pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Poll

On Shutterstock, how many images do you need to earn $10,000 month

5,000
23 (6.7%)
7,500
9 (2.6%)
10,000
13 (3.8%)
12,500
5 (1.5%)
15,000
10 (2.9%)
17.500
11 (3.2%)
20,000
37 (10.8%)
22,500
2 (0.6%)
25,000
13 (3.8%)
27,500
0 (0%)
30,000
36 (10.5%)
32,500
5 (1.5%)
35,000
6 (1.7%)
37,500
4 (1.2%)
40,000
170 (49.4%)

Total Members Voted: 318

Author Topic: How many images do you need to achieve $10,000/month  (Read 56161 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #75 on: October 05, 2014, 14:03 »
+4

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.


« Reply #76 on: October 05, 2014, 15:30 »
+3

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.

« Reply #77 on: October 06, 2014, 00:21 »
+2
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.

« Reply #78 on: October 06, 2014, 07:15 »
+3
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 while "doctor syringe" turns up 22,000; 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 




« Last Edit: October 06, 2014, 07:17 by scottbraut »

« Reply #79 on: October 06, 2014, 07:41 »
+1
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 while "doctor syringe" turns up 22,000; 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.
« Last Edit: October 06, 2014, 07:46 by Mantis »

Tror

« Reply #80 on: October 06, 2014, 07:46 »
+4

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.





« Reply #81 on: October 06, 2014, 08:34 »
+5
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.

Valo

« Reply #82 on: October 06, 2014, 08:37 »
+2
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.

« Reply #83 on: October 06, 2014, 08:59 »
+1
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?

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #84 on: October 06, 2014, 09:05 »
0
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.

ruxpriencdiam

    This user is banned.
  • Location. Third stone from the sun
« Reply #85 on: October 06, 2014, 09:15 »
-2
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 while "doctor syringe" turns up 22,000; 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

ruxpriencdiam

    This user is banned.
  • Location. Third stone from the sun
« Reply #86 on: October 06, 2014, 09:20 »
0
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.

Shelma1

  • stockcoalition.org
« Reply #87 on: October 06, 2014, 09:49 »
0
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.

« Reply #88 on: October 06, 2014, 09:53 »
+2
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. 

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #89 on: October 06, 2014, 10:09 »
0
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.

« Reply #90 on: October 06, 2014, 10:11 »
+4
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.

« Reply #91 on: October 06, 2014, 10:22 »
+2
From my figures it should be around 50000 :)


« Reply #92 on: October 06, 2014, 10:32 »
+4
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...

Shelma1

  • stockcoalition.org
« Reply #93 on: October 06, 2014, 11:15 »
0
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.

« Reply #94 on: October 06, 2014, 11:40 »
-1
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.

stocked

« Reply #95 on: October 06, 2014, 11:52 »
+5
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! ::)

« Reply #96 on: October 06, 2014, 14:36 »
+2
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
 

« Reply #97 on: October 06, 2014, 14:37 »
-2
Thanks, Scott. Always appreciate your input here.

« Reply #98 on: October 06, 2014, 14:51 »
+5
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...

stocked

« Reply #99 on: October 06, 2014, 15:01 »
+1
Thanks, Scott. Always appreciate your input here.
+1 one of a few agency-representatives which face the critic here!


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
38 Replies
15442 Views
Last post February 06, 2009, 23:50
by lephotography
17 Replies
7216 Views
Last post May 14, 2010, 10:37
by fotografer
2 Replies
4328 Views
Last post September 15, 2013, 12:07
by leaf
9 Replies
4263 Views
Last post May 23, 2021, 23:42
by cristianstorto
0 Replies
289 Views
Last post February 17, 2024, 19:29
by The Mighty Jungle

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors