Shutterstock
Posted by Lee Torrens
Only the second review in my State of the Microstock Nation series, this is Shutterstock. Hailed as the dominant microstock website in the market. Adored by contributors for it’s high earnings. Chosen by buyers for its straight-forward subscription model and massive portfolio. Shutterstock is intentionally different – and it’s working!
Shutterstock was our second microstock website. We resisted using other websites for three months, before realizing it meant more money. Shutterstock put us off to a great start, generating slightly more in its first month than our darling iStockphoto. It’s settled into second place for us, but for many other microstockers it’s number one.
Background
Shutterstock launched in 2003 but according to the Alexa stats didn’t start getting popular until 2005. They seem to be the most simple and straight forward microstock agency, and differentiate themselves well with their unique business model (see below).
So lets take a look at some numbers.
Shutterstock Details
| Web Address | www.shutterstock.com |
| Google Pagerank | 6 |
| Google Backlinks | 5,120 |
| Alexa Rank | 1,678 |
| Image Stats | 1,890,477 |
| Minimum Image Size | 2.5 MegaPixels |
| Vectors | Yes |
| Footage | Yes |
| Licenses | Standard and Enhanced |
| Compensation | $0.25 per download, or $0.30 if you have more than $500 total earnings |
| Pricing | Subscription, from 1 month ($199) to 1 year ($1,999). Limit 25 images/day, 750/month. |
| Payment Methods | PayPal, MoneyBookers, Check |
| Payout | Automatic monthly payout when your balance is above $100 |
| Referral Program | 20% of purchases up to $50, $0.03 for contributor sales |
| Application Process | Upload 3 images for review |
| Exclusivity | Not offered |
| Upload Methods | HTML Form, ActiveX and FTP |
| IPTC Data | Yes |
| Currencies | US Dollar |
| Languages | English, Chinese, Dutch, French, German, Italian, Japanese, Portuguese, Spanish |
| Headquarters | New York, USA |
| Founder | Jon Oringer |
Business Model
From the contributor perspective, the defining factor about Shutterstock is that it highly favors new images. The resulting strategy of contributors is to then continue producing and uploading. Clever thinking. This strategy also works well for buyers. With the subscription model buyers have already downloaded more of the images they’ll need from the existing portfolio, so they can then concentrate on the fresh images coming through.
Though other microstock websites have adopted the subscription model, the very high turnover at Shutterstock is what makes it successful for them. Lending itself to this strategy is Shutterstock’s single-size photo policy. That is, all photos are downloaded at full size.
Cool Features
- Ultra-convenient stats – Shutterstock provide all sales (photos and footage) and referral earnings on a single convenient page with a row for each day of the month
- Move the Watermark – when the subject of your image is on one site of the frame you can move the watermark position so it better protects the image
- Lucrative referral program – Shutterstock’s referral program performs really well and has full data reporting.
Performance
Shutterstock are arguably the highest performing microstock website. They certainly have the highest number of sales for the majority of microstockers. Whether they provide the most earnings for those contributors is less consistent. Some do and some don’t.
The website design might not be as flashy or sophisticated as the competition, and website features may be light, but who cares when your earnings are this high.
Verdict
There’s no decision to be made. If you’re going to contribute photos to multiple microstock websites, then Shutterstock is on your list. High sales and high revenue, great statistics and excellent referral program. They’ve done the hard work to get where they are – the top of the market.
What to do Next
If you want to sell photos at Shutterstock, the first step is to register and then submit your application. I have advice on passing the acceptance test and more general advice on getting started. If you have any questions or problems just shoot me a message through my contact page and I’ll do my best to help you if I can.
State of the Microstock Nation series:
Posted June 2nd, 2007 by Lee Torrens
Shutterstock has done me quite well as a submitter so far, generating more than twice as much income as the nearest competitor site.
One update for your page above is that they also offer editorial licenses for imagery so if you have an image without a model release you can still potentially sell it (e.g. if it’s of the president, or a sports star, or a newsworthy event…etc.)
Peace,
lpkb
You have one fairly important error. To make 30 cents per DL, you need $500 in earnings. Not 500 downloads. I WISH it were 500 downloads however.
Shutterstock is a strong performer for me. They are a clear #2 to iStockphoto in terms of earnings, but they do contribute significantly to the bottom line. Their tools are simple, and very good. The ease of upload is fantastic. I like their HTML upload so much that I actually use it more than FTP these days. Never thought I would say that! But then I am not a high volume producer and tend to upload in small batches. They also simplify categories by eliminating subcategories altogether.
Cons –
1. You need to stay active to keep sales high. I’ve heard this from several contributors. As soon as I went inactive last month, my sales were literally cut in half! Once I started uploading again, they perked back up. Apparently your activity affects your search position, including older images. I can’t prove it, but my sales highly suggest it.
2. There is a high emphasis on new images. This is gratifying when uploading new images, but they quickly calm down after a few weeks. Good images continue to sell, but not nearly at the rate as when first uploaded.
3. Difficult Reviewers. In my opinion, they are toughest of all I have encountered.
Pros -
1. Very high volume. You’ll need it with the low payout, but if your images are good you will definitely get high volume.
2. Fast Review Times. Generally 2 days or less. I’ve had some approved in 4-5 hours! It is great to upload a concept, see it approved the same day, and have it selling by the next morning.
Lately with iStock I am waiting 7-10 days to get reviewed.
I like the SS model, although selling images for 25-30 cents makes me nervous. I’ve seen it argued that it devalues the photographers’ works. I tend to agree. But overall it is great for my bottom line earnings.
Thanks for your comprehensive comments Dan. I’ve corrected the mistake about the 30 cents. Can’t believe I let that one slip by!
Cheers,
Lee.
Well, honestly said shutterstock really sells very good. Thoug there are some hidden problems not so obvious:
- paying $0.25 is really killing photography business
- some of the editors are not tough but ppl with no background in real photography – I saw several examples of very stupid refusals
- very very strongly censoring their phorum, any just slightly critical notice against shutterstock or any note about other agencies and its deleted asap.
- they do automatically interpolate pics up to incredibly large size and doesnt matter if you uploaded 4Mpix or 14Mpix image; that is very very dishonest to any buyer
So I do sell some pics on Shutterstock but I do choose very carefully what am I willing to offer and what is going to be rights managed.
The application process requires 7 out of 10 uploaded photos to be accepted.
yes indeed, and very demanding too. I came to a total of 5 accepted, in two attempts. All rejections are related to sale potential, not even technical issues.
Later this week I am going to attempt my third try.
One week at Shutterstock now. Started out with the 7 approved images, now up to 61 uploads. Number of downloads in the first 7 days:
2 – 10 – 22 – 24 – 20 – 11 – 15
This gives me a balance of $26 at this point, which is roughly two-thirds of my balance at iStockphoto after nearly three months. It remains to see whether I have to upload new material constantly to maintain the good numbers at Shutterstock.
Useful information for beginners like myself: I found it very hard to get 7/10 images accepted, but it’s worth hanging in there. I feel I learned a lot in the process. My strategy was to re-upload the ones that were accepted last time (you can tell because the specific reason for rejection of those images is “7 out of 10 must be approved”) + upload images that had sold at iStockphoto. Good luck!
Erik
It took me 4 attempts to get accepted by Shutterstock. I don’t see that high download numbers like Erik, nevertheless, Shutterstock competes with my iStock earnings.
My acceptance rate at SS after initial rejections stays around 86%. I resubmitted several pictures which were rejected in my initial submissions for technical reasons or low commercial value. There were all accepted and are selling OK.
Marek
My acceptance rate is 85 % after I was accepted into the fold. It seems they are more lax once you’re in.
Erik
SS says to send full-sized images. Don’t upsize or downsize images. What does this mean exactly? I constantly read here and in other forums how peolple do just the opposite. I want to shoot in large full-size RAW and convert (downsize?) to 5 MP Jpeg to upload. Is this the way to do it or not?
Yes, some people downsize their images before uploading to Shutterstock as they don’t like that the subscription model gives buyers full sized images for such a low per-sale commission. The contrary argument is that buyers will sometimes choose another image if yours isn’t available at full size. You choose which one works for you. I don’t downsize for Shutterstock.
-Lee
Come July, I decided to delete all my images from Shutterstock. I only had around 100 uploads there, but after having considered for a while, I just couldn’t live with being paid $0.25 per download. In just over three months, I made $98 on 390 downloads. This is the comparable to what I would have made on one download of a medium-sized royalty-free image at the PhotoShelter Collection, to where I am slowly moving my portfolio. [...]
The rest of this blog entry can be read on my new photo blog (click on my name above). Like Lee, I will share my microstock earnings each month.
The gist of it is that with small portfolios, you make next to nothing on SS. With a larger portfolio, you make more, of course. But if you divide your earnings by the hours spent shooting, editing, keywording etc., I’m not sure you’d be happy with the results. I’m moving to PhotoShelter.
EWK
Shutterstock is the best selling micro stock site for most microstock photographers (including myself) so we can’t simply ignore it.
But the race to submit more and more just to stay visible is driving me crazy: we are forced to engage in shooting “quantity over quality” which is not what I like to do. How long this model will be sustainable?
Twice tried to submit images to Photostock and got a “photos are poor, not professional” response. Ironic, as I have been in freelance photography since the 1970’s. The fact that the images I uploaded were Kodachrome25 slides, later scanned in, also got me a negative response. I got the impression that the uploaded images have to be digital in origin.
Which bums me out, considering I have a few thousand slides in binders…
J
Hi FEOJ,
This is a common complaint from established professional photographers. Ironically, quality standards are much higher in microstock compared to traditional stock and many other photo markets. You need to play the game a little until you figure out what it is the agencies are seeking.
Also remember that the ‘application tests’ to get approved to submit to some of these agencies are tougher than regular reviews – they need to see that you’re going to be a profitable contributor.
-Lee
Dear Lee
I submitted my 10 slides last night and no one was accepted, but I am not very worried because Istock has accepted 3 of the photos and me as a contributor. Looking at their comments on my submission I also get the idea that Shutterstock are not very keen to accept slides. Do you have any information on their attitude towards slides?
Regards
Kobus
Hi Kobus, apologies for the super-late response.
I’d suggest doing everything you can to get the photos looking as professional as possible. If they’re comparable in quality to photos from a modern digital camera, then agencies have no reason to reject them. I’m not suggesting you break the rules, but submitting them without specifying they’re originally from slides will ensure they’re reviewed on the basis of the image quality, nothing else.
Also see if you get better results downsizing the photos. This removes a lot of focus, noise and artifact problems.
Otherwise, no, I don’t have any information on attitudes of specific agencies towards slides.
-Lee
Ran into the same problems (poor images, etc) from 3 other agencies. One had the comment “35mm slides are not a viable format, we accept only digital. Scanned 35mm slides are also not accepted”.
So much for my collection of 12,000+ images from the late 1960’s to 2002….
AMEN – slides seem to count for nothing despite decades of being
a professional and much published photographer!