Author Topic: Where did OD/SOD go? (Read 14846 times)

BigBubba · « **on:** November 14, 2014, 00:08 »

My last 60 sales are ALL 25-A day.
An entire week 😢

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Lightrecorder · « **Reply #1 on:** November 14, 2014, 06:30 »

Assuming, based on your number of 60 sales per week, you have a small port or a LCV port, the ODD/SOD sales wont occur that much.

Noedelhap · « **Reply #2 on:** November 14, 2014, 12:25 »

They still exist.

It surprises me that people always look at the short term when worrying about their sales. Often it's just a normal fluctuation.

BigBubba · « **Reply #3 on:** November 14, 2014, 12:30 »

You're right. I just got used to about 5 a week or so.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

dpimborough · « **Reply #4 on:** November 15, 2014, 06:28 »

Nope your right ODDs and SODS are definitely down by 50%

Buffalo Bill · « **Reply #5 on:** November 15, 2014, 11:21 »

Quote from: Liorpt on November 14, 2014, 00:08

My last 60 sales are ALL 25-A day.
An entire week 😢

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

be glad you are getting sales where many others sell none to include myself...

sgoodwin4813 · « **Reply #6 on:** November 15, 2014, 19:15 »

So far this month I'm averaging one OD/SOD per every 7.7 DLs, which is better than most months. Total DLs for me are down about 25% on SS and way more than that on most other sites but at least the OD/SOD rate is holding steady.

etudiante_rapide · « **Reply #7 on:** November 15, 2014, 22:00 »

why is OD/SOD so important? the earning vary. shouldn't u be more concerned with the total earning per month? i have SOD going from 33 cts to 105 dollars, as well as 25 a day averaging a dollar.
it used to be that the big earning fall under Extended Licence, but i don't see that anymore.
generally, i notice the big single earnings ranging from 28 - 105 dollars occur quarterly. i assume it is when the brochure, catalogue, encyclopedia,etc come in. so we get them quarterly but mostly in oct.

is anyone here seeing a trend when the big single earnings occur and are they just in OD SOD, because as i said, i have also 33 cts in OD as well. just wondering aloud . thx

Ariene · « **Reply #8 on:** April 10, 2015, 14:01 »

Good question - where did SoDs go?
In March I had them every week, now, since first April there's no even one SoD... I hope it's not the result of new terms changes for clients on SS (higher copy limits etc)?

stockastic · « **Reply #9 on:** April 10, 2015, 14:16 »

Of course, SS's long term goal is to herd all their buyers onto subscriptions, where the money is in up-front fees that the photographer never sees, and so-called royalty payments are arbitrary token amounts. So we should see fewer and fewer ODs over time.

I quit submitting at SS over a year ago. If they raise contributor payments significantly - and no, 2 cents is not significant - I might submit some more. If they cut payments by any amount, I'm deleting everything and walking away for good. You can probably guess which outcome I think is more likely.

Shelma1 · « **Reply #10 on:** April 10, 2015, 14:21 »

If that was their goal why wouldn't they have just stuck to subs only? Why introduce all the other payment options, select, Offset, etc.?

stockastic · « **Reply #11 on:** April 10, 2015, 14:25 »

It's a bit amazing to me that I get minus-ed for my previous post. Are there that many people here who actually think subscriptions are good for contributors? Or who still believe that SS's intention is for microstock to be profitable for photographers?

The will to believe is strong.

Ariene · « **Reply #12 on:** April 10, 2015, 15:44 »

Quote from: stockastic on April 10, 2015, 14:25

It's a bit amazing to me that I get minus-ed for my previous post. Are there that many people here who actually think subscriptions are good for contributors?

There always will be that kind of ... people. You should really not care about minuses. The world is full of photogs who even don't think about producing and uploading to SS. Many authors left. Many think about it, or stopped uploading, or upload only, lets say, less valuable work. You should care more about pluses on your account more than minuses from the forum, lol

Do what your intuition tell you

And back to my question, I though SS earns more with SoDs sales (like we/ I do) than on subs... It's easy - one ~100$ sale = xxx 0,3x sales... (for SS that means easy 200$ in pocket with only one sale) I don't think they would cut out SoDs and preffer subs. There must be something else, just don't have idea what it is...

Rinderart · « **Reply #13 on:** April 10, 2015, 16:00 »

Getting Lots and Lots of OD's very few SOD's and EL's are very ,Very scarce. I used to get a lot. 8 EL's a day is my Personal Best.

Copidosoma · « **Reply #14 on:** April 10, 2015, 16:10 »

Quote from: stockastic on April 10, 2015, 14:16

Of course, SS's long term goal is to herd all their buyers onto subscriptions, where the money is in up-front fees that the photographer never sees, and so-called royalty payments are arbitrary token amounts. So we should see fewer and fewer ODs over time.

I quit submitting at SS over a year ago. If they raise contributor payments significantly - and no, 2 cents is not significant - I might submit some more. If they cut payments by any amount, I'm deleting everything and walking away for good. You can probably guess which outcome I think is more likely.

Can only speak for myself but subs make up less than half of my total earnings. So, I'd say that total payments have increased with the addition of ELs and now SODs (which make up about 12% of my total income each). People who focus solely on the price of the subs are missing the bigger picture.

robhainer · « **Reply #15 on:** April 10, 2015, 19:02 »

Quote from: stockastic on April 10, 2015, 14:25

It's a bit amazing to me that I get minus-ed for my previous post. Are there that many people here who actually think subscriptions are good for contributors? Or who still believe that SS's intention is for microstock to be profitable for photographers?

The will to believe is strong.

They pay better than anyone else for most people. If all that mattered were how much they sold each image for, then you should only contribute to 500px or something.

Shelma1 · « **Reply #16 on:** April 10, 2015, 19:14 »

Quote from: stockastic on April 10, 2015, 14:25

It's a bit amazing to me that I get minus-ed for my previous post. Are there that many people here who actually think subscriptions are good for contributors? Or who still believe that SS's intention is for microstock to be profitable for photographers?

The will to believe is strong.

There are many of us who can not be represented by Getty, or make enough sales as an iStock exclusive. For us SS makes the most by far. Basically, by telling us subs are bad you're asking us to stop making money so you can make more money. Ummmmm.......no.

dbvirago · « **Reply #17 on:** April 10, 2015, 20:08 »

Three ELs last month, most since last July, which was also my BME

Plenty of SODs, but most are small, < $10

dpimborough · « **Reply #18 on:** April 11, 2015, 01:15 »

Quote from: stockastic on April 10, 2015, 14:25

It's a bit amazing to me that I get minus-ed for my previous post. Are there that many people here who actually think subscriptions are good for contributors? Or who still believe that SS's intention is for microstock to be profitable for photographers?

The will to believe is strong.

Minuses are just indications that someone disagreed with what you wrote.

People are still allowed to disagree with eachother you know.

PZF · « **Reply #19 on:** April 11, 2015, 01:48 »

For me it's just the 4.35 sods which have completely stopped - I used to get quite a few. Whatever they were......
Other small sods as normal...

Mantis · « **Reply #20 on:** April 11, 2015, 07:38 »

Quote from: PZF on April 11, 2015, 01:48

For me it's just the 4.35 sods which have completely stopped - I used to get quite a few. Whatever they were......
Other small sods as normal...

If I recall, these are based on contracts they have with certain large clients. Perhaps these contracts are for a rolling 12 months and some have ended. Probably likely. But I believe that it will get harder and harder for SS to land big clients who will pay more money because of how many more cheap image outlets there are for cheaper licenses that yield similar or the same terms as the SOD terms, whatever those are. SOD type of sales are simply going to erode and move closer to free.

objowl · « **Reply #21 on:** April 11, 2015, 08:55 »

Or maybe the lack of SOD sales is due to a successful Premier Select Trial and many of the SODs are going to the selected high lifetime earners?

gbalex · « **Reply #22 on:** April 11, 2015, 14:35 »

Quote from: stockastic on April 10, 2015, 14:25

It's a bit amazing to me that I get minus-ed for my previous post. Are there that many people here who actually think subscriptions are good for contributors? Or who still believe that SS's intention is for microstock to be profitable for photographers?

The will to believe is strong.

You hit the nail on the head with that one.

gbalex · « **Reply #23 on:** April 11, 2015, 14:40 »

Quote from: objowl on April 11, 2015, 08:55

Or maybe the lack of SOD sales is due to a successful Premier Select Trial and many of the SODs are going to the selected high lifetime earners?

That was my thought, they have directed sales to select contributors.

shudderstok · « **Reply #24 on:** April 11, 2015, 15:13 »

Quote from: gbalex on April 11, 2015, 14:35

Quote from: stockastic on April 10, 2015, 14:25
It's a bit amazing to me that I get minus-ed for my previous post. Are there that many people here who actually think subscriptions are good for contributors? Or who still believe that SS's intention is for microstock to be profitable for photographers?

The will to believe is strong.

You hit the nail on the head with that one.

you will get a minus if you don't like SS and their subs model, i get them all the time. and yes, sadly there are that many people who rave about subs. i don't get it at all.

objowl · « **Reply #25 on:** April 11, 2015, 16:54 »

Quote from: shudderstok on April 11, 2015, 15:13

Quote from: gbalex on April 11, 2015, 14:35
Quote from: stockastic on April 10, 2015, 14:25
It's a bit amazing to me that I get minus-ed for my previous post. Are there that many people here who actually think subscriptions are good for contributors? Or who still believe that SS's intention is for microstock to be profitable for photographers?

The will to believe is strong.

You hit the nail on the head with that one.

you will get a minus if you don't like SS and their subs model, i get them all the time. and yes, sadly there are that many people who rave about subs. i don't get it at all.

If I was starting out today I wouldn't touch subs with a bargepole, but few people were complaining about them in 2008. I don't see the many people raving about subs that you do, but there are enough complaining to make the newbie think twice. The minus you get may be because this is a thread about where the OD/SODs went and you don't appear to have thrown any light on that unless you are saying that they turned them into subs, which to be frank is a ludicrous suggestion. What advantage would that be to Shutterstock?

Shelma1 · « **Reply #26 on:** April 12, 2015, 07:36 »

Quote from: shudderstok on April 11, 2015, 15:13

Quote from: gbalex on April 11, 2015, 14:35
Quote from: stockastic on April 10, 2015, 14:25
It's a bit amazing to me that I get minus-ed for my previous post. Are there that many people here who actually think subscriptions are good for contributors? Or who still believe that SS's intention is for microstock to be profitable for photographers?

The will to believe is strong.

You hit the nail on the head with that one.

you will get a minus if you don't like SS and their subs model, i get them all the time. and yes, sadly there are that many people who rave about subs. i don't get it at all.

I haven't seen anyone "rave" about subs. But for most of us SS makes the most income by far. Do I love getting 38¢ for a sale? No. But IMO that sale would probably not have existed before subs. I was on iS for a couple of years and was going to quit doing illustrations because I was making so little. And iS was arrogant, rejecting a lot of work they felt was "not suitable for stock" and telling people not to complain when they rejected files that sold well elsewhere.

Thanks to their attitude I started looking around, found SS and uploaded my "not suitable" images, and lo and behold they started selling immediately. SS quickly became the place where I make the most, and has remained there. The gap between them and iS has steadily widened; my earnings per sale there have risen while falling at iS.

Despite paying me lower royalties, which leaves them more to spend on marketing, iS continues to flounder. That's due to poor management, not subs.

anathaya · « **Reply #27 on:** April 20, 2016, 22:50 »

After a continuous run of 126 SUBs, I got an OD today. ODs and SODs have been disappearing after SS introduced their new SUB plans last year.

SS, are you happy now?

Minsc · « **Reply #28 on:** April 21, 2016, 00:48 »

OD/SOD makes up anywhere between 5-12% of my downloads.

OM · « **Reply #29 on:** April 23, 2016, 15:24 »

Quote from: gbalex on April 11, 2015, 14:40

Quote from: objowl on April 11, 2015, 08:55
Or maybe the lack of SOD sales is due to a successful Premier Select Trial and many of the SODs are going to the selected high lifetime earners?

That was my thought, they have directed sales to select contributors.

Drop in dls and SODs does correlate with their announcement time frame....few SODs worth a sod after that. I guess I'm not in their select club.

r2d2 · « **Reply #30 on:** April 23, 2016, 17:33 »

Shutter is a sinking ship.
I bet they will start a new price war before they die.

PixelBytes · « **Reply #31 on:** April 23, 2016, 18:09 »

Quote from: OM on April 23, 2016, 15:24

Quote from: gbalex on April 11, 2015, 14:40
Quote from: objowl on April 11, 2015, 08:55
Or maybe the lack of SOD sales is due to a successful Premier Select Trial and many of the SODs are going to the selected high lifetime earners?

That was my thought, they have directed sales to select contributors.

Drop in dls and SODs does correlate with their announcement time frame....few SODs worth a sod after that. I guess I'm not in their select club.

As a high lifetime earner, I can promise you jack-all has been directed to high lifetime earners. This month looks to be my lowest on SS since my first year, when I had less than 1k images.

OM · « **Reply #32 on:** April 23, 2016, 19:01 »

Quote from: PixelBytes on April 23, 2016, 18:09

Quote from: OM on April 23, 2016, 15:24
Quote from: gbalex on April 11, 2015, 14:40
Quote from: objowl on April 11, 2015, 08:55
Or maybe the lack of SOD sales is due to a successful Premier Select Trial and many of the SODs are going to the selected high lifetime earners?

That was my thought, they have directed sales to select contributors.

Drop in dls and SODs does correlate with their announcement time frame....few SODs worth a sod after that. I guess I'm not in their select club.

As a high lifetime earner, I can promise you jack-all has been directed to high lifetime earners. This month looks to be my lowest on SS since my first year, when I had less than 1k images.

Interesting and sorry to hear that. Poof goes that theory too....must be in algorithms...only they know.

stockastic · « **Reply #33 on:** April 23, 2016, 20:06 »

Quote from: Shelma1 on April 12, 2015, 07:36

Do I love getting 38¢ for a sale? No. But IMO that sale would probably not have existed before subs.

Why do you say that?

People who buy subscriptions obviously need images for their work, on a regular basis. I'm guessing that whatever business they're in, it existed before subscriptions; and it would continue to exist even if all subscription plans ended tomorrow. They might have to pay a dollar or two for those images, but doing so wouldn't put them out of business.

Shelma1 · « **Reply #34 on:** April 23, 2016, 20:39 »

You're responding to a post I made a year ago?

Minsc · « **Reply #35 on:** April 23, 2016, 20:48 »

Quote from: stockastic on April 23, 2016, 20:06

Quote from: Shelma1 on April 12, 2015, 07:36

Do I love getting 38¢ for a sale? No. But IMO that sale would probably not have existed before subs.

Why do you say that?

People who buy subscriptions obviously need images for their work, on a regular basis. I'm guessing that whatever business they're in, it existed before subscriptions; and it would continue to exist even if all subscription plans ended tomorrow. They might have to pay a dollar or two for those images, but doing so wouldn't put them out of business.

Yes, they existed, but they wouldn't be so liberal when it comes to downloading. I used a subscription and I still do. I download images I don't need sometimes, because I'm using them for comps. If subscriptions didn't exist, I would just download the watermarked images until I find the right one and only download the one I need instead of multiple.

Subs are also great for contributors. For the contributors whose work has a lot of commercial value, subs are a great way to help them get their images up the search results. Without subs, new uploads have little chance to rise up the ranks.

fotografer · « **Reply #36 on:** April 24, 2016, 04:17 »

Quote from: PixelBytes on April 23, 2016, 18:09

As a high lifetime earner, I can promise you jack-all has been directed to high lifetime earners.

Same here !

obj owl · « **Reply #37 on:** April 24, 2016, 08:15 »

Quote from: fotografer on April 24, 2016, 04:17

Quote from: PixelBytes on April 23, 2016, 18:09

As a high lifetime earner, I can promise you jack-all has been directed to high lifetime earners.
Same here !

So can we take it that you and PixelBytes are not one of chosen ones in the Premier Select bracket, because logic would suggest that those that did not make the cut would be see highest loses.

PixelBytes · « **Reply #38 on:** April 25, 2016, 00:03 »

Quote from: obj owl on April 24, 2016, 08:15

Quote from: fotografer on April 24, 2016, 04:17
Quote from: PixelBytes on April 23, 2016, 18:09

As a high lifetime earner, I can promise you jack-all has been directed to high lifetime earners.
Same here !

So can we take it that you and PixelBytes are not one of chosen ones in the Premier Select bracket, because logic would suggest that those that did not make the cut would be see highest loses.

I don't know. How do you find out if your in premier select? Somebody shows up at your door with a camera crew, balloons and a giant cheque?

If me and some others I know are high lifetime earners aren't in it, then I wonder what other criteria are in play. Maybe unusual or rare subject matter? Maybe factories, portfolio size, or........?

Does anyone here know for a fact that your in PS? If so, how'd you find out? Were you invited, notified, or just found your work there?

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #39 on:** April 25, 2016, 09:53 »

I just watched the Premier video and it mentioned - separately from access to Offset images - among the benefits "...as well as new content exclusively available to premier users"

What does that mean and where does that new content come from if not from submissions to Shutterstock?

I assume this has something to do with Premier Select, but does this exclusivity just last for a short time or is it permanent? There'd have to be a lot of business from Premier users to be willing to give up entirely income from "regular" SS customers. Giving them a 3 month window would be a lot easier.

As I don't recall anything here from anyone about being in Premier Select, I have to assume part of the deal is that people aren't allowed to discuss it if they are included.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Where did OD/SOD go? (Read 14846 times)

Lightrecorder

dpimborough

Buffalo Bill

Rinderart

dbvirago

dpimborough

objowl

shudderstok

objowl

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors