A response to request from one photographer, with the classic video "pay the writer:"

http://tomasvh.com/response-to-requests-for-free-use-of-photography/

I've worked for too many non-profits (I was well paid) and have seen the high salaries, the beautiful homes the marketing people live in, the all-expenses-paid trips to tropical locales for conferences, etc., to ever give my work to any of them for free. Believe me, they have big marketing budgets and pay for photography and illustration all the time. Don't be a sucker.

Quoting a photographer whose income has seriously declined on Getty:

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/may/08/the-weasel-the-woodpecker-and-the-changing-art-of-wildlife-photography

Thats not the point. Its basically what you and Mike are implying if I understand correctly. If I am missing the point, I am sorry, please explain differently, because sometimes that happens.

No, I think what we're saying is that they use software to keep track of reviewers. If a reviewer rejects substantially more or less than the historical statistical norm, someone will say hey, you're rejecting too many good images or hey, you're letting too many bad images through. After a while you'd get an idea of about what percentage of image rejections would be acceptable to SS. If you have a handle onn that the easiest way to get there is by rejecting a certain percentage of batches rather than image by image. If you review Lisa Gagne you see she's a real pro, so you let all her images through, and then you have to make up for that somewhere else. Or you check one image in a batch, see some noise, and reject the whole bunch because you figure there's probably noise in all of them, so why bother really looking?

Clearly the auditing put pressure on reviewers when it comes to rejection rates.

All I can do is guess. Knowing SS they've taken a look at the percentage of rejections averaged over the years. If they're using an automated system to audit reviewers, I would think reviewers who have substantially more or less than that percentage would be scrutinized. Reviewers are paid by volume, I believe, so they need to get through images quickly. The people who review the reviewers also need to work quickly. It's easier to just say "we agree with the reviewer" than to really take a close look. I've had them say they agree, then when I ask them to point out to me specifically where in the image the problem is, they're forced to actually look and usually overturn the rejection.

Also, as competition increases higher and higher-quality images are being submitted, which raises the bar across the board. So you need to submit better and better work to be in the percentage that's accepted. It makes the collection more attractive to buyers and results in more sales and a better collection to sell to large enterprises, which now make up a larger percentage of SS revenues.

Again, just an educated guess.

"In the past year, we have further upgraded the ways that we review content by introducing innovative data-driven auditing to monitor and manage reviewer performance. Despite the diligent review procedures we have in place and the immense number of the content submissions, the efficiency of our review team enabled us to get the vast majority of images up on our site in less than 24 hours."

http://seekingalpha.com/article/3154256-shutterstocks-sstk-ceo-jonathan-oringer-on-q1-2015-results-earnings-call-transcript?page=6&p=qanda&l=last

Some people do amazingly well with several hundred illustrations. Others do amazingly well with tens of thousands. And everything in between. Develop a unique style, find a niche, upload regularly and pay attention to keywords.

Yeah, I've been pretty horrified by KelvinJay announcing to the entire world (public forum) the details of someone's account...sales, earnings, etc. ... If he disagrees with something they've said.

Yes, I get the same message...on Safari.

Quote from: Shelma1 on May 04, 2015, 11:55

Quote from: shudderstok on May 04, 2015, 11:17

@dirkr...

what do you think? fun twisting things isn't it. to simplify it for you, let's just put in the parking and time. still with me? total expenses assuming you will pay yourself a below minimum wage of $10 per hour is $47.50, assuming you have no other expenses at all and don't need to eat.

so let's aim high here assuming ss pays you $1 per download on average, that means you have to sell that shot 48 times to break even or perhaps let's just say 55 times pre-taxes.

now that is only for one basic nothing new not inventing the wheel there are thousands of them out there skyline shots. pray tell how that shot alone will sell 55 times the first year without just plain and simple dumb luck.

i doubt very much the average shot sells 55 times per year on SS.

You get one shot when you go on a shoot?

Seriously. I'm not a photographer, but I would expect to get a lot more than one shot up online if I were going out of my way to pay for parking, etc., on a location. If you get 48 decent shots (I have no idea if that's realistic) they'd each have to sell once. I would think most people's images average more than one sale per year on SS, and you'd also have to add sales on the other sites in because SS has no exclusivity.

have you ever heard of the saying "quality over quantity"? i am ruthless at editing and very selective in what i submit. perhaps that is one reason i survive in this game.

Perhaps. But unfortunately you're now competing against mass quantities of really high quality shots.

And if your approach is working for you, why so angry? Forget Shutterstock and keep ruthlessly editing. Some of us have found it works to take a different approach. To each her own.

@dirkr...

what do you think? fun twisting things isn't it. to simplify it for you, let's just put in the parking and time. still with me? total expenses assuming you will pay yourself a below minimum wage of $10 per hour is $47.50, assuming you have no other expenses at all and don't need to eat.

so let's aim high here assuming ss pays you $1 per download on average, that means you have to sell that shot 48 times to break even or perhaps let's just say 55 times pre-taxes.

now that is only for one basic nothing new not inventing the wheel there are thousands of them out there skyline shots. pray tell how that shot alone will sell 55 times the first year without just plain and simple dumb luck.

i doubt very much the average shot sells 55 times per year on SS.

You get one shot when you go on a shoot?

Seriously. I'm not a photographer, but I would expect to get a lot more than one shot up online if I were going out of my way to pay for parking, etc., on a location. If you get 48 decent shots (I have no idea if that's realistic) they'd each have to sell once. I would think most people's images average more than one sale per year on SS, and you'd also have to add sales on the other sites in because SS has no exclusivity.

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.