160)

is very different from...

This why, I'm a little surprised to see that, for sudderstock, $160/image/year seems low.

if i could do $160/image/year i'd be uber rich.

before micros, roughly $125 per image per year was totally normal, but then again, they only accepted roughly 10% of your work through a very tight editing process and photos sure did not sell for a couple of pennies. if memory serves correct web photos sold for $75 and we got 40%.

anyway, the whole point being is that where micro is headed is ugly, and it does not bode well for any of us if it keeps going this way.

ultimagina · « **Reply #16 on:** April 10, 2015, 14:10 »

Quote from: shudderstok on April 10, 2015, 13:54

Quote from: ultimagaina on April 10, 2015, 13:32
Quote from: tickstock on April 10, 2015, 12:09
As an exclusive I get more like $10 for credit sales, $20 for Getty sales, and $1.50 for subs. Don't be surprised to see your RPD drop going forward nonexclusive work competes almost completely on price. The new adobe/fotolia/dpc will probably see that accelerated and if they are successful at moving sales from SS what will happen? You've already seen SS dropping daily limits and increasing the amount of copies for the standard license, it's just going to continue.

Possible.

I am also a GI contributor, but I stopped uploading since I don't like their exclusivity terms.
I still have, on GI, a selection of (what I considered) my best photos.

My RPI/year from GI is inferior to the RPI/year from non-exclusive agencies:

$21.2/image/year from GI under exclusivity, vs
$30.7/image/year from the non-exclusive agencies combined.

This why, I'm a little surprised to see that, for sudderstock, $160/image/year seems low.

Maybe exclusivity works for you guys, but not for me.

just so that we are reading from the same page...

The same photo also is doing fairly well on SS (>200 sales/year >$160)

is very different from...

This why, I'm a little surprised to see that, for sudderstock, $160/image/year seems low.

if i could do $160/image/year i'd be uber rich.

before micros, roughly $125 per image per year was totally normal, but then again, they only accepted roughly 10% of your work through a very tight editing process and photos sure did not sell for a couple of pennies. if memory serves correct web photos sold for $75 and we got 40%.

anyway, the whole point being is that where micro is headed is ugly, and it does not bode well for any of us if it keeps going this way.

You said:

Quote

...for a pittance of $160

Personally, I don't care if I get $160/image/year from 1 sale/year or from 200 sales/year. That photo is only an example which brought me much, much more than the average revenue, but IS popularity algorithm failed to promote it. This is the point of this discussion. IS has access to more stats than they currently use, but they choose to neglect this valuable source of information (which could help them becoming more competitive)

Otherwise, it looks like you are nostalgic about the "good old days", but there is nothing you can do to bring those days back. Too much negativity doesn't help.
The price erosion is normal when a product becomes abundant. The same thing happens with all kind of electronics as technology evolves.

StockPhotosArt.com · « **Reply #17 on:** April 10, 2015, 14:28 »

Quote from: shudderstok on April 10, 2015, 13:27

-perhaps you don't comprehend english, but nowhere did i say i miss the days of film or sending negs by mail etc.

-never has it been a closed shop or as you claim an elitist club - EVER. you just needed to have a skill and either you had it or you didn't. micros removed that barrier. i sense that those who are most vocal about it either got rejected or never tried for fear of rejection.

-you sure Getty started RF?

-yes the world sure has revolved and one must adapt or perish. but no matter what you say or how you slice it subscription usage for very low pricing is going to get us all in the long run - it has basically crippled the valuation of the commercial usage of an image to nothing.

-in conclusion, don't sidetrack, it's annoying.

Until 10 years ago the traditional agencies were primarily concerned with the camera you had, and ~~and~~ only after with the quality of content provided. In that sense, yes they were a "closed" club.

And I did inquire all the great traditional agencies but could not submit because I could not afford the professional cameras they required despite my images were light-years head in terms of quality when compared to what they offered on equivalent subjects. And this in a time where it was absolutely evident that digital content was the future and that 18mp cameras were no better than 3, 4, 5 or 6mp for this purpose.

Ironically, several years later Getty itself invited me to submit to them, selecting many of the images I already had by the time I contacted them. I accepted to submit some of them but by that time I was already completely involved with micro, and since I do not like the contract terms of Getty I stopped submitting content and will probably delete it sometime in the near future.

From what I recall, veteran stock photographers mentioned that Getty started RF. But even if I'm mistaken, it's undeniable that RF was invented by the traditional agencies you seem to care so much about. At that time (90's) they were sold as thematic cd's. And subscriptions were, again, if not invented by Getty, strongly established by it, making the price of the traditional stock to drop even before micro.

I do not disagree with the consequences of low pricing. What I cannot agree is that there was a different path to what has happened. At least in capitalist societies and on an unregulated activity.

And also, cannot agree that micro or subscriptions are the villains, since the recipe was complete and all the ingredients put on the table by technology and the traditional agencies.

The only thing annoying is that after more than 10 years people still has the same discourse, failing to see the most obvious and keeping blaming the inevitable and fellow stock photographers.

I'm not sidetracking. I'm just responding to part of the arguments YOU brought into this discussion.

everest · « **Reply #18 on:** April 10, 2015, 14:39 »

Quote from: ultimagaina on April 10, 2015, 13:32

Quote from: tickstock on April 10, 2015, 12:09
As an exclusive I get more like $10 for credit sales, $20 for Getty sales, and $1.50 for subs. Don't be surprised to see your RPD drop going forward nonexclusive work competes almost completely on price. The new adobe/fotolia/dpc will probably see that accelerated and if they are successful at moving sales from SS what will happen? You've already seen SS dropping daily limits and increasing the amount of copies for the standard license, it's just going to continue.

Possible.

I am also a GI contributor, but I stopped uploading since I don't like their exclusivity terms.
I still have, on GI, a selection of (what I considered) my best photos.

My RPI/year from GI is inferior to the RPI/year from non-exclusive agencies:

$21.2/image/year from GI under exclusivity, vs
$30.7/image/year from the non-exclusive agencies combined.

This why, I'm a little surprised to see that, for sudderstock, $160/image/year seems low.

Maybe exclusivity works for you guys, but not for me.

I am a Getty contributor ( House collection,Moment and PC ) and until recent an exclusive contributor to Istock. I can tell you that my rpi of Istock as an exclusive was much better that at Getty and the capacity to put a lot more images on the market made my revenues huges in comparison to Getty.

But the last 2 years have been horrible at Istock with quickly declining sales and revenues. I am still too fresh with all the other agencies to have an opinion about them and their selling power. It is a lot more work to supply different agencies for a number of reasons and I hope it will be worth it.

I agree that the situation we are now was inevitable. Sure it was great the old days when a couple hundred photos in the right agencies could bring you a comfortable living but with the digital arrival this situation had not a chance to last long.

Now subs.......I don't like them at all and I think it is a loosing proposition for the photographer and this is one of the reason I was exclusive at Istock, once subs trounced credit sales there was no other option for me than to seek greener pastures. There are still interesting agencies out there that have not fallen under the feet of the beast like Stocksy, Offset of the subs champion, Getty RM (although lately PA and low values make me wonder...... There are alternatives but I think that only really special images will end up in those distributors/agencies. All the rest is unfortunately doomed to play the falling to the bottom value of photography. That's how things are...unfortunately....or you play or you walk away. $:-\$

StockPhotosArt.com · « **Reply #19 on:** April 10, 2015, 14:44 »

@ ultimagaina

I understand your initial question. And as a matter of fact, about a week ago, I screened the hundreds of images I've sent about a year ago, where only a handful of them have sold once on the IS site.

The same set of images bring me sales on a daily basis on SS not only has subscriptions but also as EL's, OD and SOD. And also sell on all other agencies, frequently through credits.

I've looked into the IS PP and IS subscriptions and saw that they do sell that way. Yet they brought about 5x more income on SS alone even when the regular IS sales are summed with the PP and Subs. I think that even on the smaller agencies like 123rf or BS I earn more than on IS.

I've stopped uploading to IS one year ago since the heavy work they require on keywording is not compensated by acceptable sales.

shudderstok · « **Reply #20 on:** April 10, 2015, 16:17 »

Quote from: ultimagaina on April 10, 2015, 14:10

Quote from: shudderstok on April 10, 2015, 13:54
Quote from: ultimagaina on April 10, 2015, 13:32
Quote from: tickstock on April 10, 2015, 12:09
As an exclusive I get more like $10 for credit sales, $20 for Getty sales, and $1.50 for subs. Don't be surprised to see your RPD drop going forward nonexclusive work competes almost completely on price. The new adobe/fotolia/dpc will probably see that accelerated and if they are successful at moving sales from SS what will happen? You've already seen SS dropping daily limits and increasing the amount of copies for the standard license, it's just going to continue.

Possible.

I am also a GI contributor, but I stopped uploading since I don't like their exclusivity terms.
I still have, on GI, a selection of (what I considered) my best photos.

My RPI/year from GI is inferior to the RPI/year from non-exclusive agencies:

$21.2/image/year from GI under exclusivity, vs
$30.7/image/year from the non-exclusive agencies combined.

This why, I'm a little surprised to see that, for sudderstock, $160/image/year seems low.

Maybe exclusivity works for you guys, but not for me.

just so that we are reading from the same page...

The same photo also is doing fairly well on SS (>200 sales/year >$160)

is very different from...

This why, I'm a little surprised to see that, for sudderstock, $160/image/year seems low.

if i could do $160/image/year i'd be uber rich.

before micros, roughly $125 per image per year was totally normal, but then again, they only accepted roughly 10% of your work through a very tight editing process and photos sure did not sell for a couple of pennies. if memory serves correct web photos sold for $75 and we got 40%.

anyway, the whole point being is that where micro is headed is ugly, and it does not bode well for any of us if it keeps going this way.

You said:
Quote
...for a pittance of $160
Personally, I don't care if I get $160/image/year from 1 sale/year or from 200 sales/year. That photo is only an example which brought me much, much more than the average revenue, but IS popularity algorithm failed to promote it. This is the point of this discussion. IS has access to more stats than they currently use, but they choose to neglect this valuable source of information (which could help them becoming more competitive)

Otherwise, it looks like you are nostalgic about the "good old days", but there is nothing you can do to bring those days back. Too much negativity doesn't help.
The price erosion is normal when a product becomes abundant. The same thing happens with all kind of electronics as technology evolves.

it is neither nostalgia or negativity.
from the 30+ images that i have sold 200-210 times on IS as an exclusive i have earned between $475-$1172 for those images in that range - that is taking into account the history of the image not what my current RPD is which hovers around $10 per download, and also does not take into consideration the recent addition of subs or in the case where those images my be on GI, that is not factored in either. i simply let the numbers speak for themselves and am happy with that. i really don't see a reason why i should sellout and take less when what i shoot seems to work and seems to sell at a much higher RPD.

i don't want to sell my work for less, not sure how that equates into nostalgia or being negative. i already think micro prices are too low, and i really don't like subs at all.

ultimagina · « **Reply #21 on:** April 10, 2015, 16:30 »

Quote from: shudderstok on April 10, 2015, 16:17

it is neither nostalgia or negativity.
from the 30+ images that i have sold 200-210 times on IS as an exclusive i have earned between $475-$1172 for those images in that range - that is taking into account the history of the image not what my current RPD is which hovers around $10 per download, and also does not take into consideration the recent addition of subs or in the case where those images my be on GI, that is not factored in either. i simply let the numbers speak for themselves and am happy with that. i really don't see a reason why i should sellout and take less when what i shoot seems to work and seems to sell at a much higher RPD.

i don't want to sell my work for less, not sure how that equates into nostalgia or being negative. i already think micro prices are too low, and i really don't like subs at all.

That's perfectly fine! You know better than anyone what works for you!
I'm sure that a lot of SS contributors will be happy to see less competition from good "trad" photographers like you.

But I'm not happy to see how IS fails to compete, despite their low RPD.

shudderstok · « **Reply #22 on:** April 10, 2015, 16:49 »

Quote from: ultimagaina on April 10, 2015, 16:30

Quote from: shudderstok on April 10, 2015, 16:17

it is neither nostalgia or negativity.
from the 30+ images that i have sold 200-210 times on IS as an exclusive i have earned between $475-$1172 for those images in that range - that is taking into account the history of the image not what my current RPD is which hovers around $10 per download, and also does not take into consideration the recent addition of subs or in the case where those images my be on GI, that is not factored in either. i simply let the numbers speak for themselves and am happy with that. i really don't see a reason why i should sellout and take less when what i shoot seems to work and seems to sell at a much higher RPD.

i don't want to sell my work for less, not sure how that equates into nostalgia or being negative. i already think micro prices are too low, and i really don't like subs at all.

That's perfectly fine! You know better than anyone what works for you!
I'm sure that a lot of SS contributors will be happy to see less competition from good "trad" photographers like you.

But I'm not happy to see how IS fails to compete, despite their low RPD.

it's really got nothing to do with good "trad" photographers. there are tons of amazing photographers out there that sell on the micros. but if they are really good, they get out of that as fast as they can. i have one friend who started on a micro site as a joke cause it was too easy < his words not mine > and now he rarely submits to IS, and when he does he submits his seconds.

if one is really skilled at his/her craft then it only makes sense to move on. but to stick around and debate which site is better at selling your work for less is a waste of time.

there is another well respected photographer on this forum who's early work was not the greatest and most likely would have never made it into any "trad" agency based on close but no cigar quality of work. over the years his work has greatly improved and he sells his work at the higher end agencies.

i can only say the industry has changed but the one constant from "then" and "now is that it has always been hard work to succeed.

wordplanet · « **Reply #23 on:** April 10, 2015, 18:11 »

I understand the frustration with getting pennies for some downloads, but whether you're an iStock exclusive or not, that's what you'll get for some downloads too, so to take the attitude that those of us who supply photos to SS have caused the downfall of stock photography while you sell on iStock, which is constantly playing follow the leader adopting what it believes are shutterstock's practices, is disingenuous IMHO.

I have a lot more photos available as RM than I do as RF but I must say I agree with those here who recognize that only the most unique images are probably best kept as RM these days since the majority of buyers are looking at price over quality. It's a shame, but it is inevitable given the glut of images on the market.

That said, even with my small portfolio of less than 300 images on SS, I have a single image that has earned me $585 on shutterstock alone and a few hundred more from other agencies, I even have one that has never had an EL that has earned me over $200 on SS alone, and another hundred or so elsewhere. Single images on DT have earned me over $100 apiece too, so your conclusion that iStock is better than SS is just not borne out by my experience, even if I compare my earnings there to yours on iS. Sure, I love it when I earn $200-450 for a single use of an RM image (especially if I license it directly) but that's not going to happen with every image, which is why I have some of mine on SS and other micros.

I think it just makes good business sense in today's stock photo environment to cover all your bases and license both traditional and midstock RM and traditional and micro RF, which is what all the trad folks on here seem to do, but to claim that iStock which has been doing worse and worse over time is somehow better than SS is just putting your head in the sand.

shudderstok · « **Reply #24 on:** April 10, 2015, 20:30 »

Quote from: wordplanet on April 10, 2015, 18:11

I understand the frustration with getting pennies for some downloads, but whether you're an iStock exclusive or not, that's what you'll get for some downloads too, so to take the attitude that those of us who supply photos to SS have caused the downfall of stock photography while you sell on iStock, which is constantly playing follow the leader adopting what it believes are shutterstock's practices, is disingenuous IMHO.

I have a lot more photos available as RM than I do as RF but I must say I agree with those here who recognize that only the most unique images are probably best kept as RM these days since the majority of buyers are looking at price over quality. It's a shame, but it is inevitable given the glut of images on the market.

That said, even with my small portfolio of less than 300 images on SS, I have a single image that has earned me $585 on shutterstock alone and a few hundred more from other agencies, I even have one that has never had an EL that has earned me over $200 on SS alone, and another hundred or so elsewhere. Single images on DT have earned me over $100 apiece too, so your conclusion that iStock is better than SS is just not borne out by my experience, even if I compare my earnings there to yours on iS. Sure, I love it when I earn $200-450 for a single use of an RM image (especially if I license it directly) but that's not going to happen with every image, which is why I have some of mine on SS and other micros.

I think it just makes good business sense in today's stock photo environment to cover all your bases and license both traditional and midstock RM and traditional and micro RF, which is what all the trad folks on here seem to do, but to claim that iStock which has been doing worse and worse over time is somehow better than SS is just putting your head in the sand.

i am not for one second saying IS is better than SS. i have never liked SS and subs, and from the get go when people were praising IS i would never have put my images on SS, their royalty rate and sub format is totally against what i stand for. sadly IS followed suite. do you remember when IS raised prices and tried things like Vetta, big cheering section at the time, but that won't work in the world of cheap. SS prevailed there and still does. survival dictates that IS follow suite. buyers want cheap.

i do however feel strongly that the sub model started by SS is a detriment to the whole industry.

i also have considerably more images up than your few hundred, and to drop being exclusive which does work for me and does provide me a decent income would be foolish. it makes no sense to me to drop my income only to do three times the work and hope i recap my previous income.

i am spread out in other ways, but as far as micros go, i am content with IS.

i think if you also take a good look around, you will notice that most photographers sales are on a slow decline overall, not just IS. it will continue for a few reasons, prices dropping, over supply, etc. that said, i have said this many times, the industry will continue to grow and the primary winners are the agency owners, but the suppliers will slowly and most certainly continue to see revenues drop across the board. the current format of purchasing images is not a win-win formula regardless of which agency you belong or which level be it micro, mid, or RM.

my head is very much out of the sand, it is those in denial that still have it in the sand.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Partner sales vs iStock Sales (Read 16357 times)

ultimagina

ShadySue

shudderstok

BaldricksTrousers

ultimagina

StanRohrer

ultimagina

shudderstok

shudderstok

ultimagina

tickstock

StockPhotosArt.com

shudderstok

shudderstok

ultimagina

shudderstok

ultimagina

StockPhotosArt.com

everest

StockPhotosArt.com

shudderstok

ultimagina

shudderstok

wordplanet

shudderstok

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors