MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: New photos = no sales  (Read 15930 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Dook

« Reply #25 on: March 24, 2015, 14:28 »
-1
I'm not sure. I think the definition of "new" is constant (which we don't know what exactly means, one month old, two..), and what are you changing is the period of time you are looking at of  its performance.
Which then compared to Overall earnings in the same period of time can give you some valuable information.
At least, that's how I've looked at these graphs all these years :-[
« Last Edit: March 24, 2015, 14:32 by Dook »


ultimagina

« Reply #26 on: March 24, 2015, 14:37 »
+4
I'm not sure. I think the definition of "new" is constant (which we don't know what exactly means, one month old, two..), and what are you changing is the period of time you are looking at of  its performance.
Which then compared to Overall earnings in the same period of time can give you some valuable information.

When you select "Overall Earnings -> last 3 months", you obviously see the sales you had, during the last 3 months,  for all your stuff, regardless of its age.
When you select "Earnings from New Content -> content submitted last 3 months", you only see how much you sold, during the last 3 months, from the content you have submitted during the last 3 months, as the name of graph obviously tells you.

When you select "Overall Earnings -> last 2 years", you obviously see the sales you had, during the last 2 years, for all your stuff, regardless of its age.
When you select "Earnings from New Content -> content submitted last 2 years", you only see how much you sold, during the last 2 years, from the content you have submitted during the last 2 years, as the name of graph obviously tells you.

You define what "new" means
« Last Edit: March 24, 2015, 14:51 by ultimagaina »

Dook

« Reply #27 on: March 24, 2015, 14:50 »
-4
I don't agree, sorry.
You don't define what new means. What would be the point of Overall earnings graph if you define the  Earnings from new content the way you described. It doesn't make sense.

ultimagina

« Reply #28 on: March 24, 2015, 14:52 »
+4
I don't agree, sorry.
You don't define what new means. What would be the point of Overall earnings graph if you define the  Earnings from new content the way you described. It doesn't make sense.

If you are a less than 2 years old contributor, the 2 graphs are identical, when you select 2 years, on both.
This can't happen in your scenario.


« Last Edit: March 24, 2015, 15:00 by ultimagaina »

Dook

« Reply #29 on: March 24, 2015, 14:56 »
-2
Are they? Didn't know this, sorry! Why didn't you tell me that before, we could save a lot of time and energy.

ultimagina

« Reply #30 on: March 24, 2015, 15:00 »
+1
Are they? Didn't know this, sorry! Why didn't you tell me that before, we could save a lot of time and energy.

They are identical, indeed.
« Last Edit: March 24, 2015, 15:19 by ultimagaina »

Semmick Photo

« Reply #31 on: March 24, 2015, 16:06 »
0
The experience of anonymous people is difficult to weigh as we have no idea of how big or small your portfolio is or how long you have been contributor.

He said he's been with SS since 2005.
I wasnt referring to the OP

ultimagina

« Reply #32 on: March 24, 2015, 16:45 »
0
Here is the number of sales for my latest uploads, taken from the first page of the image gallery stats:
0, 0, 0, 2, 3, 11, 3, 1, 7, 1, 1, 7, 9, 20, 2, 1, 3, 3, 4, 15

The only zeros are the ones accepted yesterday.

I have to modify this sequence:

0, 1, 0, 2, 3, 11, 3, 1, 7, 1, 1, 7, 9, 20, 2, 1, 3, 3, 4, 15

Since I just sold 1 image accepted yesterday.

So, again: brand new stuff still sells!

« Reply #33 on: March 25, 2015, 09:33 »
0
So, again: brand new stuff still sells!

Agree, but old stuff doesn't sell as it used to be  :(

« Reply #34 on: March 25, 2015, 09:38 »
+5
So, again: brand new stuff still sells!

Agree, but old stuff doesn't sell as it used to be  :(

5% of all accepted images sell regularly for me (daily or weekly) . 95% not.
But I also have many variations of each motif.
But this value is same for all agencies. At least this value applies to me.

« Reply #35 on: March 25, 2015, 11:23 »
+3
New images sell, the problem is that most stop selling after 2 weeks.

« Reply #36 on: March 25, 2015, 16:47 »
+6
Sales these days are dire, across all agencies.

ultimagina

« Reply #37 on: March 26, 2015, 10:27 »
+5
New images sell, the problem is that most stop selling after 2 weeks.

This is most probably because after ~2 weeks SS stops artificially boosting the popularity of new photos.
During these ~2 "honey" weeks, the photo must accumulate enough sales, views, (or whatever other criteria is built in the popularity algorithm) to stand on its own against older photos.
If the photo is good enough, it will be able to remain competitive, generate more sales and slowly climb up the popularity ranks, generate even more sales ... and so on.

« Reply #38 on: March 26, 2015, 12:01 »
-6
New images sell, the problem is that most stop selling after 2 weeks.

This is most probably because after ~2 weeks SS stops artificially boosting the popularity of new photos.
During these ~2 "honey" weeks..

good observation ultimagaina 8)
it's the same with new contributors , the honeymoon period or the carrot period that gets them all excited ... make a few cents a day so they cheer their success on the forum like waaa i make money here like nowhere else ... so they feed the beast with all those poor exposure stuff and tons of similars that mysteriously get approved while the older accounts get rejections
mysteriously too...
much like leaving the old wife for some new debutante
... ss the clinton system ;D

ultimagina

« Reply #39 on: March 26, 2015, 13:19 »
+2
I'm afraid I don't buy this discrimination between old and new contributors. The popularity boost for new photos is the one that gets everyone excited, old or new.  Proposing crappy underexposed photos only to play tricks with a new contributor is like shooting yourself in the foot. SS must always want to promote the best photos to their customers, while giving a chance to the best fresh content to improve the perceived quality of the overall collection.

« Reply #40 on: March 26, 2015, 14:02 »
-2
I'm afraid I don't buy this discrimination between old and new contributors. The popularity boost for new photos is the one that gets everyone excited, old or new.  Proposing crappy underexposed photos only to play tricks with a new contributor is like shooting yourself in the foot. SS must always want to promote the best photos to their customers, while giving a chance to the best fresh content to improve the perceived quality of the overall collection.

no need to be afraid ;D 
look beyond your own foot in the new dailies and you will stop being afraid :D

ultimagina

« Reply #41 on: March 26, 2015, 14:58 »
+3
Quote
look beyond your own foot in the new dailies and you will stop being afraid :D


I'm doing exactly that, and I don't see any reasons to be worried.

The boost for new photos is fact and anyone can check it when analyzing the popularity tabs. It makes business sense to refresh the top of the collection with the best content, regardless of the contributor's seniority.

The boost for new contributors is pure speculation you have no proof for. Conspiracy theory. It doesn't make any business sense.

« Last Edit: March 26, 2015, 15:01 by ultimagaina »


« Reply #42 on: March 26, 2015, 15:14 »
+1
Quote
look beyond your own foot in the new dailies and you will stop being afraid :D


I'm doing exactly that, and I don't see any reasons to be worried.

The boost for new photos is fact and anyone can check it when analyzing the popularity tabs. It makes business sense to refresh the top of the collection with the best content, regardless of the contributor's seniority.

The boost for new contributors is pure speculation you have no proof for. Conspiracy theory. It doesn't make any business sense.

The new contributors bump is fact, if the search were not broken I could provide links where shutterstock states that they do give bumps to new ports for a unspecified period of time.  In 2004 or 2005 Jon mentioned that it was a in the order of months (not specified).

I think that is fair for new contributors who do not have large ports and are starting out.  It gives them the chance to have their images noticed.

However now we have contributors from IS with very large ports and large amounts of experience joining shutterstock. These are not new images, they are images that have been for sale on other sites for many years, in some cases since IS was founded in 2000. In other words 15 years.

In this case an extended bump in sales is not fair and it would not be equitable to give these contributors the same months long bump inexperienced newbies with tiny ports receive.
« Last Edit: March 26, 2015, 16:26 by gbalex »

« Reply #43 on: March 26, 2015, 16:33 »
0


The new contributors bump is fact, if the search were not broken I could provide links where shutterstock states that they do give bumps to new ports for a unspecified period of time.  In 2004 or 2005 Jon mentioned that it was a in the order of months (not specified).

I think that is fair for new contributors who do not have large ports and are starting out.  It gives them the chance to have their images noticed.

However now we have contributors from IS with very large ports and large amounts of experience joining shutterstock. These are not new images, they are images that have been for sale on other sites for many years, in some cases since IS was founded in 2000. In other words 15 years.

In this case an extended bump in sales is not fair and it would not be equitable to give these contributors the same months long bump inexperienced newbies with tiny ports receive.

absolutamundo...en agreement here with you gbalex big time!!!
as i said there is a honeymoon carrot period for beginners
to boost their saliva
or kindly said to help them learn the ropes.
++++ but not  allow honeymoon to those mentioned by gbalex
good point good point
« Last Edit: March 26, 2015, 16:35 by etudiante_rapide »

« Reply #44 on: March 26, 2015, 18:02 »
+4
Seems like around here it has become common to discount other people's experience as conspiracy theories if it didn't happen to you.   Kind of closed minded.

ultimagina

« Reply #45 on: March 26, 2015, 21:24 »
+1
Seems like around here it has become common to discount other people's experience as conspiracy theories if it didn't happen to you.   Kind of closed minded.
No, it is the other way around: close minded are those blaming their lack of success on external factors, instead of what they see, every morning, in the mirror.
« Last Edit: March 26, 2015, 22:05 by ultimagaina »

« Reply #46 on: March 26, 2015, 23:32 »
+2
Seems like around here it has become common to discount other people's experience as conspiracy theories if it didn't happen to you.   Kind of closed minded.
No, it is the other way around: close minded are those blaming their lack of success on external factors, instead of what they see, every morning, in the mirror.

Sorry mate.  You are not in a position to know that.  Many of those you say are to blame for falling sales have made and probably still make more in micro then you do or ever will. 

Their success is the reason they are in a better position to notice and understand changing trends. 

ultimagina

« Reply #47 on: March 27, 2015, 07:11 »
+3
Quote
Sorry mate.  You are not in a position to know that.  Many of those you say are to blame for falling sales have made and probably still make more in micro then you do or ever will. 

Their success is the reason they are in a better position to notice and understand changing trends.

I'll skip over your arrogant remark, but you have to decide: you either have falling sales or success. The two notions exclude each other.

I agree that, statistically, the more samples you have, the more reliable the trend is (in terms of error margin or confidence level). Nobody is disputing mathematics, here.
However, the way you explain the root cause of the more reliable trend you see is pure speculation. You have no proof to justify your hypothesis.

From the root cause point of view, my opinion is as good as yours, even if we disagree.

Therefore, I'm stating again that: it will be foolish for SS to demote good photos, made by older contributors, only to promote crap from newcomers.
This will only make the customers unhappy and incentivise them to look elsewhere for better photos.
« Last Edit: March 27, 2015, 09:47 by ultimagaina »

« Reply #48 on: March 27, 2015, 11:19 »
+1
Quote
Sorry mate.  You are not in a position to know that.  Many of those you say are to blame for falling sales have made and probably still make more in micro then you do or ever will. 

Their success is the reason they are in a better position to notice and understand changing trends.

Therefore, I'm stating again that: it will be foolish for SS to demote good photos, made by older contributors, only to promote crap from newcomers.
This will only make the customers unhappy and incentivise them to look elsewhere for better photos.

from an agency standpoint like many parasite businesses with a huge turnaround of employees like telemarketing , fast food, chain stores,etc... the point of profit is about low pay to employees .
making customers unhappy is not the issue, as customers go with whatever you sell much like the current trend to sell pictures made with mobs, ... even the papers promote readers to send in pictures to have your glory moment of seeing your snapshot published.
promote crap is subjective. paying new contributors vs older contributors also increase the bottom line in a P&L or Balance Sheet to please shareholders at AGM.
to say what you say is all conspiracy is total dreamworld mentality...

as PixelBytes said, you are entitled to your own opinion, but it is not farfetcehd and it is not a conspiracy theory that sales of older contributors are down.

ultimagina

« Reply #49 on: March 27, 2015, 12:39 »
+8
Quote
...that sales of older contributors are down.
I'm not denying that your sales are down. I believe you. I'm only disagreeing with your explanations.

Quote
...from an agency standpoint like many parasite businesses with a huge turnaround of employees ..
Wrong. SS and other agencies are not parasite companies. They offer you a service you are not able to fulfill yourself. They connect you with customers you could not reach by yourself.
If you could replace their services by yourself, you would not be wasting your time on this forum.

This is valid for all the intermediators or agents. They are not parasites, but an essential part of a functional economy. They allow you to focus on what you do best, like photography, growing crops or milking cows. They are better than you in finding customers for your photos, crops or milk.
Obviously, it is your choice if you want to pay for their services.

Quote
like telemarketing , fast food, chain stores,etc... the point of profit is about low pay to employees
Wrong, they pay the employees as much as the market forces value that type of work. If a company would underpay its employees, rest assured that, very soon, a competitor will attract them with better salaries. If it doesn't happen, then, that's how much that work is worth.

Quote
...making customers unhappy is not the issue, as customers go with whatever you sell 
Wrong. Rest assured: the customers will always want the best and the cheapest. I'm sure you think the same when you buy your stuff: lenses, milk or bread.
If a company is foolish enough to assume that its customers would pay for crap, then they on a highway towards bankruptcy.

Quote
...much like the current trend to sell pictures made with mobs, ... even the papers promote readers to send in pictures to have your glory moment of seeing your snapshot published.
Correct. Your problem is the new competition. Amateurs might get that right shot once in while. Even a broken clock is right twice a day. And as you said, there are so many amateur photographers these days.

But if your photos are competitive, rest assured that nobody would want to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs. You will continue to sell them well, even after 10 years.

« Last Edit: March 27, 2015, 13:00 by ultimagaina »


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
8 Replies
6017 Views
Last post January 05, 2008, 16:22
by yingyang0
3 Replies
3163 Views
Last post September 19, 2008, 01:40
by fotografer
Any Photos.com Sales lately?

Started by lisafx « 1 2 ... 6 7 » StockXpert.com

174 Replies
32046 Views
Last post November 05, 2008, 11:30
by lisafx
26 Replies
7002 Views
Last post August 05, 2009, 11:33
by cidepix
2 Replies
1986 Views
Last post July 16, 2019, 01:38
by [email protected]

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors