SS off to a rapid start out the blocks in 2012 for anyone else?

[Zephyr]

Hmmm....Anonymous people will say anything around here.  

Below is an example what an average day at SS looks like, I mean the ratio between subs, ODs, SODs and ELs. RPD is 88c, if I got an EL (which I obviously haven't) results wouldn't be as realistic. So if you count in the occasional ELs and you have lots of ODs and SODs (procentually), you could get RPD over 1$. Not to mention the volume that's so much higher at SS.

DLs   subs   ODs                                                             SOD   Daily earnings
32    9.36    13.50    -    -    -    -    -    -    -    5.32    $28.18

I get it. I just find it hard to believe that Herg is shocked that his/her 11 downloads has only amounted to $2.75 ( $.25 /subs) at SS. I don't understand how you can upload 300+ images to IS, become exclusive, then drop exclusivity and upload 300+ images to SS without ever knowing that subs pay 25 cents.

[disorderly]

I get it. I just find it hard to believe that Herg is shocked that his/her 11 downloads has only amounted to $2.75 ( $.25 /subs) at SS. I don't understand how you can upload 300+ images to IS, become exclusive, then drop exclusivity and upload 300+ images to SS without ever knowing that subs pay 25 cents.

I assume he knew that, but was expecting hundreds of downloads in compensation.  The whining isn't about RPD; it's about R.  And if it were me (and I've certainly been in that situation with just about every agency at the beginning), I'd be wondering if it's something I'm doing wrong and how I might improve the situation.  Either his content isn't good enough or unique enough or flashy enough to get buyers' attention right off the bat, or his keywords or subject matter were particularly optimized for iStock and not so good elsewhere, or maybe it's a third situation I haven't considered.  The point is that many of us do incredibly well at Shutterstock compared to other sites.  If Herg doesn't, perhaps the problem isn't with the agency.  In any event, the constant whining isn't going to solve anything.  All it does is wear out his welcome among those of us who might sympathize or offer advice or both.

[Zephyr]

or maybe it's a third situation I haven't considered.

Well maybe Herg is legit or not. Who knows? If not, that is smart spin. If so, I apologize Herg.

ETA: Deleted the rest. It doesn't matter either way.

[Pixart]

Did anyone ask Herg how long the span was before you submitted the 300 photos and before they went live?  If you submitted them for approval, and then waited 30 days to end exclusivity the photos would be 30 days old wouldn't they and not at the fresh end of the buyers?   I don't know the answer for sure, but isn't this likely what happened?  Are you still uploading?

[heywoody]

Notwithstanding Stockmarketer is an obvious player based on the "dials" and I'm a hobbyist who does pictures for fun (where test images and components of the real picture generally sell better than the end product), I totally agree.  I actually get around 3 times the dls @ double the rpd at IS per image than even at SS so, even though they hate my stuff, I won�t be deleting my few images and do submit the odd new one.

[RacePhoto]

You really averaged $2 a download on IS? Then maybe you shouldn't have left, because all it would have taken was figuring out what you just did. It takes 8 downloads on SS to equal that.

I've read lots of posts here where people say they are averaging over $0.50/DL on SS (with PPD, ELs, etc., figured in).

Also, $2/DL as an IS exclusive would be terrible. My sales average well over that, and I'm on the very low end of the scale from what I've seen.

Fair enough comparing IS exclusive (with nothing on ThinkStock!) to Non-Exclusive. Keep in mind some very good people here have had 12c downloads on IS, which is not $2 and is a really poor value.

As a Non I averaged 61c a download on IS for 2011, 36c a download on SS - but had twice as many downloads on SS, so I actually made more on SS. (but that's just me, others may vary) $80 a download on Alamy and earned more than IS and SS put together. Also because of what I have there which is not RF and not on any micro site. It's really not a fair comparison. Just points out the flaw of RPD as a measure, there are all kinds of variables involved.

So the point of $2 downloads may be interesting, but if you don't get the same volume, it's meaningless. Same goes for Alamy, where I'm a little unusual. Most people here make more on Microstock. However I wanted to point out that the RPD is $80 which looks great, but it's only marginally better bottom line than what I make on IS and SS combined.

I've never been an IS exclusive and probably never will be. But if the average is $2 a download, and your sales were like mine last year, where I dropped half the number from 2010, RPD is just a number?

How did your total earnings change from 2010 to 2011? Not asking specifics, but just bottom line percentage. Were they up or down?

Everyone here has pointed out over and over that someone giving up exclusive should expect at least six months of lower earnings and maybe a year, on the top four to six sites, before they can recover to the same level as before they left IS exclusive. It doesn't happen the first week. 

ps I made $1.35 per download with IS in 2009. It just keeps dropping.

Nothing wrong with exclusives. It looks like a good way to keep things in order and control distribution. Also no fooling with all the variations and different sites. Pays a better percentage. The only disadvantage I can see (minus politics and side issues) is sales are dropping and commissions are being reduced. On a pure economic evaluation, less income, after years invested into the agency, would be discouraging.

[Phadrea]

Today I had one download at IS for $2.55 as unexclusive.

[wut]

Today I had one download at IS for $2.55 as unexclusive.

Imagine what you would have made as exclusive

[lisafx]

Today I had one download at IS for $2.55 as unexclusive.

Sorry to hear you are not happy with SS Herg.  As was already suggested, your keywording will need to be reworked for non-exclusivity, or your pictures aren't likely to see the light of day in many relevant searches.  

Also, while 300 images might once have brought decent returns at Istock, I imagine it doesn't anymore or you would have remained exclusive.  These days, with libraries nearing 10 million images or more, you need a larger portfolio to see significant money.  This is even more true in a subscription model than in PPD model like Istock.  Hopefully these are all things you considered carefully before dropping the crown.  

[traveler1116]

Today I had one download at IS for $2.55 as unexclusive.

Sorry to hear you are not happy with SS Herg.  As was already suggested, your keywording will need to be reworked for non-exclusivity, or your pictures aren't likely to see the light of day in many relevant searches.  

Also, while 300 images might once have brought decent returns at Istock, I imagine it doesn't anymore or you would have remained exclusive.  These days, with libraries nearing 10 million images or more, you need a larger portfolio to see significant money.  This is even more true in a subscription model than in PPD model like Istock.  Hopefully these are all things you considered carefully before dropping the crown.  

You mean nearing 18 million.  That's a lot of images, I remember way back when....

[lisafx]

You mean nearing 18 million.  That's a lot of images, I remember way back when....

Wow.  Things are moving fast.  I should have checked the latest numbers before posting, although I figured "or more" should cover it.  300 pics out of 18 million is not enough to get much attention - particularly if keyworded in the Istockcentric way. 

[Phadrea]

Today I had one download at IS for $2.55 as unexclusive.

Sorry to hear you are not happy with SS Herg.  As was already suggested, your keywording will need to be reworked for non-exclusivity, or your pictures aren't likely to see the light of day in many relevant searches.  

Also, while 300 images might once have brought decent returns at Istock, I imagine it doesn't anymore or you would have remained exclusive.  These days, with libraries nearing 10 million images or more, you need a larger portfolio to see significant money.  This is even more true in a subscription model than in PPD model like Istock.  Hopefully these are all things you considered carefully before dropping the crown.  

Why would my keywording need to be re-worked when I have keyed in relevant keywords? Not sure what you mean by that but I will have a good look at other people's keywords to see what I am missing.

As for IS, I have said earlier quite a few times that I wasn't getting the downloads to warrant staying exclusive. My main earnings there are from audio. I also have 800 or so images at IS but only 357 got onto SS. People say that even with a tenth of the images on SS compared to IS, they make more money than IS. I am yet to be convinced. So far, I have made more money for my images at IS than SS.

[disorderly]

Why would my keywording need to be re-worked when I have keyed in relevant keywords? Not sure what you mean by that but I will have a good look at other people's keywords to see what I am missing.

I haven't looked at your images, so this is an educated guess based on my own experience.  I always submitted to Shutterstock first, so my keywords were oriented toward them.  For a photo of an attractive woman I use words like: woman; female; girl; young; pretty; beautiful; beauty; gorgeous; attractive; lovely; sexy.  But by the time I got to iStock, many of these words disappear into the controlled vocabulary.  Pretty, beautiful, beauty, gorgeous, attractive all map to beauty.  If I were exclusive on iStock I'd just use that one word instead of all the synonyms.  But other sites don't do that conversion, so including lots of synonyms improves my chances of appearing in a search.  Clients don't adapt to the search at Shutterstock, the search doesn't adapt as much to the clients, so we have to select keywords that a client might use.

[wut]

But checking the keywords used, they usually use just the most basic ones. A photo usually has to have hundreds of DLs in order for them to use more than a quarter of keywords at least once. It makes a difference, but certainly not to the extend Herg is reporting. IN other words, he wouldn't get 100+ DLs from almost 400 photos instead of just 8. He'd probably make a couple more and that's it. There must be something wrong with his content, because it shows up in searches etc. It could be just outdated or he's not offering what the buyers need at SS. I came across quite a few exclusive diamonds, that I'm absolutely sure they wouldn't hit 4 figures at all sites combined, because their content is just so bad, outdated, up to 2004/2005 standards if you know what I mean. They still sell well at IS, because their files have good search positions, but if they went unexclusive they'd burn. I mean who's even buying simple isolated shots of fruit&vegetables, Grand Canyon landscapes, badly composed, boring and cheesy isolated ppl (especially if they're using old tech, outdated phones, laptops etc). You'd need to have at least 3-4k port to make 1k/month at 10+ sites and you wouldn't make it in the first few months anyway.

[heywoody]

True, but coming from the controlled vocab, a lot of these obvious and relevant to search keywords won't be there...

[JPSDK]

I have tried all kinds of keyword strategies.
It really makes no difference as long as the basic are there. If you forget an important one, it does matter. But it doesnt matter if you type in beautiful or vibrant or other even worse spam keywords. Its my experience that buyers mostly search for concrete keywords and eventually colours.
Like  Crane + yellow+ truck

[disorderly]

I have tried all kinds of keyword strategies.
It really makes no difference as long as the basic are there. If you forget an important one, it does matter. But it doesnt matter if you type in beautiful or vibrant or other even worse spam keywords. Its my experience that buyers mostly search for concrete keywords and eventually colours.
Like  Crane + yellow+ truck

My experience is different, and I have some data from Shutterstock to back it up.  Their Image Gallery Stats pages will tell you what percentage of which keywords were used to find each image.  For one image I note that the word "naked" was used 21% of the time, with "nude" and "topless" used 14% each.  "Woman" occurred 7% of the time, and so did "girl".  That suggests that if I had just used "naked" and skipped the others, I'd have missed out on a bunch of downloads, and the same with "girl" vs. "woman" vs "female".  There's a tradeoff somewhere in the number and obscurity of keywords vs. how many additional downloads they'll produce, but the minimum without synonyms is on the wrong side of that.

[Karimala]

Did anyone ask Herg how long the span was before you submitted the 300 photos and before they went live?  If you submitted them for approval, and then waited 30 days to end exclusivity the photos would be 30 days old wouldn't they and not at the fresh end of the buyers?   I don't know the answer for sure, but isn't this likely what happened?  Are you still uploading?

I think you might be right.  If the images sat there for 30 days while Herg waited for exclusivity to end, they most definitely would have missed the "newest first" boost.  Images are assigned their ID numbers before submission, not after.  I've uploaded images and let them sit almost a month before actually submitting them, and they were immediately buried. 

[wut]

I've uploaded images and let them sit almost a month before actually submitting them, and they were immediately buried. 

Now I can understand why the second part of a series I uploaded doesn't sell well, while it's not difference in the quality of the photos (I submitted them randomly, I just didn't want to submit too many similar), and I got 7 sales or so in the first day of the first half of the batch, while I got the same number during the whole week for the second part of the batch. And I submitted them just a week apart 

[wut]

I just checked it, and it's a good thing what Karimala said isn't true. Image ID's are totally different, it looks that this week wasn't as strong for this type of photos than the last. I feel better already, I'd feel pretty bad if the images were buried because I made a mistake

[Karimala]

I just checked it, and it's a good thing what Karimala said isn't true. Image ID's are totally different, it looks that this week wasn't as strong for this type of photos than the last. I feel better already, I'd feel pretty bad if the images were buried because I made a mistake

Um...what I said was 100% true in my situation.

[wut]

I just checked it, and it's a good thing what Karimala said isn't true. Image ID's are totally different, it looks that this week wasn't as strong for this type of photos than the last. I feel better already, I'd feel pretty bad if the images were buried because I made a mistake

Um...what I said was 100% true in my situation.

Well I guess it was some kind of glitch then. It makes absolutely no sense, it's not logical for a file being given an ID if it wasn't even submitted for inspection. I also checked the search results, I used specific multiple search terms and the first set was on the 4th page, the second was on the 2nd, as it should be according to image IDs. Can you recheck it, you might have remembered it incorrectly if it happened a while ago (it happens to everyone)

[lisafx]

Today I had one download at IS for $2.55 as unexclusive.

Sorry to hear you are not happy with SS Herg.  As was already suggested, your keywording will need to be reworked for non-exclusivity, or your pictures aren't likely to see the light of day in many relevant searches.  

Also, while 300 images might once have brought decent returns at Istock, I imagine it doesn't anymore or you would have remained exclusive.  These days, with libraries nearing 10 million images or more, you need a larger portfolio to see significant money.  This is even more true in a subscription model than in PPD model like Istock.  Hopefully these are all things you considered carefully before dropping the crown.  

Why would my keywording need to be re-worked when I have keyed in relevant keywords? Not sure what you mean by that but I will have a good look at other people's keywords to see what I am missing.

As I mentioned above, keywording has already been discussed two pages ago. http://www.microstockgroup.com/shutterstock-com/ss-off-to-a-rapid-start-out-the-blocks-in-2012-for-anyone-else/msg238022/#msg238022 Not sure why you are reacting as though this suggestion is a new one.

Disorderly has taken the time in three posts now to explain the differences between keywording for Istock's CV and for other sites.  I can't really improve on what he's laid out.  It's good info.  It's relevant.  It will help you if you give it a shot.  

[Phadrea]

A few more downloads today so it's on the up 

[Karimala]

I just checked it, and it's a good thing what Karimala said isn't true. Image ID's are totally different, it looks that this week wasn't as strong for this type of photos than the last. I feel better already, I'd feel pretty bad if the images were buried because I made a mistake

Um...what I said was 100% true in my situation.

Well I guess it was some kind of glitch then. It makes absolutely no sense, it's not logical for a file being given an ID if it wasn't even submitted for inspection. I also checked the search results, I used specific multiple search terms and the first set was on the 4th page, the second was on the 2nd, as it should be according to image IDs. Can you recheck it, you might have remembered it incorrectly if it happened a while ago (it happens to everyone)

Maybe SS changed it, I don't know.  I haven't uploaded in a long time.  But it used to be that file IDs were assigned upon order of upload received, not order of submission.  Same at LuckyOliver where I was a reviewer, and same at StockXpert.