MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: What if shutterstock pays you 1$ per image  (Read 12981 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #25 on: April 03, 2012, 13:04 »
0
They're still plumbing the depths, cutting payments and trying to find the point at which images stop flooding in.  That point, as many have guessed by now, is zero.

0 means exactly what? no more files approved?


« Reply #26 on: April 03, 2012, 13:07 »
0
It seems that discussion went long... I wished that they do it 1$ (its just a wish :) )... but I knw that they are not going to do so  ;)

The only way I find is that they offer exclusivity to contributors... and then carry that system till maximum the contributors joins the exclusivity plan.
And now buyers will get new images only on there site. So now they can increase the price giving fair commission to everyone.

We all love shutterstock and I personally will join the exclusive program whenever they will offer it.  ;D

« Reply #27 on: April 03, 2012, 13:10 »
0
the problem is that wishing doesnt work out or put some $$ on our pockets :D

rubyroo

« Reply #28 on: April 03, 2012, 13:11 »
0
First, I'd like to ask you if you know what Stockholm syndrome is? If you do, than add some cynicism and sarcasm and I think you should get us. Not necessarily agree with us, but as you said, it's a free world ;)

Of course I know what Stockholm Syndrome is.  If I didn't like the scenario I work in, I would opt out.  They are not my 'captors', therefore Stockhom Syndrome doesn't apply.

I think what you're missing here is the context within which the agencies operate.  i.e. the context of microstock, not the context of 'all photography'.  Just microstock.  Of course we'd all love more money, who wouldn't?  The point is that they have to stay competitive with each other in order to survive, and we have to weigh that into our thinking also.

« Reply #29 on: April 03, 2012, 13:12 »
0
the problem is that wishing doesnt work out or put some $$ on our pockets :D

yep exactly  :D

« Reply #30 on: April 03, 2012, 13:13 »
0
First, I'd like to ask you if you know what Stockholm syndrome is? If you do, than add some cynicism and sarcasm and I think you should get us. Not necessarily agree with us, but as you said, it's a free world ;)

Of course I know what Stockholm Syndrome is.  If I didn't like the scenario I work in, I would opt out.  They are not my 'captors', therefore Stockhom Syndrome doesn't apply.

I think what you're missing here is the context within which the agencies operate.  i.e. the context of microstock, not the context of 'all photography'.  Just microstock.  Of course we'd all love more money, who wouldn't?  The point is that they have to stay competitive with each other in order to survive, and we have to weigh that into our thinking also.

you only forgot the greed fact too  ;D

rubyroo

« Reply #31 on: April 03, 2012, 13:16 »
0
I didn't forget it.  It's impossible for me to measure it, that's all  ;)

From what others have said here in the past, the SS profit margin has always sounded pretty tight.

WarrenPrice

« Reply #32 on: April 03, 2012, 13:20 »
0
YAWN.  Are we there yet?

 ::)

wut

« Reply #33 on: April 03, 2012, 13:39 »
0
First, I'd like to ask you if you know what Stockholm syndrome is? If you do, than add some cynicism and sarcasm and I think you should get us. Not necessarily agree with us, but as you said, it's a free world ;)

Of course I know what Stockholm Syndrome is.  If I didn't like the scenario I work in, I would opt out.  They are not my 'captors', therefore Stockhom Syndrome doesn't apply.

I think what you're missing here is the context within which the agencies operate.  i.e. the context of microstock, not the context of 'all photography'.  Just microstock.  Of course we'd all love more money, who wouldn't?  The point is that they have to stay competitive with each other in order to survive, and we have to weigh that into our thinking also.

Stockholm syndrome was meant as the agencies are being just as "nice" to us that we don't stop contributing (and most ppl are taking it the wrong way, especially if their earnings are good) and at the same time they're gladly taking advantage of the 99 vs 1 mentality (meaning ppl are taking it as a normal state that 99% of the ppl has 40% of the wealth - and if the only kept 40%, lol).

That being said, I know I'm like Don Quixote, I'll never get ppl (the ones I'm talking about all the time) to start to think with their own heads, outside the box in terms what they really deserve, not what they realistically deserve under the system we live in etc. And in fact it's more productive, at least in short term, to just worry about your little life.

Bottom line is SS is still the best agency around, bringing me the most money and I can't really complain, in fact, I'm not doing it. I was just explaining how it would be possible for RPD to be 1$. The point was that most ppl do a big favour to the agency with the way they think, they're making it really easy for them to give us less. Or in the best case scenario, to not get a raise.

RacePhoto

« Reply #34 on: April 03, 2012, 14:01 »
0
Often when sites raise prices, they combine it with a commission cut and my earnings go down.  I hope SS stick with their current prices and commissions, I had a BME last month.  Istock raised prices a lot and my earnings are nowhere near the levels they used to be.

I don't understand people that would prefer 100 sales at $1 to 300 at $0.38.

One sale for $300 ?  ???  :)

What if you got a free unicorn for contributing as well?

You mean they didn't send yours already? I have mine! You can come visit and ride it?

Also for the people who want to support the price cutting sites, selling all the same images, from pretty much all the same people, "me too, me too, I sell for less" you are competing with yourself and supporting the race to the bottom. Stop that and the successful sites would be able to compete and pay more to attract people. As it is now, the parasitic and sucker sites, just drain the contributors for money.

Re: What if shutterstock pays you 1$ per image

People would complain that it wasn't enough. End of what if. No one is ever happy.

SS has a nice plan and program, they encourage people to contribute and grow. Pay increases with success as a reward for work.

I'm trying to avoid mentioning other sites that rewards us with tweaking the search for who knows what and it changes roughly every week, or make sweeping changes in what's accepted for some unknown standards or reasons. But it's not for success and when they and other sites pull the rug out from under your feet, lower commissions and promised achievement levels, I find them contemptible and insulting. Those sites are unsustainable and I won't support them.  :-X

If SS offered me 2 cents more for going exclusive I'd drop the rest of the RF sites.

(I don't need the Unicorn I have had many cats, they are far more mysterious and impossible to comprehend)

rubyroo

« Reply #35 on: April 03, 2012, 14:03 »
0
I have to go, but I think Luis should have the final word:

the problem is that wishing doesnt work out or put some $$ on our pockets :D

« Reply #36 on: April 03, 2012, 14:10 »
0
just spent a few minutes doing the contributor royalties % at SS (% between () from the lowest to the highest canister)

Subscription
a) 263$ for 750 downloads - 0.35$ each (71.4%, 94.2%, 102.8%, 108.5%)
b) 708$ for 2250 downloads -  0.314$ each (79.6%, 105%, 114.6%, 121%)
c) 1367$ for 4500 downloads - 0.303$ each (82.5%, 108.9%, 118.8%, 125.4%)
d) 2584$ for 9000 downloads - 0.287$ each (87.1%, 114.9%, 125.4%, 132.4%)

On Demand
- All sizes
a) 51$ for 5 downloads - 10.2$ each (18.4%, 24.3%, 26.4%, 27.9%)
b) 235$ for 25 downloads - 9.4$ each (20%, 26.3%, 28.7%, 30.3%)
- S and M sizes
a) 51$ for 12 downloads - 4.25$ each (18.9%, 25.1%, 27.5%, 29.1%)
b) 235$ for 60 downloads -  3.92$ each (20.6%, 27.3%, 29.8%, 31.6%)

EL
a) 201$ for 2 downloads - 100.5$ each (27.8%)
b) 455$ for 5 downloads - 91$ each (30.7%)
c) 1722$ for 25 downloads - 69$ each (40.5%)

P.S: a few minutes after posting this at SS forum it got removed
« Last Edit: April 03, 2012, 19:20 by luissantos84 »

« Reply #37 on: April 03, 2012, 17:30 »
0
It's about price erosion and the lost perception of 'value'.   100 sales at $1 are better than 300 sales at .33 because there's a more of a FUTURE at a price of $1.     

Subscriptions are all smoke and mirrors anyway, there's no way to know what a buyer actually paid for an image because the cost is all in up-front fees - mediated by countless plans, promotions and packages.  The payment to the photographer is just a token, a scrap of bread tossed out the back door.  They're still plumbing the depths, cutting payments and trying to find the point at which images stop flooding in.  That point, as many have guessed by now, is zero.

 

 

my guess is that those who buy &use subscriptions do not usually search for specific images , but rather look at the newer images and build their own private stash of images they think will one day be useful for some project.  if subscription prices were raised by 3x, they'd likely adopt a different method; it's unlikely they'd continue to purchase the same number of images.  the question is qhehter the decrease in volume would be made up for by the increase in price.  if my first guess is true, then the answer would be no.  for me, march was my BME at SS but it was unusual in that subscriptions masde only 50% of my income - usuaslly subs account for 60-70%

« Reply #38 on: April 03, 2012, 19:43 »
0
my guess is that those who buy &use subscriptions do not usually search for specific images , but rather look at the newer images and build their own private stash of images they think will one day be useful for some project.  

Yes, I understand that to some extent subscriptions might get people to buy more images than they otherwise would; but subscriptions (a misnomer, really it's just a quantity discount) also let the agency break down the 'commission' model.  The payment to the photographer no longer has any direct relationship to a sale price.  Subscription prices - to the buyer - can be raised without any obligation to increase payments to photographers.

I make far more at SS than at any other microstock.  That doesn't mean I think the prices are fair or that this market makes sense. We've travelled a long way, in that race to the bottom.
« Last Edit: April 03, 2012, 19:46 by stockastic »

helix7

« Reply #39 on: April 03, 2012, 21:49 »
0
Amazing how all you guys have come around to accepting 33 cents as reasonable.  Is this "Stockholm Syndrome"?   If I got a dollar per download I'd have a lot more interest in doing microstock, and they'd have a lot more of my output to sell.

I find it amazing that people find 33 cents unreasonable at SS, when it's been that way forever and in fact used to be much worse.

I'm even more amazed by the "iStockholm Syndrome" that many folks seem to have been afflicted by around here. The common symptom of the disorder is the irrational notion that as long as you're getting good money on each sale, you're doing well, even if you only get a few sales per day.

« Reply #40 on: April 04, 2012, 00:02 »
0
I find it amazing that people find 33 cents unreasonable at SS, when it's been that way forever and in fact used to be much worse.

I'm even more amazed by the "iStockholm Syndrome" that many folks seem to have been afflicted by around here. The common symptom of the disorder is the irrational notion that as long as you're getting good money on each sale, you're doing well, even if you only get a few sales per day.

A few sales a day can add up pretty quick depending on what you are getting paid.

« Reply #41 on: April 04, 2012, 21:04 »
0
I would gladly take $1 per download. I had 6 ELs in March (never had more than two in a month before), and still only got about $0.72 per download.


« Reply #42 on: April 06, 2012, 07:48 »
0
What if you got a free unicorn for contributing as well?


;D

I already have one of those.   :P

helix7

« Reply #43 on: April 06, 2012, 08:14 »
0
A few sales a day can add up pretty quick depending on what you are getting paid.

It would take an unrealistic amount of good-RPD sales to make up for the volume that most people see at places like SS. istock offers a good RPD, especially if you're exclusive. But even then, the price of the images would have to be so high to match the high-volume agencies that no one would buy there at all anymore. Same with GL and all of the other agencies with good RPD. And I'll always participate in those agencies, hoping that volume picks up someday.

But realistically, that's unlikely to happen to the point where I make most of my living getting good money for each sale. This is a volume business, driven mostly by SS, it has been since I started in 2007 and I think it will remain so for the foreseeable future, I think.

I've said it before in this forum, I think RPD is a sucker's statistic in microstock. I know that sounds harsh, but I think its true. RPD can make a crappy agency look like a good one. It's how any of these small agencies survive. They have to pay well, it's all they have going for them. But the sales volume just isn't there.

It's how istock survives as well. Look at any discussion about why people stay exclusive and inevitably you'll see lots of comments about how they make great money on each sale. And it's true. RPD at istock is great. The volume doesn't exist, though, and I don't care if they're paying me $10 per sale, it doesn't matter. They don't have enough site activity to make up for the huge volume of sales at SS. None of the high-RPD agencies do.

High RPD is great in theory. But it doesn't pay the bills. High volume does, regardless of RPD.

« Reply #44 on: April 06, 2012, 10:01 »
0

It would take an unrealistic amount of good-RPD sales to make up for the volume that most people see at places like SS. istock offers a good RPD, especially if you're exclusive. But even then, the price of the images would have to be so high to match the high-volume agencies that no one would buy there at all anymore. Same with GL and all of the other agencies with good RPD. And I'll always participate in those agencies, hoping that volume picks up someday.

But realistically, that's unlikely to happen to the point where I make most of my living getting good money for each sale. This is a volume business, driven mostly by SS, it has been since I started in 2007 and I think it will remain so for the foreseeable future, I think.

I've said it before in this forum, I think RPD is a sucker's statistic in microstock. I know that sounds harsh, but I think its true. RPD can make a crappy agency look like a good one. It's how any of these small agencies survive. They have to pay well, it's all they have going for them. But the sales volume just isn't there.

It's how istock survives as well. Look at any discussion about why people stay exclusive and inevitably you'll see lots of comments about how they make great money on each sale. And it's true. RPD at istock is great. The volume doesn't exist, though, and I don't care if they're paying me $10 per sale, it doesn't matter. They don't have enough site activity to make up for the huge volume of sales at SS. None of the high-RPD agencies do.

High RPD is great in theory. But it doesn't pay the bills. High volume does, regardless of RPD.

SS got passed by Clipartof last month for me, so I don't think it's unrealistic at all. My own site regularly places in my top 4 too. It's just a shame that there aren't more good selling/fair paying agencies. The options are pretty limited for most contributors.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
2 Replies
4410 Views
Last post August 24, 2006, 19:08
by pelmof
7 Replies
3575 Views
Last post October 15, 2007, 21:16
by yingyang0
4 Replies
2820 Views
Last post November 01, 2010, 14:34
by Snufkin
13 Replies
15709 Views
Last post March 31, 2011, 10:13
by helix7
13 Replies
4121 Views
Last post March 13, 2019, 06:48
by Rage

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle