Making money at stock photography web sites

wrote:

What do you guys think of these stock photography sites?
http://submit.shutterstock.com/?ref=59350

…and…

http://www.bigstockphoto.com/?refid=wdaph9OGqi

I guy I work with says he’s making tons of money just for uploading photos he already has in his portfolio. I don’t have any "stock photography" types of photos in my portfolio, but I was thinking about getting into it. Before I start wasting a lot of time on something that’s not going to pay off, I thought I’d check with the group to see if people are really making as much money as they say. Sounds too easy.

Heh. Ref ids and everything.

"Paul Mitchum" wrote in message

wrote:

if people are really making as much money as they say. Sounds too easy.

Heh. Ref ids and everything.

And multiposting. Guy must think we’re as stupid as he is.

"Helen" wrote in message

"Paul Mitchum" wrote in message

wrote:

if people are really making as much money as they say. Sounds too easy.

Heh. Ref ids and everything.

And multiposting. Guy must think we’re as stupid as he is.

Obvious advertising aside, what’s the issue?

It appears to me like the worst thing that could happen is that you won’t make money on photos that aren’t making you any money at the moment anyway.

C J Southern wrote:

"Helen" wrote in message

"Paul Mitchum" wrote in message

wrote:

if people are really making as much money as they say. Sounds too easy.

Heh. Ref ids and everything.

And multiposting. Guy must think we’re as stupid as he is.

Obvious advertising aside, what’s the issue?

It appears to me like the worst thing that could happen is that you won’t make money on photos that aren’t making you any money at the moment anyway.

The original poster cited URLS which had reference IDs, presumably his or her own. Meaning the whole point of the post was to lure you into looking at the site so that he (or she) would get some kind of referall bonus.

"C J Southern" wrote in message

Obvious advertising aside, what’s the issue?

Isn’t that an issue? I think it is.

It appears to me like the worst thing that could happen is that you won’t make money on photos that aren’t making you any money at the moment anyway.

Where do you get the ‘you’? Reply to the OPs message, not mine. But, since you replied to me, I’ll answer – I’m doing very nicely indeed from ‘proper’ agencies, thanks very much, those that pay in the hundreds of dollars per sale, not those that pay 4 cents or something per sale. And I don’t need to spam NGs to drive potential buyers to my stuff.

"Paul Mitchum" wrote in message

The original poster cited URLS which had reference IDs, presumably his or her own. Meaning the whole point of the post was to lure you into looking at the site so that he (or she) would get some kind of referall bonus.

I know that – hence the reason I said "obvious advertising aside". What I’m saying is "just because it’s an ad, doesn’t mean to say it can’t benefit someone other than the OP".

Personally, I don’t have a problem with it.

"Helen" wrote in message

Obvious advertising aside, what’s the issue?

Isn’t that an issue? I think it is.

I don’t have a problem when it’s relevant and has the potential to offer possible benefits for all/other parties.

It appears to me like the worst thing that could happen is that you won’t make money on photos that aren’t making you any money at the moment anyway.

Where do you get the ‘you’?

It’s a generic "you", not aimed at yourself.

Reply to the OPs message, not mine.

I’ll reply to any post I care to – thank you very much.

I was making the polite point that for myself – and I suspect others – there can still be value in what was originally posted, even though it’s an ad. "Don’t judge the signpost, but look at the direction it’s pointing".

As you’ve got other more profitable arrangements that work for you then obviously it’s not something that’s going to appeal to you – I’m sure many others here wouldn’t be in such a position – so for them, such an ad is an opportunity if they care to follow up on it.

"C J Southern" wrote in message

"Helen" wrote in message

Obvious advertising aside, what’s the issue?

Isn’t that an issue? I think it is.

I don’t have a problem when it’s relevant and has the potential to offer possible benefits for all/other parties.

It appears to me like the worst thing that could happen is that you won’t
make money on photos that aren’t making you any money at the moment anyway.

Where do you get the ‘you’?

It’s a generic "you", not aimed at yourself.

Reply to the OPs message, not mine.

I’ll reply to any post I care to – thank you very much.

I was making the polite point that for myself – and I suspect others – there can still be value in what was originally posted, even though it’s an ad. "Don’t judge the signpost, but look at the direction it’s pointing".

As you’ve got other more profitable arrangements that work for you then obviously it’s not something that’s going to appeal to you – I’m sure many others here wouldn’t be in such a position – so for them, such an ad is an opportunity if they care to follow up on it.

Hi all.

It strikes me that these sites which offer "referral" fees, can only afford to pay out if the people who have been referred spend money on the site, or the site owners can get money for selling the addresses of the visitors, or some other sort of underhand activity.

There is no way they will pay fees if there is nothing in it for them.

It seems just like a very cheap pyramid scheme.

Roy G

Boy, I got you all riled up. RILED UP!!! Wow. Why don’t you learn a little bit about the web sites before making vague accusations? These web sites…
http://submit.shutterstock.com/?ref=59350
….and…
http://www.bigstockphoto.com/?refid=wdaph9OGqi
….are very well regarded. People seem to love them! It’s tons of fun to upload your photography and then log in periodically to see how many times they’re downloaded thereby generating revenue. The only reason for my post was that I was looking for unbiased testimonials from people who have actually made money with these sites. I want to know if it’s worth my time. My photography is not typically useful as "stock photography," and I don’t want to spend time shooting stuff if it doesn’t pay off. I was really just looking for some anecdotes.

As for the motivation of such sites to pay referral bonuses… That is a win-win proposition. The money that the sites pay in the form of referral bonuses is a very affordable way to attract new photographers, thereby increasing inventory of stock photography, thereby attracting more paying subscribers and increasing downloads, thereby increasing revenue. And of course the photographer who refers other photographers beneftis from the referral bonus. The referred photographer benefits because they have learned about a resource that they did not previously know about. And since it’s free for all photographers to sign up–referred or not–it is actually a win-win-win proposition.

It’s good to be a skeptic, but that skepticism should be tempered with a healthy dose of objectivity, rationalism, common sense, and a reasonable level of intelligence.

Now does anyone have any actual experience making money with these sites? If so, please comment. If not, please check out alt.pessimists.timewasters.

– John

Ah! An rational and objective critical thinker! How refreshing. Thank you.

– John

wrote in message

Boy, I got you all riled up. RILED UP!!! Wow. Why don’t you learn a little bit about the web sites before making vague accusations? These web sites…
http://submit.shutterstock.com/?ref=59350
…and…
http://www.bigstockphoto.com/?refid=wdaph9OGqi
…are very well regarded. People seem to love them! It’s tons of fun to upload your photography and then log in periodically to see how many times they’re downloaded thereby generating revenue. The only reason for my post was that I was looking for unbiased testimonials from people who have actually made money with these sites. I want to know if it’s worth my time. My photography is not typically useful as "stock photography," and I don’t want to spend time shooting stuff if it doesn’t pay off. I was really just looking for some anecdotes.
As for the motivation of such sites to pay referral bonuses… That is a win-win proposition. The money that the sites pay in the form of referral bonuses is a very affordable way to attract new photographers, thereby increasing inventory of stock photography, thereby attracting more paying subscribers and increasing downloads, thereby increasing revenue. And of course the photographer who refers other photographers beneftis from the referral bonus. The referred photographer benefits because they have learned about a resource that they did not previously know about. And since it’s free for all photographers to sign up–referred or not–it is actually a win-win-win proposition.
It’s good to be a skeptic, but that skepticism should be tempered with a healthy dose of objectivity, rationalism, common sense, and a reasonable level of intelligence.

Now does anyone have any actual experience making money with these sites? If so, please comment. If not, please check out alt.pessimists.timewasters.

– John

Wow.

A whole 20 cents (US) per download of your work. (That is how much in real money 13 Pence UK ?)

It probably cost you more for the Electricity used while you were downloading from the Camera and uploading to their site.

No wonder thay are willing to offer bribes, sorry incentives, to you for every photographer you get to sign up.

Roy G

"Tesco News" wrote in message

Wow.

A whole 20 cents (US) per download of your work. (That is how much in real money 13 Pence UK ?)

Which is probably all they’re worth. These sites are the final refuge of hopefuls who were rejected by the proper stock agencies or who don’t have cameras capable of producing 50Mb TIFFs.

H

"Helen" wrote in message

"Tesco News" wrote in message

Wow.

A whole 20 cents (US) per download of your work. (That is how much in real money 13 Pence UK ?)

Which is probably all they’re worth. These sites are the final refuge of hopefuls who were rejected by the proper stock agencies or who don’t have cameras capable of producing 50Mb TIFFs.

H

AMEN to that
Never was a big fan of stock it cuts assignment photogs out of work but eventually I
went with a traditional type stock agency and the prices you get nowadays for pictures really suck. But $14.00 to use a photo in Indonesia still beats 20 cents. And I get to see who is using my pictures and the rights are being watched.

Sorry to the OP if some of us sound negative about these type sites. Many of us are really tired of hearing "do it for the glory, credit, your book", some of us are less than excited about getting our work sold for 20 cents when we know how much experience and knowledge it takes to make great images. We like to eat and have money for our bills too. We like to be compensated FAIRLY for our work, we do not like seeing poor quality photography sites that accept any anyone. It degrades our profession in general and creates unrealistic expectations for our clients. Photographers who offer such low-ball prices do a disservice to all of us.