Hi Guys,
I just received an email from Shutterstock. They saw some of my video work online and invited me to join. I am currently exclusive at IS, but have been debating on branching out. Is this something Shutterstock does often? I actually had work on there a few years back, but pulled it once I went exclusive at IS...I guess I am just looking for some insight into Shutterstock as far as video...

Ha, yes lol. How do you like Shutterstock outside of that?

I just received an email from Shutterstock too. Not Approved - Noise--Noise, film grain, over-sharpening, or artifacts at full size. Your email sounds better though 

They must like you better than me.  All I get is my photos sitting there unreviewed for 24 days.

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.

Quote from: Microstock Posts on April 23, 2013, 17:58

Quote from: dingles on April 23, 2013, 17:27

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

.

Quote from: noodle on April 23, 2013, 18:13

Quote from: tickstock on April 23, 2013, 18:08

Quote from: Microstock Posts on April 23, 2013, 17:58

Quote from: dingles on April 23, 2013, 17:27

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?

You still don't get it. I read similar stuff from you in other threads and you still don't get it. 25 cent subs on ss is for less than $500 earnings. Less than $500 on ss doesn't last long. Then it goes up to 33 cents and then it goes up to 36 cents and then 38 cents. The difference here is that the subs recently introduced on BS stay at 25 cents for most people. So you tell me why they did this?

Like I say I really hope they don't do an IS. We already have one ms site which lost its way, we don't want another.

.

Quote from: Poncke on April 23, 2013, 18:35

You dont know what you are talking about. Did you ever do a calculation? Do you realize SS actually pays more then the sub cost to a buyer? The royalty is over 100% for subs if you are in the 38 cent club. You are trying too hard to make SS look bad

Now that's hilarious, you think Shutterstock is paying out more than 100%?

Prove me wrong on subs...

Quote from: Poncke on April 23, 2013, 18:48

Quote from: tickstock on April 23, 2013, 18:38

Quote from: Poncke on April 23, 2013, 18:35

You dont know what you are talking about. Did you ever do a calculation? Do you realize SS actually pays more then the sub cost to a buyer? The royalty is over 100% for subs if you are in the 38 cent club. You are trying too hard to make SS look bad

Now that's hilarious, you think Shutterstock is paying out more than 100%?

Prove me wrong on subs...

Do you get the same amount of downloads on holidays and weekends as you do on weekdays?  The answer is no.  They still make the same money on the subscription but payout a lot less then and every other time someone doesn't use the full amount.
I think commonsense would also lead you to the conclusion that they are not paying out more than they take in.

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%

Cheers.

Little guy, you should see me in real life. Careful now.

I may sound upset, you may sound like an IS fanboy.

The calculation is never wrong as it is factual.

End of the discussion for me. 

.

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.

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

Quote from: shudderstok on April 23, 2013, 22:54

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.

Quote from: noodle on April 23, 2013, 18:13

Quote from: tickstock on April 23, 2013, 18:08

Quote from: Microstock Posts on April 23, 2013, 17:58

Quote from: dingles on April 23, 2013, 17:27

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.

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.

Quote from: shudderstok on April 23, 2013, 22:54

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...

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?
 

.

.

.

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.

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.

There was no announcement. But for all practical purposes, it works out that way,

I think Jens meant his RPD went up, there was no raise at SS

I wonder why they didn't make a song and dance about it, as it's such a huge increase.

Even more irresponsible was not letting us know about the meteoric rise of their shares prices.  They should have announced it in one of the forums while the shares still lingered in the low twenties.

Sue, I think you misuderstand. It is not the subscription download payment.

its the dollars per download of all types of licenses combined.

When you wrote:
"all talk of 0,25 cents at shutterstock is not applicable."
I thought you meant that even newbies got more than 25c for a sub sale.

It's an odd argument you used. When indies post about their ridiculously low commissions they sometimes get at iStock (for an XS file, mind) the fact that I  averaged $6.80 per sale last week, with no ELs, or V/A sales, is totally irrelevant to their experience.

I certainly wouldn't say, "all talk of 9c (or whatever) dls is not applicable"