It’s a pleasure to welcome back, Doug Jensen, from Vortex Media, a professional in the television and video production with over 35-years of experience working with major corporate clients. More recently, Doug has translated his extensive broadcasting experience towards achieving financial success as a stock footage contributor. Doug was interviewed on here just over two years ago and we’re happy to have him back to share fresh insight and tips.
Exclusive Offer – How to Make Money Shooting Stock Footage Master Class
Before we get started, we’re running an exclusive promotion here at the Brutally Honest Blog for Doug’s How to Make Money Shooting Stock Footage Master Class – see detailed review here and preview below:
-> 30% off the Stock Footage Course with the code “BRUTALLYHONEST2023″<-
- So, instead of
$150, it will cost you just $105 for valuable information that will take your stock footage sales to the next level, even in this difficult market.
Now, onto the interview – lets get started!
1. Last time ‘round I asked whether the smaller agencies are worth it, in your opinion, which you answered, “After investigating many of the other smaller agencies, and reading about other contributor’s results from them, I have concluded that only Shutterstock, Adobe, and Pond5 are the only ones worth bothering with.” Is this still the case, in other words, are there any interesting agencies that have popped up?
Hi Alex, thanks for reaching out to me again. It is always good to talk shop with fellow professionals, and I must say that I miss the old Shutterstock forum where we were able to converse more often.
I am unaware of any new agencies that have popped up in the last couple of years that would change my opinion that the “Big Three” agencies (Shutterstock, Adobe, Pond5) are the only ones worth bothering with. In fact, now that Pond5 has been eaten up by Shutterstock, maybe the “Big Three” are really now just the “Big Two.” After that merger, my sales at Pond5 have gradually trickled down to almost nothing. It is rare for me to get downloads from Pond5 anymore and, at this time, I have no plans to submit more footage to Pond5. Therefore, Shutterstock and Adobe are currently the only two agencies on my radar.
So, if I can’t make money at a big agency like Pond5, why would I expect to make money at any of the much smaller agencies? Yes, I might pick up a few dollars here and there, but would it be worth the effort I’d have to put into it? I don’t think so. I have a number of friends and colleagues who are also serious stock footage contributors, and not of them has ever told me they are making decent money from any of the smaller agencies. An exception might be if there was a small “boutique” agency that specialized in a certain type of content, and if I had a lot of that type of content, then maybe it might be worth giving them a try. For example, if there was an agency called ButterflyStock.com, which specialized in nothing but footage of butterflies, and I had a lot of butterfly footage, maybe I’d become a contributor. But I don’t have any specialized footage that would fit neatly within the subject matter at any of the small specialty shops.
2. Have you seen much change between SS, Adobe Stock and Pond5 in terms of your best-sellers? Is SS still your best-selling agency?
Yes, Shutterstock is still my best agency, and that is where I devote most of my attention. As I already said, Pond5 has taken a deep slide downwards since it was acquired by Shutterstock. The good news, however, is that Adobe has taken up a lot of that slack and the income gap between Shutterstock and Adobe has been narrowing. Adobe sales are coming up . . . and Shutterstock sales are going down, so eventually they might meet in the middle. It would not surprise me if a year or two from now most of my revenue comes from Adobe.
3. In terms of sales volumes and revenue, have you experienced a decrease in the past two years since our last interview?
If you define “sales volume” as being the total number of clips that are sold, then that number has remained fairly consistent since we last spoke. Unfortunately, my revenue, which is ultimately the metric that matters most, has dropped by more than 50% during that same time period. I attribute this to two things: First, Shutterstock made a lot of changes to their commission structure that have hurt contributors. And second, Shutterstock is really pushing customers towards a subscription-based sales model which results in overall lower pricing per clip — thus lower revenue for the contributors who created those clips.
Here’s how I see it: If a customer pays an agency $50, does it really matter to the agency whether that $50 covers a single download or a hundred downloads? $50 is $50 of income to the agency no matter how you slice it. But the agency didn’t put any effort whatsoever into shooting, editing, uploading, or creating the metadata, so they don’t really care whether that $50 covers one download or a hundred downloads. It’s still $50 of income (minus the commission) to their bottom line. But to the average contributor, it is devastating because we only get a very small slice of that $50 if the customer is downloading multiple files. The way the subscription model works, the more clips a customer downloads, the less money any individual contributor will get for their slice of the pie. The bottom line is that when you have agencies that are offering customers unlimited 4K and HD downloads for as little as $50 per month, who do you think loses? The contributor.
3a. I’m also reporting similar drop in earnings for my clips. Do you have any suggestions to offset this drop in earnings? I’ve been perusing your Shutterstock port and spotted this more lifestyle clip of a runner and another one of a cyclist.
It’s interesting that you’d link to that clip of the jogger’s feet. It’s not exactly a quality clip, and I’m not proud of it. To the best of my recollection, I don’t think it has ever been sold. It’s just something I happened to grab while I was shooting something else, so no planning or effort went into it. But I chose to submit it anyway because you can never predict which clips are going to sell and which clips are not. I have a lot of clips in my portfolio that I am not particularly proud of, but they earn money anyway, so I am glad I submitted them. In fact, I have some really unspectacular clips that have earned thousands of dollars and some really amazing clips that have earned nothing. The key is to create the best clips you can, add some effective metadata, and then step back and let the customers decide what to buy. Fortunately, after a clip sells once, the odds are in its favor that it will sell again . . . and again . . . and so on.
As you know, most of my clips have never sold a single time. 90% of my revenue probably comes from 10% of my portfolio which sells over and over again. It’d be great if I had a crystal ball and knew which 10% were going to make money so I didn’t have to submit the other 90%, but there’s no way to predict which clips will catch fire and which ones won’t. You just have to upload and see what sells over time.
Another point I want to make is that I don’t try to predict what type of content will be popular — and then go out and shoot that type of content. That is a fool’s errand. I got into stock footage in the first place because I was already going out and shooting stuff just for the fun of it, and stock footage was a way to monetize that footage. In other words, I shoot content that interests and challenges me. And if it earns money that is great, but I’m not going to go out and shoot stuff I don’t care about just because I think it might earn a buck. That is not my motivator. Revenue is just the icing on the cake.
3b. Are you experiencing roughly the same number of rejections?
I’ve been so busy during the past couple of years with other types of video/television work that I haven’t been submitting as much stock as I would like to. I think my backlog is now something like 6,500 4K clips that are edited, graded, and just awaiting metadata before I can submit them.
But with that said, I don’t think it is any harder than it used to be to get new submissions accepted. I get roughly the same percentage of rejections as I always have. However, the reason(s) for rejection are getting ridiculous. I think it is because AI is doing the reviews and AI is too stupid do know what the content really is. I shoot a lot of fires, rocket launches (lots of fire and smoke), stormy weather, sunset clouds, etc. that are all likely to get rejected for “noise”. Apparently, the AI system can’t tell the difference between unwanted noise and smoke, fire, fog, clouds, etc. that are integral to the image itself. And that is very frustrating for me due to the type of content I like to shoot.
However, for “normal” types of content, such as lifestyle shots, cities, traffic, aircraft, wildlife, etc. I don’t usually have too much trouble with approvals. When I do get an unjustified rejection, I usually resubmit the same clip under a different file name and at least 50% of those resubmissions are accepted — even though I made no changes to the clip or the metadata. That right there tells you how broken the review process is.
3c. With such a steep drop in earnings, is this still a viable side-hustle?
Oh yeah, no question about it. Even though my income is about half what it was three years ago, it is still well worth the time and effort. It is great to have a couple thousand dollars drop into my PayPal account every month for work I already did. Kind of like an author getting royalties for a book that was written and published long ago.
4. AI is all the rage these days and is already becoming a disrupting force in stock photography. In terms of footage, it’s still early days but do you foresee how AI may disrupt your earnings in the short and medium terms?
Maybe I am naïve, but I don’t think AI is going to put me out of business any time soon. If I was a still photographer, I might be very concerned, but I don’t submit photos, and I do not see AI being able to replicate the kind of 4K video content that I create. Subscription pricing, not AI, is the biggest threat to my income.
4a. Sticking to the theme of AI, have you tried the Topaz for video?
Nope. I’m sure Topaz is a good program, but in professional video/film/television production we use a program called DaVinci Resolve to process, color-grade, trim, and export video. It is a very sophisticated application and considered the industry standard for grading. Not only is it powerful and very fast to work with — but it is also free. If someone really wants to improve the quality of their submissions and streamline their workflow, I highly recommend learning Resolve. Not surprisingly, my Stock Footage master class devotes almost two hours teaching novices how to process their footage using Resolve.
5. Switching gears, do you recommend any new equipment that has been recently launched, especially for those with a smallish budget of under $2,000?
Not really. I think stuff like dollies, gimbals, external recorders, monitors, and other accessories are tempting to buy — but they won’t add much to the bottom line. There are only three core pieces of equipment you need to shoot excellent stock footage: A good 4K camera, a good lens or two, and a good fluid-head tripod. That’s it. It is more important WHAT you do with that equipment than what equipment you buy. The fanciest camera in the world won’t beat a cheaper one if the operator doesn’t know what the hell they are doing with it.
Fortunately, we live in an age when the prices of really good cameras have dropped to unbelievable levels. There are some really good mirrorless and cinema cameras that anyone who is serious about stock should be able to afford. I also recommend people consider buying a good used professional camera if they don’t have the budget for a newer model. There are some great deals to be had on older cameras that are still more than capable of producing excellent video.
5a. What’s your take on shooting in 8K, is it still overkill for microstock?
I have a camera that can shoot high-quality 10-bit 4:2:2 8K, but I never use it for 8K. First of all, there isn’t really a market for 8K stock footage, and I don’t think Shutterstock or Adobe even accepts 8K footage yet. 4K has barely gotten traction for stock, and now some people already want to push us to 8K. Well, don’t fall for the hype. I think 8K is a long way off from becoming mainstream.
Now, someone might argue that it is better to shoot 8K right now even if you only submit 4K today. That way, when 8K becomes mainstream you’ll have a whole portfolio of 8K clips to submit when the agencies decide to allow it. That is called futureproofing, and I’m not going to say that isn’t a valid plan, but it doesn’t take into account any issues you may run into when shooting in 8K. For example, a lot of the footage I submit, and most of my best-sellers, are 120 fps slow-motion — and I can’t shoot that kind of slow-motion in 8K. So therefore, I’m not going to shoot in 8K now. Ask me again in a year or two when we have better 8K cameras and customers are actually asking for 8K footage.
6. Any plans to create a new stock video master class? I learned tons from reviewing your course.
Thanks for asking, but probably not. The reason is because I don’t have anything new to say. Everything I taught in my master class is still just as valid today as it was when I produced it. Yes, the revenue I earn has gone down, but that is due to circumstances that are beyond our control. What we shoot; how we shoot; how we edit, grade and prep clips for uploading; how we create our metadata; and how we manage our portfolio is\ exactly the same.
The sooner someone gets serious about stock footage the sooner they will start building a nice portfolio that will bring in a steady stream of revenue for years and years. It’s just the opposite of how Hollywood works. A movie has to make a lot of money in the first couple of weeks after release or it is a flop, but with stock footage, we are planting seeds that will bear fruit for years and years — one download at a time.
7. Any plans for your microstock footage business in the new few years?
Yes, I need to take my own advice and devote more time and attention to stock. I am just as guiltily as anyone of pushing stock to the back burner whenever there is something more pressing to get done. But that is a mistake because when I add up how much I earn from stock footage — and divide that by how many hours I put into it — nothing I work on even comes close to being as profitable.
Thanks, Doug for your time and insight and wish you continued success.
About Alex
I’m an eccentric guy, currently based in Lisbon, Portugal, on a quest to visit all corners of the world and capture stock images & footage. I’ve devoted eight years to making it as a travel photographer / videographer and freelance writer. I hope to inspire others by showing an unique insight into a fascinating business model.
Most recently I’ve gone all in on submitting book cover images to Arcangel Images. Oh and also recently purchased a DJI Mavic 2s drone and taking full advantage and perhaps a Mavic 3 soon.
I’m proud to have written a book about my adventures which includes tips on making it as a stock travel photographer – Brutally Honest Guide to Microstock Photography
Alexandre Rotenberg's Brutally Honest Guide to Stock Photography & Footage 