3
« on: December 16, 2011, 17:20 »
One of the reasons why I went exclusive on Istockphoto more than 3 years ago was I was tired of getting paid peanuts for my image sales. Now I see that Shutterstock may be stealing customers from Istockphoto, and I'm thinking why would this be a good thing?
I'm in the gold level on Istockphoto (probably not after this month) and I make about $0.42 to something like $7.8 an image sale, but more like at least $3.5 a sale on average. Shutterstock only pays like $0.25 to $0.38 a sale. I know that the on-demand images pay more, but I don't know if they are anywhere as popular as the subscription sales. It would take more than 10 times the sales that I have on Istockphoto for Shutterstock to match my exclusive Istockphoto sales, and I doubt even half of that is possible. Is selling full size images for even $0.38 a sale a good thing? I know there are other websites like Dreamstime that pay more (and especially in royalty rates) but for the photography I do, it doesn't look like Dreamstime has anywhere the level of sales volume compared to IS or SS.
I feel that if Shutterstock stays #1 and further weakens other websites like Istockphoto, that would further dilute and cheapen the stock photography market and seriously damage the ability to produce stock photography for microstock as well as hurt many stock photography careers out there. I guess microstock did that to traditional stock, but Istockphoto raised prices slowly but surely, and made it more viable to invest in produce stock photography for microstock. Shutterstock doesn't care with keeping its rock bottom compensation rates.