Sorry, I didn't know the template was not available for photos. I just uploaded my first photo batch two weeks ago and didn't try to use a template.

I hope they improve the interface. The sooner they do it, the more great stuff they will get.

Well if you look at return per download only then you should probably put all your files on coverpicture, apparently their RPD is over 40 euros (60 dollars?):

http://www.alltageinesfotoproduzenten.de/2013/02/21/durchschnittliche-verkaufserloese-rpd-bei-bildagenturen-2012/

But of course the only relevant number is the actual money you make. Although Getty�s 12 dollars for 425 million people must be the lowest ever. Let�s hope they don�t ever do it again.

It�s the same with software - you can write great software and sell it for 300 or 3000 or 30 000 dollars a license or sell it as a 99 cent app and become an internet millionaire.

Like you said, everyone needs to look at their own portfolio and their own financial goals. So it is good to have choices as an artist.

@tickstock you will only make the 80 000 if best match allows to find your new files. Which since September seems to be a big problem. So for your sake and all the other ambitious exclusives, I hope they fix it soon.

You probably know this thread:

http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=352023&page=20#post6873761

You also have to invest a lot of money (models, stylist, gear, studio) to make the 80 000. Revenue is not income.

Welcome back Shudderstock! You are bringing a lot to this place. I really mean that, without any cynism.

It will help people who are watching and sitting on a fence decide what they want to do. Your input is more valuable than you might want to believe.


Aren't you lucky that we are not anonymous? I am sure it's a lot more fun this way. (maybe now I am being sarcastic...)

I have a lot of bills to pay as a photographer, so yes I am genuinly interested in how sales can be improved, including of course sales on istock.

I really think it is great you have a BME and I sincerly hope you posted it in that monthly sales thread on istock. Morale is very low in the contributor community, I am sure you have noticed that.  I think it would help many people to see that someone is doing well, even if you were a newbie for instance. There is  nothing wrong with being successful. Quite the contrary. Success always comes from hard work and good thinking.

Why do you think that i should not upload to istock as an independent? I have a large portfolio there and I intend to keep growing my port.

I am only holding my files back because of best match (and concerns of getty/google etc..., but they said they are not moving more stuff over)

Otherwise I see no reason not to upload to istock.

Why should I not upload?

Tickstock, I am curious too. You seem to be doing a lot better than the black diamonds of istock. Do you have such an extra special niche that is highly sought after that sets you apart from the whole contributor base? You don�t�have to tell us what it it is, but it seems really strange that if the black diamonds are struggling to sell their content and pay for the expensive shootings, how do you do it???

I think it is obvious from the numbers posted that the money invested in new shootings cannot be recovered in the current situation of istock.

Or are you a total newbie who is doubling his port every two months?

Again my congratulations for doing so extremly well, but I think we would all love to know at least a part of your secret? Any tips you can share with those of us who struggle?

And what do you recommend should I do with my Lenklypse files? I have helicopter pilots in flight, rescue teams in the mountains, organic farmers etc...all of it beautiful "lovelocal" content from a great event.  I also have several videos and I think I was the only one doing video. If I should decide to upload, what I can I do to make my files sell as well as yours?

I am really shocked by the numbers crossbrain66 posted in the best match thread. If these are the results for the black diamonds, how will the normal people pay for studio and shooting costs:

http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=352023&messageid=6873457

I have so many files from the Lenklypse that I would love to upload, but this just scares me completly. No use uploading files that die an instant death. I will continue to upload videos, but I hope they sort out the photo best match soon.

I hope he doesn�t mind that I quote part of his numbers:

"To further verify this 'assumption' of chancelessness for new files to become hot sellers i examined the performance of files uploaded the last six months by a selection of the most successful exclusive istock contributors (mostly black diamonds). Those files should have the best possibility to succeed because of increased visibility through crosslinking with very successful old files by these contributors and the 'name - brand' reputation. Here are my depressing and thesis confirming results:

Average portfoliosize: 7.313
Average uploads past 6 months: 937


of those uploaded past 6 months:
files with over 100 downloads: 0,01 %
files with over 10 downloads: 0,38 %
files with over 5 downloads: 1,19 %
files with over 2 downloads: 5,03 %
files with over 1 downloads: 6,00 %
files with zero downloads: 87,39 %


Considering the advantages these new files had (and the throughout highest quality), their performance is disappointing to say the least."

If they do, we take our business elsewhere...never underestimate the power of online communities...much better to keep a good balance that allows everyone to win...

Elena, I love your post!

However, i think Shutterstock knows perfectly well that they have tons of fantastic content and excellent Photographers. But offset is a new product they are introducing to the market. How else do you expect them to advertise for the product?

By bringing in "never before seen" content and adding National geographic etc...they are just creating the necessary buzz to get customers interested.

They are entering the high price game, it has to be advertised with appropriate marketing language.

In terms of sales volume, yes, much smaller. Just look at their web traffic or the number of files sold on getty versus the number of files licensed on istock, Thinkstock or Shutterstock.

They have higher prices and maybe higher revenue than Shutterstock. But you don�t know that because they do not break down the revenue for the individual agencies. So it could be that their 950 million total revenue is split something like this: 600 million istock/thinkstock/jupiter, 200 million getty editorial and only 150 million Getty creative.

It could also be any other combination, as long as they don�t publish, you don�t know. The last number we heard was again in 2007/2008 that istock was around 400 million somewhere. Today this might be more or less, or Thinkstock might have taken a lot of that. 

But the traffic tells you how many customers go to a company to license a file. And the number of licenses is much, much lower than on istock or Shutterstock.

For the artist, the only important thing is how much money is the agency paying out in total to the artists. Shutterstock just announced it was around 50 million in 2012. In 2008 Kelly Thompson said istock paid out around 95 million a year (1.8 million a week). So Shutterstock has grown a lot. And if you look at the depressing monthly sales threads on istock it is hard to imagine they are still paying out 95 million a year to artists. Maybe what they pay out is now less then what Shutterstock pays out. Again, we don�t know, but I think it is fair to assume that with the drastically falling traffic and reports on the forums that all artists combined are earning a lot less than before.

Alamy had a total revenue of 22 million and pays out 50%. So in terms of revenue for the artist they are quite interesting for such a small place.

Getty has less revenue than istock/thinkstock, so they must be paying out much less to their artists. But they presumably have less artists, so I guess for the few people who are in, it is enough.

All data, pulled from internet or what I heard on public events over the years, don�t pin me down on the single dollar.

With Getty I mean Gettyimages itself, not the whole Getty universe of God knows how many agencies they own. Getty also sells a lot via partner sites around the globe, so Gettycreative from Gettyimages itself might be quite a small number.

Again you don�t know. But when they got sold last year, they said total revenue over everything was 950 million, so that is the upper limit. And istock was around 400 m. in 2008. So play around with the numbers, look at the traffic, compare sales prices and royalties. Make your own estimates and conclusions.

But for me, I am only interested in the number that goes to the artist. So an agency with a revenue of 100 million but only pays out 15% is less interesting than one with a revenue of 40 million that pays out 50%.

ETA: and because Shutterstock has such a huge number of customers it gives them a great basis to now open a high end agency like OFFSET. If they put a lot of eneryg in it - what will happen to Getty Creative in the next 12 months??

That is the advantage of having a huge and broad customer base. Gettycreative may have lots of high value customers, but they are extremly vulnerable if they lose one of them. There are only so many high end clients in the world.

You have a tiny portfolio alp. You need to build up a port of a few thousand files before it becomes really interesting. Also on some agencies you need a lot of time, for your images to move up in their search ranking. So I don�t really understand why you closed your account with fotolia and deposit. If you have 2000 files online and few sales I understand, but not 160 files in a sea of 20 million or more.

If you really want to just upload a few images here and there and not work with other agencies you might want to consider going exclusive with istock, inspite of all the drama that has been going on there.

The prices are higher and your files will be preferred in the search.

In the end it is up to you. You will get out of the stock market what you put into it, like any other business. Many people posting here do it as a full time day job and just treat their online webshops as a normal webstore, which is what they are in the end.

Good luck!

I do understand. So does everyone else in "forumland". Thank you very much.

Have a great day!

"Regarding royalties...we don�t yet offer public submissions so we�re not officially disclosing our royalty structure, but for estimation purposes, you can expect it to be similar to our core business. Shutterstock pays somewhere in the vicinity of 30%. 
"

from Scott

So they are thinking of paying 30% for non-exclusive content. So you could still offer your files on Alamy or sell from your own site or work with another macro agency that sells at a similar price point. Maybe even put them on pond5 with a similar price. If their contract allows, I don�t know.

Sounds like a very fair offer.

It will be a while before they have customers, but Shutterstock seems to have the biggest customer base and they have enough money for marketing.