pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Shutterstock Milestones  (Read 7958 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« on: June 15, 2018, 09:35 »
+3
Instead of a number, I'm starting over with just the general subject.

Shutterstock Milestones:

September 21, 2006 - Shutterstock surpasses one million stock photos
February 20, 2009 -Shutterstock reaches 6 million photos, (5 million 2.5 years)
February 14, 2010 - Shutterstock reaches 10 million Photos (4 million 12 months)
June 19, 2012 - Shutterstock reaches 20 million stock Images (10 Million 28 months)
October 30, 2013 - Shutterstock reaches 30 million images (10 million 15 months)
August 4, 2014 - Shutterstock celebrates 40 million images in it's collection. (10 million 10 months)
December 31, 2014 - 46.8 million images in the collection. (1 million new files per month)
March 3, 2015 - 50 Million Image mark is reached (10 million in 7 months for those watching)
August 12, 2015 - 60 Million Images (10 million in 160 days. 62,500 new files a day)
December 15, 2015 - 70 Million Images (four months)
March 26, 2016 - 80 Million
June 16, 2016 - 90 Million (10 million under three months)
Sept 8, 2016 - 100 Million
February 2017 - 110 Million
October 28, 2017 160 Million
December 29, 2017 - 170 Million (10 million new two months)
April 16, 2018 - 190 Million (20 million new in 3.5 months)
June 10, 2018 - 200 Million (10 million new in 55 days)

No longer tracking the following.

SS Members by registration year rounded
2004 - 2000
2005 - 4300
2006 - 3900 = 9000
2007 - 3800 = 13,000
2008 - 5500 = 19,000
2009 - 7200 = 27,000
2010 - 6000 = 33,000
2011 - 6000 = 39,000
2012 - 10000 = 49,000
2013 - 11000 = 60,000
2014 - 14000 = 74,000
2015 - 26000 = 100,000
2016 - 64000 = 165,000

-=-=-

Year   Cont YR   < 0 Img      Cont % < 0   Cont T      < 0      Cont % < 0

2004    1,950       1,030       52.82%    1,950       1,030       52.82%
2005    15,426       4,725       30.63%    17,376       5,755       33.12%
2006    26,349       3,676       13.95%    43,725       9,431       21.57%
2007    36,631       3,939       10.75%    80,356       13,370       16.64%
2008    48,267       5,767       11.95%    128,623    19,137       14.88%
2009    70,125       7,866       11.22%    198,748    27,003       13.59%
2010    58,454       6,324       10.82%    257,202    33,327       12.96%
2011    66,479       6,026       9.06%       323,681    39,353       12.16%
2012    154,082    9,661       6.27%       477,763    49,014       10.26%
2013    205,951    10,990       5.34%       683,714    60,004       8.78%
2014    228,906    14,050       6.14%       912,620    74,053       8.11%
2015    343,461    26,455       7.7%       1,256,081    100,508    8.00%
2016    422,950    64,440       15.24%    1,679,031    164,949    9.82%

I'm not sure the number of contributors makes a difference any longer. The number is so large, people come and go. I'll try to stick with images from now on.


Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #1 on: June 15, 2018, 09:39 »
+3
It took SS about six years to have the first ten million uploaded files. That was about 2006 to 2012, right about the same date that some people noticed sales and income dropping.

Now that same number of new images takes 55 days. Ten Million new competing images every two months. And some wonder why sales and earnings are down.  ???

« Reply #2 on: June 15, 2018, 12:32 »
0
What about the demand? "News" websites have gone up a lot in recent years and article lifetime has gone down a lot. For instance.

« Reply #3 on: June 15, 2018, 14:14 »
+3
Jeez!!!  unbelievable and some people wonder why sales are down. No wonder!  you can sit there and upload buckets and buckets of files without even an 0.38 sale!!..just one big slope to nothing.

« Reply #4 on: June 15, 2018, 14:31 »
0
What about the demand? "News" websites have gone up a lot in recent years and article lifetime has gone down a lot. For instance.
Partly true but you only need to look at SS's published figures to see overall supply has increased vastly more than supply.

« Reply #5 on: June 16, 2018, 05:30 »
0
What about the demand? "News" websites have gone up a lot in recent years and article lifetime has gone down a lot. For instance.
Partly true but you only need to look at SS's published figures to see overall supply has increased vastly more than supply.

Correct! supply way outstripping the demand!  been like that for the last 4 years really! but you know pics are assets and assets means money!  OUR assets!

« Reply #6 on: June 16, 2018, 06:18 »
+2
What about the demand? "News" websites have gone up a lot in recent years and article lifetime has gone down a lot. For instance.
Partly true but you only need to look at SS's published figures to see overall supply has increased vastly more than supply.

Correct! supply way outstripping the demand!  been like that for the last 4 years really! but you know pics are assets and assets means money!  OUR assets!
They are only assets if someone wants to buy them.....I wonder when stockholders are going to look under the hood and wonder about these 100s of million "quality" assets that SS have. I'm guessing that 80% minimum have never sold.

« Reply #7 on: June 17, 2018, 07:34 »
0
What about the demand? "News" websites have gone up a lot in recent years and article lifetime has gone down a lot. For instance.
Partly true but you only need to look at SS's published figures to see overall supply has increased vastly more than supply.

True, saw the figures, but I kind of tend to ignore the spam and low quality (commercial value) supply when thinking about it. Those supply numbers might be a lot pumped with this kind of assets. For one thing, even when I look at my own portfolio I tend to ignore the images I know don't have high value, which I uploaded just because I had nothing else at hand at that moment and maybe at some point it will have some casual download numbers. I just exclude them from my calculations.

« Reply #8 on: June 17, 2018, 08:21 »
+1
What about the demand? "News" websites have gone up a lot in recent years and article lifetime has gone down a lot. For instance.
Partly true but you only need to look at SS's published figures to see overall supply has increased vastly more than supply.

True, saw the figures, but I kind of tend to ignore the spam and low quality (commercial value) supply when thinking about it. Those supply numbers might be a lot pumped with this kind of assets. For one thing, even when I look at my own portfolio I tend to ignore the images I know don't have high value, which I uploaded just because I had nothing else at hand at that moment and maybe at some point it will have some casual download numbers. I just exclude them from my calculations.
Thats a fair point from my own experience if the quality of recent submissions were as high as in the past I ought to be doing far worse than I am. I wonder sometimes if the lowering of acceptance standards actually works in our favour as some newbies think any old .... sells.

« Reply #9 on: June 17, 2018, 08:43 »
0
What about the demand? "News" websites have gone up a lot in recent years and article lifetime has gone down a lot. For instance.
Partly true but you only need to look at SS's published figures to see overall supply has increased vastly more than supply.

True, saw the figures, but I kind of tend to ignore the spam and low quality (commercial value) supply when thinking about it. Those supply numbers might be a lot pumped with this kind of assets. For one thing, even when I look at my own portfolio I tend to ignore the images I know don't have high value, which I uploaded just because I had nothing else at hand at that moment and maybe at some point it will have some casual download numbers. I just exclude them from my calculations.
Thats a fair point from my own experience if the quality of recent submissions were as high as in the past I ought to be doing far worse than I am. I wonder sometimes if the lowering of acceptance standards actually works in our favour as some newbies think any old .... sells.

I think, in the end, it comes down to how good the search algorithm is, if the spam and low quality gets pushed deep down, it doesn't even matter if it's being uploaded or not. And it's probably good enough for now.
On the other hands, of course there are very good photographers with quality material that join up everyday, that's the real supply we should be afraid of.

« Reply #10 on: June 17, 2018, 10:38 »
0
I think, in the end, it comes down to how good the search algorithm is, if the spam and low quality gets pushed deep down, it doesn't even matter if it's being uploaded or not. And it's probably good enough for now.
On the other hands, of course there are very good photographers with quality material that join up everyday, that's the real supply we should be afraid of.
It will take years for them to make a profit.
Even in countries there living is cheap.

« Reply #11 on: June 17, 2018, 14:21 »
0
What about the demand? "News" websites have gone up a lot in recent years and article lifetime has gone down a lot. For instance.
Partly true but you only need to look at SS's published figures to see overall supply has increased vastly more than supply.

True, saw the figures, but I kind of tend to ignore the spam and low quality (commercial value) supply when thinking about it. Those supply numbers might be a lot pumped with this kind of assets. For one thing, even when I look at my own portfolio I tend to ignore the images I know don't have high value, which I uploaded just because I had nothing else at hand at that moment and maybe at some point it will have some casual download numbers. I just exclude them from my calculations.
Thats a fair point from my own experience if the quality of recent submissions were as high as in the past I ought to be doing far worse than I am. I wonder sometimes if the lowering of acceptance standards actually works in our favour as some newbies think any old .... sells.

I think, in the end, it comes down to how good the search algorithm is, if the spam and low quality gets pushed deep down, it doesn't even matter if it's being uploaded or not. And it's probably good enough for now.
On the other hands, of course there are very good photographers with quality material that join up everyday, that's the real supply we should be afraid of.
The other factor that seems to be overlooked is that someone still has to consider it good enough to buy it  however high in the search it finishes!

« Reply #12 on: June 18, 2018, 01:19 »
+2
Long discussions, collected statistics - all this just shows that for old contributors exist only 2 options: 1. to support existing earnings level, knowing that any progress is not porssible. How many efforts and which kind of efforts - this is very individual. 2. search for other fields, with real profit

« Reply #13 on: June 18, 2018, 08:56 »
+1
Long discussions, collected statistics - all this just shows that for old contributors exist only 2 options: 1. to support existing earnings level, knowing that any progress is not porssible. How many efforts and which kind of efforts - this is very individual. 2. search for other fields, with real profit

Good one and agreeing 100%. For me since 1993 and back with Tony-stone, image-bank etc, etc, stock have always been a sidekick to commission based photography and I recon any "old-timer" should really start looking in that direction. Full-time pro photography involves running studios, equipment, this and that and its a monthly expenditures. Todays stock-photography can hardly match these outlays.

« Reply #14 on: June 18, 2018, 09:33 »
0
after a very good first 10 days the last 8 days were appalling....sure now sales will resort suddenly to read the normal quota, but really there is any motivation to upload more files or work for ss. esp contrary show growth in sales every month, fotolia too.

« Reply #15 on: June 18, 2018, 09:36 »
0
comparing this month to last year june...ay by day is practically the same...first 7 days good...from 7 to 18 crap...thn again very good...according to last year i should expect tomorrow a rise in sales. let'see.   

« Reply #16 on: June 18, 2018, 13:12 »
0
Personally, I think the poor quality of many of these new images is the biggest issue. They accept so much garbage these days that it is often hard to sort through to find the good stuff. Sometimes when I am searching I'll see 25 slightly different variations of the same crappy shot that no-one in their right mind would ever buy. I see vectors up there that look like they were drawn by two-year-olds. If you can't draw with a pencil and paper you have no business selling vector illustrations.


« Reply #17 on: June 18, 2018, 15:38 »
0
Personally, I think the poor quality of many of these new images is the biggest issue. They accept so much garbage these days that it is often hard to sort through to find the good stuff. Sometimes when I am searching I'll see 25 slightly different variations of the same crappy shot that no-one in their right mind would ever buy. I see vectors up there that look like they were drawn by two-year-olds. If you can't draw with a pencil and paper you have no business selling vector illustrations.

i agree. and if you want to improve your level of sales you can only rely on new files.

Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #18 on: June 18, 2018, 22:03 »
+2
Long discussions, collected statistics - all this just shows that for old contributors exist only 2 options: 1. to support existing earnings level, knowing that any progress is not porssible. How many efforts and which kind of efforts - this is very individual. 2. search for other fields, with real profit

Yes I agree. Too many people look at this from a personal level, instead of business. I don't mean the photo business, I mean the stock company business. There are comments about quality and spam and content and rejections, which are fine, but irrelevant. If we are looking at earnings, our own, that's not the same as what the big picture is doing. They don't care about us... we do of course.

The answer is, this market is dying and searching for other ways to sell, which is not other fields, is the answer. The old agency, film photo system, died for the most part. Stock imaging sales for a living, has changed. Micro and web stock has changed. Find new outlets and recognize that Microstock has gone flat, the boom is over. Don't rely on what was, but look for new and what will be.

Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #19 on: August 01, 2018, 10:29 »
+1
Shutterstock Milestones:

September 21, 2006 - Shutterstock surpasses one million stock photos
February 20, 2009 -Shutterstock reaches 6 million photos, (5 million 2.5 years)
February 14, 2010 - Shutterstock reaches 10 million Photos (4 million 12 months)
June 19, 2012 - Shutterstock reaches 20 million stock Images (10 Million 28 months)
October 30, 2013 - Shutterstock reaches 30 million images (10 million 15 months)
August 4, 2014 - Shutterstock celebrates 40 million images in it's collection. (10 million 10 months)
December 31, 2014 - 46.8 million images in the collection. (1 million new files per month)
March 3, 2015 - 50 Million Image mark is reached (10 million in 7 months for those watching)
August 12, 2015 - 60 Million Images (10 million in 160 days. 62,500 new files a day)
December 15, 2015 - 70 Million Images (four months)
March 26, 2016 - 80 Million
June 16, 2016 - 90 Million (10 million under three months)
Sept 8, 2016 - 100 Million
February 2017 - 110 Million
October 28, 2017 160 Million
December 29, 2017 - 170 Million (10 million new two months)
April 16, 2018 - 190 Million (20 million new in 3.5 months)
June 10, 2018 - 200 Million (10 million new in 55 days)
August 1, 2018 - 210 Million (10 million new in 53 days)

Has the limit for intake of newly accepted files, finally been reached? September 23rd 220 Million?  :-\

« Reply #20 on: August 01, 2018, 16:58 »
0
Shutterstock Milestones:

September 21, 2006 - Shutterstock surpasses one million stock photos
February 20, 2009 -Shutterstock reaches 6 million photos, (5 million 2.5 years)
February 14, 2010 - Shutterstock reaches 10 million Photos (4 million 12 months)
June 19, 2012 - Shutterstock reaches 20 million stock Images (10 Million 28 months)
October 30, 2013 - Shutterstock reaches 30 million images (10 million 15 months)
August 4, 2014 - Shutterstock celebrates 40 million images in it's collection. (10 million 10 months)
December 31, 2014 - 46.8 million images in the collection. (1 million new files per month)
March 3, 2015 - 50 Million Image mark is reached (10 million in 7 months for those watching)
August 12, 2015 - 60 Million Images (10 million in 160 days. 62,500 new files a day)
December 15, 2015 - 70 Million Images (four months)
March 26, 2016 - 80 Million
June 16, 2016 - 90 Million (10 million under three months)
Sept 8, 2016 - 100 Million
February 2017 - 110 Million
October 28, 2017 160 Million
December 29, 2017 - 170 Million (10 million new two months)
April 16, 2018 - 190 Million (20 million new in 3.5 months)
June 10, 2018 - 200 Million (10 million new in 55 days)
August 1, 2018 - 210 Million (10 million new in 53 days)

Has the limit for intake of newly accepted files, finally been reached? September 23rd 220 Million?  :-\
Lets hope so exponential increases can never last forever

« Reply #21 on: August 01, 2018, 19:39 »
+1
There's only one solution, everyone stop uploading! If QC eliminated NCV subject matter, similars and average content, the collection could be halved.

« Reply #22 on: August 02, 2018, 00:41 »
0
There's only one solution, everyone stop uploading! If QC eliminated NCV subject matter, similars and average content, the collection could be halved.
Well everyone except me ;-). Halved? More than that I reckon 80% at least  of new content never sells.

Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #23 on: August 03, 2018, 17:22 »
+1
There's only one solution, everyone stop uploading! If QC eliminated NCV subject matter, similars and average content, the collection could be halved.
Well everyone except me ;-). Halved? More than that I reckon 80% at least  of new content never sells.

Well everyone, stop uploading anything that I shoot would be my plan?  :)

As far as pk and half, I think if they limited ncv and dupes and similars the collection might be 25% or less of what it is now. Just start looking for ideas and areas where you can find something, no well covered or over covered, even if 90% are unmarketable crap. You should start to see how many images are nothing but numbers and have no hope of ever getting a download, if the buyer has minimal sense and any perception.

SS could stop accepting uploads and start culling out the junk, imagine that, just the good stuff. I know we'd disagree if ours were removed, but in the end, the entire collection might be a few million select images. Imagine that, buyers wouldn't have to wade through a cesspool to find what they want.  8)

Nope, not going to happen and 10 million new images every two months, looks like the level that can be input and processed. That could change. ANyone else wonder how many rejections go along with 10 million new images, or how bad they had to be to fail. LOL

« Reply #24 on: August 03, 2018, 18:33 »
+1
There's only one solution, everyone stop uploading! If QC eliminated NCV subject matter, similars and average content, the collection could be halved.
Well everyone except me ;-). Halved? More than that I reckon 80% at least  of new content never sells.

Well everyone, stop uploading anything that I shoot would be my plan?  :)

As far as pk and half, I think if they limited ncv and dupes and similars the collection might be 25% or less of what it is now. Just start looking for ideas and areas where you can find something, no well covered or over covered, even if 90% are unmarketable crap. You should start to see how many images are nothing but numbers and have no hope of ever getting a download, if the buyer has minimal sense and any perception.

SS could stop accepting uploads and start culling out the junk, imagine that, just the good stuff. I know we'd disagree if ours were removed, but in the end, the entire collection might be a few million select images. Imagine that, buyers wouldn't have to wade through a cesspool to find what they want.  8)

Nope, not going to happen and 10 million new images every two months, looks like the level that can be input and processed. That could change. ANyone else wonder how many rejections go along with 10 million new images, or how bad they had to be to fail. LOL

3.5 million give or take a few hundred thousand if historical (up to two years ago) figures are anything to go by and they don't have to be bad to be rejected.  In fact it's highly likely that the rejected ones are better than most of the accepted ones.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
10 Replies
3433 Views
Last post October 25, 2006, 14:17
by asian
36 Replies
12000 Views
Last post December 24, 2009, 01:54
by traveler1116
126 Replies
26319 Views
Last post January 14, 2015, 15:09
by tickstock
14 Replies
3510 Views
Last post July 23, 2016, 09:28
by etudiante_rapide
45 Replies
8049 Views
Last post March 13, 2017, 15:21
by Brasilnut

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors