Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
blvdone

With all those $0.10 sales, I feel like a panhandler. lol

Recommended Posts

35 minutes ago, R Scott James said:

Then why stay? Why continue to support SS? Why do you feed their greed? Give it a year then you will be getting 5 cent a image.

I unlicensed my video clips which are my main income source.  Photos are just on the side for some extra income.  SS is the only site that accept editorial photos.  So, I just keep them here.  Occasionally, I get lucky and get higher price sale.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, blvdone said:

SS is the only site that accept editorial photos.  So, I just keep them here.  Occasionally, I get lucky and get higher price sale.

There are a number of online stock agencies that accept editorial photos. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the future, Shutterstock and other agencies will likely charge you a subscription just to store your photos.

Recently saw a link on the Shutterstock Contributors Facebook group page for the stock agency (Photojobz.com.)  They want photographers to pay $324/annually to host their pictures for possible purchase!  No mention of a percentage breakdown - seemed like a scam.  But if they get away with it, others will follow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Elliott Cowand Jr said:

In the future, Shutterstock and other agencies will likely charge you a subscription just to store your photos.

Recently saw a link on the Shutterstock Contributors Facebook group page for the stock agency (Photojobz.com.)  They want photographers to pay $324/annually to host their pictures for possible purchase!  No mention of a percentage breakdown - seemed like a scam.  But if they get away with it, others will follow.

I made a mistake once of not backing up photos and lost them. I asked Shutterstock for copies and found out exactly what this companies morals were like when they said I could purchase a package to download my own photos.  

Share this post


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

Because hope brings life ...🙄

Hope is a very dangerous thing my friend. Hope can drive a man insane.

(quote from Shawshank Redemption movie) 😉

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Elliott Cowand Jr said:

In the future, Shutterstock and other agencies will likely charge you a subscription just to store your photos.

Recently saw a link on the Shutterstock Contributors Facebook group page for the stock agency (Photojobz.com.)  They want photographers to pay $324/annually to host their pictures for possible purchase!  No mention of a percentage breakdown - seemed like a scam.  But if they get away with it, others will follow.

Haha!  That's horrible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Glynsimages2013 said:

I made a mistake once of not backing up photos and lost them. I asked Shutterstock for copies and found out exactly what this companies morals were like when they said I could purchase a package to download my own photos.  

In which case they would have closed your account, because it's against the terms to download your own photos. 😲

https://www.photojobz.com/earnings-disclaimer32490998

THE TYPICAL PURCHASER DOES NOT MAKE ANY MONEY USING THIS SYSTEM. PHOTOJOBZ.COM DOES NOT GUARANTEE INCOME OR SUCCESS, AND EXAMPLES SHOWN IN THIS PRESENTATION DO NOT REPRESENT AN INDICATION OF FUTURE SUCCESS OR EARNINGS.

Wow, sucker site.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, HodagMedia said:

In which case they would have closed your account, because it's against the terms to download your own photos. 😲

https://www.photojobz.com/earnings-disclaimer32490998

THE TYPICAL PURCHASER DOES NOT MAKE ANY MONEY USING THIS SYSTEM. PHOTOJOBZ.COM DOES NOT GUARANTEE INCOME OR SUCCESS, AND EXAMPLES SHOWN IN THIS PRESENTATION DO NOT REPRESENT AN INDICATION OF FUTURE SUCCESS OR EARNINGS.

Wow, sucker site.

 

It's like a talent/model agency you have to pay money to belong to.  It's always a scam.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I use to go out to take some landscape pictures. Every venturing out cost you money. I use to convince myself that I can make up for it by earning in SS. I now feel I will never be able to make up for it by selling in SS. I am not sure how many photographers are out there are not doing more work because there is no motivation. Its sad as so much creatively globally is wasted due such silly pricing policy. I will not add any more photos because, I feel this is not worth the time I have to sit and click the mouse in Photoshop. If this is the feeling in low value currency location , I am not sure why photographers in other high value currency location like US or Canada, Australia will ever work.

This model will end up having few contributors who submit more images per year and become monopoly. The diversity of style of images will dry up very soon due to this monopoly. 

The great analytics guys who must have recommend this pricing model have not included the human quotient to their calculations. Business grows only if take care of their people.  God bless photographers and SS.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, saisnaps said:

I use to go out to take some landscape pictures. Every venturing out cost you money. I use to convince myself that I can make up for it by earning in SS. I now feel I will never be able to make up for it by selling in SS. I am not sure how many photographers are out there are not doing more work because there is no motivation. Its sad as so much creatively globally is wasted due such silly pricing policy. I will not add any more photos because, I feel this is not worth the time I have to sit and click the mouse in Photoshop. If this is the feeling in low value currency location , I am not sure why photographers in other high value currency location like US or Canada, Australia will ever work.

This model will end up having few contributors who submit more images per year and become monopoly. The diversity of style of images will dry up very soon due to this monopoly. 

The great analytics guys who must have recommend this pricing model have not included the human quotient to their calculations. Business grows only if take care of their people.  God bless photographers and SS.

 

Totally agree with you.  This will be bad for Shutterstock too.  They'll suffer from lack of materials.  I already unlicensed my entire video portfolio.  It's doing well on Pond5 because I moved all my editorial video clips to Pond5 exclusive account and am getting 60% royalty from them.  No $9.95/4k video sub there on Pond5.  We got to keep our price reasonably high.  We can control it by eliminating low price sellers that cut our profit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, blvdone said:

Totally agree with you.  This will be bad for Shutterstock too.  They'll suffer from lack of materials.  I already unlicensed my entire video portfolio.  It's doing well on Pond5 because I moved all my editorial video clips to Pond5 exclusive account and am getting 60% royalty from them.  No $9.95/4k video sub there on Pond5.  We got to keep our price reasonably high.  We can control it by eliminating low price sellers that cut our profit.

But will they suffer from lack of materials? They still have over 300 million photos and videos in their library. Sure some contributors have walked. But how many? What percentage? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/30/2020 at 12:18 AM, blvdone said:

But they have no sales.  I closed my accounts on other non-performing stock photo sites.

I got a $6 sale for an editorial photo on Alamy last month. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Patrick Cooper said:

I got a $6 sale for an editorial photo on Alamy last month. 

Well I can beat that, I got $6.12 just yesterday? 😃 That was my 50% for an exclusive. One of those tricky "personal use" licenses. But roughly speaking, that one download could equal about 50 from here? Good thing I don't rely on the income and I am actually getting more from SS for the ODs and S&Os than I used to. I don't think everyone has that luck.

1 hour ago, blvdone said:

  We can control it by eliminating low price sellers that cut our profit.

Point of the matter is, SS has not cut prices, just our commissions. SS does not lack materials, they just restricted uploads.

Now about those low price sellers and free pages, that I've been complaining about since 2008. Why does anyone upload to places that don't review except when someone writes and begs? Or places that don't pay on time? Or those that advertise they sell for less, which drives the prices and values down on the better stock sites. I see that as a larger problem that drives the market down, costs the bigger agencies money... so they cut OUR earnings to make up the losses.
 

2 hours ago, blvdone said:

This will be bad for Shutterstock too.  They'll suffer from lack of materials.

No I don't like the cuts, but lets deal in facts please. 300 million images is about 100 million more similar, duplicates and filler, more than anyone needs to have a successful selection for buyers. If I don't upload my Crapstock Snapshots, the buyer will find something else suitable, already here. Maybe some people thing their shots of this mornings breakfast is unusual and exclusive, or some sliced vegetables or people shaking hands, is in limited supply. I don't.

The only way I get anything or what I actually care about uploading, is if I can find something unusual, that isn't already over supplied. Then I can hope that someone needs that shot, because there aren't 72,000 already here. That also means, I'm making images that are not in high demand. But that's my answer.

Stop shooting things that anyone and everyone else can and has already done. Either that, or I shoot and don't expect that the image will do very well because of the level of competition.

Buyers don't shot other agencies, if they have a SS subscription. They probably don't shop based on price alone, if they have a SS subscription. (which means my argument that price cutters are hurting us, might be a little weak?) You're right, Pond5 has a name for the video market and could be attracting buyers for video. Good Wishes for your continued sales there.

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...