MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Thinking of joining SS  (Read 10927 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #25 on: July 25, 2016, 09:32 »
+4

going macro makes a lot of sense.



And going micro never made sense.

Funny how one of the largest advocates of micro and "test" shots for pennies is now suggesting macros makes sense.
Funny how you can't see that micro made a lot of sense at one time and still does for a lot of people, especially for those of us that couldn't get in to macro.  I know the argument is that selling for pennies ruined the market but you can't stop the inevitable.


« Reply #26 on: July 25, 2016, 09:55 »
+3
I'm just looking for a better alternative to iStock which is not the same company at all that I joined in 2007.

i would echo your statement and replace the word istock for shutterstock.
jumping ship istock for ss is just jumping out of the frying pan into the fire.
with istock you already know your devil ..vs the unknown.

Rose Tinted Glasses

« Reply #27 on: July 25, 2016, 09:57 »
0

going macro makes a lot of sense.



And going micro never made sense.

Funny how one of the largest advocates of micro and "test" shots for pennies is now suggesting macros makes sense.
Funny how you can't see that micro made a lot of sense at one time and still does for a lot of people, especially for those of us that couldn't get in to macro.  I know the argument is that selling for pennies ruined the market but you can't stop the inevitable.

What you say is true if you really want to believe it. In my books micro never made sense, but yes now we have the inevitable where you can't get out of microstock. Why couldn't you get into macro? Oh hang on, I keep forgetting it was a closed shop. Albeit a closed shop that opened up based on merit.

 




Rose Tinted Glasses

« Reply #28 on: July 25, 2016, 10:01 »
0
I'm just looking for a better alternative to iStock which is not the same company at all that I joined in 2007.

i would echo your statement and replace the word istock for shutterstock.
jumping ship istock for ss is just jumping out of the frying pan into the fire.
with istock you already know your devil ..vs the unknown.

It's still the same company, it's just the industry that changed with everyone competing on cheaper. Something had to give.

angelawaye

  • Eat, Sleep, Keyword. Repeat

« Reply #29 on: July 25, 2016, 10:06 »
+2
SS has treated me well but this year is the absolute worst. I have been switching over to video more but it isn't as fun for me. I really miss the glory days of stock...

Good luck with SS. It is definitely worth a go. In the beginning you only go up :)

« Reply #30 on: July 25, 2016, 13:56 »
+2
Hi All.  I've been with iS since about 2008 and last week I deleted all my images and asked to drop exclusivity.  Sales dropping dramatically there for me and new rules prompted me to try some new places.
I'm thinking of joining SS but don't know anything about the company.
I know these answers can vary from person to person but...
Compared to iS, how are sales in SS?  Any advice like things to avoid or things to do at SS?
Thanks for reading.

BlueMoonPics . . . your honest inquiry deserves an honest answer. Forget about it. You're about ten (okay 8 years) years too late. When you were messing with IS that was the time you could also have been uploading to SS. Now? Just do yourself a favor and concentrate your energies elsewhere where some psychic or real income is possible.

« Reply #31 on: July 25, 2016, 14:08 »
+3
maybe Locke can chime in, he had to take a similar route

Unfortunately Locke's next moves were reactionary, whereas the OP's move were action oriented so it's not remotely the same route at all.

I have a feeling that if I was exclusive, I'd probably be making the same now or less at IS as I am making from multiple agencies.  Just from reading the reports of others.  A lot of my coin came from the Agency collection, and of course, that ended up going poof.  But as for SS, no, at least for me, is nowhere near what I was or think I would be making now.  Especially this month, lol.

« Reply #32 on: July 25, 2016, 14:20 »
0
maybe Locke can chime in, he had to take a similar route

Unfortunately Locke's next moves were reactionary, whereas the OP's move were action oriented so it's not remotely the same route at all.

I have a feeling that if I was exclusive, I'd probably be making the same now or less at IS as I am making from multiple agencies.  Just from reading the reports of others.  A lot of my coin came from the Agency collection, and of course, that ended up going poof.  But as for SS, no, at least for me, is nowhere near what I was or think I would be making now.  Especially this month, lol.

hello Sean, thank you for coming in to tell us like it is.
it means alot, esp when after so many experienced contributors complain about it here and got
hell for making things up.

when i mentioned your name here on this thread, it had nothing to do with minding your business,
but more so, in respect of your resume , and notoreity to speak out ,
it good to know where we stand , in relation to the real money-makers' situation.

iow, if you are finding it ridiculous this month, ... we are looking even more ridiculous.
i don't feel so bad now, really ;)

cheers! for your honesty!!!  you could have chimed in and say, "problem? what problem??
i 'm selling so much, i 'm buying everyone champagne at ss !!!"
... and we would still believe you. but you didn't... you told us like it is.


gyllens

« Reply #33 on: July 25, 2016, 14:26 »
+1
maybe Locke can chime in, he had to take a similar route

Unfortunately Locke's next moves were reactionary, whereas the OP's move were action oriented so it's not remotely the same route at all.

I have a feeling that if I was exclusive, I'd probably be making the same now or less at IS as I am making from multiple agencies.  Just from reading the reports of others.  A lot of my coin came from the Agency collection, and of course, that ended up going poof.  But as for SS, no, at least for me, is nowhere near what I was or think I would be making now.  Especially this month, lol.

hello Sean, thank you for coming in to tell us like it is.
it means alot, esp when after so many experienced contributors complain about it here and got
hell for making things up.

when i mentioned your name here on this thread, it had nothing to do with minding your business,
but more so, in respect of your resume , and notoreity to speak out ,
it good to know where we stand , in relation to the real money-makers' situation.

iow, if you are finding it ridiculous this month, ... we are looking even more ridiculous.
i don't feel so bad now, really ;)

cheers! for your honesty!!!  you could have chimed in and say, "problem? what problem??
i 'm selling so much, i 'm buying everyone champagne at ss !!!"
... and we would still believe you. but you didn't... you told us like it is.


Champagne!  no!  not even a glass of cheap white plonk.

« Reply #34 on: July 25, 2016, 15:42 »
+1
Id like to add that macro is not an instant get rich scheme. The agencies might have very high list prices, but often you get sales of 1 dollar or less.

But in the time of oversupply, macro and edited collection agencies simply have much less files in their system or in their edited areas. So you get much better exposure.

Especially for niche content I think working with macro agencies is a good idea.

For ultrageneric content I still think the micros give a good return, especially longterm.

One drawback is that many macro sites require that you process the full series immediatly and let them pick what they like. I have a problem with that, because I usually process and upload my files over several years, so that a series will always be visible whatever the best match returns. You also cant process files according to the current style, one year agencies want everything with lens flares, other years wit strong vignette...uploading it all at once you lose flexibility.

Uploading the whole series in one go can be very risky, you need to get returns fast or it has to be something rare so that it will keep showing up.

It really is a complex issue - how much  money did you invest in the shoot, how fast do you expect to get a return, which agency has proven to be a good seller for this theme, especially longterm etc...

So the micros have their place, even today.

But I am glad that it is complicated, it is much harder to copy what I do or to see which agency gives the best returns.

« Reply #35 on: July 25, 2016, 18:35 »
+4
maybe Locke can chime in, he had to take a similar route



I have a feeling that if I was exclusive, I'd probably be making the same now or less at IS as I am making from multiple agencies.  Just from reading the reports of others.  A lot of my coin came from the Agency collection, and of course, that ended up going poof.  But as for SS, no, at least for me, is nowhere near what I was or think I would be making now.  Especially this month, lol.

My experience is the same as Sean's.  I went non-exclusive in February 2015, so about a year and a half ago.  My income from multiple agencies is now about the same as in my last few months as an exclusive.  However given what's happened at Istock over the past year or so, I suspect that I am now earning a little more than I would have done had I stayed.  Difficult to say, because it really depends on how many S+/E+ you produce and have replicated on the Getty site.

It has been extremely hard work getting established as a non-exclusive.  Like Sean, I've found SS difficult and I'm making only about half of my expectation there.  I like SS, and they are clearly the leading Microstock, but they are awash with images.  No easy route to riches there.

Overall I'm more relaxed being non-exclusive, without the 'eggs in one basket' worries.  But it has been very hard work.  Whether it is still possible to drop exclusivity and get a similar or higher income elsewhere really depends on the individual portfolio and how much work the person is willing to do to make it a success (re-keywording every file, for instance).

Edit:  my only other observation is that you really should have asked all these questions BEFORE cancelling your exclusive contract.
« Last Edit: July 25, 2016, 18:37 by hatman12 »

« Reply #36 on: July 25, 2016, 20:49 »
0
My experience is the same as Sean's.  I went non-exclusive in February 2015, so about a year and a half ago.  My income from multiple agencies is now about the same as in my last few months as an exclusive.  However given what's happened at Istock over the past year or so, I suspect that I am now earning a little more than I would have done had I stayed.  Difficult to say, because it really depends on how many S+/E+ you produce and have replicated on the Getty site.

It has been extremely hard work getting established as a non-exclusive.  Like Sean, I've found SS difficult and I'm making only about half of my expectation there.  I like SS, and they are clearly the leading Microstock, but they are awash with images.  No easy route to riches there.

Overall I'm more relaxed being non-exclusive, without the 'eggs in one basket' worries.  But it has been very hard work.  Whether it is still possible to drop exclusivity and get a similar or higher income elsewhere really depends on the individual portfolio and how much work the person is willing to do to make it a success (re-keywording every file, for instance).

Edit:  my only other observation is that you really should have asked all these questions BEFORE cancelling your exclusive contract.

good to hear your POV too, hatman!
it is sad that we have all come to this stage. i know we are not entitled to anything,
no more than feeling the trials of each turn of events..
eg for me... the transition from view camera to 35mm.. from 35mm to digital.. from old school
commercial work to micro,..
is no less painless than what you and Sean and others go through with "progress".

all in all, it could have been better if the providers think long-term and realised that short-term gains and greed is really unsustainable . still, it's human nature to think, "we owe you people nothing
at all. so stop whining and face reality
... we call the shots, we say jump, you don't tell us what to do..
you ask how high???"

there is no eventual winner , really. ideally , we would have all a better future
had the providers learn the sense of good will to appreciate that the boat (providers)
cannot sail without oars and sailors (contributors).

but as i said, ideally!!!
in a real world, the moral would be , "enjoy it while it lasts"...
because there is no such thing as ( in ancient rumi poetry )
..the cow in the field eating just enough
because tomorrow , the grass will still grow back.

it just doesn't work that way, in microstock.

« Reply #37 on: July 26, 2016, 06:12 »
+5

going macro makes a lot of sense.



And going micro never made sense.

Funny how one of the largest advocates of micro and "test" shots for pennies is now suggesting macros makes sense.
Funny how you can't see that micro made a lot of sense at one time and still does for a lot of people, especially for those of us that couldn't get in to macro.  I know the argument is that selling for pennies ruined the market but you can't stop the inevitable.

What you say is true if you really want to believe it. In my books micro never made sense, but yes now we have the inevitable where you can't get out of microstock. Why couldn't you get into macro? Oh hang on, I keep forgetting it was a closed shop. Albeit a closed shop that opened up based on merit.
Typical, I don't know why people that were accepted in to the macro sites think they are so special?  I think it was more luck than anything else.  You just happened to have what they wanted at the right time.  Lots of people were very good but got nothing but rejection letters.  The macro sites caused their own downfall by not adapting to the internet and the digital camera era.  Now, years later, we still get these ridiculous condescending comments from people that really have no idea what they are talking about.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #38 on: July 26, 2016, 06:24 »
+2
Typical, I don't know why people that were accepted in to the macro sites think they are so special?  I think it was more luck than anything else.  You just happened to have what they wanted at the right time. 
Or, if one former poster here is to be believed, he gave his pals at the macros the nod and got other people in. Sort of like a secret handshake. After that you were his bonded slave for all time (slight hyperbole).

« Reply #39 on: July 26, 2016, 07:20 »
+4
Clearly often they're not or more customers would be prepared to pay the premium for their "superior" content. When I first started doing this I was surprised that in the vast majority of cases there was little discernible difference between "premium" and "standard" pictures. (especially fotolia).

For the small minority of very talented photographers or those with access to hard to get images then Microstock doesn't make sense for them. For the majority of us average types who are prepared to do a bit of work it makes perfect sense.

Rose Tinted Glasses

« Reply #40 on: July 26, 2016, 09:24 »
0

going macro makes a lot of sense.



And going micro never made sense.

Funny how one of the largest advocates of micro and "test" shots for pennies is now suggesting macros makes sense.
Funny how you can't see that micro made a lot of sense at one time and still does for a lot of people, especially for those of us that couldn't get in to macro.  I know the argument is that selling for pennies ruined the market but you can't stop the inevitable.

What you say is true if you really want to believe it. In my books micro never made sense, but yes now we have the inevitable where you can't get out of microstock. Why couldn't you get into macro? Oh hang on, I keep forgetting it was a closed shop. Albeit a closed shop that opened up based on merit.
Typical, I don't know why people that were accepted in to the macro sites think they are so special?  I think it was more luck than anything else.  You just happened to have what they wanted at the right time.  Lots of people were very good but got nothing but rejection letters.  The macro sites caused their own downfall by not adapting to the internet and the digital camera era.  Now, years later, we still get these ridiculous condescending comments from people that really have no idea what they are talking about.

Tell me all about rejection letters, I tried several times to get into the macros, the third time lucky. From first time to third time was a span of a few years. I simply upped my game through experience. You want to call that thinking I am so special and condescending, go for it. I worked my way up and it felt really good.




« Reply #41 on: July 26, 2016, 15:03 »
0
Tell me all about rejection letters, I tried several times to get into the macros, the third time lucky. From first time to third time was a span of a few years. I simply upped my game through experience. You want to call that thinking I am so special and condescending, go for it. I worked my way up and it felt really good.

i wasn't in stock photography until micro came in. before that i was shooting with commercial firms and stringer. so i really cannot make a judgement call on something i do not know.

but i know that if anytime is it, this is the time for macro and mid to come out to invite or expand their myopic view , considering the ill-will of ss, istock,..
there is alot of talent and experience wallowing and festering in both is and ss
...
the problem i think is both the mentality of the agency and contributors...
whether it is out of oldschool refusal to change, or protectionism,
afraid to displease existing contributors who made macro and mid .

if latter is true, (afraid to displease contributors), that is good, because micro agencies really
don't give a rodents an*s about you , whether you are yuri, sjlocke, or you are mr or miss no name.

otoh, there is the contributor who has to go out of their way to stop making micro generic images
and expect macro to invite them in.

and then their offset who outright at the offset (bad pun) tell ss contributors, no micro contributors
need apply...
as if the micro contributors cannot know how to shoot macro type images.

my take on this. response (*responses, not retaliation) welcome.
there is a lot of opportunity for macro agencies, and mid stock ...
now more than ever to expand and get out of that oldschool mentality..

because micro contributors are looking for a way out of this quandary.


« Reply #42 on: July 26, 2016, 16:09 »
+1

going macro makes a lot of sense.



And going micro never made sense.

Funny how one of the largest advocates of micro and "test" shots for pennies is now suggesting macros makes sense.
Funny how you can't see that micro made a lot of sense at one time and still does for a lot of people, especially for those of us that couldn't get in to macro.  I know the argument is that selling for pennies ruined the market but you can't stop the inevitable.

What you say is true if you really want to believe it. In my books micro never made sense, but yes now we have the inevitable where you can't get out of microstock. Why couldn't you get into macro? Oh hang on, I keep forgetting it was a closed shop. Albeit a closed shop that opened up based on merit.
Typical, I don't know why people that were accepted in to the macro sites think they are so special?  I think it was more luck than anything else.  You just happened to have what they wanted at the right time.  Lots of people were very good but got nothing but rejection letters.  The macro sites caused their own downfall by not adapting to the internet and the digital camera era.  Now, years later, we still get these ridiculous condescending comments from people that really have no idea what they are talking about.

Tell me all about rejection letters, I tried several times to get into the macros, the third time lucky. From first time to third time was a span of a few years. I simply upped my game through experience. You want to call that thinking I am so special and condescending, go for it. I worked my way up and it felt really good.
Lots of macro contributors couldn't pass the initial SS review until they lowered the standard.  Having seen the standard of many macro contributors, I still have no idea how they chose who should be accepted and who got the rejection letters.

« Reply #43 on: July 26, 2016, 16:17 »
0
Lots of macro contributors couldn't pass the initial SS review until they lowered the standard.  Having seen the standard of many macro contributors, I still have no idea how they chose who should be accepted and who got the rejection letters.

no doubt, yes. the old standard of ss has been raising the bar so high, it's almost ridiculous.
this high for 28 cts a download??? or what $... for ext lic???

considering the high standard of ss, i am even more surprised we are not even selling anything
close to the earnings of macro earners.

so, there is definitely, if you say so... that the standard of macro is relatively low compared to ss contributors,..
something very wrong with the industry.


we should all be moving to macro and stop giving away our work

« Reply #44 on: July 26, 2016, 16:40 »
+2
It isn't difficult to average a lot more than 28 cents a download with SS.  For many years, earnings were good there.  I have no problem selling for low prices if there is high volume.  Some images are ideal for low cost high sales volume and others are ideal for high cost low sales volume.

gyllens

« Reply #45 on: July 27, 2016, 01:25 »
+5
Since SS embarking on the same self destructing path as Istock and gaining bad reputation in almost every forum available, old members with big portfolios going macro instead. The only macro agencies worth nursing today are the smaller boutique style agencies. They are still trying and are actually in need of their stock suppliers. Agencies like Getty and all their distributors are a waste of time since buyers there can't even find images anymore and they have so many collections its just confusing for any buyer.

I fear that Getty and SS have become too big and really dont need more pictures nor suppliers and given the fact that new content never show then whats the point of feeding these places.




SpaceStockFootage

  • Space, Sci-Fi and Astronomy Related Stock Footage

« Reply #46 on: July 27, 2016, 05:17 »
+1
I make 30% less on iStock than what I do on Shutterstock. Although the amount of sales are a lot closer due to the lower rates on iStock.

« Reply #47 on: July 27, 2016, 05:38 »
+2
You can no longer join in SS, because this party was closed in 1945.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
17 Replies
6690 Views
Last post October 10, 2011, 16:15
by pamf32imag
24 Replies
11058 Views
Last post March 26, 2012, 16:13
by totals
27 Replies
5984 Views
Last post May 18, 2013, 16:07
by TheDrift-
25 Replies
6171 Views
Last post July 07, 2013, 13:53
by WarrenPrice
9 Replies
3902 Views
Last post July 26, 2016, 10:29
by FlowerPower

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle