Quote from: Ron on February 08, 2014, 03:25

To my shock when searching the SS library for a similar image to the one I was about to submit the return was 0

And this is a shocking result as it is a very normal subject. I looked in Shutterbuzz if there was a restriction but there was nothing about it.

It might get rejected for reasons I dont know yet, but surely it will be the only image in the library of that subject if it gets accepted.

Weird.

When I got Bell's Palsy last summer I searched SS to see if there were any images of it and there weren't. Not only is the market (small, I grant you) all mine, but you can't copy it without having it (or some injection of a paralyzing drug). And yes, they do sell

There are niche subjects out there if you're not trying to be Yuri or the like

Quote from: cthoman on January 12, 2014, 16:31

Quote from: robhainer on January 12, 2014, 16:22

How do they drive prices through the floor when they pay out more than anyone else does? If I make more at the end of the day, I don't care what the per license price is. It's not even important. What matters is the total income. Again, it's about the bigger picture. Who else is going to pay me $1,000+ for a couple of snapshots of my kid in superhero costume? Not some fancy ad agency, that's for sure. Shutterstock has. I spent maybe five bucks making that photo!

And let's not overlook the fact that subscriptions are only part of the picture at Shutterstock. Half of my income comes from On Demands, ELs and SODs.

The fact is, microstock photographers need to manage their costs and do things on the cheap. If you're spending hundreds of dollars paying models and buying props, you only have yourself to blame if you turn around and sell your images via Microstock. I use volunteer models. I buy my props at Wal-Mart, Party City or Michaels, and then I return them for a refund when I'm done with them.

I guess the big picture never worked that well for me. It's nice if it does, but if it doesn't it still has an impact on what happens everywhere else. For example, Thinkstock exist because of Shutterstock, so do many other models that haven't necessarily been a good thing for us that do better at selling at higher RPDs.

I don't agree, I think you hit the nail on the head in regard to the big picture and I agree with your key point.

SS has stated that they will not be raising prices and they have stated that they are doing this to capture market share.  Every year our expenses go up and every year as SS grows; their growth strategy exerts yet more pressure on other stock agencies to also under cut competitors when pricing their buyer packages.

Snip
Duck Swartz

So what�s changed in the marketplace that�s giving you the opportunity to locate in the enterprise in a more, in a more robust way?
Timothy E. Bixby - CFO

The quality of the images has increased pretty dramatically over the past 10 years and as that now work keeps moving back and forth. The contributors 40,000 of them all over the world are constantly competing with each other.

So in the past five years the contents gone up to a level where the biggest publishers in the world mediated either starting to notice that is price, these images are not only price well, but they are also similar to some images that they have paid thousands of dollars for and also had to be on the phone for an hour negotiating the license for that image.

Snip

Duck Swartz

Talking about your present strategy longer term?

Timothy E. Bixby - CFO

We think we can raise the prices over the long term but we�re primary in the growth mode right now and we would like to continue to cover as much of the world as possible and take as much as growth in the business that we can before we play with the pricing level. We haven�t raised prices in many years and then been a great strategy so far to grow.

Snip
Jonathan Oringer - Founder, CEO & Chairman of the Board

It still multiples. So it's order of magnitude whether it's if you look at us compared to other stock marketplaces like an iStock or others, it's two or three or four times more expensive to not use Shutterstock. If you look at the higher end sort of more traditional marketed might be 6 or 8 or 10 times more expensive.

http://seekingalpha.com/article/1841072-shutterstocks-management-presents-at-the-goldman-sachs-us-emerging-smid-cap-growth-conference-transcript?page=2&p=qanda&l=last

 

I getting quote fatigue.

I getting quote fatigue.

I think SS has really good algorithms to help sort what customers like from what they are not interested in. My portfolio is still tiny with only 500 photos and 700 videos, but I am getting downloads every day - if I upload continuously. If I stop uploading regularly, my portfolio drops fast.

I also could imagine many buyers scan the regular uploads for new images in their fields, i.e. a designer for food magazines scanning the new uploads daily and they download quickly if they see something interesting.

The other question is: how many new images are being uploaded in your specific niche? I have some areas where I rarely see new content, while objects on white get thousands of new files a day.

So if you are specialised in something than you might only be competing with 30 new files a month.

tickstock, don�t you believe that people can produce niche subjects at different quality levels??

I can.

A simple niche can be normal generic stock done locally in your area. There will simply be a lot less other photographers competing with you.

There are many other options, but why should I explain them to you? Do your own research and make your own experiences what sells best between high volume, low volume, files that people pay 500 dollars for and files that can gain a good audience worldwide with low prices. Also the differences between what sells best at RM or RF.

But if you prefer to send everything without distinction to just one site, that is fine with me. You are the one determining how to make the most money from your images.

I am sure if you look at my posts again, you will find the passage.

To be honest, the people at the bottom worry me a lot more than the people at the top. There are a lot more of them, and they don't have the same expectations as the higher level contributors.