So... thinking of uploading to shutterstock...

Then took a look at a few numbers, did some math, and then noticed a few posts talking about 'spammy' portfolios (i.e., 1000 pictures of a pair of shoes, from 0-360 degrees in 0.3 degree increments, etc)...

If my math is correct, it seems on 'average' right now you'd need to have a portfolio size of about 10,000 images to 'make' about $600/year? Does that sound right? (Of course, I realize there would be outliers on both sides), but that seems to the case?

Any agreements/disagreements?

Just recently started on shutterstock, a couple questions:

a) Is there a way to easily view your 'video' portfolio? It seems they have something for images, but nothing for video.
b) Uploaded some videos last month, didn't get around to tagging/keywording them now - but noticed I can't find them. Does shutterstock have a timeframe that you need to keyword/tag/submit your videos/images/etc or they just automatically delete them?

Thanks!

Probably for maximum cellphone/mobile compatibility. You 'may' have a better phone, but chances are they want it to work on as many cellphones as possible, so going with the lower fps is good for them.

What I don't get is... how did they get access to the "full" (non-watermarked) images in the first place?

Unless you are sitting on an untapped resource of excellent images I think anyone now to go from a standing start to becoming a full time "microstocker" would take enormous talent and effort. Better to label yourself a "professional" photographer and cast the net wider I think. From what I've seen if you have the personality for it teaching people to use their cameras is a far more lucrative activity.

Yes, I agree.

While I am relatively new to microstocking (i.e., only 1-2 years) - I have had to "work" really hard to get any kind of income started from it. It at times can kind of be a bit of a grind (keywording, titling, uploading, getting over rejections, taking new pics/videos/etc) - but - I think since it is 'fun' (at least the taking photos/videos/etc part) - keeps me going. There's also the quantity, quality, uniqueness, supply/demand/etc aspects of it which factor into your sales.

I think it would be fantastic to have more than a full-time income from this. But, it will take a bit of work, and I am having a bit of fun along the way.

PPS.

Also, think of it this way. If someone only "took a picture" of "your" picture on the t-shirt, (nothing else, except for your picture that was on the t-shirt), but it was "their" picture that they took - and they then decided to print t-shirts with a picture of "your" picture on it - would you be upset? Or would you be happy with it - because it was "their" picture they took of your picture?

I took one look at their upload interface and said nope.

inteface has changed (very easy), but now they've blocked 'new' people from uploading...

If it is a small fee *per sale*, sure, why not? (I am thinking you mean a small % of the sale?) If so, yes, I would go for that.

I'm impresed. I have 0 sales @ alamy.

19 is good.

Sent you a PM.

Bottomline though - it really comes down to sales. If you can figure out how to make people *profitable sales* (and lots of them), then you'll have a winner.

Very good considerations SuperPhoto.

There's definitely pros on cons about being self-hosted. And in terms of sales it will never be anywhere near as what you can achieve with the help of stock agencies. But I do see it as an interesting alternative to the stock agencies for people who have a certain size of portfolio. Some of the interesting aspects:
- 100% commissions
- Options to sell different licenses (exclusive licenses, TIFF files, RAW files, graded / ungraded video)
- More control to present your portfolio the way you want
- Get to know you customers

If you don't mind SuperPhoto it could be interesting chatting a bit more. Can I get your email?

Quote from: SuperPhoto on August 29, 2018, 23:22

Took a look at your survey.

I think I know what type of project you want to put together (if it's what I think it is, I was thinking of doing the same thing a while back).

Creating a site where you charge a fee to host files (photos/videos) is kind of a good idea - but I think you have a limited market.

The issue I think most photographers/videographers have is they don't know how to market themselves to generate sales - so unless you solve that problem, I don't think charging a subscription fee for photographers/videographers to host their own files will be that appealing. Simply because they don't know how to market it (even though you'll probably promote it that way). So what's the point of *paying* someone to host files for something they already get to do for *free* (portfolios on other sites). Yes, yes - you can say "no agency commission!" - but then the challenge is marketing and making SALES. And most don't really know how to do that on their own. They are photographers/videographers, not marketers.

So the thought process would be 'why should I PAY you money to host, with no sales if I have to do ALL the work in marketing TOO'? And they probably wouldn't buy.

BTW - re: income - do you generate $40,000 USD per month through photography? You had that in your survey question.

My educated guess is there is maybe 1% that do above $5k/month - but - they'd probably be happy with how they are doing things already (letting the agencies promote), so wouldn't really be interested in such a service. Then, maybe 10% that do $1-$2k/month - but again, too much work to promote themselves. And then probably 75% doing from $100-$500/month - but then your service would probably be too expensive (assuming you'd be charging between $30-$50/month) - AND - reaching those people and converting them I think would be a challenge. Unless you have some 'in' (relationship with an agency) - or - some way of reaching that vast majority of photographers/videographers - OR - figuring out how to make them SALES - I think you have a bit of a challenge before you.

Took a look at your survey.

I think I know what type of project you want to put together (if it's what I think it is, I was thinking of doing the same thing a while back).

Creating a site where you charge a fee to host files (photos/videos) is kind of a good idea - but I think you have a limited market.

The issue I think most photographers/videographers have is they don't know how to market themselves to generate sales - so unless you solve that problem, I don't think charging a subscription fee for photographers/videographers to host their own files will be that appealing. Simply because they don't know how to market it (even though you'll probably promote it that way). So what's the point of *paying* someone to host files for something they already get to do for *free* (portfolios on other sites). Yes, yes - you can say "no agency commission!" - but then the challenge is marketing and making SALES. And most don't really know how to do that on their own. They are photographers/videographers, not marketers.

So the thought process would be 'why should I PAY you money to host, with no sales if I have to do ALL the work in marketing TOO'? And they probably wouldn't buy.

BTW - re: income - do you generate $40,000 USD per month through photography? You had that in your survey question.

My educated guess is there is maybe 1% that do above $5k/month - but - they'd probably be happy with how they are doing things already (letting the agencies promote), so wouldn't really be interested in such a service. Then, maybe 10% that do $1-$2k/month - but again, too much work to promote themselves. And then probably 75% doing from $100-$500/month - but then your service would probably be too expensive (assuming you'd be charging between $30-$50/month) - AND - reaching those people and converting them I think would be a challenge. Unless you have some 'in' (relationship with an agency) - or - some way of reaching that vast majority of photographers/videographers - OR - figuring out how to make them SALES - I think you have a bit of a challenge before you.

Market's go in cycles, and tend to be cyclical. Start, go up, way up, plateau, decline, go way down, then start over again.

a) If you mean breaking your contract so you can upload the 1.6k photo to other sites, yeah, not sure if you'd be making a lot of extra work for yourself to maintain the same income. (I.e., dip in %, but increase in sales from other sites).  What types of images do you have? (If you want to PM me, I can look at your porfolio and let you know my thoughts). Depends if it is what is in demand, is your content evergreen, is it unique/difficult for others to duplicate, etc, etc.

b) Second option "risk-free". Become a hard worker (again) - and upload new stuff to the 20-25+ agencies over 6 months. See what kinds of results you get.

While images are of course still in demand (I've purchased licenses myself for various projects),
i) Subscription/inexpensive solutions are very popular. (So less likely to make a $100 usd sale, more like a $1 sale)
ii) Competition is much higher. ("Everyone" has a cellphone and considers themselves a "photographer". Some actually buy a real camera, and then consider themselves "professional"). Plus you are increasingly competing with more and more people from countries where $3 usd/hour is considered a great wage.

So even if your stuff is great, getting found, and getting people to pay high prices will most likely be challenging. Not to say it's not possible - but you need to adapt, figure out what's working *now*, and do that.