Quality issues rejections are random and seemingly depend on whomever happens to review.

[defaultstcjrm0pqwnr]

Quick question to all: Getting ready to pull the plug on Adobe Stock and submit no further. Inconsistency is terrible. I see online some things that make you wonder and then high quality items get rejected, resubmitted and approved. I sell elsewhere and do better. 

So, is it time to move on from stock, selling for pennies on the dollar along with time and equipment expense? There is no ROI in this. 

Thanks.. 

[ricky336]

It is a good idea to actually sell photos that people want, having good quality on offer, and then you can do very well. Stock is about volume. You make money by having heaps of downloads! You then can get ROI!

[George_F]

Its no secret that Stock isn't as easy as it once was, like in the early 2000's as an example.  I think even in the past few years the bar for quality has risen as technology gets better and easier to use.

Sometimes a photo could for both ways of either being accepted or rejected, and with human reviewers I would expect some variation on those that are on the fence.  I have photos on Adobe that have been rejected by other agencies, I think this just comes with the territory.

Stock is a long game endeavor.  It's been well established that one needs a portfolio of between 500-5000 in demand assets to start seeing return.  I wouldn't expect flowers and sunsets to sell very well as those are popular categories and pretty saturated with photos.  Searches for them give millions of results.

I think it is up to every user to evaluate their needs and goals and decide if Stock is a good fit for them.  There are many benefits to Stock that weren't mentioned such as:

• The marketing and advertising are taken care of.
• A majority of the risk is with the Stock agency.
• The Stock agency takes care of the contracts.
• Handling the credit card processing is taken care of, and the actual collection of money is also taken care of.
• The back end web development is all taken care of.  It takes me days to set up even a WordPress site!
• The customer service is handled.  This is a big one for me, when I make a sale on my own I spend a considerable amount of time messaging with customers.  Complaints and Returns are also handled.

I personally like the additional sales Stock brings me along with the other revenue streams for my photos such as print sales.

I hope you find the right path forward 🙂

[Jill_C]

No one else can give you advice on this subject, because we don't know how much time you spend editing, key wording and titling images, what your acceptance/rejection rates are, what your sales are, etc. Nor can we know how much you've invested in your camera equipment. 

I think I can safely say that most of us regard Adobe Stock sales as passive income without any intent to justify it based on ROI. I do not shoot for stock, but I do cull my extensive archives for saleable images; so I'm monetizing images that I would have taken anyway (mostly from my travels around the world). I don't expect Stock sales to help repay the cost of my camera equipment. 

If you haven't decided to pull the plug yet on Adobe Stock, submit some of your best sellers here to other stock agencies to find out whether those other sites are more lucrative and easier to upload, keyword and title. On the other hand, if you already have some sellers on Adobe Stock, why not just leave them there? 

[Abambo]

Quick question back: is someone paying you for your shots? If yes, you submit for additional cash. If no, you shoot for hobby. In no case, there should be a ROI question. Only if you shoot exclusively for stock, you need to be careful to get the correct image at the right time.

[defaultstcjrm0pqwnr]

Thanks. This is side work but have several irons in the fire. So hoping to get some better cadence on sales. Portfolio is mixed content but I dont chase trends for lack of having that much time. I get it on ROI as a whole. Thanks

[Nancy OShea]

ROI 🤣  Surely you jest.  At best & under ideal conditions, Stock Photography is a side hustle. 

If you take winning photos that people want and commit about 4 hours/week to Stock,  there's no reason you can't make a tidy side income from it.  But it takes time to develop a killer  portfolio.  It doesn't happen in a few weeks or even months.  It takes a year or longer to find your artistic style and develop a winning strategy that works for you.

Meanwhile, don't quit your day job.   😉 

Best of luck!

[defaultstcjrm0pqwnr]

Thanks. Yes, ROI is likely not real. I am on Shutterstock too and do better. I've noticed on Insights that most top sellers seems to have lots of people shots, backgrounds (like Powerpoint blanks), and shots that are hard to believe (like NASA shots/space shots - really, those are original to the contributor?). Will start thinking of doing different content but seems like flooded market. 

[Nancy OShea]

...and shots that are hard to believe (like NASA shots/space shots - really, those are original to the contributor?).

By @defaultstcjrm0pqwnr

=========

Check the license.  It might be for EDITORIAL USE ONLY.

[Abambo]

I am on Shutterstock too and do better.

By @defaultstcjrm0pqwnr

Shutterstock pays less per sale.