If they decided to move all the thinkstock customers back into istock it would be a huge boost for the exclusives. Many of them were never opted in to the pp program and their expensive work wasn't mirrored anyway.

So if they slowly shift customers back to istock and fully focus all marketing for subs and credit sales on it, this should bring a significant increase in revenue, especially for the exclusives.

I have never understood why they divided their marketing time, money and attention on so many different agencies that all compete with each other. The internet favors companies with one strong brand...the way the major competitor has been doing it...

They take nearly all my files, but the returns are very low. It gets better though if your files are moving up into higher levels. So I guess Dreamstime is an agency where I will see the rewards in 3 or 4 years, not 18 months.

Looks like the subs package is especially attractive for customers who used to buy the large credit packs. And their sales team will certainly offer an attractive combo and throw in 1000 credits in case the customer still needs to buy a few Vetta files.

Is it enough to attract customers from SS?

I really don't know. SS has a very, very simple layout, the site is ultrafast, the quality hasn't changed and there are few surprises over the years for the customer. For all "normal" needs I am not sure it would be worth switching. And if you look at S and S+ content I am not sure it looks more interesting than SS. There are many simple objects on white etc...these collections are very obviously not edited or "handpicked". The customers are not stupid.

In principle having a site with different levels of quality and prices is a good idea. But it really has to be a visible difference.

And if subs is mostly bought by established istock customers, there will be even more exclusives leaving and their good quality content with files in top positions (if sorted by sales) will drop into main. So the quality of main will be increasing, making it even harder for the remaining exclusives to stand out.

And then of course you have more and more smaller independent production teams sending in content.

I think for a system like this to really work, real editors that comb through the collections and bring together the best files from different styles would make a huge difference. To just create the illusion of being handpicked when it obviously isn't, won't give the customer an advantage.

Although it of course depends where you live and how much money you need, most people I know have at least 6000 -9000 files to be able to make a "living wage".

The agencies receive 200 000 new files every week. So you need to have a good quality portfolio with many files in good search positions to have a reliable income stream. With a few hundred images your income is extremely vulnerable to changes in the agency search engines. Your bestsellers might drop dead very abruptly and then how will you live?

Shoot. Upload. Repeat.

Good luck!

Well, then I hope what I was trying to say is more clear now?

tickstock, don�t you believe that people can produce niche subjects at different quality levels??

I can.

A simple niche can be normal generic stock done locally in your area. There will simply be a lot less other photographers competing with you.

There are many other options, but why should I explain them to you? Do your own research and make your own experiences what sells best between high volume, low volume, files that people pay 500 dollars for and files that can gain a good audience worldwide with low prices. Also the differences between what sells best at RM or RF.

But if you prefer to send everything without distinction to just one site, that is fine with me. You are the one determining how to make the most money from your images.

2. Shutterstock failed to split off content that should have been added to curated collections and priced at a premium. That has hurt the macro market.

I am confused. Haven�t you been a micro submitter for 10 years or something? Where has your sudden interest in the macro market come from? Do you even have files on the macro market??

Haven�t you complained that a change in best match abruptly cut your subs income by 50%? Last March?

So what does macro have to do with it?? Or the rent SS pays...but I guess we no longer need to discuss that, do we...

On the micros the customer has to spend hours sifting through millions of files to find macro content. The reason customers pay macro prices is for the service of an edited collection.

There is no reason for SS to edit the content, they don�t offer personalised macro services. Just like ebay doesn�t sift through the products being offered. They are not Sotheby�s or Christie�s.

It is a different business model.


"By not curating the content from HCV contributors, shutterstock has made it much harder for companies like stocksy to charge fair prices because images of similar quality are available for very low prices and have sold in very high numbers. You can see those images in popular searches because in the end the buyers have served as on trend editors."

When I look at the popular searches on SS I never see macro content on top. I see green grass, wood backgrounds and super smiling �ber happy people yuri arcurs style. Maybe SS has macro content somewhere, but they are hiding it very well.

SS - subs agency...generic content for the mass market...very little macro content and sorting by popular downloads will give you...high volume files...the most generic content available because it was chosen by thousands of customers.

The customers are not trend editors. Editing is a very complex job that only few highly skilled people do really well. The "masses" cannot replace them.

Editors set the trends that others follow, not the other way around.

And that changed on IS when Bruce departed. Shutterstocks long term price undercutting and failure to split and curate HCV content into an something similar to its new offset, has been costly to the industry as a whole.

Shutterstock didn�t destroy istock. They did that completely to themselves. It was the management that came after Bruce that ruined the company. Precisely because SS didn�t change much, you can see how bad the Getty management handled the takeover. Nothing substantial changed between 2009 and 2012. The internet is still there, masses of files are still being uploaded, SS diidm�t even change much in their prices...so why did istock nosedive? Because of there own bad decisions,

Accumulation of 2 billion dollars in debts and lack of investment in their business to please their owners with spectacular bonuses. Flip Flopping half baked strategies every 6 months. Never thinking it through. Never planning longterm. Just experimenting with the business in the hope something will stick. Treating it more like a game than a real business.

SS is not responsible for that.

Is not splitting the content on SS in your opinion the reason istock lost their market leadership position?? You don�t really believe that, do you??

This kind of "let�s blame SS for everything" instead of using your brain and admitting that istock destroyed their own market leadership really reminds me of a lot of nonsense I kept hearing on istock. Always looking for someone "outside" they could blame. Always elsewhere, not owning up to your own mistakes and refusing to take responsibility.

What do you care about istock and Getty anyway? Or the macro market? Do you even have high quality content suitable for edited collections?

I mean you complained that SS was rejecting more of your content and you had trouble keeping up with their quality demands. If you think SS is demanding, how on earth will you get files into Getty or Offset?

You complain in many threads you want a raise for your 38 cent downloads. Suddenly you say you want SS to price their files for 500 dollars and pay you 50% of that?

I think the easiest solution for you is to remove all files from SS and just submit to the macros.

Good luck.


ETA: Ron was faster. Looks like we have a Getty fan here pretending to be a micro artist. With an invisible portfolio.

You still haven�t answered my question. How much of a raise do you want for your images? From 38 to 40 cents? 42?

At which subs royalty level are you able to produce successfully again?

You keep demanding a raise, please let us know how much.



And the high quality content that you are "no longer" sending to SS - which agency are you sending it to? Gettyimages? Offset? Alamy? Stocksy?

Nobody is forcing you to invest more in your production if you cannot make it work financially.

When Yuri realised his productions costs where not suitable for the subs market he made a deal with Getty and moved his content to a market suitable for the value. He could have also decided to scale down his production, work with a smaller team and keep things going steady on the micros. But he had other plans and it seems to work out for him.


Maybe going exclusive with istock or working directly with Getty House is a better choice for you. Have you considered that?


Nobody is against a raise, at any agency.But the 28 dollar or 120 dollar downloads are real money. So what is wrong with getting more of those? Or do you not get them?

What exacty do you want? 39 cents instead of 38? 40 cents? 42??

And what kind of new level do you want? 40 cents when you reach 50 000 dollars? 42 for 100 000? 60 cents for people who reach 1 million dollars??

At which level of subs payment will you be able to make it work again financially?

In a perfect world - what kind of sub payment do you want to receive??
 

Many agencies are offering files "from 15 cents" to customers, but still pay out a regular subs royalty to their artists. This is possible because the average customer never maximises their download option. This has been the case since subscription sites started, so I really don�t understand what is new about that. It is an over 10 year old phenomenon.

Getty/istock are the ones that pay out 0.001 cent with their connect program, now offer 35 million expensive files for free and have just announced a subs program that is much lower than all the other sites.

They also kicked their exclusives badly, first they take away their option to send content to PP where they would have received 42-46 cents citing "we only want to offer our exclusive artists upstream options" but then they bring the subs to istock with a subs royalty that is even lower then what SS pays out for indie content.

And the exclusives never produced that content for the subs market. They have absolutely no choice.

So if you want to worry about low subs royalties, I would suggest we all return to the istock thread about subs. Because that is the place where everyones income will be dropping soon - for both exclusives and the indies.

If they aggressively market their subs program we are all guaranteed to lose money. And the exclusives will be hit hardest.

ETA: just talk to fotolia artist that are either fully exclusive or have exclusive content there and had those files opted out of subs. Ask them what happened when subs where introduced on all content and how it affected their income.

Everyone is different. I enjoy visiting the countryside, but I would never want to live there. I am a city person. Stadtmensch

Well, if you can get a clear reply from contributor relations that you can sell RF photos elsewhere....it will lead to a flood of images from artists that are now exclusive to istock and literally begging istock to allow exclusive images. It has been asked for many,many times and they have said again and again they are not going to do it.

But good luck.