pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Former Exclusives Interested in Joining Shutterstock  (Read 18818 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #100 on: January 20, 2013, 08:04 »
+7
We know that, which is why many will delete a lot of good work if they drop the crown. for those opposed in principle to subscriptions, they will just have to place that content on other sites.

I know what you mean. Though I think there is no point in submitting images to Shutterstock if you don't want to sell them through subscription sales. Without personal experience and only from other people's reports I would assume that only allowing single image sales, Shutterstock would be much lower in the income scale, probably below iStock even for independents. So you would not only give up the 70 or 80% you lose at iStock, at the same you would give up a huge percentage of the rest.

One possibility would be to only send downscaled images to Shutterstock to their acceptable minimum (4 mp). At least you wouldn't sell your 22 or 36 megapixel images for $0.25 then. And only sell larger images on sites that reward it based on credit levels.

You can't, in all practicality, avoid subscription sales as an independent microstock content provider. If you leave images on IS then they'll be transferred to TS. There is no opt-out either at SS, DT or FT. Those 4 agencies probably represent 90%+ of your potential earnings.

If you downsize your images to the minimum size then you will make them less attractive for single image sales and EL's on all sites as well as missing out on Large+ sales on DT & FT. Essentially you'll be doing a lot of extra work ... in order to earn less money in the future.

You either have to give up your disdain for subscription sales or give up being a microstocker completely. Either that or you stay as an IS exclusive ... in which case Getty may give away your images for almost nothing. If you think your stuff is too good or too valuable for subscription sales then send it to the macros instead.

Personally I don't mind subscription sales. They certainly help hugely in advancing your images up the sort-order as well as accounting for something like 40-50% of total earnings. I'm convinced that the vast majority of images downloaded on subscription are never actually used. From what I've heard the typical subscription buyer actually uses their agency of choice as their 'image server'. Whenever they need images for a project they just download lots of them and see which fits best.


« Reply #101 on: January 20, 2013, 08:09 »
0
We know that, which is why many will delete a lot of good work if they drop the crown. for those opposed in principle to subscriptions, they will just have to place that content on other sites.

Is there a microstock, non-mickey mouse option where subs are optional? 

« Reply #102 on: January 20, 2013, 08:24 »
0
We know that, which is why many will delete a lot of good work if they drop the crown. for those opposed in principle to subscriptions, they will just have to place that content on other sites.

Is there a microstock, non-mickey mouse option where subs are optional?

No

« Reply #103 on: January 20, 2013, 08:49 »
0
If you downsize your images to the minimum size then you will make them less attractive for single image sales and EL's on all sites as well as missing out on Large+ sales on DT & FT. Essentially you'll be doing a lot of extra work ... in order to earn less money in the future.

Well, I have Lightroom and can export 1,000 files to any size I wish with 5 seconds of work. This wouldn't be an issue. And I would upload the reduzed version only to sites favoring subscriptions heavily - can't say anything about the relation between subs and single images sales on other site.

I'm not saying I'd recommend this and I'm not doing it myself for the reasons you mention. But it would be something to consider an option for those who don't like subs in general.

lisafx

« Reply #104 on: January 20, 2013, 09:41 »
+6
is it possible to opt out of subscriptions with photos?

I know you can with video.

From what I hear this is what many people would like to do- send images to ss only for regular single sales.

At SS?  No, it is still primarily a subscription site. On demand sales are growing, but not the bulk of the income.  If you don't want to sell subscriptions Istock is still the only site of the Big 4 that lets you opt out of that as an exclusive.  SS, FT, and DT you have to sell subs if you want to be on the site.

I wholeheartedly welcome all former exclusives who want to join SS, but I suggest that, rather than trying to remake it in Istock's (former) image, you give yourselves time to become acclimated and enjoy the site for what it is and what it offers.  :)

If you downsize your images to the minimum size then you will make them less attractive for single image sales and EL's on all sites as well as missing out on Large+ sales on DT & FT. Essentially you'll be doing a lot of extra work ... in order to earn less money in the future.

... I would upload the reduced version only to sites favoring subscriptions heavily - can't say anything about the relation between subs and single images sales on other site.

I'm not saying I'd recommend this and I'm not doing it myself for the reasons you mention. But it would be something to consider an option for those who don't like subs in general.

It would effectively cut your legs out from under your portfolio on all the other sites.  All the top 4 sell more subs than OD sales.  At least that is what most people report.  If you make it so your images can only be downloaded via OD in small sizes, you aren't even giving yourself a chance. 

Gostwyck's absolutely right:


You can't, in all practicality, avoid subscription sales as an independent microstock content provider.
(snip)

You either have to give up your disdain for subscription sales or give up being a microstocker completely. Either that or you stay as an IS exclusive

I am sure it is quite an adjustment from Istock exclusive to indie.  I'm sorry that folks who really didn't want to have to make that transition are being put in this position by Istock.  Still don't understand how it could have all gone to He11 so quickly ... ???
« Last Edit: January 20, 2013, 09:56 by lisafx »

rubyroo

« Reply #105 on: January 20, 2013, 09:47 »
+3
I suggest that, rather than trying to remake it in Istock's image, you give yourselves time to become acclimated and enjoy the site for what it is and what it offers.  :)

VERY well said there Lisa.

« Reply #106 on: January 20, 2013, 09:48 »
0
If you don't want to sell subscriptions Istock is still the only site of the Big 4 that lets you opt out of that.

Strictly speaking, even iStock does not allow you to opt out of the on-site subscription sales. Though it is a totally different subscription system, not the "all size, one price", that's probably also the reason why it totally failed.  ;D

« Reply #107 on: January 20, 2013, 10:21 »
0
If you downsize your images to the minimum size then you will make them less attractive for single image sales and EL's on all sites as well as missing out on Large+ sales on DT & FT. Essentially you'll be doing a lot of extra work ... in order to earn less money in the future.

Well, I have Lightroom and can export 1,000 files to any size I wish with 5 seconds of work. This wouldn't be an issue. And I would upload the reduzed version only to sites favoring subscriptions heavily - can't say anything about the relation between subs and single images sales on other site.

I'm not saying I'd recommend this and I'm not doing it myself for the reasons you mention. But it would be something to consider an option for those who don't like subs in general.

Lots of us have considered (or actually done) downsizing in the past, particularly as we have upgraded our cameras from 6MP to 8, 12 and 20+, but I don't think many continue to do so. Yuri doesn't bother for example. You can download his full-size Hassy images on subscription from everywhere that sells subs.

SS 'favours subs' more than any other site only because they are more successful than the others. Subscription packages are priced the same virtually everywhere (and have mostly the same images) so buyers are making their choice based on the service they receive. Even so subs only account for about 50% of earnings at SS nowadays and that's reducing month-on-month as they sell ever more single images. In November, which was a BME for me, subs were only 42% of my total earnings there with an average return of 80c per download. SS also pay us higher royalties than any of their competitors.


« Reply #109 on: January 20, 2013, 12:41 »
+2
adapt or die.
The glasshouse has broke.

rubyroo

« Reply #110 on: January 20, 2013, 13:05 »
0
Although I'm not one of the people your post is addressed to Scott, I just want to say thanks for once again being available on a weekend and posting helpful information here.  I'm sure everyone appreciates it.

« Reply #111 on: January 20, 2013, 13:12 »
+3
Hi everyone,

Just to chime in on this one point: downsizing will only hurt your sales and the overall community.  I'll explain why.   

Shutterstock has over 550,000 customers, ranging from freelance graphic designers working with a variety of clients to high-end advertising agencies and publishers who buy images in volume.   Some of those customers buy individual images, some buy image packs and others buy images via the subscription model. 

The point of uploading large (or your original) file sizes is to make sure that your images are suitable for the widest variety of customers and widest variety of uses, irrespective of how the image was purchased.

For example, some advertising agencies will buy images under agreements that allow for a royalty of up to $120 per download.  If you upload smaller images that fail to meet an advertising agency's requirements, you'll either leave them frustrated or turn them off to your portfolio.

As others have pointed out, it's in your interest to try to capture the widest variety of sales from customers already transacting at Shutterstock, which means providing high quality files suitable for the widest variety of end uses.

Best,

Scott
VP of Content
Shutterstock

Thanks for chiming in Scott and also for the background info on how those chunky royalties arrive ... and all on a Sunday too!

I'll just check to see if any of the Istock/Getty management have been helping contributors on the forums today ... ok, I'm back ... no, they haven't. Quelle surprise. Must be because everything's going so well at Istock.

« Reply #112 on: January 20, 2013, 13:29 »
+2
iStock/GI is still talking with Google, I wonder when they will be ready to talk, next month? not on a Sunday that's for sure...

« Reply #113 on: January 20, 2013, 14:04 »
+2
Thank you Scott. personally, i would probably opt my files in, like Michael says, even as an istock exclusive my files are available to the daily istock subscription scheme, even if my files are not on thinkstock.

I really wasnt planning to go independent. i just wanted an opt out from these re-distribution deals. but I am now looking more into it, might be inevitable. The lack of communication from istock is depressing, especially if here on msg we get admins from ss who dont mind working on a sunday. and in germany Ive heard that fotolia recommends to just give them a call if we have any questions.

i think it is mostly the fear that I cannot make a proper living being independent, but it looks like many in the community do.

« Reply #114 on: January 20, 2013, 14:07 »
+1
Hi everyone,

Just to chime in on this one point: downsizing will only hurt your sales and the overall community.  I'll explain why.   

Shutterstock has over 550,000 customers, ranging from freelance graphic designers working with a variety of clients to high-end advertising agencies and publishers who buy images in volume.   Some of those customers buy individual images, some buy image packs and others buy images via the subscription model. 

The point of uploading large (or your original) file sizes is to make sure that your images are suitable for the widest variety of customers and widest variety of uses, irrespective of how the image was purchased.

For example, some advertising agencies will buy images under agreements that allow for a royalty of up to $120 per download.  If you upload smaller images that fail to meet an advertising agency's requirements, you'll either leave them frustrated or turn them off to your portfolio.

As others have pointed out, it's in your interest to try to capture the widest variety of sales from customers already transacting at Shutterstock, which means providing high quality files suitable for the widest variety of end uses.

Best,

Scott
VP of Content
Shutterstock

Hi Scott and many thanks for coming in here.  Its extremely nice to have a personal contact like this. Reminds me of how it was back in the trad-agencies.

best.

« Reply #115 on: January 23, 2013, 12:00 »
+1
I'm a small port hobby photographer (173 images) with Istock. I think I will be ending exclusivity with them as I certainly have nothing to lose, what with how they're treating us over there. I registered with SS, Fotolia, and Dreamstime today. others will follow. Now to figure out what's what with each agency..a bit daunting.

« Reply #116 on: January 23, 2013, 12:15 »
+4
I figured, I'm investing money in an image-based stock portfolio. Why in the world am I not following the "diversify, diversify, diversify" advice for investing money in a financial stock portfolio? It has become foolish to stick with one company.


« Reply #117 on: January 23, 2013, 12:17 »
-1
I meant to type "I'm investing time in an image-based stock portfolio"...but then again, time is money.

ruxpriencdiam

    This user is banned.
  • Location. Third stone from the sun
« Reply #118 on: January 23, 2013, 18:45 »
0
Hi everyone,

Just to chime in on this one point: downsizing will only hurt your sales and the overall community.  I'll explain why.   

Shutterstock has over 550,000 customers, ranging from freelance graphic designers working with a variety of clients to high-end advertising agencies and publishers who buy images in volume.   Some of those customers buy individual images, some buy image packs and others buy images via the subscription model. 

The point of uploading large (or your original) file sizes is to make sure that your images are suitable for the widest variety of customers and widest variety of uses, irrespective of how the image was purchased.

For example, some advertising agencies will buy images under agreements that allow for a royalty of up to $120 per download.  If you upload smaller images that fail to meet an advertising agency's requirements, you'll either leave them frustrated or turn them off to your portfolio.

As others have pointed out, it's in your interest to try to capture the widest variety of sales from customers already transacting at Shutterstock, which means providing high quality files suitable for the widest variety of end uses.

Best,

Scott
VP of Content
Shutterstock
Still not fully understood on this issue.

The thing is, is that there is a discussion about this on SS and it seems and appears to be that most of the large SOD sales are not from "Larger Files" as you have stated but most of the $93-$120 sales are in the 4-6MP size range and from images that were downsized?

And as we know that a 4MP can and will be upsized by 4x by SS making it a 16MP size there is nowhere that shows a 18MP that will be upsized 4x making it 72MP.

Can we get a little more clarification please?

The way you have stated it, it would appear that people submitting large full size files would be the ones getting the large SOD's when in all actuality it is the ones who are downsizing their files that are getting the large SOD sales?

« Reply #119 on: January 23, 2013, 19:43 »
0
Downsizing is something you do when your image does not hold water, and you hope to have sales from the smaller file.

Else. Of course you upload the biggest file you can.


« Reply #120 on: January 24, 2013, 04:12 »
+8
A number of posts from a squabble were removed and 2 members given a 'break' from posting due to insults.

« Reply #121 on: January 24, 2013, 04:51 »
0
Downsizing is something you do when your image does not hold water, and you hope to have sales from the smaller file.

Else. Of course you upload the biggest file you can.

Exactly, I only downsize when I'm concerned that focus is not 100%.

« Reply #122 on: January 24, 2013, 06:52 »
0
Downsizing is something you do when your image does not hold water, and you hope to have sales from the smaller file.

Or you live somewhere with very slow internet uploads and fairly severe monthly data caps.  Or even a connection where you pay for all bandwidth.

Cutting a file size down in those circumstances is very useful.

« Reply #123 on: January 24, 2013, 07:25 »
0
Of course.



 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
7 Replies
3426 Views
Last post January 17, 2008, 08:33
by ZMB
17 Replies
5452 Views
Last post October 10, 2011, 16:15
by pamf32imag
24 Replies
9784 Views
Last post March 26, 2012, 16:13
by totals
25 Replies
4722 Views
Last post July 07, 2013, 13:53
by WarrenPrice
2 Replies
1728 Views
Last post April 09, 2017, 12:31
by Jo Ann Snover

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results