Shutterstock Photographer Forum :: View topic - Why going exclusive with another agency is a bad idea:

StuartE · Posted: Wed Mar 02, 2005 10:04 pm

Well, here's to all the suckers enjoying their cheques this month... for images they wouldn't have got any money for at all... I guess every image you shoot sells for $$ every day, ChimpMonkey? You don't have anything that doesn't earn you money that you'd submit here, of course...

Quite honestly, It'd be great if ShutterStock can drive all of the highly priced stock agencies selling in the market that it's "destroying" - then Jon can put his prices up after the collapse... :-)

Cheers,
Stuart

andresr · Posted: Wed Mar 02, 2005 10:06 pm

I know someone who made 54.000 dollars on a micropayment site in a year, with less than 2000 images. Somebody also mentioned a guy in corbis having 3000 photos online making 5000-8000 dollars a year. Man with 3000 photos in SS and other micropayment sites I can retire. With 600 photos if I sell the same as february (note february has 28 days) I would be making around 6000 a year. Now with 3000 photos of Corbis standards .. bloody hell! (pardon my french), I could say he would make around 30.000 if not a lot more than that here together with IS BS CS & DT.
I don't get why people don't understand we are not giving away images for 20c and thats it, its bulk that makes the money count. One guy might use an image for a massive advertising campaign, anotherone might just be using it as an msn avatar .... wallpaper, who knows what they do with them sometimes.

On corbis you can sell a photo for 100 dollars and have 100 unsold for months/years, here almost ALL your images sell, several times .......

shutterstock · Joined: 22 Oct 2004 Posts: 1881 Location: New York, NY

The thing is -- most of the photos that are downloaded aren't used.. Thats the bottom line.

This model makes the designer feel like they should download a lot - and then use 1-2 photos.

So - if most of the photos never get used, then you guys wind up selling your photos for a lot more than the download price...

So - a designer who downloads 100 photos - who only uses 2-3, basically spent the subscription price on 2-3 photos... It all works out in the end.

Jon

ScantyNebula · Joined: 19 Dec 2004 Posts: 84

You make a valid point there Jon. Never thought of it that way before. I love Shutterstocks model.

Joe Gough · Joined: 16 Nov 2004 Posts: 228 Location: Poole, Dorset, UK

Some great points from Stuart, Scanty, Jon and Andres.

From a personal point of view, 3 months down the line, I'm absolutely delighted to have discovered the micro-payment stock industry and certainly do not consider that I'm being ripped off in anyway.

melking · Joined: 30 Oct 2004 Posts: 300 Location: Labrador, Canada

For me, I make more than the 10% Istock would be give me to sign with them, I upload to 3 sites the most out of 5! the other two site I have less than 50 uploads on! Just cannot upload to them all...hehe Shutterstock is quicky becoming one of the best sites for me money wise! Hoping to at least get a check every month! Hoping to be with shuterstock a long time!

Melissa

rkasprzak · Joined: 20 Dec 2004 Posts: 90

As Jon made reference to earlier I think that the chances of having your photos downloaded here are much better than most stock sites. I believe that subscribers download a lot of photos just to take a look at and possibly trigger some ideas. I am sure a lot of photos may never be used but still get downloaded and you still earn some money. I do have some photos on several other sites but the downloads are so few compared to Shutterstock that I rarely upload anything to these other sites.

I think though that the other side of the coin is that someone who has thousands of dollars invested in equipment and who relies on stock photography as a sole source of income has to upload to every possible site they can.

There is no question that Shutterstock and some other agencies have changed the nature of stock photography. Although it is still possible to sell photos for hundreds of dollars each you really have to be at the top of the heap to do this on a steady basis. Times change and you have to change with them.

Bella · Joined: 09 Mar 2005 Posts: 35

andresr · Posted: Wed Mar 09, 2005 3:43 pm

Wow! Bella nice :D funny, I have an image very similar to yours from "valle del cauca" but on film somewhere and I can't be bothered to scan them :S.
Nice images :) hope you had a good time when you visited :)
I'd love to see many more images !

grandillusion · Joined: 31 Jan 2005 Posts: 92

Reason #1568:

Locked thread:
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=16944&page=1

Eskild · Joined: 04 Mar 2005 Posts: 67 Location: Denmark

Glad I'm not there....

reviewer · Admin Joined: 01 Jan 2005 Posts: 1627

*bump*

....just reminding folks.

:-)

carolegomez · Joined: 26 Jul 2005 Posts: 168 Location: England

But did you notice that the author of the "locked post" linked above is now exclusive there (& got their questions answered pretty quickly & comprehensively in the forum on that thread)?.
Not that I agree with exlusivity, but perhaps that's not the best illustration!

andresr · Posted: Thu Sep 22, 2005 4:43 am

OK it has been a while since this thread was tackled. Things have changed a little, lets update my opinion:

I think the reason why people like exclusivity it's because the "ease" of having your photos only at one place, no uploading to 7-10 sites etc... (what I don't get is, if you keyword once, then it is easy to upload to other sites too).

Some others believe exclusivity can work financially.
Not for me. Having between 1000 and 2000 photos over different sites I can not agree with the financial position. IS gives me about 25% of my total income so even if I went exlusive (assuming I was diamond already there) I would lose about 50% of my current earnings. Currently they look like this:
SS= 26% IS=26% DT=22% BSP=14% 123=9% Others (Flia+CSP+GM+SSP)=3%

Another reason for me: If I was exclusive I would get too pissed off with my rejections. I wouldn't be able to upload anywhere else and basically, it would have been a waste of time editing my images. Note the rejections I have had there are only for: images are not stock photos but more like designs. Or so they say but well, top sellers elsewhere so that keeps me happy :) I like them as a site as well as many others, but I am happy the way it is, uploading to where I believe is worth it.

That's my opinion as today.

MY WEBSITE

Eskild · Joined: 04 Mar 2005 Posts: 67 Location: Denmark

Why not loose those: Flia+CSP+GM+SSP)=3%
3% = you could spend your time better shooting more for the others, and not opload to the "3%" ????

I'm beginning to be much more selective, as it takes some extra time for each place to upload. Time better spent keywording + and shooting new material and opload to those who make some significant sales.

Otherwise I totally agree with your post.