Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Steven Tritton

Some results across the board this week

Recommended Posts

Thought I would post an update on my results across the microstock sites where I’ve my content hosted. These are since the beginning of June:

 

Alamy :               777 images – uploaded 3 images - $0 sales

Dreamstime :     1015 images - uploaded 485 images last weekend - $0 sales

Adobe Stock :    480 images and 179 videos – uploaded 3 images this week – 1 sale at $0.66 sales

Pond5 :              303 videos – uploaded 3 videos – 1 sale at $15.87 sales

Shutterstock :    1405 images and 255 videos – 1 video sale at $16.17 and 14 image sales at $7.31 sales for a total of $23.48

 

Adobe Stock has done reasonably well at times especially when a video sells but it struggles on a consistent basis. For example, this week there was only one sale at 66 cents but there was one week in May where there was $53.53 in sales - but weeks like this are few and far between.

Unfortunately for me the other sites do not merit a sustained effort of content creating. I have still tried though, as this past week I uploaded 485 images to Dreamstime. But there are no sales from that so far. I think Pond5 has potential and I’m thinking about how I can promote my port there.

Even so, as the results show, despite the new commission structure on Shutterstock, this week has turned out not too bad. Those 10 cent sales are pathetic of course and we still face the reset in January but it’s actually not as disastrous as I had envisioned.

ETA just had a 99 cent sale on AS bringing it to 2 sales at $1.65.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I disabled my port so I haven't sold anything here from June 2 , but since then my downloads on AS are increasing: I had 11 downloads for € 15,20 total 

I have to say that my portfolio is small: less than 1200 files on AS

I had also 5 downloads from Depositphotos, for 0,32 each

None on Dreamstime

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

June scorecard - 

Alamy : 0

Adobe : 0

Dreamstime: 0 

Deposit : 0

iStock : 6

Shutterstock : 17

And that's the sad truth. I don't like the "new earnings structure" and hate to see images go at 10 cents but for some of us, SS and iS are the only sites that make sales. Of course, this is different for different people. For me, Adobe has been a dud from the beginning despite having the same images there as SS. The smaller sites have sold almost nothing. So the brutal truth is, while it makes sense for a lot of contributors to disable ports here when they're selling elsewhere, some of us who only make sales majorly on SS have no choice but to stay put. Now feel free to hit the dislike button.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, balajisrinivasan said:

Now feel free to hit the dislike button.

No dislike at all. This is true! For me is almost the same. I sell on other sites but not so well. May was the worst month in years for me but still I sold 283 pictures against 61 on AS. Portfolios are almost the same: on SS I only have Editorials that AS does not accept.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Andi GreyScale said:

I suspect that once more people remove their images from SS and go to AS, more buyers will follow and also go to AS.

They won't. That's the biggest misconception of them all. Buyers go where they get relevant images at the most inexpensive price. I know this because I worked for years at a number of production houses who regularly bought images for their work. They always chose the cheapest option available. And quality of the image was always secondary to the price they paid. That's why SS and iS make the bulk of volume sales.

Now, yes, some buyers will move because they care for contributors but most of them won't as long as SS provides them inexpensive image packs. The large volume packs are primarily bought by news websites and big corporates, neither of whom are going anywhere as long as they get images at the current low rates. To make them move, someone like Adobe will have to provide them a more attractive package and this is something they can't afford to do without hurting contributors. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, balajisrinivasan said:

They won't. That's the biggest misconception of them all. Buyers go where they get relevant images at the most inexpensive price. I know this because I worked for years at a number of production houses who regularly bought images for their work. They always chose the cheapest option available. And quality of the image was always secondary to the price they paid. That's why SS and iS make the bulk of volume sales.

Now, yes, some buyers will move because they care for contributors but most of them won't as long as SS provides them inexpensive image packs. The large volume packs are primarily bought by news websites and big corporates, neither of whom are going anywhere as long as they get images at the current low rates. To make them move, someone like Adobe will have to provide them a more attractive package and this is something they can't afford to do without hurting contributors. 

 especially with  contributor thinking their images are only worth 12 cents.  For example making live news stuff available immediately on microstock database is clearly telling second tier users, "you don't have to pay appropriate fee, just wait a few hours I'll give it to you".  

 

(thankfully SS messed up review process is helping here by delaying availability)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, jean-francois me said:

 especially with  contributor thinking their images are only worth 12 cents.  For example making live news stuff available immediately on microstock database is clearly telling second tier users, "you don't have to pay appropriate fee, just wait a few hours I'll give it to you".  

 

(thankfully SS messed up review process is helping here by delaying availability)

The only place my live news goes is Alamy - but if it is only used online the fees are still rubbish.  Remember most if not all news outlets will have stuff sent to them for nothing by people with phone cameras, and they also trawl Facebook.  Sure they prefer high quality professionally shot BUT only if the price is acceptable when compared to "free".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, balajisrinivasan said:

They won't. That's the biggest misconception of them all. Buyers go where they get relevant images at the most inexpensive price. I know this because I worked for years at a number of production houses who regularly bought images for their work. They always chose the cheapest option available. And quality of the image was always secondary to the price they paid. That's why SS and iS make the bulk of volume sales.

Now, yes, some buyers will move because they care for contributors but most of them won't as long as SS provides them inexpensive image packs. The large volume packs are primarily bought by news websites and big corporates, neither of whom are going anywhere as long as they get images at the current low rates. To make them move, someone like Adobe will have to provide them a more attractive package and this is something they can't afford to do without hurting contributors. 

I unfortunatley agree with you. Most people here started with microstock and don't even know the RM model where photogs where earning a lot at agency such as Corbis, Tony Stone or Getty (who bought them all and stop the RM model 2 months ago). A regular RM licence with one year exlusivity was around 5 to 10'000 USD. Microstock and SS especially killed the best model for photogs and publishers and other image buyer didn't have second though of buying extra cheap RF microstock images. The exception is large ad agencies that charge client a % of what they spend, so they want to spend more on photos. As I still have an exclusive PF at Getty, I see in the statement who pays what and not surprisingly, the new economy and fancy companies that everzbody prefer to banks pays peanuts while I still get regular full price licence with the latter, including quite a few from Goldman sachs...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, balajisrinivasan said:

They won't. That's the biggest misconception of them all. Buyers go where they get relevant images at the most inexpensive price. I know this because I worked for years at a number of production houses who regularly bought images for their work. They always chose the cheapest option available. And quality of the image was always secondary to the price they paid. That's why SS and iS make the bulk of volume sales.

Now, yes, some buyers will move because they care for contributors but most of them won't as long as SS provides them inexpensive image packs. The large volume packs are primarily bought by news websites and big corporates, neither of whom are going anywhere as long as they get images at the current low rates. To make them move, someone like Adobe will have to provide them a more attractive package and this is something they can't afford to do without hurting contributors. 

I agree, but then this is most likely also the reason why closing accounts here is a good step in the right direction.
If buyers can no longer find quality content, then eventually they will move elsewhere. Also, many buyers have hundreds of images saved in their lightboxes (I'm a buyer as well but not here) If I end up wanting to purchase some, as I frequently do, and they are no longer available, then I will search for them in hopes I can find them elsewhere. Most will first create a design with the watermarked images and show clients. I know I do. If I would end up not being able to purchase the image, I will have to go elsewhere and likely stay there since I paid another subscription there (that's how I ended up becoming a buyer on DT AND DP instead of one or the other :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Starsphinx said:

The only place my live news goes is Alamy - but if it is only used online the fees are still rubbish.  Remember most if not all news outlets will have stuff sent to them for nothing by people with phone cameras, and they also trawl Facebook.  Sure they prefer high quality professionally shot BUT only if the price is acceptable when compared to "free".

 

Alamy fees are much hire than 40 cents in most market, even cheap ones are $10-15....   but hey continue feeding the beast, and then go on your keyboard to complain. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Gtranquillity said:

I agree, but then this is most likely also the reason why closing accounts here is a good step in the right direction.
If buyers can no longer find quality content, then eventually they will move elsewhere. Also, many buyers have hundreds of images saved in their lightboxes (I'm a buyer as well but not here) If I end up wanting to purchase some, as I frequently do, and they are no longer available, then I will search for them in hopes I can find them elsewhere. 

Again, you're confusing independent buyers like yourself with the big corporates who make the most money for these agencies. I hate to put it this way but you're just an insignificant drop in the ocean compared to the money coming from these big accounts. You're never going to spend 250 dollars every month buying images.

As for quality, despite the fact that some (or maybe even many) high quality pictures will disappear of a mountain or beach or millenials laughing at a table, there will still be many more in the database. And even if the quality goes way down, as long as the images serve the purpose, none of the big buyers are going to be unhappy. And like I said before, SS is the only site that makes money for many contributors, so many are unlikely to stop contributing, so ultimately the result of so many images disappearing off the database will be non existent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, balajisrinivasan said:

Again, you're confusing independent buyers like yourself with the big corporates who make the most money for these agencies. I hate to put it this way but you're just an insignificant drop in the ocean compared to the money coming from these big accounts. You're never going to spend 250 dollars every month buying images.

As for quality, just because some (or maybe even many) high quality pictures will disappear of a mountain or beach or millenials laughing at a table, there will still be many more in the database. And even if the quality goes way down, as long as the images serve the purpose, none of the big buyers are going to be unhappy. And like I said before, SS is the only site that makes money for many contributors, so many are unlikely to stop contributing, so ultimately the result of so many images disappearing off the database will be non existent.

I'm not sure on the "again" part as I don't recall I wrote something along this line before, but in any case... I perfectly understand what you are saying and I have to agree that I put my reply too simple. What I wrote is not something I see will (or even can) happen, for exactly the reasons you wrote above. I guess it was more an expression of "wishful thinking".

Having said that, I would have better kept it at wishful thinking and I thank you for correcting it so outlined as yes, I do realize (and realized when I wrote my reply) that most likely nothing will change, the new royalty structure included.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Gtranquillity said:

I'm not sure on the "again" part as I don't recall I wrote something along this line before, but in any case... 

My apologies, by "again" I meant I reiterate part of the argument I made earlier in this thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, balajisrinivasan said:

My apologies, by "again" I meant I reiterate part of the argument I made earlier in this thread.

Ah, now I see! Thank you for taking the time to elaborate. I appreciate it!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jean-francois me said:

 

Alamy fees are much hire than 40 cents in most market, even cheap ones are $10-15....   but hey continue feeding the beast, and then go on your keyboard to complain. 

Uh not complaining just observing.

And pointing out that my live news images are not offered for 40c - they go specifically to one agency doing live news as a proper sector.  I do not offer them on general stock at the time.  I may go through them several months later and assess them for general stock purposes (a firefighter with a hose has markets outside of the reporting on the actual situation where it was taken) but not until they are definitely no longer of interest to news.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Strange someone found an aerial landscape photo of mine on AL and contacted me and asked if she could purchase direct so as not to pay the company. She just wanted the image to print out a wall photo because she has fond memories of growing up there and offered me 20 AUD direct. Well much better than 10 cents or barely $1 I'd got for it otherwise. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi was expecting dire results from ss this week and really not happy about the 10c. Here are my weeks results, I only do editorial and have 1500images.

 

The drop in on demand is also a blow as it took me forever together up to 2nd tier level. Have deleted my top 20 photo and just leaving rest for now. But if my video clips pay me less than $10, they are all coming off. The best way to promote your sites are through blogs using your own photo and backlinks  to ss or pond 5 or whatever. 

 

 

sales june 2020.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...