MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Recieved an email from Shutterstock.  (Read 11900 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: April 23, 2013, 15:38 »
0
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...


« Reply #1 on: April 23, 2013, 16:32 »
+5
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  :)

« Reply #2 on: April 23, 2013, 17:27 »
0
Ha, yes lol. How do you like Shutterstock outside of that?

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #3 on: April 23, 2013, 17:29 »
+1
Is there any real advantage in being video exclusive at iStock?

« Reply #4 on: April 23, 2013, 17:36 »
+1
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.

lisafx

« Reply #5 on: April 23, 2013, 17:54 »
0
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...

Interesting.  This is the first I have heard of Shutterstock actively recruiting existing Istock exclusives.  Very smart strategy IMO. 

Congrats on having such good work Dingle :)

I don't shoot video, so I can respond on that front, but I can say that Shutterstock has historically been a very good company and are a huge earner. 

« Reply #6 on: April 23, 2013, 17:58 »
0
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.

« Reply #7 on: April 23, 2013, 18:08 »
0
.
« Last Edit: May 12, 2014, 14:24 by Audi 5000 »

« Reply #8 on: April 23, 2013, 18:13 »
0
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

« Reply #9 on: April 23, 2013, 18:15 »
0
I dropped video exclusivity at IS  some months ago as the sales were terrible there.But to be honest I haven't seen any improvement  by doing so especially I am very disappointed with  SS footage sales .I get sales ,near zero, same with FT , I am curious to see how pond5 will perform though.
plus side of being IS video exclusive is you only upload to one site,(saving a lot of time) well as for sales, I don't know how it is now for the exclusives my sales are ok now as non exclusive I just get a smaller cut though.

« Reply #10 on: April 23, 2013, 18:16 »
-3
.
« Last Edit: May 12, 2014, 14:24 by Audi 5000 »

« Reply #11 on: April 23, 2013, 18:19 »
+1
I cant remember when they started the 25c subs - but they do good volume and with the occassional EL and SOD sales its the best agency out there at this point in time

« Reply #12 on: April 23, 2013, 18:31 »
+1
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.
« Last Edit: April 23, 2013, 18:36 by Microstock Posts »

Poncke

« Reply #13 on: April 23, 2013, 18:35 »
0
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.
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




« Reply #14 on: April 23, 2013, 18:36 »
0
.
« Last Edit: May 12, 2014, 14:24 by Audi 5000 »

« Reply #15 on: April 23, 2013, 18:38 »
-2
.
« Last Edit: May 12, 2014, 14:24 by Audi 5000 »

Poncke

« Reply #16 on: April 23, 2013, 18:48 »
0
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...


« Reply #17 on: April 23, 2013, 18:51 »
0
.
« Last Edit: May 12, 2014, 14:24 by Audi 5000 »

Poncke

« Reply #18 on: April 23, 2013, 18:59 »
0
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.

« Reply #19 on: April 23, 2013, 19:03 »
-4
.
« Last Edit: May 12, 2014, 14:23 by Audi 5000 »

Poncke

« Reply #20 on: April 23, 2013, 19:09 »
+1
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. 

« Reply #21 on: April 23, 2013, 19:44 »
+1
Is there any real advantage in being video exclusive at iStock?

That is the question. Sales are the same as when I was non- exclusive, but now I get 25% instead of 15%.

It's flattering to hear this isn't common practice for them...a good ego boost  ;D. My main reservation is when I did have video content on SS I never got a single sale. The only reason I went with IS exclusivity was because I was getting sales there. Since the grass always seems greener on the other side, I'm curious how well I'd do now that my portfolio is much larger.

Thanks for the feedback, and the thread hijack has been a fun read as well   ;)
« Last Edit: April 23, 2013, 19:47 by dingles »

« Reply #22 on: April 23, 2013, 20:00 »
-3
.
« Last Edit: May 12, 2014, 14:23 by Audi 5000 »

« Reply #23 on: April 23, 2013, 20:05 »
0
Thanks for thanking me for my part in the thread hijack all I want is a little recognition. ;)  From my experience Shutterstock is not the reason you should drop exclusivity, Pond5 is a bigger player for most people with Shutterstock usually third after Istock for video.

I had a hard time with Pond5 when I was non-exclusive. The set your own price model seems to allow my work to be mimicked and undersold all on the same site. I have issues with that.

jbarber873

« Reply #24 on: April 23, 2013, 20:39 »
+2
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.

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.

Poncke

« Reply #50 on: April 24, 2013, 18:07 »
0
I think Jens meant his RPD went up, there was no raise at SS

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #51 on: April 24, 2013, 18:10 »
0
Right, tx for the clarification.

Les

« Reply #52 on: April 24, 2013, 18:20 »
0
Quote
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.
« Last Edit: April 24, 2013, 18:56 by Les »

« Reply #53 on: April 24, 2013, 21:29 »
0
Sue, I think you misuderstand. It is not the subscription download payment.

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

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #54 on: April 25, 2013, 04:34 »
0
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"
« Last Edit: April 25, 2013, 04:55 by ShadySue »

« Reply #55 on: April 25, 2013, 04:41 »
0
deleted
« Last Edit: April 25, 2013, 04:45 by MicrostockExp »


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
30 Replies
6413 Views
Last post February 24, 2016, 10:31
by authenticcreations
17 Replies
5268 Views
Last post November 07, 2018, 11:59
by thor_odt
2 Replies
2813 Views
Last post May 16, 2020, 20:25
by SpaceStockFootage
8 Replies
2009 Views
Last post May 27, 2020, 05:19
by Pauws99
21 Replies
2559 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