Author Topic: A monday like sunday. (Read 22213 times)

robhainer · « **Reply #75 on:** July 29, 2015, 19:00 »

Quote from: tickstock on July 29, 2015, 18:36

Quote from: robhainer on July 29, 2015, 18:19
Quote from: tickstock on July 29, 2015, 17:32
Quote from: PixelBytes on July 29, 2015, 15:55
I expect your right about SS sales decreasing, but even if they decrease by 50% they will still be much higher than my istock sales are now. And istock will be hit by the same issue so expect your IS sales to drop too.
iStock exclusives probably aren't going to be contributing to Adobe. I'm already doing all I can to stay away from there. It's nonexclusives who have to decide if they would rather have sales at SS or Adobe. I'd stay away from Adobe as a SS contributor, it's easy to see what will happen if people don't.

It doesn't really work that way. Pulling my images off Fotolia is not going to equal more sales on Shutterstock. People aren't shopping on one site or another because my images are there. They're choosing a site based on the content of the entire library, the quality of the search engine and the price.

The most important thing for buyers is finding images that will do the job they want. They will go to the site that makes that happen most often. I need to have my images in both places to hedge my bets, but I think Shutterstock still has Fotolia beat on search and content. For the time being, anyway.
Sounds like a contradiction to me. Your images are part the entire library and our images are the entirety of it. If your images are on one site and not the other and they are the ones buyers need then buyers will go to that site. If you produce copycat images then you're right it doesn't matter which sites you're on. Maybe it won't matter if one or two unique portfolios go to SS and don't go to Adobe but if a lot of contributors do then it will make a difference. I think we should as individuals take responsibility for what we do.

It's not a contradiction when you consider my portfolio is just a drop in the bucket on any of these sites. I'm just riding the wave. I make the decision where to put my images based on the libraries that are already there. I can't change that fact on my own. It would take more than "a lot" of contributors to move. It would take almost all of them.

It's not going to happen. We're talking about tens of thousands of people, and for many of them, just $25,000 a year is a good living wage. They'll happily undercut you because they don't need the same amount of income.

tickstock · « **Reply #76 on:** July 29, 2015, 19:08 »

So you believe you haven't produced any work that is unique? I see your Panama Beach images are some of your most popular and there aren't any on Shutterstock that compete with them, if those were only available on higher priced sites buyers would need to go there, a buyer can't use a nice image of Miami to illustrate Panama Beach. The market isn't totally oversaturated yet.

ShadySue · « **Reply #77 on:** July 29, 2015, 19:28 »

Decisions contributors make are easily trumped by the sites making sudden changes in policy, most obviously iS suddenly deciding to force everyone in to their subs scheme (unless they quit altogether, obviously), and into G+ where sales for 17c or even less have been reported.

tickstock · « **Reply #78 on:** July 29, 2015, 19:46 »

The sites have nothing without our images. Maybe when people at SS start to see a decline and a switch to lower royalty sales at Adobe they'll be ready to make some changes.

ShadySue · « **Reply #79 on:** July 29, 2015, 19:59 »

Quote from: tickstock on July 29, 2015, 19:46

The sites have nothing without our images. Maybe when people at SS start to see a decline and a switch to lower royalty sales at Adobe they'll be ready to make some changes.

Yeah, and maybe if enough exclusives had pulled their ports from iS when they introduced subs, they might have made changes. (I doubt it.)
Or if people had pulled their ports from sites which secretly make their files available at partner sites and cream off even more for themselves, or for any number of other reasons.
No-one would have images on any micro.
It has never worked before. The old iS management was somewhat responsive to contributor concerns, but Getty were never going to be. They had that reputation for many years.
Past history is no guarantee of future performance.

tickstock · « **Reply #80 on:** July 29, 2015, 20:17 »

Let's hope not everyone has your defeatist attitude.

PixelBytes · « **Reply #81 on:** July 29, 2015, 22:03 »

Quote from: robhainer on July 29, 2015, 19:00

Quote from: tickstock on July 29, 2015, 18:36
Quote from: robhainer on July 29, 2015, 18:19
Quote from: tickstock on July 29, 2015, 17:32
Quote from: PixelBytes on July 29, 2015, 15:55
I expect your right about SS sales decreasing, but even if they decrease by 50% they will still be much higher than my istock sales are now. And istock will be hit by the same issue so expect your IS sales to drop too.
iStock exclusives probably aren't going to be contributing to Adobe. I'm already doing all I can to stay away from there. It's nonexclusives who have to decide if they would rather have sales at SS or Adobe. I'd stay away from Adobe as a SS contributor, it's easy to see what will happen if people don't.

It doesn't really work that way. Pulling my images off Fotolia is not going to equal more sales on Shutterstock. People aren't shopping on one site or another because my images are there. They're choosing a site based on the content of the entire library, the quality of the search engine and the price.

The most important thing for buyers is finding images that will do the job they want. They will go to the site that makes that happen most often. I need to have my images in both places to hedge my bets, but I think Shutterstock still has Fotolia beat on search and content. For the time being, anyway.
Sounds like a contradiction to me. Your images are part the entire library and our images are the entirety of it. If your images are on one site and not the other and they are the ones buyers need then buyers will go to that site. If you produce copycat images then you're right it doesn't matter which sites you're on. Maybe it won't matter if one or two unique portfolios go to SS and don't go to Adobe but if a lot of contributors do then it will make a difference. I think we should as individuals take responsibility for what we do.

It's not a contradiction when you consider my portfolio is just a drop in the bucket on any of these sites. I'm just riding the wave. I make the decision where to put my images based on the libraries that are already there. I can't change that fact on my own. It would take more than "a lot" of contributors to move. It would take almost all of them.

It's not going to happen. We're talking about tens of thousands of people, and for many of them, just $25,000 a year is a good living wage. They'll happily undercut you because they don't need the same amount of income.

Exactly, Rob. The only way being indie works is to have images on all the major sites. If I gave up SS or FT the loss of either would mean giving up 5 figures a year. That's bad business.

PixelBytes · « **Reply #82 on:** July 29, 2015, 22:16 »

Quote from: tickstock on July 29, 2015, 20:17

Let's hope not everyone has your defeatist attitude.

It's not really defeatist if its true. Name one time contributors pulling ports put any site out of business, or even drove business to other sites? We tried, but the ones who control where the buyers go have always been the agencies, either by offering good deals or shooting theirselves in the foot.

tickstock · « **Reply #83 on:** July 29, 2015, 22:47 »

Quote from: PixelBytes on July 29, 2015, 22:03

Quote from: robhainer on July 29, 2015, 19:00
Quote from: tickstock on July 29, 2015, 18:36
Quote from: robhainer on July 29, 2015, 18:19
Quote from: tickstock on July 29, 2015, 17:32
Quote from: PixelBytes on July 29, 2015, 15:55
I expect your right about SS sales decreasing, but even if they decrease by 50% they will still be much higher than my istock sales are now. And istock will be hit by the same issue so expect your IS sales to drop too.
iStock exclusives probably aren't going to be contributing to Adobe. I'm already doing all I can to stay away from there. It's nonexclusives who have to decide if they would rather have sales at SS or Adobe. I'd stay away from Adobe as a SS contributor, it's easy to see what will happen if people don't.

It doesn't really work that way. Pulling my images off Fotolia is not going to equal more sales on Shutterstock. People aren't shopping on one site or another because my images are there. They're choosing a site based on the content of the entire library, the quality of the search engine and the price.

The most important thing for buyers is finding images that will do the job they want. They will go to the site that makes that happen most often. I need to have my images in both places to hedge my bets, but I think Shutterstock still has Fotolia beat on search and content. For the time being, anyway.
Sounds like a contradiction to me. Your images are part the entire library and our images are the entirety of it. If your images are on one site and not the other and they are the ones buyers need then buyers will go to that site. If you produce copycat images then you're right it doesn't matter which sites you're on. Maybe it won't matter if one or two unique portfolios go to SS and don't go to Adobe but if a lot of contributors do then it will make a difference. I think we should as individuals take responsibility for what we do.

It's not a contradiction when you consider my portfolio is just a drop in the bucket on any of these sites. I'm just riding the wave. I make the decision where to put my images based on the libraries that are already there. I can't change that fact on my own. It would take more than "a lot" of contributors to move. It would take almost all of them.

It's not going to happen. We're talking about tens of thousands of people, and for many of them, just $25,000 a year is a good living wage. They'll happily undercut you because they don't need the same amount of income.

Exactly, Rob. The only way being indie works is to have images on all the major sites. If I gave up SS or FT the loss of either would mean giving up 5 figures a year. That's bad business.

Would it change your mind at all if Shutterstock were to match or beat Adobe's pricing (with the corresponding royalty drops)?

robhainer · « **Reply #84 on:** July 29, 2015, 23:07 »

Quote from: tickstock on July 29, 2015, 19:08

So you believe you haven't produced any work that is unique? I see your Panama Beach images are some of your most popular and there aren't any on Shutterstock that compete with them, if those were only available on higher priced sites buyers would need to go there, a buyer can't use a nice image of Miami to illustrate Panama Beach. The market isn't totally oversaturated yet.

Well, they are top of my most popular now, but they aren't my best sellers. They're just sorta more recent. I have one image that is No. 2 under "pets" search. It has sold more than 3,000 times in two years and earned me almost $2,000. I spent 10 minutes taking it in the front yard.

But let's take one of those Panama City Beach images, for example. The night shot of the strip there has been online for about a year on both Shutterstock and Istock. On Shutterstock, it has sold 238 times for $122. On Istock, it has had one view and no sales. I has had 9 sales on Fotolia. There's really no better, higher priced site for me to use. Shutterstock is it. The only thing that comes close is 500px, but sales there are pretty rare and images are easy to steal with no real watermark.

tickstock · « **Reply #85 on:** July 29, 2015, 23:10 »

Quote from: robhainer on July 29, 2015, 23:07

Quote from: tickstock on July 29, 2015, 19:08
So you believe you haven't produced any work that is unique? I see your Panama Beach images are some of your most popular and there aren't any on Shutterstock that compete with them, if those were only available on higher priced sites buyers would need to go there, a buyer can't use a nice image of Miami to illustrate Panama Beach. The market isn't totally oversaturated yet.

Well, they are top of my most popular now, but they aren't my best sellers. They're just sorta more recent. I have one image that is No. 2 under "pets" search. It has sold more than 3,000 times in two years and earned me almost $2,000. I spent 10 minutes taking it in the front yard.

But let's take one of those Panama City Beach images, for example. The night shot of the strip there has been online for about a year on both Shutterstock and Istock. On Shutterstock, it has sold 238 times for $122. On Istock, it has had one view and no sales. I has had 9 sales on Fotolia. There's really no better, higher priced site for me to use. Shutterstock is it. The only thing that comes close is 500px, but sales there are pretty rare and images are easy to steal with no real watermark.

Your city shots would probably be accepted somewhere like Stocksy or Getty. You would need just a couple sales to make that amount.

robhainer · « **Reply #86 on:** July 30, 2015, 08:47 »

Quote from: tickstock on July 29, 2015, 23:10

Quote from: robhainer on July 29, 2015, 23:07
Quote from: tickstock on July 29, 2015, 19:08
So you believe you haven't produced any work that is unique? I see your Panama Beach images are some of your most popular and there aren't any on Shutterstock that compete with them, if those were only available on higher priced sites buyers would need to go there, a buyer can't use a nice image of Miami to illustrate Panama Beach. The market isn't totally oversaturated yet.

Well, they are top of my most popular now, but they aren't my best sellers. They're just sorta more recent. I have one image that is No. 2 under "pets" search. It has sold more than 3,000 times in two years and earned me almost $2,000. I spent 10 minutes taking it in the front yard.

But let's take one of those Panama City Beach images, for example. The night shot of the strip there has been online for about a year on both Shutterstock and Istock. On Shutterstock, it has sold 238 times for $122. On Istock, it has had one view and no sales. I has had 9 sales on Fotolia. There's really no better, higher priced site for me to use. Shutterstock is it. The only thing that comes close is 500px, but sales there are pretty rare and images are easy to steal with no real watermark.
Your city shots would probably be accepted somewhere like Stocksy or Getty. You would need just a couple sales to make that amount.

I've been rejected by both of those. I don't think either site would give me the steady income that I get now. One sale every once in a while based on a little luck just doesn't cut it.

Microstockphoto · « **Reply #87 on:** July 30, 2015, 09:16 »

First 12 days of July were shambles, then it picked up. Decent month, better than July 14, better than June 15.

Zero Talent · « **Reply #88 on:** July 30, 2015, 10:28 »

Quote from: tickstock on July 29, 2015, 23:10

Quote from: robhainer on July 29, 2015, 23:07
Quote from: tickstock on July 29, 2015, 19:08
So you believe you haven't produced any work that is unique? I see your Panama Beach images are some of your most popular and there aren't any on Shutterstock that compete with them, if those were only available on higher priced sites buyers would need to go there, a buyer can't use a nice image of Miami to illustrate Panama Beach. The market isn't totally oversaturated yet.

Well, they are top of my most popular now, but they aren't my best sellers. They're just sorta more recent. I have one image that is No. 2 under "pets" search. It has sold more than 3,000 times in two years and earned me almost $2,000. I spent 10 minutes taking it in the front yard.

But let's take one of those Panama City Beach images, for example. The night shot of the strip there has been online for about a year on both Shutterstock and Istock. On Shutterstock, it has sold 238 times for $122. On Istock, it has had one view and no sales. I has had 9 sales on Fotolia. There's really no better, higher priced site for me to use. Shutterstock is it. The only thing that comes close is 500px, but sales there are pretty rare and images are easy to steal with no real watermark.
Your city shots would probably be accepted somewhere like Stocksy or Getty. You would need just a couple sales to make that amount.

I have a bunch of exclusive photos with Getty. Granted, I am definitely getting a much higher RPD from Getty, indeed (~$26)
However, my math shows that, even if I transfer all my collection exclusively to Getty, by taking in account a much lower sales volume, I will end up with about 30% less/month, than what I'm doing now.

Same story goes for Alamy, although you can argue that sales are so low (3% of the total) because I'm not exclusive there (and that's false, anyway). Or for 500px, as robhainer stated.

tickstock · « **Reply #89 on:** July 30, 2015, 10:31 »

Quote from: Zero Talent on July 30, 2015, 10:28

Quote from: tickstock on July 29, 2015, 23:10
Quote from: robhainer on July 29, 2015, 23:07
Quote from: tickstock on July 29, 2015, 19:08
So you believe you haven't produced any work that is unique? I see your Panama Beach images are some of your most popular and there aren't any on Shutterstock that compete with them, if those were only available on higher priced sites buyers would need to go there, a buyer can't use a nice image of Miami to illustrate Panama Beach. The market isn't totally oversaturated yet.

Well, they are top of my most popular now, but they aren't my best sellers. They're just sorta more recent. I have one image that is No. 2 under "pets" search. It has sold more than 3,000 times in two years and earned me almost $2,000. I spent 10 minutes taking it in the front yard.

But let's take one of those Panama City Beach images, for example. The night shot of the strip there has been online for about a year on both Shutterstock and Istock. On Shutterstock, it has sold 238 times for $122. On Istock, it has had one view and no sales. I has had 9 sales on Fotolia. There's really no better, higher priced site for me to use. Shutterstock is it. The only thing that comes close is 500px, but sales there are pretty rare and images are easy to steal with no real watermark.
Your city shots would probably be accepted somewhere like Stocksy or Getty. You would need just a couple sales to make that amount.

I have a bunch of exclusive photos with Getty. Granted, I am definitely getting a much higher RPD from Getty, indeed (~$26)
However, my math shows that, even if I transfer all my collection exclusively to Getty, by taking in account a much lower sales volume, I will end up with about 30% less/month, than what I'm doing now.

Same story goes for Alamy, although you can argue that sales are so low (3% of the total) because I'm not exclusive there (and that's false, anyway)

I'm not saying transfer everything, some images will do better at higher priced places and others at lower priced sites. Images that are good and have little or no competition on microstock sites should probably be priced higher.

Zero Talent · « **Reply #90 on:** July 30, 2015, 10:34 »

Quote from: tickstock on July 30, 2015, 10:31

Quote from: Zero Talent on July 30, 2015, 10:28
Quote from: tickstock on July 29, 2015, 23:10
Quote from: robhainer on July 29, 2015, 23:07
Quote from: tickstock on July 29, 2015, 19:08
So you believe you haven't produced any work that is unique? I see your Panama Beach images are some of your most popular and there aren't any on Shutterstock that compete with them, if those were only available on higher priced sites buyers would need to go there, a buyer can't use a nice image of Miami to illustrate Panama Beach. The market isn't totally oversaturated yet.

Well, they are top of my most popular now, but they aren't my best sellers. They're just sorta more recent. I have one image that is No. 2 under "pets" search. It has sold more than 3,000 times in two years and earned me almost $2,000. I spent 10 minutes taking it in the front yard.

But let's take one of those Panama City Beach images, for example. The night shot of the strip there has been online for about a year on both Shutterstock and Istock. On Shutterstock, it has sold 238 times for $122. On Istock, it has had one view and no sales. I has had 9 sales on Fotolia. There's really no better, higher priced site for me to use. Shutterstock is it. The only thing that comes close is 500px, but sales there are pretty rare and images are easy to steal with no real watermark.
Your city shots would probably be accepted somewhere like Stocksy or Getty. You would need just a couple sales to make that amount.

I have a bunch of exclusive photos with Getty. Granted, I am definitely getting a much higher RPD from Getty, indeed (~$26)
However, my math shows that, even if I transfer all my collection exclusively to Getty, by taking in account a much lower sales volume, I will end up with about 30% less/month, than what I'm doing now.

Same story goes for Alamy, although you can argue that sales are so low (3% of the total) because I'm not exclusive there (and that's false, anyway)
I'm not saying transfer everything, some images will do better at higher priced places and others at lower priced sites. Images that are good and have little or no competition on microstock sites should probably be priced higher.

Anything in between, meaning between ALL files exclusive with Getty and what I have today, will obviously lead to a gap even larger than 30%. At the end of the day, volume matters more than the (false) pride of not selling yourself cheap.

tickstock · « **Reply #91 on:** July 30, 2015, 10:36 »

Sorry I have no idea what that sentence means. It's not false pride, some images will make more money at higher priced sites than on lower priced ones.

Zero Talent · « **Reply #92 on:** July 30, 2015, 10:48 »

Quote from: tickstock on July 30, 2015, 10:36

Sorry I have no idea what that sentence means. It's not false pride, some images will make more money at higher priced sites than on lower priced ones.

Definitely, but if these files only sell once every 10th blue moon, you end up getting less. Or as I calculated for myself, I will get 30% less. Not a good deal.

If only we could convince exclusives like you to stop enabling IS!
We have to make them understand that the commission they pay to their contributors is the lowest in the industry. Those $0.19 PP sales are a disgrace!

Giving away your exclusivity will be better for you AND for the rest of us!

tickstock · « **Reply #93 on:** July 30, 2015, 10:53 »

Quote from: Zero Talent on July 30, 2015, 10:48

Quote from: tickstock on July 30, 2015, 10:36
Sorry I have no idea what that sentence means. It's not false pride, some images will make more money at higher priced sites than on lower priced ones.
Definitely, but if these files only sell once every 10th blue moon, you end up getting less. Or as I calculated for myself, I will get 30% less. Not a good deal.

If only we could convince exclusives like you to stop enabling IS!
We have to make them understand that the commission the pay their contributors is the lowest in the industry.

Giving away your exclusivity will be better for you AND for the rest of us!

How is that? I get higher royalty rate and higher priced sales. You want a competitor to lower their royalty rates and prices of images and you think that will be good for you? You must have been jumping for joy when DPC was announced. You'll see what happens over the next year or so with Adobe undercutting Shutterstock, tell me how that's worked out for you when Shutterstock matches them.

Zero Talent · « **Reply #94 on:** July 30, 2015, 10:57 »

Quote from: tickstock on July 30, 2015, 10:53

Quote from: Zero Talent on July 30, 2015, 10:48
Quote from: tickstock on July 30, 2015, 10:36
Sorry I have no idea what that sentence means. It's not false pride, some images will make more money at higher priced sites than on lower priced ones.
Definitely, but if these files only sell once every 10th blue moon, you end up getting less. Or as I calculated for myself, I will get 30% less. Not a good deal.

If only we could convince exclusives like you to stop enabling IS!
We have to make them understand that the commission the pay their contributors is the lowest in the industry.

Giving away your exclusivity will be better for you AND for the rest of us!
How is that? I get higher royalty rate and higher priced sales. You want a competitor to lower their royalty rates and prices of images and you think that will be good for you? You must have been jumping for joy when DPC was announced.

No. Believe it or not, I want you to make 30% more than you do today.

I want people like you to pull their exclusive collections from IS. This will make IS lose their customers to other agencies offering a better RPD (IS is paying me 25% less than SS and 35% less than FT)

Win for you, win for the rest of us!

robhainer · « **Reply #95 on:** July 30, 2015, 11:23 »

Quote from: tickstock on July 30, 2015, 10:31

Quote from: Zero Talent on July 30, 2015, 10:28
Quote from: tickstock on July 29, 2015, 23:10
Quote from: robhainer on July 29, 2015, 23:07
Quote from: tickstock on July 29, 2015, 19:08
So you believe you haven't produced any work that is unique? I see your Panama Beach images are some of your most popular and there aren't any on Shutterstock that compete with them, if those were only available on higher priced sites buyers would need to go there, a buyer can't use a nice image of Miami to illustrate Panama Beach. The market isn't totally oversaturated yet.

Well, they are top of my most popular now, but they aren't my best sellers. They're just sorta more recent. I have one image that is No. 2 under "pets" search. It has sold more than 3,000 times in two years and earned me almost $2,000. I spent 10 minutes taking it in the front yard.

But let's take one of those Panama City Beach images, for example. The night shot of the strip there has been online for about a year on both Shutterstock and Istock. On Shutterstock, it has sold 238 times for $122. On Istock, it has had one view and no sales. I has had 9 sales on Fotolia. There's really no better, higher priced site for me to use. Shutterstock is it. The only thing that comes close is 500px, but sales there are pretty rare and images are easy to steal with no real watermark.
Your city shots would probably be accepted somewhere like Stocksy or Getty. You would need just a couple sales to make that amount.

I have a bunch of exclusive photos with Getty. Granted, I am definitely getting a much higher RPD from Getty, indeed (~$26)
However, my math shows that, even if I transfer all my collection exclusively to Getty, by taking in account a much lower sales volume, I will end up with about 30% less/month, than what I'm doing now.

Same story goes for Alamy, although you can argue that sales are so low (3% of the total) because I'm not exclusive there (and that's false, anyway)
I'm not saying transfer everything, some images will do better at higher priced places and others at lower priced sites. Images that are good and have little or no competition on microstock sites should probably be priced higher.

Maybe. Not much to say when those sites reject you for whatever reason. I don't know why, because many of my images are as good if not better than what's on those sites. Not all of them. I have some real crappers from when I first started, but a lot of them.

So really, you can blame whomever is running those sites. They reject people coming up, who end up on cheaper sites with competitive images. Still, I'm happy overall with my earnings compared to the size of my port and the amount of work I put into it, which isn't all that much. Stock images are only a portion of my overall photography earnings, and they really help out.

I'm happy to have this conversation with you, tickstock. I see where you're coming from, and maybe you see where I'm coming from.

tickstock · « **Reply #96 on:** July 30, 2015, 11:27 »

Quote from: robhainer on July 30, 2015, 11:23

Quote from: tickstock on July 30, 2015, 10:31
Quote from: Zero Talent on July 30, 2015, 10:28
Quote from: tickstock on July 29, 2015, 23:10
Quote from: robhainer on July 29, 2015, 23:07
Quote from: tickstock on July 29, 2015, 19:08
So you believe you haven't produced any work that is unique? I see your Panama Beach images are some of your most popular and there aren't any on Shutterstock that compete with them, if those were only available on higher priced sites buyers would need to go there, a buyer can't use a nice image of Miami to illustrate Panama Beach. The market isn't totally oversaturated yet.

Well, they are top of my most popular now, but they aren't my best sellers. They're just sorta more recent. I have one image that is No. 2 under "pets" search. It has sold more than 3,000 times in two years and earned me almost $2,000. I spent 10 minutes taking it in the front yard.

But let's take one of those Panama City Beach images, for example. The night shot of the strip there has been online for about a year on both Shutterstock and Istock. On Shutterstock, it has sold 238 times for $122. On Istock, it has had one view and no sales. I has had 9 sales on Fotolia. There's really no better, higher priced site for me to use. Shutterstock is it. The only thing that comes close is 500px, but sales there are pretty rare and images are easy to steal with no real watermark.
Your city shots would probably be accepted somewhere like Stocksy or Getty. You would need just a couple sales to make that amount.

I have a bunch of exclusive photos with Getty. Granted, I am definitely getting a much higher RPD from Getty, indeed (~$26)
However, my math shows that, even if I transfer all my collection exclusively to Getty, by taking in account a much lower sales volume, I will end up with about 30% less/month, than what I'm doing now.

Same story goes for Alamy, although you can argue that sales are so low (3% of the total) because I'm not exclusive there (and that's false, anyway)
I'm not saying transfer everything, some images will do better at higher priced places and others at lower priced sites. Images that are good and have little or no competition on microstock sites should probably be priced higher.

Maybe. Not much to say when those sites reject you for whatever reason. I don't know why, because many of my images are as good if not better than what's on those sites. Not all of them. I have some real crappers from when I first started, but a lot of them.

So really, you can blame whomever is running those sites. They reject people coming up, who end up on cheaper sites with competitive images. Still, I'm happy overall with my earnings compared to the size of my port and the amount of work I put into it, which isn't all that much. Stock images are only a portion of my overall photography earnings, and they really help out.

I'm happy to have this conversation with you, tickstock. I see where you're coming from, and maybe you see where I'm coming from.

Yeah I see where you're coming from. Maybe you needed a more curated site to show off your work to Stocksy and Getty, I think your cityscapes are as good as the ones I see on Stocksy although I have no idea if they get the returns to justify moving them there.

tickstock · « **Reply #97 on:** July 30, 2015, 11:29 »

Quote from: Zero Talent on July 30, 2015, 10:57

Quote from: tickstock on July 30, 2015, 10:53
Quote from: Zero Talent on July 30, 2015, 10:48
Quote from: tickstock on July 30, 2015, 10:36
Sorry I have no idea what that sentence means. It's not false pride, some images will make more money at higher priced sites than on lower priced ones.
Definitely, but if these files only sell once every 10th blue moon, you end up getting less. Or as I calculated for myself, I will get 30% less. Not a good deal.

If only we could convince exclusives like you to stop enabling IS!
We have to make them understand that the commission the pay their contributors is the lowest in the industry.

Giving away your exclusivity will be better for you AND for the rest of us!
How is that? I get higher royalty rate and higher priced sales. You want a competitor to lower their royalty rates and prices of images and you think that will be good for you? You must have been jumping for joy when DPC was announced.

No. Believe it or not, I want you to make 30% more than you do today.

I want people like you to pull their exclusive collections from IS. This will make IS lose their customers to other agencies offering a better RPD (IS is paying me 25% less than SS and 35% less than FT)

Win for you, win for the rest of us!

I don't think I'd get 30% more, I'm pretty sure losing 30% is much more likely. I also think in the coming year Adobe and Shutterstock will both lower prices and Shutterstock may lower subscription royalties as well to compete better with Adobe (who in turn can already lower their prices since they pay less for subs). Maybe the OP and those saying SS sales are going down are outliers and the vast majority are seeing increases but I doubt that (you can look at their earnings report and see that RPI has dropped significantly in recent quarters).

Zero Talent · « **Reply #98 on:** July 30, 2015, 11:32 »

Quote from: tickstock on July 30, 2015, 11:29

Quote from: Zero Talent on July 30, 2015, 10:57
Quote from: tickstock on July 30, 2015, 10:53
Quote from: Zero Talent on July 30, 2015, 10:48
Quote from: tickstock on July 30, 2015, 10:36
Sorry I have no idea what that sentence means. It's not false pride, some images will make more money at higher priced sites than on lower priced ones.
Definitely, but if these files only sell once every 10th blue moon, you end up getting less. Or as I calculated for myself, I will get 30% less. Not a good deal.

If only we could convince exclusives like you to stop enabling IS!
We have to make them understand that the commission the pay their contributors is the lowest in the industry.

Giving away your exclusivity will be better for you AND for the rest of us!
How is that? I get higher royalty rate and higher priced sales. You want a competitor to lower their royalty rates and prices of images and you think that will be good for you? You must have been jumping for joy when DPC was announced.

No. Believe it or not, I want you to make 30% more than you do today.

I want people like you to pull their exclusive collections from IS. This will make IS lose their customers to other agencies offering a better RPD (IS is paying me 25% less than SS and 35% less than FT)

Win for you, win for the rest of us!
I don't think I'd get 30% more, I'm pretty sure losing 30% is much more likely. I also think in the coming year Adobe and Shutterstock will both lower prices and Shutterstock may lower subscription royalties as well to compete better with Adobe (who in turn can already lower their prices since they pay less for subs).

Of course, we will never know!
Nevertheless, you have an opinion, while I have facts based on those exclusive files (some of my best) I still keep with Getty.

tickstock · « **Reply #99 on:** July 30, 2015, 11:36 »

Quote from: Zero Talent on July 30, 2015, 11:32

Quote from: tickstock on July 30, 2015, 11:29
Quote from: Zero Talent on July 30, 2015, 10:57
Quote from: tickstock on July 30, 2015, 10:53
Quote from: Zero Talent on July 30, 2015, 10:48
Quote from: tickstock on July 30, 2015, 10:36
Sorry I have no idea what that sentence means. It's not false pride, some images will make more money at higher priced sites than on lower priced ones.
Definitely, but if these files only sell once every 10th blue moon, you end up getting less. Or as I calculated for myself, I will get 30% less. Not a good deal.

If only we could convince exclusives like you to stop enabling IS!
We have to make them understand that the commission the pay their contributors is the lowest in the industry.

Giving away your exclusivity will be better for you AND for the rest of us!
How is that? I get higher royalty rate and higher priced sales. You want a competitor to lower their royalty rates and prices of images and you think that will be good for you? You must have been jumping for joy when DPC was announced.

No. Believe it or not, I want you to make 30% more than you do today.

I want people like you to pull their exclusive collections from IS. This will make IS lose their customers to other agencies offering a better RPD (IS is paying me 25% less than SS and 35% less than FT)

Win for you, win for the rest of us!
I don't think I'd get 30% more, I'm pretty sure losing 30% is much more likely. I also think in the coming year Adobe and Shutterstock will both lower prices and Shutterstock may lower subscription royalties as well to compete better with Adobe (who in turn can already lower their prices since they pay less for subs).

Of course, we will never know!
Nevertheless, you have an opinion, while I have facts based on those exclusive files (some of my best) I still keep with Getty.

From what I see your better versions are on Shutterstock. That's just opinion but those aren't the kinds of images I was saying belong at higher priced sites, they are good just not unique enough especially when you have very very similar ones on microstock sites. And you're selling the ones on Getty as RF, I'm thinking more about RM with a much higher royalty rate or somewhere like Stocksy, also with a much higher royalty rate.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: A monday like sunday. (Read 22213 times)

robhainer

tickstock

ShadySue

tickstock

ShadySue

tickstock

PixelBytes

PixelBytes

tickstock

robhainer

tickstock

robhainer

Microstockphoto

Zero Talent

tickstock

Zero Talent

tickstock

Zero Talent

tickstock

Zero Talent

robhainer

tickstock

tickstock

Zero Talent

tickstock

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors