pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Recieved an email from Shutterstock.  (Read 11857 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

shudderstok

« Reply #25 on: April 23, 2013, 22:54 »
-11
0.25c - 0.38c??? why oh why would anyone sell their work for such a pitiful royalty amount? crikey, now that 15% at IS is looking great indeed.


Poncke

« Reply #26 on: April 24, 2013, 02:39 »
0
0.25c - 0.38c??? why oh why would anyone sell their work for such a pitiful royalty amount? crikey, now that 15% at IS is looking great indeed.
If its about footage anyway, pay out is 19 dollar

« Reply #27 on: April 24, 2013, 02:50 »
+1
0.25c - 0.38c??? why oh why would anyone sell their work for such a pitiful royalty amount? crikey, now that 15% at IS is looking great indeed.
Nobody really wants to sell their images at such a low price but being as so many of the buyers are at SS it would be foolish not to sell our images there.  Most of us get the biggest payout from SS. Personally SS brings me in 2 - 3 times what IS does, double what FOT does and nearly double what DT does. Yes of  course I'd rather sell at Dt where the Rpd is over 4 times that of SS but the reality is that the buyers go to SS.

shudderstok

« Reply #28 on: April 24, 2013, 03:24 »
-1
0.25c - 0.38c??? why oh why would anyone sell their work for such a pitiful royalty amount? crikey, now that 15% at IS is looking great indeed.
Nobody really wants to sell their images at such a low price but being as so many of the buyers are at SS it would be foolish not to sell our images there.  Most of us get the biggest payout from SS. Personally SS brings me in 2 - 3 times what IS does, double what FOT does and nearly double what DT does. Yes of  course I'd rather sell at Dt where the Rpd is over 4 times that of SS but the reality is that the buyers go to SS.

Nobody wants to sell their images at such low prices but they do, nobody wants to sell their images at such low prices but you do.
I refused to sell my images on SS when I started with microstock late in 2006, simply because I deemed my work to be worth a hell of a lot more than 0.25c per download and I still refuse to submit to them.
To each his own for sure, but if no photographers supplied/supported the sites like SS, then nobody would be going there to purchase/support purchasing images for such pathetic amounts.


« Reply #29 on: April 24, 2013, 03:31 »
0

 but if no photographers supplied/supported the sites like SS, then nobody would be going there
But the fact is that they do and me stopping selling my images there will make no difference to anybody but myself.  I don't kid myself that if I'm not there then buyers will go and search for my images elswhere.  I certainly can't afford to not upload there.  I manage to get a lot of household bills paid with the money I earn there.

« Reply #30 on: April 24, 2013, 04:26 »
+2
Ha, yes lol. How do you like Shutterstock outside of that?

I can't talk about video as I don't do it, but ss on the whole is a well-oiled machine. They seldom don't produce for contributors. Introducing 25 cent subs on BS though sets off alarm bells. Will they one day do an IS and get greedy.
It will be a dark day when Shutterstock introduces 25 cent subs.

ummm..... they do 25c subs, and then you go up the tier as your sales increase
Oh so they already pulled an Istock and got greedy by introducing 25 cent subs.  I wonder how long ago they pulled an Istock?  2004 I think it was, right? 
That has to be one of the most bizarre comments I've read in awhile.

huh??  They didn't introduce subs, they've always had it.  It's the only thing they had when they started.  They also haven't ever reduced the payout to photographers - only increased the payout levels.

« Reply #31 on: April 24, 2013, 06:44 »
0
.
« Last Edit: May 12, 2014, 14:23 by Audi 5000 »

« Reply #32 on: April 24, 2013, 06:50 »
0
0.25c - 0.38c??? why oh why would anyone sell their work for such a pitiful royalty amount? crikey, now that 15% at IS is looking great indeed.

It's 0.25 cents to $28, in general. And unless they change the rules I won't receive 25 cents again. In fact larger figures of up to $120 are not unheard of. It's easier to understand the methodology of ss's various price structures when you are an ss contributor. It's possible for those who are not with ss to understand it too, but many people doggedly don't want to.
« Last Edit: April 24, 2013, 06:55 by Microstock Posts »

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #33 on: April 24, 2013, 06:54 »
0
huh??  They didn't introduce subs, they've always had it.
I thought it was SS who introduced subs, too; anyone know who actually did?

« Reply #34 on: April 24, 2013, 07:02 »
+3
0.25c - 0.38c??? why oh why would anyone sell their work for such a pitiful royalty amount? crikey, now that 15% at IS is looking great indeed.

It's 0.25 cents to $28, in general. And unless they change the rules I won't receive 25 cents again. In fact larger figures of up to $120 are not unheard of. It's easier to understand the methodology of ss's various price structures when you are a ss contributor. It's possible for those who are not with ss to understand it too, but many people doggedly don't want to.

Don't rise to the bait, just don't  ;)

I'm pretty sure the usual suspects know the royalty structure at SS perfectly well, but just can't resist to have another go at it. Nevermind, that it's 0.25$ to 0.38$ (and not cents), that the average RPD is more like 0.75$ thanks to non-subscription sales, and that 0.08$ sales happen at IS, too...

« Reply #35 on: April 24, 2013, 09:27 »
0
My video sales at SS have become about 50% of total sales over the last year. I usually get at least one or two sales a day, and the amount I get per sale is much greater than at Istock. SS and Pond5 are neck and neck for sales now, with Istock dropping from number one to a very distant third over the last year. Since I am non-exclusive, I'm at the back of the search results on best match at Istock, even if my video is selling in that category.
Uploading is much easier, and approvals are fast, sometimes the same day. Rejections are intelligently explained and open to re-submission. Overall, they are a much more professional group than what has surfaced over at Istock.
Having said that, being an exclusive at Istock puts you up front on searches, opens up vetta, and makes approvals much easier and faster. Non-exclusives need to plan for a 6 to 8 week wait for approvals, with in my case a 40% rejection rate.
The walled garden at Istock is a great perk for exclusives, and seems to be growing, as it is the only thing they have as a unique selling proposition, so it's not something to give up lightly.
If as you say, your work is easily imitated at Pond5, you may be in the best place right now. I would do an analysis of the competition at SS and P5, versus Istock, before making a move.

Thanks. I am also thinking iStock exclusive may be the best fit for me right now as far as video. I plan to keep my photo and illustrations independent as I see less of a benefit to be exclusive in those areas as sales for them seem to be going stronger on other sites these days.

Les

« Reply #36 on: April 24, 2013, 09:55 »
+1
Quote
You are making stuff up, do the calculation. Come on do it. You know you are going to find out you are wrong. The fact that a buyer doesnt use his full quota doesnt mean SS is paying me less per image.

Do the hard numbers, cost of an image and my royalty. Come on do it.

I'll do it, since you will never admit it.

199 dollar subscription package. 750 images. An image downloaded from me cost 0.265 cent, I get 0.33 cent. 124%


I haven't seen such naive comment since I read the last news from TASS agency.
With your aptitude for math, what do you think, how many buyers fulfill their full contingent of 750 images each month?
 
« Last Edit: April 24, 2013, 10:00 by Les »

Poncke

« Reply #37 on: April 24, 2013, 11:24 »
+1
I know buyers dont get their full quota, even SS mentioned their profit comes from not downloaded images. I was just illustrating the fact that tickstock is just trying to make SS look bad since he is an IS fanboy and he has no clue on what SS contributors get paid. The math is correct, prove me wrong.

« Reply #38 on: April 24, 2013, 11:46 »
-1
.
« Last Edit: May 12, 2014, 14:23 by Audi 5000 »

Poncke

« Reply #39 on: April 24, 2013, 11:51 »
0
The math is correct, prove me wrong.
Already did.
You didnt. You said my math was correct. LOL

« Reply #40 on: April 24, 2013, 11:53 »
-1
.
« Last Edit: May 12, 2014, 14:22 by Audi 5000 »

Poncke

« Reply #41 on: April 24, 2013, 12:01 »
0
Whatever. I know exactly whats going in, as I explained in my previous post. You just want SS to suck hard, but the numbers are against you. Overall, SS pays an average of 30% royalties. And the hard cold numbers tell me on Subs I get more than what a customer pays for them.


« Reply #42 on: April 24, 2013, 12:02 »
0
.
« Last Edit: May 12, 2014, 14:22 by Audi 5000 »

Poncke

« Reply #43 on: April 24, 2013, 12:08 »
0
Alright its your party then. How long have you been with SS?


ruxpriencdiam

    This user is banned.
  • Location. Third stone from the sun
« Reply #44 on: April 24, 2013, 12:12 »
0
A train on the tracks rolling along gets derailed and has an accident needing to be corrected, cleaned up and put back on the tracks in the direction it was originally headed when it first started.

« Reply #45 on: April 24, 2013, 13:43 »
0
A train on the tracks rolling along gets derailed and has an accident needing to be corrected, cleaned up and put back on the tracks in the direction it was originally headed when it first started.

What are you talking about a derailed train for? Can you stay on topic?  ;D
« Last Edit: April 25, 2013, 06:02 by Microstock Posts »

« Reply #46 on: April 24, 2013, 14:02 »
0
FYI:
overall earnings/ number of images
istock: 1,18
ss: 0,54

istock is not relevant anymore and ss has raised to 0,68 per image in April 2013

so all talk of 0,25 cents at shutterstock is not applicable.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #47 on: April 24, 2013, 15:14 »
0
FYI:
overall earnings/ number of images
ss has raised to 0,68 per image in April 2013
so all talk of 0,25 cents at shutterstock is not applicable.
Really? Even newbies there get .68 per image now? I missed that announcement completely!

Les

« Reply #48 on: April 24, 2013, 17:35 »
0
There was no announcement. But for all practical purposes, it works out that way,
« Last Edit: April 24, 2013, 17:37 by Les »

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #49 on: April 24, 2013, 17:56 »
0
Interesting.
I wonder why they didn't make a song and dance about it, as it's such a huge increase.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
30 Replies
6380 Views
Last post February 24, 2016, 10:31
by authenticcreations
17 Replies
5253 Views
Last post November 07, 2018, 11:59
by thor_odt
2 Replies
2788 Views
Last post May 16, 2020, 20:25
by SpaceStockFootage
8 Replies
1990 Views
Last post May 27, 2020, 05:19
by Pauws99
21 Replies
2445 Views
Last post October 08, 2021, 06:21
by William Perry

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle