You're making the incorrect assumption that the results of our marketing was yielding positive results on our old design. Wasting money on ineffective marketing is very different than spending money on marketing and seeing positive results.  In a completely saturated industry, it is very easy to burn through thousands of dollars with little to no results, and our old design was the perfect example of that.  That's a big reason why the previous owners never used paid traffic.  They relied on SEO traffic, yet by the time we purchased the site, the SEO rankings had dropped significantly from the years prior.  We still have a large amount of daily traffic from the search engines, but nothing like years ago.

Our old design yielded very poor results of marketing spend, converting visitors into sign ups.  With our new design, we are seeing a much higher conversion rate of visitors into members signing up.  Now, our mission is to increase our conversion rate from sign ups to paying customers.  So while the new design has yielded better sign up conversion rates, our new challenge is converting these sign ups into paying members.  That is where the pricing model has posed a challenge for us, and one we're working towards addressing.

Because our lifetime value of a customer is lower than our competitors, more important than throwing money at it assuming that is the solution, we need to make improvements that increases the LTV of our customers.  When your average LTV of a paying customer is $40 - $50, and your competition's average is anywhere from 3-10x higher, bidding on the same placements yields us net losses, and yields the competition net positives on the marketing spend.  So reaching the same customers via paid advertising as a company who frequently receives $2,000 sales makes it a lot more challenging for a company whose average sale is significantly lower.  It certainly helps them as well with their marketing spend that they only have to pay you guys 10% of sales, whereas we are paying 40-52%.

Again, it's not as simple as you may think.  We ARE currently running various marketing campaigns, and testing various sources, spending a lot of money relatively speaking.  Testing internet marketing campaigns is not something that can be analyzed on a daily basis, but done week over week, month over month, etc.  In the meantime, we are analyzing the statistics, and are collecting lots of data, optimizing campaigns, and working to figure out ways of increasing our users' average LTV.  The challenges I've mentioned above are what affects those LTV figures, and so there is no obvious solution to make overnight improvements while also keeping contributor commissions high. 

We get a lot of negative comments because sales are low, yet where sales are highest, all I see are complaints about commission structures for contributors.  We pay to host all of our contributors images, regardless of whether they sell or not, we pay for marketing, we pay transaction fees, etc.   To do this, and continue to offer some of the highest commissions in the industry leaves for very tights margins, which means a lot more out-of-pocket spending on marketing dollars than you would think.  So when I'm spending my money to try and yield better results for our contributors, it's difficult not to take the harsh negative comments a bit personally, but I try my best to brush them off.  I'm not a major corporation, we are a couple of people just like all of you.  If you want to have a friendly conversation, I'm all for it.  I'm always open to suggestions and friendly debate on the merits of what we're doing. 

To reiterate, we are testing and working towards finding ways for us to not only be a profitable company, but we are doing so in a way to make sure we are NOT like the larger agencies who are constantly cutting your commissions and devaluing your work.

I am here solely as representation, to show that we are here every day working on this and trying our hardest. However, I'm not going to get into an argument over a grammar mistake I made (and heck, I wouldn't be surprised if you can find one or two in this post as well...), and I'm not going to continue arguing over how hard we're working to make you more money, while trying not to undercut you at the same time.

If you'd like to make positive suggestions, we will take them into consideration.  I'd submit that your unhappiness with GLStock runs much deeper than just dissatisfaction with us, but more so dissatisfaction with the industy you work in.  That seems to be the common trend, and rather than caving into the constant negativity we see here, we press on and keep working on our project.  It's easy to kick a horse when it's down, but it doesn't make sense to kick that horse when you're asking it to ride you across the desert.  It would be easier for me to disregard these messages and just continue working on the project, but the only reason I am here is to put a face to our company, and to represent a small company that IS working hard every day to make improvements.  At the end of the day, we are not a public company, do not have shareholders, and are beholden to ourselves and our investment, which we are trying to turn into a positive one.

PS: A couple weeks of pausing marketing campaigns is really not a big deal.  We don't have a $50mm marketing budget that we evenly spread through 365 days a year.  We test, collect data, make optimization, and continue testing.

Dear agents, All you said is part of your 50% for which you are working... Do not be so biased towards your expenses only. You surely must be familiar with what expenses contributors are faced. Not to mention that there is oversupply of bad images because there is no withstanding math to produce only few perfect images. You know that there is mass-production present and anyone who tried to give quality against quantity lost the battle or struggle to survive in this business. Obviously is that cheap buyers now get what they are willing to pay for... For example some harsh shadows photos made with on-camera flash or even cellphone camera. Yeah, that is what they pay for! Time needed to produce top quality images is much more consuming than making snapshots here and there.
Contributors also have big problem which is being alone in their business. There is no syndicate or similar organization which would be able to force stock image agents to behave in mutual interest or to be able to change some laws. No, they behave in their own and in interest of their stock holders. As long as this is the fact there will be no visible profitable doing business for contributors.
As many other agencies you have nice site, good upload and editing... Problem lies in 10 cents buyers or agencies which are using "contributor is alone" situation.
So, this is me after a long while and I am back to where I jumped from.
Good luck to GL and even more luck to contributors because they need it more!

DT started dying with subscriptions introduction... All what was DT before it had gone!

They owed me some money too - but, I can't login - so let's say I forgot exact sum.

Good to know total sum of just few contributors...

Who says that it would not pay-off establishing some site, take the money and vanish?

I think I know how it would be doable

Then there's this

Next step: Getty buying shutterstock and closing the site with redirecting buyers to isuck
 

This is why my focus this year is my own site and building my personal brand and direct sales. It's almost impossible to keep up with all of the shady changes at all of these sites.

http://www.epuk.org/news/an-open-letter-from-epuk-to-alamy-regarding-the-new-contributor-contract-terms

"Alamy, it seems is trying to establish a perpetual and irrevocable contract with images that they have previously sold on our behalf at a time when this was not the case, which allows them to continue selling them even after the contract with the photographer has been terminated. While this may have advantages for Alamy it has significant disadvantages for the photographer. The provision would last for the full term of copyright and we see it as unreasonably extensive."

Not a problem at all IF THEY ADD CONTIBUTORS ON MONTHLY PAY ROLL Say usual photographers wages? About GBP 40.000 Plus taxes?

Quote from: Albert Martin on January 30, 2015, 06:04

Quote from: etudiante_rapide on January 29, 2015, 18:26

Quote from: Albert Martin on January 28, 2015, 07:20

Unfortunately all solutions are at SS management side. Not at all in contributors hands... I'd say that the most significant problem in this diminishing sales is overabundant crap images acceptance. And, stupid search which gives advantage to cheaper images from newbies who are in 25c or 33c tiers. Established contributors have to deal with wall which comes up to doubling portfolio size if they want to keep their earnings pace.
Who needs that kind of photo?

as all here know, i am one of the biggest ss objector when it comes to their problem with us.
but here i have to be pro ss re: your statement about overabundant crap
who needs that kind of photo bit.


the way i see it, u should be happy that if it is true. the more  overabundant crap
who needs that kind of photo being approved ... the better for you the better for me.
the downloaders are not blind, they can see the difference.


i wish u are right, as the more overabundant crap ss accepts the better my portfolio is going to look.

Dude, shhhh! they might really read what you wrote. But, anyhow they will not understand what you are talking about. Most of those 10000+ images stockers have more than 4/5 of pure crap in their ports. That is why they woo yay on crap photo I showed here

Maybe they should label 'Horrible Post' after you get -5 

-8 as I am writing this now.

No point in fighting with windmills. They are static. They are wind-driven. And they never change! Listen to Rinder... I just had quite sarcastic approach which was not understood by those giving me minuses. Maybe some agency insiders did that? If contributors did that then we are all doomed!

Quote from: Albert Martin on January 29, 2015, 14:18

Quote from: Semmick Photo on January 29, 2015, 06:21

Quote from: captain on January 29, 2015, 00:03

Quote from: Semmick Photo on January 28, 2015, 08:08

Quote from: Albert Martin on January 28, 2015, 07:29

Quote from: Semmick Photo on January 28, 2015, 07:25

Quote from: Albert Martin on January 28, 2015, 07:20

Quote from: Red Dove on January 28, 2015, 06:37

This thread is about as useful as the Doom and Gloom thread over at SS....all problems and no solutions. Then again, most of us know it is unwise to offer solutions in business until you've milked the opportunity dry yourself.

Unfortunately all solutions are at SS management side. Not at all in contributors hands... I'd say that the most significant problem in this diminishing sales is overabundant crap images acceptance. And, stupid search which gives advantage to cheaper images from newbies who are in 25c or 33c tiers. Established contributors have to deal with wall which comes up to doubling portfolio size if they want to keep their earnings pace.

Do you have anything to share with us that proves that theory?

Added edit in my previous post. About the wall? Well... Mostly all what I can tell you about it is what I've heard. Search has changed when EX iStock exclusives come to SS. Many of people have very hard times to maintain their earnings if they don't upload on regular basis. New images don't sell as they sold before. You might get one or two sales in week after upload and that is it. So, there is a constant burying of new images...

No not about the wall, about the part I bolded

I think it is not the picture was cheaper. It is SS get more money from newbie,less left for contributor.

I know that, in fact, if someone uses up their 750 images per month, SS will lose money. But that is not what I am asking. I am just asking if there is proof that SS is favouring images from newbies? I am no newbie, I am on 38 cent, I dont see a decline. And I know more people with 38 cent ports still increasing their earnings.

Formula for that is what? To upload thousand or two thousands photos a month? Do you claim that all of that photos are pure quality? Come on? Just wait and see the wall you hit in some time!

? This wasnt about the wall but about your claim that images of newbies on 25 cent royalties are favoured in the search. No one attacked you, just disagreeing, no biggie.

Dude, no biggie at all... Just trying to show you that you and most here are using your time not to read and understand what is written. Most people read to find something in post to respond. That is what is problem! I asked you directly about your formula. I expect to see what Dave has to say also. Yes all newbies are favoured in search since ages. As you are established stocker you must know it. On shutterstock newbies have priority in search for first 3 months or so. That is not any kind of secret! The point is that some searches for some specific images today show some specific image. And the same search would not show that image day after and so on! So, Shutterstock has search which excludes some results from showing - not on first page - it excludes some result showing AT ALL!

I wish fellow microstockers would stop pointing at other people's work or a person's earnings level/age in the business as a reason for deterioration in their own sales.

Besides which, the contributor highlighted has 50,000 images accepted and that says a lot about a work ethic which many of us (myself included) would do well to emulate.

Indeed? So, crap photos allowed for those pursuing work ethic? come on! That is why good shots get buried and hard to find. I am against overabundant uploading of same sh*t in multiple variations. Yes, you might be right that microstock become crapstock if such ethic is what you call ethic.

[EDIT] Just to add. I am not whining about my sales - they are almost fine as they should be. But, I see some little minus regarding my earnings. So, that should be something to get worried about because I upload quality images and I do it in good quantities!

Quote from: Albert Martin on January 28, 2015, 07:20

[EDIT] Just to add some link to some greenish pastry : http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-246725053/stock-photo-fresh-artisan-sourdough-olive-bread-on-the-table.html?src=-_6k8tYpZfIefSpkYd9ExQ-5-85&ws=1
Who needs that kind of photo?

Doesnt look greenish to me to be honest, maybe your monitor needs to be calibrated ? It looks like normal yellowish dough color to me.

Someone's monitor needs calibration indeed - but also those who agree with your comment might need a medical exam... Never mind... Anyway that shot is pure crap... Ad that is what shutterstock accept lately!

Oh come on guys - my comment was not meant to spark a debate over which countries/cities and more expensive than others or, indeed, the reasons for that.

I will reiterate my point and simply state that falling Shutterstock sales can have a bigger impact on some people than others, and that can be relative to where you are based in the world.

A 50% drop on monthly sales of $100 will probably have less financial impact than a 30% drop on sales of $1000 a month. Similarly, that same 30% drop on $1000 will affect people differently, depending on the cost of living where they are based.

Regarding, whether this occupation should be for money or passion? Again, that depends on each contributors circumstances. If you have a talent and a passion, and use these to run a business, then surely this is an occupation that is both for the love and the money? It certainly is in my case, and I prefer to do this than flip burgers in McDonalds 40 hours a week for minimum wage, even though that may end up paying more per hour, if stock sales continue to sink. To state that you shouldn't be in this business for the money is somewhat simplistic and is, again, dependant on the individual circumstances.

My Shutterstock income for the last two months is down by about $650 on the same period last year - where I live, that's a months rent. So, to get back to the thread topic, my Shutterstock sales are sinking deeply.

I wish I had the answers as to why sales are sinking but, as is the case with everyone else, I can only speculate that search changes/global economy/saturated market, etc. etc. are to blame.

Just remember that GL stock images stopped to accept uploads before last year end. Why? Possibly they figured out that there is some lack of buyers happening. So, they stopped accepting new uploads until they recover in buyers numbers. Shutterstock on the other way is growing on more than microstock branch and there might be our problem. While they grow offset or venturing new acquisitions they possibly have less stable buyers base for microstock images (I mean creative images for example). They grow music, video, editorial... But, what do they do with market which made them who they are? In all what I've heard and read they are failing in sales to basic creative stock images.

This thread is about as useful as the Doom and Gloom thread over at SS....all problems and no solutions. Then again, most of us know it is unwise to offer solutions in business until you've milked the opportunity dry yourself.

Unfortunately all solutions are at SS management side. Not at all in contributors hands... I'd say that the most significant problem in this diminishing sales is overabundant crap images acceptance. And, stupid search which gives advantage to cheaper images from newbies who are in 25c or 33c tiers. Established contributors have to deal with wall which comes up to doubling portfolio size if they want to keep their earnings pace.

[EDIT] Just to add some link to some greenish pastry : http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-246725053/stock-photo-fresh-artisan-sourdough-olive-bread-on-the-table.html?src=-_6k8tYpZfIefSpkYd9ExQ-5-85&ws=1
Who needs that kind of photo?

Am I hearing some screwing happening?

Ah no... It is multiple screwing:

1. Canada lost tax income.
2. Some Contributors lost money due to withholding taxes.
3. All Contributors have delayed payments.
4. No Skrill means for some that their money coming on more expensive way via Payoneer.
4a. Contributors lost their Skrill paying buyers.

All in all - not so bad to have such new terms... Who cares? I don't. I am not even with GI or iStock due to known UNSUSTAINABILITY with them!
Ah... One more thing: When this screwing gains momentum then there will be more screwing after this...

Cheers S U C K E R S!

Well, Good Luck Yuri!

As you all can see the right side here under 'microstock poll results' it is more than clear that being iStock exclusive gives you more earnings than compared to all other places combined together.  It clearly states 335.3 if you are exclusive. So, Yuri knows his math. It is obviously more easier to go with one agency than spreading your portfolio through all of them.

Nevertheless, mobile phone photo selling platforms are risk. Who dares wins - so Yuri I wish you luck in your business venture.

I, amongst the rest will stay with lower earning majority of this industry and avoid to become part of Getty/iStock machinery. At least we need to have some opposition to them - So I am there!