MicrostockGroup
Agency Based Discussion => Shutterstock.com => Topic started by: leaf on October 02, 2014, 00:55
-
I'm curious what people think from their own data. I know that everyone's income is different from different images etc.etc. but if we get a few votes we should find an average.
I'm certain someone will come in here and say what the overall average earnings/image on Shutterstock is - but I think the overall average is quite a bit lower than the average of people who are active shooting creative stock (and not shooting 100,000 'news' images).
Anyhow, I'm curious to see how varied the opinions are.
-
point is also time, you have to made 10.000 images in 3 years, then make every year 3000 very good new images to have the same income
-
very nice portfolio. very good job. is stock only income in your life? can you live with that amount in norway? very lovely country :) i was there
-
Based on what i see with my own portfolio and from what I hear from ex exclusives you need a very, very large number of files if you want to have reliable 10 000 dollars a month. Especially the income from subs is much lower than I expected. I think I would need at least 20 000 files for regular 10k a month.
So unless the content is ultra, ultra generic, I wouldn´t send it to SS or a site that sells mostly subscriptions.
The extended licenses are a nice bonus, but so far I can´t really plan for them, neither in style that is preferred for the bonus nor can I make a realistic assumption "I will have X amount of extended licenses if I sell Y amount of sales". Maybe if I have 10 000 images online, but to get there is a very long road.
The other thing, I am now working with a 36 MP camera and processing large files takes much longer, then when I was shooting with 6-12 MP.
Another reason to send large files, with more niche content to agencies with higher prices. I really don´t see how I can ever get a decent return from subs sites.
I wish Shutterstock had a midstock price section, maybe even on a different agency. They have the ultracheap with SS, they have the super high end with Offset, but what about midstock? Because that is something that istock still does have, although they have lost many customers, they do have many business accounts who don´t mind paying around 60-120 dollars for a file.
The only other agency that is targeting midstock customers is stocksy. But they are doing it with a niche, while istock also sells objects on white to that segment.
Fotolia havs a system where you can gradually increase the price of your whole portfolio, on Dreamstime it is individual files that go up inprice.
But what would be interesting was if maybe there was an additional "artist shop" alongside my SS portfolio, where I can place files that I believe should get a higher price, because I know from experience it will rarely sell.
Or they need a new agency for that.
Obviously they can also just leave the whole midstock market to other agencies, nothing wrong with that. Their system works well, but it clearly favours artists or small teams that can produce very high volume of creative files.
As a single artist 50 files a week is a good output for me and that includes video or stock for high end.
I am really not a mass shooter. I would prefer to do 30 files well. But I can bring it up to 50 and just upload more variations.
But more than 200 files a month, would only be possible if I hire people. And then I need to have the money to feed them.
The only thing I could do is do more people/lifestyle shootings. I can get many more themes and files quickly when I work with people, than when I do still life. Good still life is very time consuming, you can spend a whole week and just have 6 really nice files.
So maybe that is something I could do, become a serial shooter for generic people stock.
We will see.
ETA: obviously the solution for me is not to focus only on SS, but look at the different options and different agencies. But 5000 dollars a month would be nice. It will still need 10k files, at least with what I am shooting.
-
Thanks for the thorough answer cobalt. I have an idea myself obviously but am interested to see how wide the spread is between different opinions.
In general if someone were to ask me I think I'd say somewhere between 10,000 and 50,000 images depending on the quality and subject matter. It would certainly be interesting if Shutterstock dove into the midstock market.. I'm not sure that's going to happen though. They seem to be pretty strong where they are and strengthening their position instead of spreading out might not be so dumb.
-
I agree, they do what they do very well. They can leave the midstock market to other agencies, if it doesn´t interest them.
Just wanted to add: they are doing a great job at selling video, much better than I expected. So I´ll try to add more videos for balance. With an average of 19 dollars, video is a way of getting midstock returns from SS.
Obviously video sales are MUCH lower than photo downloads. But they make quite difference every month.
Another thing might be for artist to team up with a group account, or start a business that bundles their work. This way you can move up faster in the rankings or just have more mass to upload every week. Of course people need to get along well, if they want to join forces in a business. The other solution is to hire people or freelancers.
-
Subject matter is very important. If you don't chase the "lifestyle" market you might need a lot more than 40,000 files to get 10k a month. I know I would (and I see "40,000" is the most favoured response - I suspect that means "quite a bit more than 40,000).
-
I voted for 25.000, but am aware that for many it might be more, but it depends on sooo many factors, so I think the vote is just a minor indicator and too simple to give a real answer, so I wanna comment:
1. How many images submitted within what timeframe?
You may get this income for a while if you submit 10.000 good images within three month. But if you have built up a profile of 10.000 in the last years = no. Your income will be very much lower.
2. What type?
Are you a volume producer or a quality producer? If you have high prodcution value shootings or outsource your shoots to some people who produce professional image material for your accounts it is way more likely to achieve a high income with way fewer images than a volume producer who creates material like Yuri in the early days.
3. Artistic Quality
Some People just get it right. They just produce the right stuff in a very good quality or special way and make lots of money in little time. See Ollyy for example (#2 in Photodune).
4. Investment
Is the total revenue important to you or the Profit? The relationship of how much money you ahve to throw into a production and how much comes out is very interesting as well :-)
-
So unless the content is ultra, ultra generic, I wouldn´t send it to SS or a site that sells mostly subscriptions.
Couldn't agree more everything else is very short-term-minded!
-
I do not believe it is humanly possible by one person on Shutterstock alone without special considerations for search advantages. If it where possible I'd say at least 50,000-60,000 images and that person would have to be uploading 500 new images weekly.
-
Going by my own figures 16,000 images to achieve a stable $10,000 per month on SS alone.
SS are missing a trick by not having a Midstock collection, when iS introduced Midstock in the early days 20% of my portfolio made up over 50% of my income.
Its very frustrating to see all the good quality work pulled into the vortex of subs. But that is todays dominant business model, not very inspiring for pushing yourself creatively.
-
Based on my numbers it would be over 40k, more like 50. But it all depends on what your content is. Mine is generic peanut butter while others with fewer images are escargot.
-
Thanks for the thorough answer cobalt. I have an idea myself obviously but am interested to see how wide the spread is between different opinions.
In general if someone were to ask me I think I'd say somewhere between 10,000 and 50,000 images depending on the quality and subject matter. It would certainly be interesting if Shutterstock dove into the midstock market.. I'm not sure that's going to happen though. They seem to be pretty strong where they are and strengthening their position instead of spreading out might not be so dumb.
Most strong, forward looking companies are looking beyond the current state. My guess is that SS has multiple initiatives going on, one being strengthening their current model and the other playing the what if, where can we go, etc. The risk is only in terms of pilot testing as most strategic companies test before fully launching. So it would be VERY SMART of SS to be looking for other revenue streams 2-5 years out on top of their current model, kinda like Offset. I would actually be surprised if SS ISN'T looking at other segments given that they are now publicly traded and share owners demand growth.
-
Images of what? (OK had to say that...) :P
On SS only:
(http://s5.postimg.org/5eaovy7af/dr_evil_2013_50_K_downloads.jpg)
That's also how many images I'd need to make $10,000 a month on SS, if I had the same content that I do now. (in round numbers and rounded figures) Using RPI. But I'm not sure I did the math right.
Figuring it another way, I came up with 7,219 images. :o
Suppose I could upload 5,000 images over the Winter and get back to you next Sept.?
Of course all of this is based on what I shoot, not what anyone else does, and the fact that I limit my uploads instead of counting chickens and worrying about how big my portfolio is.
Let me put that another way. If I could have 200 like my top 20, I'd be doing darn good! If I had 2,000 I'd be making your goal amount.
And one more answer. For the average person, entering now, with the market flooded and over supplied, it's could be that someone would need 50,000 images to make $10,000 a month.
Too many options, differences and variables for a reasonably accurate, math based, answer to the question.
-
Based on my numbers from the last few months it would be something over 47,000 ...
-
From my figures, SS alone something like 40000
-
3. Artistic Quality
Some People just get it right. They just produce the right stuff in a very good quality or special way and make lots of money in little time. See Ollyy for example (#2 in Photodune).
Lol, Ollyy.
What's so special or artistic about images with a grungy grey/pastel background (so 2007) with a HUGE vignette (wow, so artsy)?
If that's your example of something special/very good quality, then microstock really has no standards.
-
3. Artistic Quality
Some People just get it right. They just produce the right stuff in a very good quality or special way and make lots of money in little time. See Ollyy for example (#2 in Photodune).
Lol, Ollyy.
What's so special or artistic about images with a grungy grey/pastel background (so 2007) with a HUGE vignette (wow, so artsy)?
If that's your example of something special/very good quality, then microstock really has no standards.
It's no supposed to be special or artistic , it's supposed to be useful.
-
If they are all outstanding, and not just mediocre images... some can do $10k on 5000 images or even less. If you have a lot of common, average, well done yet easy to reproduce type images (food, decent looking people lifestyle portraiture, vector background or raster graphics mixed in, etc) I'd say it used to be $1 per image per month, a few years back. Now it's closer to $1 per 2-4 images depending on your work. Right now, with solely using microstock as your sales outlet, if you can pull .25-.50 cents per image, per month, you're doing amazing.
EDIT: Just to clarify, I'm talking about selling your work on multiple agencies (non exclusively) combined income, collectively... not just on Shutterstock alone. To make $10k a month just on Shutterstock alone, you'd probably need at least 30-50k images. If they're buried, or don't have the right keywords/metadata, they might do you just as good (in terms of sales) as having a portfolio of 1000-5000 amazing vectors, with better keywording.
Things have changed. Market saturation... the struggle is real. It will continue getting tougher to eek out a living doing this. You'll need quality and quantity combined, or just quit and go get a job with actual health benefits working for "the man". Many of us who have been doing stock for years as our sole business, are also getting "tired". This business will tire you out. The freedom of working for yourself is outstanding, but to have to work harder to make the same or less income, that's not something I plan on doing in my 5-10 year plan.
Will some of us full timers still be selling microstock imagery as our main squeeze 5 years from now? It's possible; all depends on how much hunger and hustle you have left. There are a ton of ways to make a living. Ask yourself how hard you want to work for it. I am US based. Many of our European, Russian and Asian friends overseas have more hunger in their left pinkies than many of us in the states have, and a lot lower living expenses, to boot. Thumbs up to anyone who has the determination to succeed in this business. For every dollar you earn, you have worked your coolie off to make it. There are no easy shortcuts in this game. The times you can coast and not work as hard, while collecting residuals is pretty nice... but get lazy for too long and you'll regret losing your momentum.
Wow - I need to seriously lay off the coffee. Writing a book, here.
-
3. Artistic Quality
Some People just get it right. They just produce the right stuff in a very good quality or special way and make lots of money in little time. See Ollyy for example (#2 in Photodune).
Lol, Ollyy.
What's so special or artistic about images with a grungy grey/pastel background (so 2007) with a HUGE vignette (wow, so artsy)?
If that's your example of something special/very good quality, then microstock really has no standards.
Well, obviously it is always a matter of taste.
The point why I mentioned him is that he is #2 sales rank on photodune. That has nothing to do with my or your opinion or standard. He simply is. According to my (guessed) numbers he should be making the 10.000 then with his port on SS alone. Considering that my personal RPI is lower (abstracted from the number of images in Port and photodune ranking) I have to give him the credits of "just hitting the right spot", no matter if you or me like his 2007tish style :-) There is no need to bring up offensive argumentation in a objective discussion ;-)
-
Tror, you nailed it with your breakdown above - nicely done :D You also have to consider how much your time is worth. Time isn't something you can ever get back, so your time is worth more than money and production costs. Submitting the 40k images all at once definitely isn't going to yield the same sales results as trickling them in over the past 10 years, either. Thumbs up on catching that point. Can't agree more.
-
What I find interesting is the three peaks in earnings at 20k, 30k and 40k. The latter I understand, but do the other two represent particular types of portfolio?
-
Is none of the above an answer? I think you either have the types of images that are going to get you to certain earning levels or you don't. So, it doesn't really matter if you make more of them.
-
Is none of the above an answer? I think you either have the types of images that are going to get you to certain earning levels or you don't. So, it doesn't really matter if you make more of them.
Good point, Cory. Kind of also true. If you have a homerun, popular-selling image, and you duplicate it 100 times, you're not going to sell the other 99 as many times as your "star image". Sure, they might still sell, but you are better off making other "star images" of different themes in order to get the most bang for your buck. All you're doing is diluting the market on your own theme, or niche subject area. This could be your strategy, though. I've experimented with it. Producing similars of "most popular" images doesn't always increase sales as much as one might think. Another reason also why blatant image copycats never get ahead.
-
What I find interesting is the three peaks in earnings at 20k, 30k and 40k. The latter I understand, but do the other two represent particular types of portfolio?
I'm pretty sure vector or 3d artists doing better in general than photographers on SS, so most photographers are probably at around 40k (for sure there are exceptions like Sean and Leaf which doing much better) and vector artists are probably more around 20k
-
Hi All,
Just a quick share in case it is of help. We uploaded 3,200 images 6 years ago we have not uploaded since, last month was $1,007 at Shutterstock. In the six years those 3,200 images have returned $95,800 at Shutterstock. If people share numbers we can all get a much better idea of what we can expect from our efforts. Hope this helps.
Cheers,
J
-
The only other agency that is targeting midstock customers is stocksy. But they are doing it with a niche, while istock also sells objects on white to that segment.
There are many, many, many agencies out there that target midstock customers. It's not just Stocksy. Most of these agencies do not allow you to also submit the same images to microstock agencies. Superstock and Inmagine come to mind off the top of my head.
-
Good Thread leaf. about 6 years ago I asked the powers that be if I could open another account as a factory type thing. I had 10 strong players that wanted to do it, They said no at that time. Im a full time photographer and painter and have been long before Microstock, I also do a lot of old time catalog client work for interior decorators and furniture makers so Im kinda stingy with uploading so much for the possible income, Only so much time in a day and at 71 im slowing down or trying to.
Where I live and lifestyle, My expenses are very High so Microstock even in the best of times only accounts for maybe 30/35% of what I need to generate..so, I have to keep the paying jobs and do Micro as a supplement. I only have 5333 Images and 150 Footage clips but based on my income only from SS I estimate to make 10K a month would be in the 30K range. I would still like to do a group thing and My pardner and I will be discussing this during a trip coming up Monday and, I would not necessarily do it on SS. Also, I have no idea how we would handle the accounting part of it. There have been group "Factory" people since day one..wizdata and chinatiger come to mind back in the early days, these guys had tens of thousands in 2005. We would be looking for 8/10 folks that do specific subjects so we can be a one stop shop.portraits,food,lifestyle,travel etc,etc.
conceivably, we could have at least 80,000 images or so right off the bat. Symbio,Faa...whatever. interested? lets chat. By PM.
-
i find this ironic, even coming from leaf himself.
why should this be a hypothetical question when we can extrapolate from real earners
from the sean locke to yuri arcurses to dolgachoves etc
i know it is about ss and when sean locke was earning big money, he was with IS
and no doubt could have earned less with ss being that he just joined.
also, that exclusives of IS are difficult to extrapolate with ss since they earn no doubt alot more
with IS ie before the great eff-up when the owner sold it to big gorilla. guerilla G ;)
still, the number is more realistic if u took these real people, don't u think????
-
52196 files
-
What I find interesting is the three peaks in earnings at 20k, 30k and 40k. The latter I understand, but do the other two represent particular types of portfolio?
The 20k and below peaks are pro shooters with budgets for each shoot, the 40k and above are the zero budget shooters saturating the libraries.
Problem is the saturators are killing the pro images that attract the buyers in the first place.
At some point MidStock needs to establish itself again or the libraries will become stale as the pros will have moved on.
-
Based on my average monthly return for this calendar year with 8 agencies (top and middle tiers), I would need 18,000. Unfortunately, to create that many images would take another 15+ years.
However, I would never join a factory. The problem with groups is that ultimately they always perform down to their lowest common denominator. Aspiring, creative and productive individuals are always better off on their own. So, in the above factory suggestion: the accounting would be crucial !
-
I agree with that. A bigger piece of the pie is my Motivation in essence a mini pro stock site or Port.
"The best of Royalty Free" as it were. Of which I own the name.
certainly not for anyone and certainly non exclusive. It's just an Idea I've had for years. Not much More. But, I may act on it. whats to lose? nothing. Im pretty sure I can get 10 with 10,000 images. all it would be is like joining a new site but Like said the accounting would be tough But doable.
Back to topic.
-
i find this ironic, even coming from leaf himself.
why should this be a hypothetical question when we can extrapolate from real earners
from the sean locke to yuri arcurses to dolgachoves etc
Using Sean, Yuri, Dolgachov, Monkeybusiness and the like to suggest what someone will make on Shutterstock is like using Brad Pitt, George Clooney, and Julia Roberts to figure out what you will make if you go into acting.
-
What I find interesting is the three peaks in earnings at 20k, 30k and 40k. The latter I understand, but do the other two represent particular types of portfolio?
The 20k and below peaks are pro shooters with budgets for each shoot, the 40k and above are the zero budget shooters saturating the libraries.
I think you're probably spot on.
-
i find this ironic, even coming from leaf himself.
why should this be a hypothetical question when we can extrapolate from real earners
from the sean locke to yuri arcurses to dolgachoves etc
Using Sean, Yuri, Dolgachov, Monkeybusiness and the like to suggest what someone will make on Shutterstock is like using Brad Pitt, George Clooney, and Julia Roberts to figure out what you will make if you go into acting.
haha.. good analogy.
-
The 20k and below peaks are pro shooters with budgets for each shoot, the 40k and above are the zero budget shooters saturating the libraries.
So if you spend no money, you only need 2x as many files?
I guess you didn't mean these figures literally.
-
I need 30K images, so that makes me a semi-pro then, which is about right. ;)
-
I would need 18,000 to 20,000 images, but I don't think it would work that way. I think your return per image drops some as you add more. How much of a drop would be really hard to figure out. Not to mention, sales on Shutterstock aren't as consistent as they used to be. I used to be able to know almost exactly how many sales I would get on a weekday. Now it's up and down more.
Also, I'm a zero budget shooter "polluting the library."
-
i find this ironic, even coming from leaf himself.
why should this be a hypothetical question when we can extrapolate from real earners
from the sean locke to yuri arcurses to dolgachoves etc
Using Sean, Yuri, Dolgachov, Monkeybusiness and the like to suggest what someone will make on Shutterstock is like using Brad Pitt, George Clooney, and Julia Roberts to figure out what you will make if you go into acting.
LMAO, hey... we can't dream, can't we?
seriously, good point.
-
I would need 18,000 to 20,000 images, but, sales on Shutterstock aren't as consistent as they used to be. I used to be able to know almost exactly how many sales I would get on a weekday. Now it's up and down more.
Hi All,
Just a quick share in case it is of help. We uploaded 3,200 images 6 years ago we have not uploaded since, last month was $1,007 at Shutterstock. In the six years those 3,200 images have returned $95,800 at Shutterstock. If people share numbers we can all get a much better idea of what we can expect from our efforts. Hope this helps.
Cheers,
J
the first poster sums it all up . Mr. Jonathan Ross said repeat 6 YEARS AGO, HAVE NOT UPLOADED SINCE 8)
ie. it worked 6 years ago . not today since new images are scant earners.
my case is the same, ie. consistent earners were uploaded many years ago.
and robhainer's point i agree too. uploading xxx,000 today will not make an increase in earning in equal expectation six+ years ago.
-
I'm not more of the Adam Sandler type? No? George Clooney it is! ;)
-
the 40k and above are the zero budget shooters saturating the libraries.
Problem is the saturators are killing the pro images that attract the buyers in the first place.
At some point MidStock needs to establish itself again or the libraries will become stale as the pros will have moved on.
but agencies are buyers think otherwise.
-
I'm not more of the Adam Sandler type? No? George Clooney it is! ;)
Hehe, at least your Icon makes me think more of Bruce Willis :-) Stock hard :D
-
I just remembered that this sort of discussion is probably banned under the amendments to the SS contract.
-
I just remembered that this sort of discussion is probably banned under the amendments to the SS contract.
I would hardly think this could be considered as sharing of detailed sales data.
-
I would need 18,000 to 20,000 images, but, sales on Shutterstock aren't as consistent as they used to be. I used to be able to know almost exactly how many sales I would get on a weekday. Now it's up and down more.
Hi All,
Just a quick share in case it is of help. We uploaded 3,200 images 6 years ago we have not uploaded since, last month was $1,007 at Shutterstock. In the six years those 3,200 images have returned $95,800 at Shutterstock. If people share numbers we can all get a much better idea of what we can expect from our efforts. Hope this helps.
Cheers,
J
the first poster sums it all up . Mr. Jonathan Ross said repeat 6 YEARS AGO, HAVE NOT UPLOADED SINCE 8)
ie. it worked 6 years ago . not today since new images are scant earners.
my case is the same, ie. consistent earners were uploaded many years ago.
and robhainer's point i agree too. uploading xxx,000 today will not make an increase in earning in equal expectation six+ years ago.
This makes most sense. What worked in the glory days is much more hard to do now. My case I keep adding photos and income stays flat or drops. Would take more images than by myself I can produce to get me to 10k/month on just SS before my old images lose their value.
-
As I recall, and I haven't gone back to check, the injunction is against releasing information that has come into our possession as a result of our membership of the site that would not be known to the general public. I don't recall anything being said about it being okay to release info as long as it is not classed as "detailed sales data". Perhaps SS can clarify this.
-
I'm not more of the Adam Sandler type? No? George Clooney it is! ;)
LOL! I would not mind having Adam Sandlers bank account. But hopefully your wife will agree with George Clooney. 😉 ;D
-
As I recall, and I haven't gone back to check, the injunction is against releasing information that has come into our possession as a result of our membership of the site that would not be known to the general public. I don't recall anything being said about it being okay to release info as long as it is not classed as "detailed sales data". Perhaps SS can clarify this.
Scott made a good reply in the TOS thread, stating Again, the spirit of the clause is to prevent the disclosure of specific information to competitors of Shutterstock.
Hi All,
Gbalex, you’re right about the customer TOS. Most of the changes to the customer ToS were in the category of “cleaning up” -- items that may have been ambiguous for customers or not perfectly aligned with the day-to-day reality of working with them. Therefore, we’re explaining those changes directly to customers, but didn’t wrap that in a larger contributor communication.
The most obvious exception is limitations on Web use and digital sizes. The historical limitation was 800x600 pixels. Given dramatic advancements in display technology, we were overdue to modernize our standards. The new ToS does a better job of meeting customer needs while continuing to prohibit the redistribution of images. To properly license your images on a global scale in an era of Retina displays and a wider array of devices, we need to accommodate modern technology, but we also take copyright violations very seriously.
Earnings
Tyler – to respond to your question about earnings:
As stated, “it's not an issue to talk in general terms about your best month ever, worst month ever, isolated individual transactions, most popular image, or information of a very similar, generalized nature.” For that reason, the following examples would not be a violation of our ToS.
- I had a BME on SS last month
- I just got a $100 SOD sale on Shutterstock
- I just got an extended license on this image
- I only got 50 sales today
- I just passed the $500 mark and am now in the next earning level
- I get about 100 downloads a month on Shutterstock
The following examples could be a violation of the ToS, depending on the context. Again, the spirit of the clause is to prevent the disclosure of specific information to competitors of Shutterstock.
- I earned $1000 on Shutterstock last month
- I earned $1000 on Shutterstock last month, $500 from subs $300 from OD and $200 from video
- Here's a screenshot of all my Shutterstock earnings...
Participating anonymously in an online poll or speaking with family and friends casually would not be an issue for practical purposes.
With respect to Cobalt’s post, I’ll say that our confidentiality agreement has a very specific purpose that has been outlined above. We continue to strive to be transparent, fair, supportive and open with our contributors. We do want Shutterstock to be a place that contributors hold in high esteem and respect your concerns and feedback.
Best,
Scott
VP of Content
-
As I recall, and I haven't gone back to check, the injunction is against releasing information that has come into our possession as a result of our membership of the site that would not be known to the general public. I don't recall anything being said about it being okay to release info as long as it is not classed as "detailed sales data". Perhaps SS can clarify this.
Scott made a good reply in the TOS thread, stating Again, the spirit of the clause is to prevent the disclosure of specific information to competitors of Shutterstock.
[/quote]
aw hell, this is leaf's forum. he has the carte blanc . scott can be lobo on his own site. 8)
-
Scott made a good reply in the TOS thread, stating Again, the spirit of the clause is to prevent the disclosure of specific information to competitors of Shutterstock.
aw hell, this is leaf's forum. he has the carte blanc . scott can be lobo on his own site. 8)
[/quote]
Yeah, and Scott can throw you off SS if he feels like it, just like leaf can throw you off MSG. My only worry is that being thrown off SS would hurt more.
The post Leaf pasted makes it obvious (to me, at least) that this thread "could" be a violation of the SS TOS. If "I earned $1,000 on SS last month" could be a violation of the TOS, then so could "It takes me x-thousand images to earn $1,000 on SS", particularly when people can go back to your portfolio and see how many images you have (and, therefore, how much you earned last month).
Maybe I'm paranoid but I don't want to accidentally get myself bumped off the one site that is still really good for me. Also, I have heard from one person who got a caution from SS for posting what appeared to be innocuous information.
-
I would need 18,000 to 20,000 images, but I don't think it would work that way. I think your return per image drops some as you add more. How much of a drop would be really hard to figure out. Not to mention, sales on Shutterstock aren't as consistent as they used to be. I used to be able to know almost exactly how many sales I would get on a weekday. Now it's up and down more.
Also, I'm a zero budget shooter "polluting the library."
Yep! Extrapolating wildly from my <500 images on SS, I would need 12,500 images there to make $10,000/month...but as you say, it probably doesn't work that way! :D
BTW. There is a recent post on SS forum which would indicate (by extrapolation) that one contributor there could derive $10K/month income from around $5K images.
-
I think if it was realistically possible for a single artist to regularly achieve 10 000 dollars from 5k photo files we would be reading about a lot of cases here. The stock community has unusually talented and hard working people.
The fact that most people are expecting to need 20k -40k images and don´t have portfolios this size, makes it clear that the single artist does not see this as a reasonably achievable option. (unless they are stock god clooney level ;) )
I would also be very sceptical if people talk about "theoretical" portfolios. If it is possible to do it with 5k files, why not just do it?
SS is a great agency and they do what they do very well. But it doesn´t look like the community is expecting SS to be an agency that you can make a full time working living on including paying for models, studio equipment and maybe a little help if you have a larger shoot. At least not if you are a single artist.
But they clearly are the biggest agency in a group of companies people supply.
So maybe the next question would be - how many files do you need as an indie artist to make 10k every month reliably and on how many agencies would these files need to be spread?
-
I would need 18,000 to 20,000 images, but I don't think it would work that way. I think your return per image drops some as you add more. How much of a drop would be really hard to figure out. Not to mention, sales on Shutterstock aren't as consistent as they used to be. I used to be able to know almost exactly how many sales I would get on a weekday. Now it's up and down more.
Also, I'm a zero budget shooter "polluting the library."
Yep! Extrapolating wildly from my <500 images on SS, I would need 12,500 images there to make $10,000/month...but as you say, it probably doesn't work that way! :D
BTW. There is a recent post on SS forum which would indicate (by extrapolation) that one contributor there could derive $10K/month income from around $5K images.
Also, using just total images is a bit flawed. It would depend on how many similars you have. There's a difference between 10,000 total images and 10,000 individually different concepts.
-
I'll have to see what data we can externalize and how specific I can get, but based on what we see in practice -- I'll make the general point that very small portfolios can have very high earnings and vice-versa. It often depends on what content you create and how you create it.
Vector compilations, high-quality model-released shots, conceptual photo illustration, etc., often outperform the average on a per-image basis; "hyperlocal" editorial (a local parade), street photography, or everyday found objects are not going to have the same volume of downloads per image --- that is, unless they've got commercial value (http://www.shutterstock.com/cat.mhtml?lang=en&language=en&ref_site=photo&search_source=search_form&version=llv1&anyorall=all&safesearch=1&searchterm=starbucks&show_color_wheel=1&orient=&commercial_ok=&media_type=images&search_cat=&searchtermx=&photographer_name=&people_gender=&people_age=&people_ethnicity=&people_number=&color=) (i.e., they fill a content gap) -or- they're better than other images of the same type, etc. That doesn't mean that they're not going to generate earnings - it just means that you would need more diversity and to think about exceptionalism and quality to achieve the same results.
I know this seems pretty obvious, but I often talk about how we'll look at individual images and images with similar subject matter and they can perform very differently based on composition, styling, retouching, quality keywording, accuracy, etc. Sometimes surprisingly so. That's great news, because it suggests that there's quite a bit under an individual artist's control to increase their quantity of downloads even if you had the exact same models, cameras, and location as the artist next to you. While not the entire picture, the issue then becomes education, which is something we're making increasing investments in to help contributors understand which image and video qualities drive the most downloads.
For example, take an image of a child getting an injection from a doctor. Is the child looking at the camera, at the doctor, or away? Is the doctor wearing accurate, protective gloves? Where is the center of focus? The child? The doctor? The syringe? Is there room for text? Is the color palette based on bright colors or pastels? Is the shot being administered in a home, office, or hospital? Is there professional medical equipment in the background? What color are the scrubs? Is the doctor's protective clothing applied correctly? Does the setting look North American, European, or Asian? Does the scene, lighting, etc..., look natural or manufactured?
The "popular" search sometimes isn't a good proxy for identifying these important attributes, because a major Pharma company paying $400 per image for (4) images for a corporate report is going to have different expectations than a freelance web designer creating a website for a local doctor's office, but these details can definitely matter in terms of overall revenue performance.
Best,
Scott
VP of Content
Shutterstock
-
I am sure somebody on the level of Lisegagne, Sean, or the high quality studios, where many people bring in their expertise etc...can do it.
But like others have pointed out, these are unusually talented people. Or groups of people.
We can try to become as good as they are, or just try to improve our work significantly, but I think what many people wonder - can the normal, reasonably talented stock artist do it.
And since people are working really hard already and have been doing it for years, there is enough data in the community/friends to get an idea how much can I reasonably make.
Like someone said, the superstars are not the metric I can use. Or only to see what is the total maximum possible on an agency and then I tell myself...well I think I usually make 3 % of what Yuri makes...so I hope to make XYZ on SS.
Again, you guys have a fantastic agency. We just have to work with more than just SS for now.
-
Hello,
I'd respectfully disagree on at least one point. ;D Everybody started somewhere. And while there are some people who have a "great eye" or exceptional drawing skills, formal educations, etc..., there's a lot to be said for photo walks, workshops, online education, etc., and a lot of room for growth. The very top folks are also often the ones who are the most studious about studying content trends, studying the performance of individual models, looking for content gaps in quality or subject matter, etc... It's not always about money or natural talent.
Take the syringe example. A pair of latex gloves might be something people already have in their closet - there's little incremental cost. But it could be the difference between a Pharma company licensing your image for $400 or a website designer licensing it for $10. I've seen images where the choice of depth-of-field made the difference in what image was selected. Cost and talent: negligible.
All great news! But I get that the thread is about opinions on expectations and averages. :)
Best,
Scott
-
I'd respectfully disagree on at least one point. ;D
Hahaha, good one :D I think you just would have to offer some sort of material exclusivity to achieve that and competitors would run dry soon :P
-
Yes, higher per average sales price would do it. So there is also homework to do for SS :)
-
Take the syringe example. A pair of latex gloves might be something people already have in their closet - there's little incremental cost. But it could be the difference between a Pharma company licensing your image for $400 or a website designer licensing it for $10. I've seen images where the choice of depth-of-field made the difference in what image was selected. Cost and talent: negligible.
All great news! But I get that the thread is about opinions on expectations and averages. :)
Best,
Scott
Latex gloves are good example. They are no longer found in use in most hospital or Dr office because of latex allergy. You will need the newer plastic medical gloves if you want accuracy. Most don't have tgese lying around the house. If you just shoot with latex cause its in your cupboard, instead of taking time to research and get proper materials, your photo is of limited use.
-
Latex gloves are good example. They are no longer found in use in most hospital or Dr office because of latex allergy. You will need the newer plastic medical gloves if you want accuracy. Most don't have tgese lying around the house. If you just shoot with latex cause its in your cupboard, instead of taking time to research and get proper materials, your photo is of limited use.
Soooooo knew that was coming, but didn't bother to change that reference. :D :D :D But yes, you're right, and the point is the same. It doesn't matter if it's nitrile, latex, etc... -- we talk to a lot of creative directors and image buyers, who say, "it's great - you have tons of musician images, but artists / models need to careful attention to the proper way to hold the instrument. That's the image we'll buy." :)
Best,
Scott
-
I'll make the general point that very small portfolios can have very high earnings and vice-versa. It often depends on what content you create and how you create it.
Very good discussion. About the poll and I do agree with scott, I personally know quite a few folks that make VERY good money with 800 Images and I also Know some with 10,000 that are hurting badly. It has been and will always be....About the Image and telling the real story about whatever concept it is.
-
Latex gloves are still widely used by the medical field all around here and if you or they are allergic to latex then they wear the other non latex vinyl or the non latex Nitril, it all depends.
These are also widely used in other specialty fields other then the medical industry as well.
-
Latex gloves are still widely used by the medical field all around here and if you or they are allergic to latex then they wear the other non latex vinyl or the non latex Nitril, it all depends.
These are also widely used in other specialty fields other then the medical industry as well.
Interesting, our local fire department just dumped their entire stock of latex gloves as "no longer suitable for use" and replaced them with non-latex. The directive to do so came down from higher, so I thought that it was a national thing, guess not.
-
For example, take an image of a child getting an injection from a doctor. Is the child looking at the camera, at the doctor, or away? Is the doctor wearing accurate, protective gloves? Where is the center of focus? The child? The doctor? The syringe? Is there room for text? Is the color palette based on bright colors or pastels? Is the shot being administered in a home, office, or hospital? Is there professional medical equipment in the background? What color are the scrubs? Is the doctor's protective clothing applied correctly? Does the setting look North American, European, or Asian? Does the scene, lighting, etc..., look natural or manufactured?
You are making my head hurt. Can't we just go back to shooting apples on white? </joking>
-
I'll make the general point that very small portfolios can have very high earnings and vice-versa. It often depends on what content you create and how you create it.
And also how much it costs to get the shot. For a niche shooter like me, it can take a long, long time to see a profit if costs are not minimal for rare photos that no one else has. In one of my niches, I spent an entire day shooting an extremely rare collection that I had a one time offer to photograph. One of a kind stuff that cost me time and money (and lost income from my day job) to get access to. I have to sit on them until I can find a place to sell them at a price where I can make enough to offset the cost. I'm not willing yet to give them away for sub prices.
-
I'll make the general point that very small portfolios can have very high earnings and vice-versa. It often depends on what content you create and how you create it.
And also how much it costs to get the shot. For a niche shooter like me, it can take a long, long time to see a profit if costs are not minimal for rare photos that no one else has. In one of my niches, I spent an entire day shooting an extremely rare collection that I had a one time offer to photograph. One of a kind stuff that cost me time and money (and lost income from my day job) to get access to. I have to sit on them until I can find a place to sell them at a price where I can make enough to offset the cost. I'm not willing yet to give them away for sub prices.
Why did you shoot them at the first place? If you are microstock shooter and if you are not willing to sell them at microstock? You could just skip that job.
I know, it was a risk that will maybe pay off. But, me, I'm not for risky jobs anymore.
-
Latex gloves are still widely used by the medical field all around here and if you or they are allergic to latex then they wear the other non latex vinyl or the non latex Nitril, it all depends.
These are also widely used in other specialty fields other then the medical industry as well.
Interesting, our local fire department just dumped their entire stock of latex gloves as "no longer suitable for use" and replaced them with non-latex. The directive to do so came down from higher, so I thought that it was a national thing, guess not.
This I could see with the fire dept since they are in contact with people in life threatening situations and you don't have time to find out if they are allergic to latex or not.
-
Why did you shoot them at the first place? If you are microstock shooter and if you are not willing to sell them at microstock? You could just skip that job.
I know, it was a risk that will maybe pay off. But, me, I'm not for risky jobs anymore.
I shot them because it was a one-time offer that won't come again, and I am a photographer before I am a microstocker. While I have my niche primarily on micro, I have about 10x the photos that I haven't decided yet what to do with. I will likely just offer them on my own website.
-
Why did you shoot them at the first place? If you are microstock shooter and if you are not willing to sell them at microstock? You could just skip that job.
I know, it was a risk that will maybe pay off. But, me, I'm not for risky jobs anymore.
I shot them because it was a one-time offer that won't come again, and I am a photographer before I am a microstocker. While I have my niche primarily on micro, I have about 10x the photos that I haven't decided yet what to do with. I will likely just offer them on my own website.
Maybe try 500px prime. At least you get $175 for nonexclusive.
-
Latex gloves are still widely used by the medical field all around here and if you or they are allergic to latex then they wear the other non latex vinyl or the non latex Nitril, it all depends.
These are also widely used in other specialty fields other then the medical industry as well.
Interesting, our local fire department just dumped their entire stock of latex gloves as "no longer suitable for use" and replaced them with non-latex. The directive to do so came down from higher, so I thought that it was a national thing, guess not.
This I could see with the fire dept since they are in contact with people in life threatening situations and you don't have time to find out if they are allergic to latex or not.
Yeah, that makes sense. My son is a volunteer FF, first responder and he had to go through all his kit and go bags & remove anything latex.
-
Why did you shoot them at the first place? If you are microstock shooter and if you are not willing to sell them at microstock? You could just skip that job.
I know, it was a risk that will maybe pay off. But, me, I'm not for risky jobs anymore.
I shot them because it was a one-time offer that won't come again, and I am a photographer before I am a microstocker. While I have my niche primarily on micro, I have about 10x the photos that I haven't decided yet what to do with. I will likely just offer them on my own website.
Maybe try 500px prime. At least you get $175 for nonexclusive.
Cool, I'll take a look.
-
Some very interesting posts and points here, but unfortunately this kind of conversation doesn't lead anywhere.
"Achieving $10,000/month" implies there is some sort of stability where there is none. Bestselllers die or are killed by search engine changes.
Does portfolio size matter if you want to grow your earnings? Well, yes it does, but more important is how many files you have on the first pages of most popular sorts, the demand for those searches where you rank high and the overall search ranking of the rest of your portfolio. People with large portfolios tend to shoot the same subjects, the same genres over and over again and therefore their files compete with one another.
I have a pretty good RPI at SS but it used to be much better. Nowadays it is much more difficult to reach the top of the first page of most popular. My bestseller was No. 1 of a very popular search for about 2 years and was killed with a flick of a switch.
I still upload to SS from time to time, but only cheap images that don't have much value to me + videos. I think it is time to move on and find greener pastures. The rapid growth of the SS collection makes it ...unsustainable. I learned a lot at SS and I like them but I don't see there much potential for growth in the current model and pricing scheme.
My best new work goes to Stocksy and other places where I see much better growth potential. I will continue to upload low-value stuff to SS and continue to look for new ways to earn money with my cameras.
-
Some very interesting posts and points here, but unfortunately this kind of conversation doesn't lead anywhere.
"Achieving $10,000/month" implies there is some sort of stability where there is none. Bestselllers die or are killed by search engine changes.
Does portfolio size matter if you want to grow your earnings? Well, yes it does, but more important is how many files you have on the first pages of most popular sorts, the demand for those searches where you rank high and the overall search ranking of the rest of your portfolio. People with large portfolios tend to shoot the same subjects, the same genres over and over again and therefore their files compete with one another.
I have a pretty good RPI at SS but it used to be much better. Nowadays it is much more difficult to reach the top of the first page of most popular. My bestseller was No. 1 of a very popular search for 2 years or longer and was killed with a flick of a switch.
I still upload to SS from time to time, but only cheap images that don't have much value to me + videos. I think it is time to move on and find greener pastures. The rapid growth of the SS collection makes it ...unsustainable. I learned a lot at SS and I like them but I don't see there much potential for growth in the current model and pricing scheme.
My best new work goes to Stocksy and other places where I see much better growth potential. I will continue to upload low-value stuff to SS and continue to look for new ways to earn money with my cameras.
my sentiments exactly. i bolded the points you hit the nail on the head.
but i have to stand up for ss here on your last statement re low-value stuff to ss .
as anal as i am to some , i am not an anti-SS-er. the misconception there if anyone thinks that, but really i don't give NFA if they think so.
but ss is the only earner for most if not all of us here. if not, we would see more sites in the 90s, or even +50% instead of the pathetic single digit for ages since their inception.
i don't agree that ss deserves only the low-value stuff. ss is not giving us just 33 cts or pennies in spite of the great misconception. as pointed out, we do earn 28, 50, 80, 105 dollars as well.
as i said, i wish every site is as consistent as ss USED TO BE. they only started to be inconsistent after they went public. much like istock used to be consistent until the owner has an idea to sell it to Getty.
as for the flip of the switch re top sellers on page 1, even that could be amended
for us to cheer for ss longevity . afaik, no other site would even allow your top seller to stay on pg1 at all, unlike ss when once your seller is on pg1 u r more likely to see it remain as a perennial seller.
all it takes is for ss to stop fooling around with their switches , stop the crazy approval/rejection en masse ,etc... and we would all be back to being ss cheerleaders, me being the first one.
like it or not, no one else, not even stocksy can equal ss just yet, as no one has earned the reputation with a history like ss,
except for the old IStock.
-
like it or not, no one else, not even stocksy can equal ss just yet
My RPI at Stocksy beats SS by a very wide margin every month but my portfolio is relatively small.
-
like it or not, no one else, not even stocksy can equal ss just yet
My RPI at Stocksy beats SS by a very wide margin every month but my portfolio is relatively small.
Mine as well and indeed it should. Images on Stocksy have to be exclusive so the RPI should be 2 or 3x that of what Shutterstock provides as you can also put the Shutterstock images on many other sites.
-
I have to disagree w/ Scott at least in the subjects where I know the subject matter some of the worst photos are at the top of the search - as far as technical things go - this would be like a doctor wearing the wrong clothes, holding instruments backwards etc. and spam - don't get me started on that. Obviously the buyers don't really care about technical accuracy for this stuff.
Looking at my own pics - it appears the difference between the best sellers and also rans about 1/2 the time are things I have little to no control over - review times, indexing, search changes and so on. That doesn't mean that the photographer won't do better w/ better images, keywords, etc. but that isn't the only thing that makes the difference between page one and page nobody ever sees.
-
Hi Tom,
Thanks for your reply. I had mentioned the "popular" / search angle in my own post, but please let me clarify.
If you want to maximize earnings, it's important to remember a few things: first, the "popular" search algorithm is driven by a wide variety of factors, not just total quantity of downloads for all time. Relevance, localization, and many other factors can influence a particular image's search position. The same goes for the other sort orders. Each algorithm attempts to use a large quantity of data to meet the best needs of the customer while also utilizing metadata, signals from customer behavior, etc..
I just did a search for "doctor syringe nitrile" and got 13 images (http://www.shutterstock.com/cat.mhtml?lang=en&language=en&ref_site=photo&search_source=search_form&version=llv1&anyorall=all&safesearch=1&search_tracking_id=wuTL6BeFzGiCv8brPES5qA&searchterm=doctor+syringe+nitrile&show_color_wheel=1&orient=&commercial_ok=&media_type=images&search_cat=&searchtermx=&photographer_name=&people_gender=&people_age=&people_ethnicity=&people_number=&color=) while "doctor syringe" turns up 22,000 (http://www.shutterstock.com/cat.mhtml?lang=en&language=en&ref_site=photo&search_source=search_form&version=llv1&anyorall=all&safesearch=1&search_tracking_id=ZOkZHdxMbcruVMDZ7PgUIA&searchterm=doctor+syringe&show_color_wheel=1&orient=&commercial_ok=&media_type=images&search_cat=&searchtermx=&photographer_name=&people_gender=&people_age=&people_ethnicity=&people_number=&color=); many of those folks are wearing gloves. So there are definitely ways that contributors can optimize things like metadata to maximize their earnings. And of course, not every buyer might want gloves - but there's the possibility of shooting the model both ways.
The second thing to keep in mind is that Shutterstock serves many of the top publishing companies, advertising agencies, corporations, etc.., in the world who pay for images through custom and enterprise agreements. Those folks pay up to $400 or more for individual images, compared to what a small business might pay. If you look at your portfolio through the lens of revenue instead of just downloads, there's plenty of opportunity to capture the dollars they're spending with Shutterstock. Use the "nitrile" example above. There's a creative director, designer or art buyer working for a pharma company or major retailer on the other end who looked for that image and entered that keyword and got 13 results. All of those other contributors may have just missed a $100+ SOD. Buyers often buy multiple images, so it could have been two or three - imagine $300 for one keyword.
Obviously, these things are going to vary based on what you shoot. If you're shooting found objects on a white background and you're in a lot of competition with other people doing the same thing, the effect of tweaks might not be obvious. We always suggest a test-and-learn philosophy in which you use the "custom sets" feature to isolate different attributes of images you think customers might respond to. Some of the top earners will do that based on subject matter, individual models, etc., to isolate which elements they should apply to future content creation.
Sorry! Not trying to debate; just trying to be helpful in maximizing earnings potential. There's what you hear anecdotally on forums, then there's what we see in the actual data and customer behavior, and I'd like to get you that information as much as possible. :)
Best,
Scott
-
Hi Tom,
Thanks for your reply. I had mentioned the "popular" / search angle in my own post, but please let me clarify.
If you want to maximize earnings, it's important to remember a few things: first, the "popular" search algorithm is driven by a wide variety of factors, not just total quantity of downloads for all time. Relevance, localization, and many other factors can influence a particular image's search position. The same goes for the other sort orders. Each algorithm attempts to use a large quantity of data to meet the best needs of the customer while also utilizing metadata, signals from customer behavior, etc..
I just did a search for "doctor syringe nitrile" and got 13 images ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/cat.mhtml?lang=en&language=en&ref_site=photo&search_source=search_form&version=llv1&anyorall=all&safesearch=1&search_tracking_id=wuTL6BeFzGiCv8brPES5qA&searchterm=doctor+syringe+nitrile&show_color_wheel=1&orient=&commercial_ok=&media_type=images&search_cat=&searchtermx=&photographer_name=&people_gender=&people_age=&people_ethnicity=&people_number=&color=[/url]) while "doctor syringe" turns up 22,000 ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/cat.mhtml?lang=en&language=en&ref_site=photo&search_source=search_form&version=llv1&anyorall=all&safesearch=1&search_tracking_id=ZOkZHdxMbcruVMDZ7PgUIA&searchterm=doctor+syringe&show_color_wheel=1&orient=&commercial_ok=&media_type=images&search_cat=&searchtermx=&photographer_name=&people_gender=&people_age=&people_ethnicity=&people_number=&color=[/url]); many of those folks are wearing gloves. So there are definitely ways that contributors can optimize things like metadata to maximize their earnings. And of course, not every buyer might want gloves - but there's the possibility of shooting the model both ways.
The second thing to keep in mind is that Shutterstock serves many of the top publishing companies, advertising agencies, corporations, etc.., in the world who pay for images through custom and enterprise agreements. Those folks pay up to $400 or more for individual images, compared to what a small business might pay. If you look at your portfolio through the lens of revenue instead of just downloads, there's plenty of opportunity to capture the dollars they're spending with Shutterstock. Use the "nitrile" example above. There's a creative director, designer or art buyer working for a pharma company or major retailer on the other end who looked for that image and entered that keyword and got 13 results. All of those other contributors may have just missed a $100+ SOD. Buyers often buy multiple images, so it could have been two or three - imagine $300 for one keyword.
Obviously, these things are going to vary based on what you shoot. If you're shooting found objects on a white background and you're in a lot of competition with other people doing the same thing, the effect of tweaks might not be obvious. We always suggest a test-and-learn philosophy in which you use the "custom sets" feature to isolate different attributes of images you think customers might respond to. Some of the top earners will do that based on subject matter, individual models, etc., to isolate which elements they should apply to future content creation.
Sorry! Not trying to debate; just trying to be helpful in maximizing earnings potential. There's what you hear anecdotally on forums, then there's what we see in the actual data and customer behavior, and I'd like to get you that information as much as possible. :)
Best,
Scott
Scott,
Thanks for posting. I don't think Tom is trying to debate you and you certainly aren't trying to start a debate; coming in here to share what you can is totally awesome and we're appreciative of that. I believe that we are all sharing how we interpret system functionality based on our own sales and skill levels. Sometimes it's frustrating to see new content almost never show up, so we contributors draw some kind of conclusion, for example. I have been reading the SS forums closely and one thing I have done was to try to keyword my images with fewer, more relevant keywords, <25. I have had several site mailed telling me that is a good idea and one that says it probably doesn't much matter. Time will tell, I guess. The point I am making is that guessing on how a search works is an impediment to making $10k a month. Content is important, but keywords (and search) are KING as Tom pointed out. We control keywords, you control the search. These seem to be mutually exclusive these days in terms of what comes to the front of the search. But we've beat this up a lot over the last few months and, regardless, thanks for coming in here and sharing what you can. I know that I, and many of my co-microstockers, truly appreciate your presence.
-
The second thing to keep in mind is that Shutterstock serves many of the top publishing companies, advertising agencies, corporations, etc.., in the world who pay for images through custom and enterprise agreements. Those folks pay up to $400 or more for individual images, compared to what a small business might pay.
Hi Scott,
Thanks for all the insights, they are very helpful. May I ask if these higher priced corporate downloads depend on the "Sensitive usage" option in the account settings? I still cannot activate that option on a global basis since I want to protect some Models / have to respect the wording in the release contract.
Second: I think every photographer with some talent tries to do its best to achieve the highest quality possible. The problem is more that it gets harder and harder to justify production costs AND preparation time under the current Model.
We have no guarantee that such a $400 sale may happen. And if it happens, what is our cut? 133$?
It is easily possible to create a clean, well prepared and thought through production if you are wavebreakmedia, monkeybusinessimages etc. On that scale, costs will balance out, the producer is paid easily by the variety of shoots he organizes on a monthly basis etc., but my Budget for a shoot rarely exceeds 800 $ and I already startet to submit specialized material exclusively to other channels. I do not want to start a big company like those and I do believe that a huge chunk of unique creative material and localized / specialized content comes from individual submitter.
In other words. The risk involved in producing high quality productions or very specialized/localized content is going up for the producer while the demand from your side seems to go up as well. We have a gap here.
J.O. was a serial entrepreneur until he got successful with SS. I think he wanted to keep the model simple for the customer as well as for him and SS to not mess up a successful Model. But I keep asking myself if SS does not expose themselves to certain vulnerabilities, opening doors for the competition (e.g. Stocksy, even if they are not direct competition).
I think you need a system for rewarding those specialized productions or make calculation for investments easier somehow.
May it be Collections (Istock terribly failed on that, but I assume they failed because they are istock and have no idea what they are doing, not because of the collections model) or maybe a internal collection which does not impact the customer at all - e.g. giving a higher percentage to nominated content like you give now different percentages based on redeemed Profit).
Offset does not cut it. Looks like an attempt to create a quality collection which had to be kept away as far as possible from SS current paradigm to not invade or disturb the "simple" policy - or the perception of it from the clients side - of the successful Model of SS. But through that it got crippled(?) - or may I say "specialized"? - so much and is basically irrelevant to most of us.
-
It's all very well arguing that one missed keyword can lose hundreds of dollars, but what about the keyword limit? If the nitrile gloves are holding titanium metal halsey forceps you are already looking at "hand, male, surgeon, surgery, surgical, operation, holding, titanium, halsey, metal, forceps, glove, nitrile" which is about 25% of the keywords gone on what might be a very small part of the scene. When you are at 53 keywords you have to start asking yourself whether "nitrile" "halsey" and "titanium" are terms that are likely to be among the more popular search terms and, if not, you have to cut them.
-
Shutterstock doesnt address the concerns Tom and we all have about the continuesly changing search. Shutterstock is killing off popular images, so we can shoot all the content they want, with and without gloves, but if the image is popular once, it may not be the next day. I think that is what Tom is saying, but that part was not answered. In fact, that part is never answered, proof is the thread on Shutterstock with answers from Scott. It died out, leaving things unanswered.
-
Forgive me my ignorance. Why would a Pharma company - or any other company for that matter - elect to pay $400 for an image that is available to them as part of a sub package for pennies?
-
Forgive me my ignorance. Why would a Pharma company - or any other company for that matter - elect to pay $400 for an image that is available to them as part of a sub package for pennies?
Sensitive use?
Don't worry about ignorance: I'd never heard of 'Pharma' companies until a few months back.
-
This is what I have been telling everyone at SS for the better part of the last year if not longer.
So some of the non believers have just did as I have been saying and they went out and shot this.
Stock Photos, Illustrations, and Vector Art
(161)
And this.
Stock Photos, Illustrations, and Vector Art
(293)
I just did a search for "doctor syringe nitrile" and got 13 images ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/cat.mhtml?lang=en&language=en&ref_site=photo&search_source=search_form&version=llv1&anyorall=all&safesearch=1&search_tracking_id=wuTL6BeFzGiCv8brPES5qA&searchterm=doctor+syringe+nitrile&show_color_wheel=1&orient=&commercial_ok=&media_type=images&search_cat=&searchtermx=&photographer_name=&people_gender=&people_age=&people_ethnicity=&people_number=&color=[/url]) while "doctor syringe" turns up 22,000 ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/cat.mhtml?lang=en&language=en&ref_site=photo&search_source=search_form&version=llv1&anyorall=all&safesearch=1&search_tracking_id=ZOkZHdxMbcruVMDZ7PgUIA&searchterm=doctor+syringe&show_color_wheel=1&orient=&commercial_ok=&media_type=images&search_cat=&searchtermx=&photographer_name=&people_gender=&people_age=&people_ethnicity=&people_number=&color=[/url]); many of those folks are wearing gloves. So there are definitely ways that contributors can optimize things like metadata to maximize their earnings. And of course, not every buyer might want gloves - but there's the possibility of shooting the model both ways.
Scott
-
Yep there are many time the keywords can easily exceed 50 and get into the 100 range so you have to make the call on what to eliminate.
But there is a way you can get all of your keywords into the 50 max.
It's all very well arguing that one missed keyword can lose hundreds of dollars, but what about the keyword limit? If the nitrile gloves are holding titanium metal halsey forceps you are already looking at "hand, male, surgeon, surgery, surgical, operation, holding, titanium, halsey, metal, forceps, glove, nitrile" which is about 25% of the keywords gone on what might be a very small part of the scene. When you are at 53 keywords you have to start asking yourself whether "nitrile" "halsey" and "titanium" are terms that are likely to be among the more popular search terms and, if not, you have to cut them.
-
Forgive me my ignorance. Why would a Pharma company - or any other company for that matter - elect to pay $400 for an image that is available to them as part of a sub package for pennies?
There are a variety of reasons. Which is why many ad agencies use Getty, for example, but not iStock. They want to be able to negotiate terms of usage.
-
Forgive me my ignorance. Why would a Pharma company - or any other company for that matter - elect to pay $400 for an image that is available to them as part of a sub package for pennies?
There are a variety of reasons. Which is why many ad agencies use Getty, for example, but not iStock. They want to be able to negotiate terms of usage.
I understand entirely why an organisation would pay top dollar for a RM image. I don't understand why said organisation would license an RF image on a Microstock agency for $400 when the same image is available for pennies.
-
Forgive me my ignorance. Why would a Pharma company - or any other company for that matter - elect to pay $400 for an image that is available to them as part of a sub package for pennies?
There are a variety of reasons. Which is why many ad agencies use Getty, for example, but not iStock. They want to be able to negotiate terms of usage.
I understand entirely why an organisation would pay top dollar for a RM image. I don't understand why said organisation would license an RF image on a Microstock agency for $400 when the same image is available for pennies.
And to any Tom, Dick or Harry who chooses it.
-
So if these high $ uses on SS are for sensitive use (even when they are mostly not actually sensitive uses) it sounds like what I need to do is deactivate all the images with kids and models that I am not willing to sell for sensitive uses and activate that for my port. Certainly a small percentage of high $ sales would make a big difference in the total $ earned.
Shame SS is unwilling or unable to allow opt out by image or model release.
-
From my figures it should be around 50000 :)
-
So if these high $ uses on SS are for sensitive use (even when they are mostly not actually sensitive uses) it sounds like what I need to do is deactivate all the images with kids and models that I am not willing to sell for sensitive uses and activate that for my port. Certainly a small percentage of high $ sales would make a big difference in the total $ earned.
Shame SS is unwilling or unable to allow opt out by image or model release.
$400 licenses are like unicorns in my portfolio - and I have my port opted in for sensitive use. I wonder what the percentage of these licenses are sold at SS. Certainly, for me - they are simply bait. Nothing but pots at the end of the rainbow...
-
Forgive me my ignorance. Why would a Pharma company - or any other company for that matter - elect to pay $400 for an image that is available to them as part of a sub package for pennies?
There are a variety of reasons. Which is why many ad agencies use Getty, for example, but not iStock. They want to be able to negotiate terms of usage.
I understand entirely why an organisation would pay top dollar for a RM image. I don't understand why said organisation would license an RF image on a Microstock agency for $400 when the same image is available for pennies.
And to any Tom, Dick or Harry who chooses it.
From my understanding, it's a legal issue. But I'm not an art buyer, so I don't know all the ins and outs. Also, ad agencies want access to unwatermarked images for comps, and I believe they pay more for that access at Shutterstock. They also get them from Getty but not iStock. Keep in mind a $400 image is a huge bargain for big corporations. And before someone says why don't ad agencies just buy a subscription for unwatermarked images, I'll answer in advance that they don't pay for images themselves; their clients pay once the image is approved.
-
Forgive me my ignorance. Why would a Pharma company - or any other company for that matter - elect to pay $400 for an image that is available to them as part of a sub package for pennies?
There are a variety of reasons. Which is why many ad agencies use Getty, for example, but not iStock. They want to be able to negotiate terms of usage.
I understand entirely why an organisation would pay top dollar for a RM image. I don't understand why said organisation would license an RF image on a Microstock agency for $400 when the same image is available for pennies.
And to any Tom, Dick or Harry who chooses it.
From my understanding, it's a legal issue. But I'm not an art buyer, so I don't know all the ins and outs. Also, ad agencies want access to unwatermarked images for comps, and I believe they pay more for that access at Shutterstock. They also get them from Getty but not iStock. Keep in mind a $400 image is a huge bargain for big corporations. And before someone says why don't ad agencies just buy a subscription for unwatermarked images, I'll answer in advance that they don't pay for images themselves; their clients pay once the image is approved.
I'm sorry - but this doesn't go any way to explaining why a buyer would volunteer to pay $400 for an image that is available for pennies. I say this as someone who sells many, many licenses way in excess of $400 - just not on SS.
-
Forgive me my ignorance. Why would a Pharma company - or any other company for that matter - elect to pay $400 for an image that is available to them as part of a sub package for pennies?
I think Scott wanted to say that there are many companies which would easily spend 400,-$ on an image if SS and the others wouldn't it sell so cheap! ::)
-
I understand entirely why an organisation would pay top dollar for a RM image. I don't understand why said organisation would license an RF image on a Microstock agency for $400 when the same image is available for pennies.
Many large organizations (global publishers, advertising agencies, Fortune 500 corporations, retailers, etc....) already have individual employees with Shutterstock accounts, but those individual accounts don't always scale or meet the full needs of their business. As a result, we work with the larger organization through consolidated enterprise and custom agreements, which can include the option for sensitive use (although few uses would be a sensitive one), additional legal indemnification, extra billing and workflow features – and other package attributes that aren't available to subscription or standard license customers – to meet the exact needs of their business. Pricing takes into consideration all of the needs of an individual client.
Because these are often individually negotiated and designed, we don't go into all of the details, but that's the basic idea.
Best,
Scott
-
Thanks, Scott. Always appreciate your input here.
-
I understand entirely why an organisation would pay top dollar for a RM image. I don't understand why said organisation would license an RF image on a Microstock agency for $400 when the same image is available for pennies.
Many large organizations (global publishers, advertising agencies, Fortune 500 corporations, retailers, etc....) already have individual employees with Shutterstock accounts, but those individual accounts don't always scale or meet the full needs of their business. As a result, we work with the larger organization through consolidated enterprise and custom agreements, which can include the option for sensitive use (although few uses would be a sensitive one), additional legal indemnification, extra billing and workflow features – and other package attributes that aren't available to subscription or standard license customers – to meet the exact needs of their business. Pricing takes into consideration all of the needs of an individual client.
Because these are often individually negotiated and designed, we don't go into all of the details, but that's the basic idea.
Best,
Scott
Scott, that makes a lot of sense and it's great that you do such deals and we can benefit from that. But as others have said, those sales are very few compared to regular subs (I yet have to see one of those big SODs).
As a motivation to create and upload niche content or to spend a lot of time and money to research, set up, shoot and keyword with the needed accuracy, those sales do not really work.
Because those niche shots or expensively created shots may end up being downloaded a handful of times (because they're niche content there is no high volume demand) for subs royalties.
But if there were an option to make such content available only to those higher paying buyers... (or to all buyers for a respective add-on price), that would be a lot more motivating...
-
Thanks, Scott. Always appreciate your input here.
+1 one of a few agency-representatives which face the critic here!
-
Scott, that makes a lot of sense and it's great that you do such deals and we can benefit from that. But as others have said, those sales are very few compared to regular subs (I yet have to see one of those big SODs).
As a motivation to create and upload niche content or to spend a lot of time and money to research, set up, shoot and keyword with the needed accuracy, those sales do not really work.
Because those niche shots or expensively created shots may end up being downloaded a handful of times (because they're niche content there is no high volume demand) for subs royalties.
But if there were an option to make such content available only to those higher paying buyers... (or to all buyers for a respective add-on price), that would be a lot more motivating...
+1, Nicely put.
-
This poll doesn't work for me, I will need way more than 40,000 photos!
-
So, is there something concretely here?
Is there someone in this post who earns $ 10,000 a month? Or $5000 and home many images he/she has online?
Lets roll this post.... 8)
-
Its a stupid question because the amount you make each month is more to do with how commercial your images are than the number you produce.
-
Its a stupid question because the amount you make each month is more to do with how commercial your images are than the number you produce.
I assumed that we were answering based on our own portfolios.
-
Its a stupid question because the amount you make each month is more to do with how commercial your images are than the number you produce.
Not to mention that a port which might have earned 10k/month 2 or 3 years ago (ahem) might not be earning anywhere near that now thanks to the countless reasons always being discussed here.
-
Its a stupid question because the amount you make each month is more to do with how commercial your images are than the number you produce.
Not to mention that a port which might have earned 10k/month 2 or 3 years ago (ahem) might not be earning anywhere near that now thanks to the countless reasons always being discussed here.
That's true. My answer would have been 7500 a few years back and it is now 30000.
-
It is a flawed poll. Realistically, very few of the 40,000 images portfolios would achieve the $10,000 income. Of course, there are exceptions, and then there is the hard reality.
Another thing is that even if you make $1,000 with x images presently in your portfolio, you can't increase the income linearly with a tenfold increase of the portfolio. If you have currently a profitable niche with 100 pictures, by increasing it tenfold, you'll be diluting the profitability of the old and new images in this niche, and consequently any increase in total income would be marginal. So the answer would seem to be to to come up with new undiscovered niches, which is much easier said than done.
-
It is a flawed poll. Realistically, very few of the 40,000 images portfolios would achieve the $10,000 income. Of course, there are exceptions, and then there is the hard reality.
Another thing is that even if you make $1,000 with x images presently in your portfolio, you can't increase the income linearly with a tenfold increase of the portfolio. If you have currently a profitable niche with 100 pictures, by increasing it tenfold, you'll be diluting the profitability of the old and new images in this niche, and consequently any increase in total income would be marginal. So the answer would seem to be to to come up with new undiscovered niches, which is much easier said than done.
agree +100 Les
i look back at my past 5 years and with the increase of portfolio of almost 50 % from the first 5 years, my income is still the same monthly from the older images that are regularly downloaded.
the new images from year 3,4 and 5 earned almost pennies.
not sure if this is due to the change in search . but if so, why are the oldest images still the regular sellers?
-
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.
-
the biggest problem nowadays is that uploading new content bring marginal improvement to the pot...had i uploaded the file that i uploaded in the last two years in 2010 i would have made much more than what i'm doing in the last year....in 2017 i uploaded 1500 travel fav food and lifestyle images and they are giving me 120 dollar each month seems january....the bulk of my sales is still those file that are in first page in search...mostly stuff i uploaded years ago...many buyer simply don't wanna bother with searching new files they go direct to popular or relevant...new isa mess with all those b..it uploaded this days.
so if you earn for example 1000 dollar with 3000 or 5000 file you cannot do a direct relation....but at least for every 1000 more you need double number..so for gain another 1000 you need 7500 or more images. is more exponential growth than linear...
sure you can nail even one single niche file who make you 1000 in a year, but this is very rare todays.
that guys who not upload 6 years in a row and still earn 1000 dollar is the proof of this, had he uploaded those files in 2017 iu doubt he would have earned 1000 dollar from 3200 files of normal lifestyle.
sometimes i hope the agency abolish popular and most downloaded search option. this would be another story for many.
-
Old thread alert.
-
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.
-
Old thread alert.
Very cute... You got 3 "+" from your fans.
Now it's four.
-
Old thread alert.
Very cute... You got 3 "+" from your fans.
Now it's four.
Now it's fourteen :D
-
Old thread alert.
Very cute... You got 3 "+" from your fans.
Your first ever post was to call someone a "mother f**ker" and a "dumbass", your fourth to revive a 3 year old thread and your sixth to patronise/ insult one of the main contributors to the forum.
We could be in line for the greatest first ten forum posts ever! Can't wait to see what numbers 7-10 bring!!
-
Old thread alert.
Very cute... You got 3 "+" from your fans.
Your first ever post was to call someone a "mother f**ker" and a "dumbass", your fourth to revive a 3 year old thread and your sixth to patronise/ insult one of the main contributors to the forum.
We could be in line for the greatest first ten forum posts ever! Can't wait to see what numbers 7-10 bring!!
HAHAHA..excellent post
-
Old thread alert.
Very cute... You got 3 "+" from your fans.
Shelma now has 17 from her fans ~ ;D
-
Hey, this turned out to be a pretty funny thread. Lol.
-
Over 50.000 quality images/vectors
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
yes, old thread, perharps. but i think i like to see if those ppl who said 40,000 way back still think 40,000 in today's sh*tterstock environment they would make 10,000 / month. that is, if they are all still without sh*tterstock
-
I gave Shelma a + since she's from my home state.
-
Shelma, are you Michele Paccione?
-
Shelma, are you Michele Paccione?
Hannafate, Are you Darla Hallmark from Albuquerque?
-
Yes. But, if Selma is NOT Michele, there is a problem.
-
Old thread alert.
Very cute... You got 3 "+" from your fans.
Your first ever post was to call someone a "mother f**ker" and a "dumbass", your fourth to revive a 3 year old thread and your sixth to patronise/ insult one of the main contributors to the forum.
We could be in line for the greatest first ten forum posts ever! Can't wait to see what numbers 7-10 bring!!
Awww, you smushed the troll. All their posts have gone Lorem Ipsum.
-
Yes. But, if Selma is NOT Michele, there is a problem.
What if Michele is not Selma, but Selma is Michele?
-
I have more then 15000 vectors, illustrations and photos. I reached $1550 of the month couple years ago before this changes . Now is really, really bad. Last month I earned $540, this month $54 till now. :-(
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk