MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: S J Locke Uploading to Shutterstock  (Read 38322 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #225 on: April 23, 2014, 15:24 »
+3
so you are taking away all my SS sales then... knew it. ;) ;).

Congrats Sean!!!
« Last Edit: April 23, 2014, 15:39 by Mellimage »


« Reply #226 on: April 23, 2014, 16:26 »
0
Made it to the $.36 level if anyone cares.  Honestly, from some of the posts here, I would have thought I'd make it faster that this.

once again impressive, how is it compared to Stocksy?

« Reply #227 on: April 23, 2014, 16:30 »
+3
Made it to the $.36 level if anyone cares.  Honestly, from some of the posts here, I would have thought I'd make it faster that this.

So would I a few months ago (mind you, I'd also have thought you would have had 10K images on SS by now!). In my experience it has become much more difficult to get new images to take off this year. Some still do but many more fall by the wayside than before.

I guess it has something to do with the 1M new images added each month nowadays. Most of them are crap and full of wrong keywords but they still have the effect of quickly burying quality images in the 'Newest' sort-order.

Hopefully it will only cause a temporary 'lag' in the ability of decent images to climb the default sort-order. The cream should still rise to the top, it's just going to take a bit longer to do so.

« Reply #228 on: April 23, 2014, 18:21 »
+4
Made it to the $.36 level if anyone cares.  Honestly, from some of the posts here, I would have thought I'd make it faster that this.

Three things:

1) Given the split between subs/other, your higher payments for the OD/SOD will increase your speed to the next earning threshold

2) It takes time to get good search placement for a good chunk of images, again meaning you should see an improved rate of increase

3) You only have 2450 images uploaded - I"m assuming you have more that aren't exclusive elsewhere? Upload them

4) No whining! I know I said three, but this is just a reminder that you're doing well - it's microstock not alchemy :)

lisafx

« Reply #229 on: April 23, 2014, 22:46 »
+2
Shutterstock should introduce a few more higher levels. After 38 cents, what goals are there left for you?

Totally agree. I've been saying the same for about 5 years.  Still hoping it might happen, but not holding my breath ;)

« Reply #230 on: April 24, 2014, 02:01 »
+2
3) You only have 2450 images uploaded - I"m assuming you have more that aren't exclusive elsewhere? Upload them

Trying to pace myself, so I can feed the beast.  Also waiting on Xmas images.

« Reply #231 on: April 24, 2014, 02:20 »
+11
Shutterstock should introduce a few more higher levels. After 38 cents, what goals are there left for you?

Agreed, it would be great to have some lofty high goals to shoot for.  Even if it was a penny more per download.

« Reply #232 on: April 24, 2014, 03:01 »
+2
Shutterstock should introduce a few more higher levels. After 38 cents, what goals are there left for you?

Actually I prefer an agency that puts up levels that are actually achievable for "regular people" as well. Rather than setting a new level of $0.40 if you reach $10 million lifetime earnings.

« Reply #233 on: April 24, 2014, 03:45 »
+9
Shutterstock should introduce a few more higher levels. After 38 cents, what goals are there left for you?

Actually I prefer an agency that puts up levels that are actually achievable for "regular people" as well. Rather than setting a new level of $0.40 if you reach $10 million lifetime earnings.

They have the goals already set for 'regular people' though.  It would be fun / nice to have a few more goals for the full time stock photographers.  I'm guessing the top 100 or so photographers on Shutterstock make the top goal requirements every month.  A goal in the $100,000 or $200,000 lifetime earnings range wouldn't be so ridiculous.

Ron

« Reply #234 on: April 24, 2014, 04:09 »
-5
People who make that kind of money on SS, would they care about or need a 2 cent raise? Seems a bit underwhelming. Say you make $5000 on SS per month, and RPD of 1$, that means you have 5000 downloads, get a 2 cent raise, and you make 5100$ per month. Make that 5200$ including the ODDs which would go up as well.

Edit: I was asking a question if people would care or need a raise when they make $5000 from Shutterstock, then 2 cents sounds underwhelming I can imagine. Why not just answer me instead of dropping the down votes? I am thinking they would need more of a raise then 2 cents to feel enticed, no?
« Last Edit: April 24, 2014, 05:56 by Ron »

« Reply #235 on: April 24, 2014, 04:15 »
+16
People who make that kind of money on SS, would they care about or need a 2 cent raise? Seems a bit underwhelming. Say you make $5000 on SS per month, and RPD of 1$, that means you have 5000 downloads, get a 2 cent raise, and you make 5100$ per month. Make that 5200$ including the ODDs which would go up as well.

yep but if we think that way we would be happy getting 36 instead of 38 ;D

« Reply #236 on: April 24, 2014, 04:44 »
+2
They have the goals already set for 'regular people' though.  It would be fun / nice to have a few more goals for the full time stock photographers.  I'm guessing the top 100 or so photographers on Shutterstock make the top goal requirements every month.  A goal in the $100,000 or $200,000 lifetime earnings range wouldn't be so ridiculous.

Well, hypothetical, yes, fine, great.

The backside of asking too loud for it is that my feeling is that any "new chance to make more money" goes hand in hand with an overall change in royalty structures that will reduce payments to more photographers than those actually making it to the new levels.

Or how many people have actually made that 45% target on iStock after it was introduced? Maybe 5? And how many contributors paid for those top 5 getting a raise?

Is there actually anyone within the top 3 levels at 123RF? How many are in the top ranks at Fotolia?

In this context I think "preserving the status quo" is more preferable than anyone doing any changes to any royalty structures.  8)

« Reply #237 on: April 24, 2014, 05:23 »
+7
I'd like something beyond .38 but as I've said before, my revenue through SS is increasing and they have created new revenue streams via the SOD licence and the FB deal that actually put folding money into my bank account - as opposed to vague promises of future growth and prosperity on the back of knee-jerk initiatives from others which thus far, haven't even added up to a handful of magic beans.


« Reply #238 on: April 24, 2014, 05:58 »
+7
They have the goals already set for 'regular people' though.  It would be fun / nice to have a few more goals for the full time stock photographers.  I'm guessing the top 100 or so photographers on Shutterstock make the top goal requirements every month.  A goal in the $100,000 or $200,000 lifetime earnings range wouldn't be so ridiculous.

I'd definitely vote for a rate increase at $100K ... because I passed that milestone last month!

Ron

« Reply #239 on: April 24, 2014, 06:11 »
0
People who make that kind of money on SS, would they care about or need a 2 cent raise? Seems a bit underwhelming. Say you make $5000 on SS per month, and RPD of 1$, that means you have 5000 downloads, get a 2 cent raise, and you make 5100$ per month. Make that 5200$ including the ODDs which would go up as well.

yep but if we think that way we would be happy getting 36 instead of 38 ;D

My comment was not pointed at us mortals. For me a 2 cent raise makes a difference indeed. I was merely referring to people that make 5000 dollar per month and wondering if a 2 cent raise wouldn't be underwhelming for them. I am thinking they would need a bigger raise to keep them motivated.

Gino

« Reply #240 on: April 24, 2014, 06:46 »
+10
I am at 0.38 level and I wouldn't mind getting 2 cents extra. Would you leave $100-$200 laying on the ground if you made $5000? Or $10.000? Not me. :)

« Reply #241 on: April 24, 2014, 07:51 »
+3
The thing about differential rates is that it creates a temptation to favor work from artists on the lower rates. If an agency, any agency, pays some contributors a higher rate than others - then that is going to be an obvious area of focus when, inevitably, there is pressure to increase profits or cut costs.

Ultimately IMO a flat percentage is the best thing for people who are not salaried.

(And given the huge quantity of high quality work uploaded every day I do not believe that any of the significant agencies have any need to create incentives.)


Gino

« Reply #242 on: April 24, 2014, 07:58 »
0
The thing about differential rates is that it creates a temptation to favor work from artists on the lower rates. If an agency, any agency, pays some contributors a higher rate than others - then that is going to be an obvious area of focus when, inevitably, there is pressure to increase profits or cut costs.

Yes. You make a very good point here! With this economy even Shutterstock could need to cut on costs.

Shelma1

« Reply #243 on: April 24, 2014, 08:00 »
+4
I've suggested a new 40 subs tier through their "feedback" button. I wouldn't mind a 5% raise on sub sales.

« Reply #244 on: April 24, 2014, 10:07 »
0
...  Also waiting on Xmas images.

I sell Christmas images year round - daily, for the most part, even at this time of year. It isn't the same volume as Sept-Dec, but I think I uploaded lots of the ones now selling well in June 2011 (when I quit exclusivity) and it hasn't seemed to hamper them.

YMMV - I have no clue as to whether you'd do better building up some exposure ahead of the rush versus trying to hit the peak season and build up more exposure in a short period (but when you're competing with the established best sellers)

lisafx

« Reply #245 on: April 24, 2014, 18:01 »
+3
People who make that kind of money on SS, would they care about or need a 2 cent raise? Seems a bit underwhelming. Say you make $5000 on SS per month, and RPD of 1$, that means you have 5000 downloads, get a 2 cent raise, and you make 5100$ per month. Make that 5200$ including the ODDs which would go up as well.

Edit: I was asking a question if people would care or need a raise when they make $5000 from Shutterstock, then 2 cents sounds underwhelming I can imagine. Why not just answer me instead of dropping the down votes? I am thinking they would need more of a raise then 2 cents to feel enticed, no?

I'm guessing the down arrows are because this is microstock.  It's all about micro payments, as we all know.  If you are selling thousands of images a month, .02 additional per sale adds up.  Also, if there were a higher tier, it might mean higher rates on OD sales too.  Not to mention putting pressure on other sites to raise their sub rates.

On Bunhill's suggestion that it would create an incentive to push more expensive content down in the search, that incentive already exists with the current levels.  There was much debate about whether or not that's happened (I thought it had), but enough .38 people haven't seen drops to suggest that isn't happening after all.   

« Reply #246 on: April 24, 2014, 18:17 »
+4
I'd definitely vote for a rate increase at $100K ... because I passed that milestone last month!

Congrats!

« Reply #247 on: April 24, 2014, 19:00 »
+3
They have the goals already set for 'regular people' though.  It would be fun / nice to have a few more goals for the full time stock photographers.  I'm guessing the top 100 or so photographers on Shutterstock make the top goal requirements every month.  A goal in the $100,000 or $200,000 lifetime earnings range wouldn't be so ridiculous.

I'd definitely vote for a rate increase at $100K ... because I passed that milestone last month!

Good job.  I hearted you for that milestone. And congrats to Sean, Too.
« Last Edit: April 24, 2014, 19:46 by Mantis »

« Reply #248 on: April 25, 2014, 04:53 »
+1
They have the goals already set for 'regular people' though.  It would be fun / nice to have a few more goals for the full time stock photographers.  I'm guessing the top 100 or so photographers on Shutterstock make the top goal requirements every month.  A goal in the $100,000 or $200,000 lifetime earnings range wouldn't be so ridiculous.

I'd definitely vote for a rate increase at $100K ... because I passed that milestone last month!

Good job.  I hearted you for that milestone. And congrats to Sean, Too.

Thanks! To be honest I think a good deal of the credit is probably due to SS themselves. Amazing that they've managed to shift such a volume of my images, most of which are just photos of my dinner before I eat it!

It's always a bit bizarre being constantly reminded, through daily image sales, of the meals that I eat
several years ago.

« Reply #249 on: April 25, 2014, 05:52 »
+1
They have the goals already set for 'regular people' though.  It would be fun / nice to have a few more goals for the full time stock photographers.  I'm guessing the top 100 or so photographers on Shutterstock make the top goal requirements every month.  A goal in the $100,000 or $200,000 lifetime earnings range wouldn't be so ridiculous.

I'd definitely vote for a rate increase at $100K ... because I passed that milestone last month!

that is curious because I believe IS paid you a lot more, am I wrong?


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
4 Replies
5378 Views
Last post March 25, 2006, 05:23
by chellyar
Sean Locke featured on DP

Started by Poncke v2 « 1 2 3  All » DepositPhotos

61 Replies
17069 Views
Last post June 03, 2013, 12:16
by luissantos84
7 Replies
4413 Views
Last post November 11, 2013, 15:47
by Mantis
2 Replies
1438 Views
Last post December 29, 2016, 14:34
by oscarcwilliams
0 Replies
1570 Views
Last post April 08, 2020, 14:48
by MatHayward

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle