With the latest update to its Penguin algorithm, Google has sunk the entire stock market.
As you noticed sales have dropped dramatically in the past few weeks(almost on all agencies) and all i can see it is a huge buzz in the stock marketing world.

Most agencies are trying a new look more friendly for their "daddy" google , others have already operated a sum of changes and comfortable waiting their Daddy's to send them clients...
At this moment I see chaos all over the place and I don't know when things will rearrange.

What do you think?

There are many changes that google made to its Penguin algorithm (search engine)...But I can give you two examples which effects ALL agencies:
1: all sites with "duplicate content" = Google's penalty (i think this is a huge problem for all agencies, since all agencies have duplicate content)
2. all sites which r not "mobile friendly" = Google's penalty (this type of problem can be solved with a new look, but it takes time "months" to regain the position you lost it in google)

Interesting opinion Suliman. You may be even right about that. But, does it really affect all agencies?

Shouldn�t at least one, that is considered by Google algorithm as the source of original content, actually receive all that traffic, the other agencies lost? I mean, there are no empty spaces in SERP and never will be, no matter what types of Penguin algorithms come, so if position of some website is lost, the other website will take its place. Thus, I guess at least one agency will be always considered as the source of original content, even if it is not, otherwise there wouldn�t be any sources of stock images for sale, e.g. agencies, shown in SERP. That's unlikely to happen.

Btw. It would be ideal if author's personal portfolio websites could be qualified/verified somehow as the source of the original content in eyes of Google or other search engines, so that they could be seated on first positions in SERP, surpassing all other websites where the same images are available, but I guess that's just the pure utopia.

"Most serious microstock buyers don't use Google to search for an image to buy"

Yes, i think u're right but what about the other buyers ? For example i'm a seroius buyer and i have a favorite agency to buy from.
5 years ago i searched in google to find it , until then I did not know of its existence...
From what I read on forums, sales that are made through search engines r kinda 50% to an average agency.

With the latest update to its Penguin algorithm, Google has sunk the entire stock market.

So if it has sunk the entire stock market equally, where are buyers buying from now?

ShadySue , there r many small and medium agencies with sales (exceeding 50%) made through Google/search engines

You state that as if it were a fact, but with no evidence offered to back it up.
But I see now you've moderated the sweeping 'entire stock market' statement to 'small and medium' agencies.

The sites must get a lot of business from google or they wouldn't be bending over backwards to keep them happy.  I wish more people would use alternatives to google.  Almost everyone using the same search engine all the time is going to cause problems.  Competition is good.

ShadySue , and if it is not so important "the search engine"  ... how can u explain the new look of those from fotolia and depositphotos, once Google announced new changes to their Search Engine ?? - all the people knew they were not mobile friendly.

That's more or less a straw man argument.
Equivalent to this:
"Rhino horn is not an aphrodisiac. It's made of keratin like our fingernails."
"Then why are the Chinese spending huge sums of money to poach rhinos to grind their horn into aphrodisiacs?"

Even if your contention was correct, then Fotolia and DP must be pulling in all the new buyers. Does the evidence support that?

And by the way not all the people,newspapers,magazines,studios...etc, in the world know about stock agencies (know about the word "stock")
Many of those people r searching as simple as posible "businessman or cat or europe" and are well-intentioned and potentially.

I'm pretty certain (with no more evidence than you're presenting) that most newspapers, magazines and studios do know about stock agencies. Apart from those who just steal.
If people don't know about stock agencies, or the term 'stock image' (or the equivalent in other languages, as relevant) how would they know about licensing images?

Is your argument, so far totally unverified, that people who Google wanting to license images, wanting to buy them, can't find any images to license?
If you do a google images search on 'businessman', the top images are nearly all stock photos, 'in use'. However, after just a few lines, there are stock images directly from the agencies.

Well, I'm cleared with your knowledge of SEO... When you'll show me an agency (or any other site) that is not dependent on search engines and doing sales...
i'll believe u.

Quote from: Suliman Razvan on May 27, 2015, 10:25

ShadySue , there r many small and medium agencies with sales (exceeding 50%) made through Google/search engines

You state that as if it were a fact, but with no evidence offered to back it up.
But I see now you've moderated the sweeping 'entire stock market' statement to 'small and medium' agencies.

Well I seriously doubt that agencies would be ready to reveal the info about where from are their buyers coming from that we would be consider "evidence"

But for example FAA officially claimed in a forum post I red recently that majority of their sales are happening from google.

Clearly thats not the same niche but i wouldn't be surprise if nice cut of microstock sales happening from google especially in credit sales or EL.

I can imagine situation the someone see an image on google images follows the link and licences the image and I can also accept the possibility that it happens more often than I would guess.

 

Quote from: Lizard on May 27, 2015, 11:36

But for example FAA officially claimed in a forum post I red recently that majority of their sales are happening from google.

That wouldn't surprise me in the least - like you say, it's a totally different market* - though usually their forum claims that most sales are from artists' direct marketing.
BTW, FAA has really dropped in SEO recently. Time was that just about any 'representable' noun had at least one FAA page or file in the first Google page. Not now.

*"I'd like to buy a painting of a horse" isn't really the same as "I need to license an image of a horse".

I'm not saying that no images are licensed via Google, I'm saying that I don't think it's a high percentage. It's just agencies juggling for who will attract any 'new' licencees (if that's the word).

Yes, I basically agree with you just saying I wouldn't be surprised if I'm wrong because my opinion is based on my personal perception and not on clear facts so I leve the doors open to a possibility that google influences sales in higher % than i would guess.

And by the way not all the people,newspapers,magazines,studios...etc, in the world know about stock agencies (know about the word "stock")

How would they find an image to license if they just type in a word?
How would they know which of all the images they'll find is licensable? If they don't know about stock agencies, what would make them somehow know that seeing 'iStock' or 'Shutterstock' or any of the others as watermarks would mean they were available to licence?
If they don't know about stock agencies, they won't recognise the watermarks, or know that certain watermarks means licensable, though others don't.

And, BTW, Google has no interest in licensing. I was a sighted guide at an RNIB technology conference in September. One of the sessions was by Google. I was in a sort of 'ante-room' during the sessions, and I heard them describing all sorts of accessibility features, but I couldn't actually see what they were demonstrating. One section was about DTP, and I heard the speaker say, '...then you just do a google image search for an image and when you've found the one you want (aside: some of the delegates were partially sighted, so that wasn't as odd as it might seem) insert it like this ..." Not one word about checking copyright. That was just it. Find an image on Google and use it.

That'll be fine then! I'll see them in court.
Seriously I've thought for a long time now that most sales are going to professional / business buyers who want "safe", licensable content.
No proof of course, but the uses I find point that way.
So that would mean buyers searching on sites where they know the content is safe and licensable. . .
 

I ve sold 33 images on SS today. The stock world didn't come to an end then?

Quote from: Semmick Photo on May 27, 2015, 15:14

I ve sold 33 images on SS today. The stock world didn't come to an end then?

I just went to see how many I have sold today, and I get an Unable to Connect error page. 

It's not just you! http://submit.shutterstock.com looks down from here.

I just opened a thread about it

This is my last comment to ShadySue and others who got it totally wrong. When i said "entire stock market" I have not referred only to photography, there r various artists selling video clips, audio clips, vectors, AE & motion templates, CG and so on ...not all these artists sell through subscription program (or any other program),many of them opt out. I personally sell my clips and CG directly at a rate of 60 %, the other 40 % coming from subscription programs.

That's why I said that many of us depend on Google/search engines, even agencies. I have friends who have created all sorts of demos (clips, Ae templates ,CG's) and uploaded them to youtube for a greater visual impact and to attract direct clients.
I don't believe in the phrase " serious microstock buyers " for me r just buyers and they are all over the world.

If start a new thread, then the topic is up for discussion. That's what forums are for surely?
Not everyone is going to agree with you.
Particularly if you didn't make your point 100% clear to start with.

There are many changes that google made to its Penguin algorithm (search engine)...But I can give you two examples which effects ALL agencies:
1: all sites with "duplicate content" = Google's penalty (i think this is a huge problem for all agencies, since all agencies have duplicate content)
2. all sites which r not "mobile friendly" = Google's penalty (this type of problem can be solved with a new look, but it takes time "months" to regain the position you lost it in google)

Duplicate content has been penalized for years ... it's kind of ... their way of keeping up with re-bloggers.

Also, mobile ready sites have always been given priority ... on mobile devices ... I don't know if you know this or not but, Google developed the android operating system, and Chrome ... having a site data that displays well on all devices and browsers is just ... a given.

Dallas , i don't know if u have a site of u're own or if u manage one....but i do and it has just one problem : it is not mobile friendly.
Do u want to know when google announced me that I will be penalized ?
18.03.2015 i received that msg from google...not in 2014 or 2013, and I felt on my skin what that means.

Looks like there has been a recent update to Penguin as well as the change that strongly favors mobile websites, these recent changes at Google could be the main cause of low sales and clipviews in the last two months that everyone including myself have been complaining about.  I started digging deeper when I was reading comments about low to no sales in all forums, dated recently and not just video but stills as well.

As we can see from the basic Alexa site, a LOT of views come from the Google search engine, sites like the ones we use would stand to take a Google penalty on duplicate content I would thing, my specially is mostly weather, all kinds of weather and then I have a ton of on-campus events plus a little bit of everything else and I've uploaded batches and batches of content with the same titles descriptions and keywords, sure others have as well.  This might be ok with the site's internal search engine but not to Google.    This might be what we are up against.

I think we all need to learn SEO real quick and set up as much external promotion as possible but be carefully not to make it spammy or Google will ignore that as well, it's a lot to learn real fast that's for sure and I am one of them who until recently has no clue about all of this.

My clip views have dropped more than 50% in recent weeks, sales as well and on the site I used I practically own all things weather and on campus related, it's not that I have a lot of competition yet everything just came to a stop with the exeption of this week, severe weather sale resumed quite spectacularly for a couple of days but I suspect that one one customer buying multiple clips and it was strictly my severe cold and snow content.

ttp://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/pond5.com [nofollow]

http://www.pond5.com/artist/WeatherENG [nofollow]

google giveth and google taketh away.

especially for the smaller sites I bet google search is pretty important - supposedly the last round of changes pretty much sunk GL.

It would be good to be able to improve SEO for our images, but why we'd want to do that for IS, FT, SS, or any of the big players that take the biggest chunks is beyond me. It would be definitely worth doing it if you have your own site though. Also maybe for P5 or similar.

The biggest problem is that what might help you now might hurt you later. So unless you are willing to go back and change things each time google changes it is probably best to just have accurate and descriptive titles, keywords, etc.

Dallas , i don't know if u have a site of u're own or if u manage one....but i do and it has just one problem : it is not mobile friendly.
Do u want to know when google announced me that I will be penalized ?
18.03.2015 i received that msg from google...not in 2014 or 2013, and I felt on my skin what that means.

I did get the message ... and I can't say that my sites couldn't use an update but, at least the important one is mobile friendly.

How did people get the messages from Google? I have a personal website which is essentially moribund, and one I manage for others, which is 'dormant', and no message from Google on either. No note for my husband's site either.
None of these are selling anything; maybe that's why?

ShadySue for the beginning try google webmaster tools, add a property(website) if u have one...Google will verify if you are the owner of the property and it will give u details about u're property(site layout,indexing status,etc) and also other messages )))

Oh, thanks; I thought you meant they'd sent you an email or something.
I don't go there, as none of my sites are currently being updated.

In order to access Google Webmaster Tools u need a gmail account. They r linked, so when google send u a msg through Google Webmaster Tools, that message is redirected to your gmail account too.

Right, but I don't need Google Webmaster Tools ATM. I understand how you got the message, though, I just misunderstood and thought Google had sent you an email out of the blue to tell you your site wasn't 'right' for their current SEO preference.

Quote from: Suliman Razvan on May 28, 2015, 17:24

In order to access Google Webmaster Tools u need a gmail account. They r linked, so when google send u a msg through Google Webmaster Tools, that message is redirected to your gmail account too.

a gmail account isn't required anymore, a google account is ... all of your google stuff basically ends up synced though ... (especially if you're using Chrome) they know absolutely everything about you. Webmaster, analytics, adsense and even your g+ page pretty much end up being a big cluster of ... googliness?

and use an android ... even worse ... lol

jeepers creepers , yes it works perfectly with any mail account ....better gmail 

btw - google started Google Photos - for now Instagram or Flickr can be affected, then will see

Ugh!  Now I hear the JAWS music starting in the background.

from the very start google's model was all about leeching and profiting from someone else content giving nothing back apart the inclusion of their links in google's serps and ranks which for a while it happened to be a good thing but nowadays it's backfiring considering there's so much content around that it became dime a dozen in the eyes of the average users and that's exactly why you have to pay to see your brand on top of their search results !

yes...seems this site went 'live' in April 2015....
But is it different from the others? You upload stuff and get paid when it is downloaded (without them taking a huge percentage).
I'm sure I'm missing something....and will put my tin hat on.....

]

Seems they have a large collection of free content and then a paid marketplace, so if someone can't find what they are looking for in their free library they can go look in the paid section and then the customer pays for individual files they download.

Except for short term promotions to lure customers, I don't believe in giving away products for free unless it's to a legitimate charity, in the case of video, if a charity was producing a gripping PSA on the dire needs of the homeless and could not afford to buy video then I would consider giving away a clip but otherwise no, no. No free product.

M

http://www.pond5.com/stock-video-footage-sound-effects-music-after-effects-photos-illustrations-images-3d-models/1/artist%3AWeatherENG.html#1

http://www.pond5.com/artist/WeatherENG

Just licensed an RM image this morning via Photoshelter and asked the buyer how he found it: Google.
I had it priced for sale but not for the use he wanted so he emailed me to purchase the proper license. Many people use google to find images - if they find them for sale, fortunately the honest ones buy (license) them.

I'm sure many new buyers find SS or DT or iS the first time via a google search.

Slightly OT, do you get regular sales through Photoshelter?  Do they have pretty good SEO? 

I am getting NO sales for months on my own site.  Don't have the time to invest in SEO for thousands of images.  I've been considering Photoshelter and wondered if it might attract more buyers. 

Quote from: Suliman Razvan on May 27, 2015, 08:06

With the latest update to its Penguin algorithm, Google has sunk the entire stock market.
(...)
Most agencies are trying a new look more friendly for their "daddy" google , others have already operated a sum of changes and
(...)
What do you think?

Google has not sunk just the stock image market but these b*stards sink everything they get their bloody hands on. And while they're at it, they kind-of dictate how websites ought to look: "responsive" being the latest craze now. Arrrrrgh. As if people started to, all of a sudden, ditch their comfortable desktops and workplace PCs and workstations just in order to jerk it on a "smartphone" or equally "smart" tablet or the like.

You are spot on @Suliman Razvan, this sssucks beyond belief, and being the user-unfriendly greedy corporation they are, Google are in bed with the US govt at the same time feeding "Big Brother" in a way George Orwell would never have thought possible (particularly the NSA and DHS, just read the horror stories of SWAT teams barging through your door after "googling" this or that)...

At the same time, Google are doing a very mediocre job at their supposed*) core business (search), if you look at it more closely -- or is anyone here satisfied with the "results" they serve when you search for some "image of xyz"?!

It seems about time the market demands a replacement for this exploitative corporation and their "services". Yes, there are Alexa (with their own problems) or Duck-Duck-Go and Yandex, but a nicer layout and certain novel features are what's also needed. What do you guys think?
---
*) because they are actually an Advertising agency, I know, but...

I agree with a lot of what you say. I do I search now and half the time end up with useless listings from yellow pages or smoother 2nd or 3rd tier site. How is this useful? The "new look" that's out there has gotten old really quickly. Every thing looks the same. How can so much brain power produce such banal crap?

   I think there is a flaw in your theory. Most serious microstock buyers don't use Google to search for an image to buy. They use their favorite agency. In fact, most of the big advertising agencies have contracts with Shutterstock, iStock, Dreamstime, etc. The search results for an image within the agency, doesn't involve Google.

whether *serious* or not -- microstock buyers, or in fact ALL image buyers, deserve a whole lot better than what Google and other present-day search engines are offering!

Like with microstock specifically, a new approach is needed with reasonable image search in general. Nobody wants to get swamped by millions of "hits" that turn out to be nothing more than garbage and time-wasters. Just think about an editor and how pissed they must be working with "tools" like Google listing everything as a hit regardless of you looked for that kind of image or not.