Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, giphotostock said:

Well, for what it's worth, my 50 test images on SS on the average net ~$20/month.

In June, with the new commission scheme, these 50 images brought in $73.

Could be a fluke. Sample size of one contributor is not statistically representative.

 

GI

 

I also did better following the commission structure change (roughly double any month so far this year). Only a small portfolio so not statistically that significant. I think depends on what type of customer buys your images. If you only sell to big corporates on high volume subscription deals then you loose out. But otherwise, you may gain.

 

Mark 

Edited by M.Chapman

Share this post


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

40 "downloads" total. Average $3.65 per sale.

There we some $0.10, but there was a large number of sales that were more than previous standard $0.33.

 

but pricing has not changed so that's not relevant.  Did you receive a higher % than before, since all non Subscription  were already on a %

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, M.Chapman said:

 

I also did better following the commission structure change (roughly double any month so far this year). Only a small portfolio so not statistically that significant. I think depends on what type of customer buys your images. If you only sell to big corporates on high volume subscription deals then you loose out. But otherwise, you may gain.

 

Mark 

 

 

more reporting of the sort should actually be suspicious, since it might imply that reporting of sales of non subs were actually delayed to only hit at a lower rate of compensation.   

 

actually if you don't sell to the high volume you also get hit, as you need those to climb in the scale every year 

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


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

 

Thank you for that. I can't see any obvious logical reason why the changes at Shutterstock should have produced a  sudden increase in licences significantly over the basic ten cent variety. Only time will tell if it is a statistical blip or a real change. 

The licensing structure at SS changed.  There are all kinds of different subscription models.  Some pay better, and there are some bulk packages that give 10 cents even to the highest level of submitter.  I had a good month with more On Demand and Single and Other sales.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Reimar said:

I had a good month with more On Demand and Single and Other sales.

 

Yes, it's curious. So did I. Why the sudden increase in non-subs sales? Was the old system failing to categorise sales correctly, or (as meanderingemu said) were some sales "held back"? Or maybe there's been some changes in the pricing structure? But I haven't noticed that.

 

Mark

Edited by M.Chapman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For what it's worth, here is my SS June breakdown:

 

I am on level 3 (25%), expecting to cross into level 4 early August.   Before new earnings schedule I was in second tier

 

Number of DLs:  Almost same in June as it was in May (1 more in May)

Subs:  all over the place, with majority in 10 cent range.  Largest:  90 cents.  ~55% compared with old formula (flat 0.33 per sub)

ODD:  largest 3.36, lowest 0.10.   80% compared with old formula (flat 2.48 per ODD)

SOD:  0.25 - 0.56 range.  I am leaving this as 100% as it is hard to know what it would be in old formula & difference would be minor

EL: none

 

Drop in earnings:

1)  June vs May '20:   60%

2)  June '20 vs June '19:  55%

 

By the way,  Backyard Silver made outstanding article about  "maximizing your earnings" (referencing this Alamy Forum thread along the way!).   I really think any contributor should read it

 

https://backyardsilver.com/how-to-maximize-your-earnings/

 

(Thank you Steven so much, your wisdom is piece of sanity in this increasingly chaotic stock photography universe)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, Autumn Sky said:

By the way,  Backyard Silver made outstanding article about  "maximizing your earnings" (referencing this Alamy Forum thread along the way!).   I really think any contributor should read it

https://backyardsilver.com/how-to-maximize-your-earnings/

 

 

Well, his "hard-to-find" image experiment is

"statue is well off any tourist areas to Washington and so only a local or dedicated stock photographer would go there and take the time to keyword and upload it"

Walking to a spot in a major metropolitan area is not "hard-to-find". No wander he got the results he got. The reason it did not sell like hot cakes is because there's not much demand (=market) for it.

 

Real hard-to-get stock images require a lot more effort to get access to, like negotiating with some sort of a gate keeper. They also often require actually producing and setting up images, not simply recording what's in front of the lens. For example: nuclear plant control room, particle accelerator tunnel, hydroelectric turbine manufacturing, scientist doing carbon dating analysis, laser eye surgery, workers reading gauges in an oil refinery, etc. Take it a notch down: mechanic fixing a car, nurse taking ECG, carpenter making hand-made furniture, farmer doing what farmers do, computer server room, mechanical engineer using ProE or SolidWorks, colorful chemical reactions (preferably something exploding), instantly-recognizable tools of a particular trade, etc.

 

A wandering stock photographer has a zero chance of walking into one of those and snapping an image. All the above have serious demand and can command serious fees. That's where the money is. Some people make such images, place them on microstock and they sell for peanuts, but they sell a lot. Real demand and not a lot of supply. A hard-to-find statue in Washington? Yeah, right. Keep snapping and sales will come.

 

GI

Edited by giphotostock
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


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

By the way,  Backyard Silver made outstanding article about  "maximizing your earnings" (referencing this Alamy Forum thread along the way!).   I really think any contributor should read it

https://backyardsilver.com/how-to-maximize-your-earnings/

 

 

I cannot disagree when he says in his conclusion: "…I’m probably helping to devalue photography as a paying profession…".

At least, he admits being aware of it…

What strikes me is that it is all about maximizing profits, always. Never about sustainability.

Hey, cutting the rain forest to produce palm oil will maximize your earnings… Oh and hey, Collateralized Debt Obligation will maximize your earnings… Woohoo!

Also, do not forget to purchase my book about how to maximize your earnings (and mine by the way)… 😉

Sigh… 🙃

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to agree with the last two posts of GI and Olivier. I am sick and tired of reading forums which are full of part time hobbyists telling us how insightful they are about how this industry operates.

 

There used to be successful professional photographers. And there still are successful professional photographers.  It should have become very clear to all over the last few years that very, very few successful professionals still share their knowledge on the forums of crowd-sourced amateur based agencies. The reason is not hard to find.  All professions need to protect the respect for, and value of, their experience and skills.

 

Serious photographers, who need the income to pay their bills, will sell their photos (especially those which require knowledge based access and / or personal style) with strategies which will be closely protected. It has always been like this.  It is common sense.

 

Any aspiring photo professionals take note.  Those claiming to have "the knowledge" on popularist forums and blogs most likely don't.   And any idea they have of making a "profit" from their stock sales should first deduct the time and financial subsidy which derives from their main job income.  Otherwise it is all just nonsense.  Entertaining, but still nonsense.

 

 

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 6

Share this post


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

 

I cannot disagree when he says in his conclusion: "…I’m probably helping to devalue photography as a paying profession…".

At least, he admits being aware of it…

What strikes me is that it is all about maximizing profits, always. Never about sustainability.

Hey, cutting the rain forest to produce palm oil will maximize your earnings… Oh and hey, Collateralized Debt Obligation will maximize your earnings… Woohoo!

Also, do not forget to purchase my book about how to maximize your earnings (and mine by the way)… 😉

Sigh… 🙃

 

 

have to agree, but we had a similar debate here last week, at the general conclusion was that personal profit was better than social profit, so why is this one different?

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


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

I have to agree with the last two posts of GI and Olivier. I am sick and tired of reading forums which are full of part time hobbyists telling us how insightful they are about how this industry operates.

 

There used to be successful professional photographers. And there still are successful professional photographers.  It should have become very clear to all over the last few years that very, very few successful professionals still share their knowledge on the forums of crowd-sourced amateur based agencies. The reason is not hard to find.  All professions need to protect the respect for, and value of, their experience and skills.

 

Serious photographers, who need the income to pay their bills, will sell their photos (especially those which require knowledge based access and / or personal style) with strategies which will be closely protected. It has always been like this.  It is common sense.

 

Any aspiring photo professionals take note.  Those claiming to have "the knowledge" on popularist forums and blogs most likely don't.   And any idea they have of making a "profit" from their stock sales should first deduct the time and financial subsidy which derives from their main job income.  Otherwise it is all just nonsense.  Entertaining, but still nonsense.

 

 

 

 

i think there is also another place of Short term profit vs Sustainability in the "how to"  industry (and not talking only stock photo).  People find a recipe that works and want to cash in immediately instead of getting continuous return from working recipe.  What is ironic, is now the "how to" industry is no longer a place to cash in (and i'm sure the How to "how to" is dying economically on most subject), as even those who did are now looking for new source.  

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In my experience, the stock photo business has no history of "sustainability" at all. It has always gone in waves and success came to those who surfed those waves properly. 

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, meanderingemu said:

 

 

have to agree, but we had a similar debate here last week, at the general conclusion was that personal profit was better than social profit, so why is this one different?

 

Last week? Well, I guess I missed that one.

Sorry if I don't use the right words, I do my best in English but… To me, sustainability does not necessarily mean altruism.

Having a sustainable business is something profitable on a very personal basis for example.

I refuse to participate in the microstock system not only out of respect for photographers in general of course, but also because I want, in a very personal way, to continue to practice photography as a job. How could I ask a client to pay me decently for an assignment work if my photos sold for a few cents on the internet? That would be ridiculous.

But I fully understand that most microstock contributors don't give a damn about professional photographers and have no intention whatsoever of making photography their job, so they have no reason to feel concerned, I agree with you on that.

 

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Olivier Parent said:

 

Last week? Well, I guess I missed that one.

Sorry if I don't use the right words, I do my best in English but… To me, sustainability does not necessarily mean altruism.

Having a sustainable business is something profitable on a very personal basis for example.

I refuse to participate in the microstock system not only out of respect for photographers in general of course, but also because I want, in a very personal way, to continue to practice photography as a job. How could I ask a client to pay me decently for an assignment work if my photos sold for a few cents on the internet? That would be ridiculous.

But I fully understand that most microstock contributors don't give a damn about professional photographers and have no intention whatsoever of making photography their job, so they have no reason to feel concerned, I agree with you on that.

 

 

 

your english is fine, i probably was snarky.  

 

 

i'm not even sure if the pricing is what will kill MS, as much as the fact that the maintain the low costs they a)open door to everyone and  b)stop caring about the quality of the offering, because that's a cost.    

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

 

2 hours ago, Brian Yarvin said:

In my experience, the stock photo business has no history of "sustainability" at all. It has always gone in waves and success came to those who surfed those waves properly. 

 

 

 

Exactly right, Brian.  And the rash, incompetent and inexperienced inevitably get drowned.

 

This ain't no picnic.  This ain't no walk in the park with a camera.  This is 21st Century stock photography. 

 

Man up, folks, or take a stroll in the deep end without the inflatable armbands of the day job  -  then you can come talk to us about how to succeed in stock photography.  That is if you are still breathing. 

 

This market ain't big enough for all of us.

Edited by DavidLyons
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

This argument could go on forever because both sides have valid points to make -- i.e. they are both right to some extent. I think it comes down to "different strokes for different folks" at this point. Personally, I don't like the microstock way of doing things. At my age, it makes me dizzy, so I'll be hanging out here with the dinosaurs, where at least there is the illusion that images are still worth more than ten cents. Canon Vs. Nikon, or Sony Vs. Fuji anyone? 😴

Edited by John Mitchell
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

amen to words of wisdom by John Mitchell (as usual).   But regardless of which side of fence one sits, you'd have to agree it is interesting and thoughtful take by one of best known and most successful contributors in micro industry today.  This is primary reason why I shared it.  There are others I read recently (PetaPixel, etc.) that are also quite interesting, but I don't want to spam Forum with to many outside links -- you can google if you want.

 

To me it was also interesting BackyardSIlver obviously reads Alamy Forum & was, at least partially, influenced to write this article based on discussion here.

 

btw re SS -- got up today, let's see how I did -- wow,  5 downloads overnight?  and then -- 10,10,10,12,15 cents. 

 

Edited by Autumn Sky
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Autumn Sky said:

amen to words of wisdom by John Mitchell (as usual).   But regardless of which side of fence one sits, you'd have to agree it is interesting and thoughtful take by one of best known and most successful contributors in micro industry today.  This is primary reason why I shared it.  There are others I read recently (PetaPixel, etc.) that are also quite interesting, but I don't want to spam Forum with to many outside links -- you can google if you want.

 

To me it was also interesting BackyardSIlver obviously reads Alamy Forum & was, at least partially, influenced to write this article based on discussion here.

 

btw re SS -- got up today, let's see how I did -- wow,  5 downloads overnight?  and then -- 10,10,10,12,15 cents. 

 

 

Thanks for the compliment, but I'm really more of a wiseguy than a wise guy. 😉

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

btw re SS -- got up today, let's see how I did -- wow,  5 downloads overnight?  and then -- 10,10,10,12,15 cents. 

 

 

Congratulations on grabbing these 5 sales opportunities.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Autumn Sky said:

amen to words of wisdom by John Mitchell (as usual).   But regardless of which side of fence one sits, you'd have to agree it is interesting and thoughtful take by one of best known and most successful contributors in micro industry today.  This is primary reason why I shared it.  There are others I read recently (PetaPixel, etc.) that are also quite interesting, but I don't want to spam Forum with to many outside links -- you can google if you want.

 

To me it was also interesting BackyardSIlver obviously reads Alamy Forum & was, at least partially, influenced to write this article based on discussion here.

 

btw re SS -- got up today, let's see how I did -- wow,  5 downloads overnight?  and then -- 10,10,10,12,15 cents. 

 

 

I remember when you could buy a cup of coffee (with free refills) for 15 cents if that's any consolation. 🍮

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 02/07/2020 at 04:42, DavidLyons said:

Those claiming to have "the knowledge" on popularist forums and blogs most likely don't.   

 

And any idea they have of making a "profit" from their stock sales should first deduct the time and financial subsidy which derives from their main job income.  Otherwise it is all just nonsense.  Entertaining, but still nonsense.

 

Well, I think most of them are actually well-meaning people. They are nice, they are freely sharing what they know.

 

That's the thing, people do not know what they do not know, by definition.

 

It is probably one of the unintended consequences of democratic internet. A voice of an expert gets drowned among that of non-experts, particularly if the former attract large followings...

 

GI

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
13 hours ago, John Mitchell said:

 

I remember when you could buy a cup of coffee (with free refills) for 15 cents if that's any consolation. 🍮

 

Don't worry, only 5 more sales and he'll make a whole lotta dollar. 

I guess you still can have a cup of coffee for a dollar in some places (probably no refills though).

Edited by Olivier Parent

Share this post


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

Well, I think most of them are actually well-meaning people. They are nice, they are freely sharing what they know.

 

Talking about BackyardSilver specifically, he is sharing what he knows for:

website subscription = $4.99 / month

1 eBook = $9.99

2 eBooks (bundle) = $14.99

Nice, well-meaning people freely sharing what they know? 😂

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 04/07/2020 at 09:29, Olivier Parent said:

 

Talking about BackyardSilver specifically, he is sharing what he knows for:

website subscription = $4.99 / month

1 eBook = $9.99

2 eBooks (bundle) = $14.99

Nice, well-meaning people freely sharing what they know? 😂

 

He still gives a lot of information away for free. The rest he hopes to recover some of his costs, which is reasonable since he's not running a charity 

  • Haha 3
  • Sad 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, Brasilnut said:

 

He still gives a lot of information away for free. The rest he hopes to recover some of his costs, which is reasonable since he's not running a charity 

 

 

Please let me know where to send my invoice to you for all the help over the years.😀

Edited by geogphotos
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

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

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.