MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Envato Elements

Author Topic: Life Expectancy of an image  (Read 10683 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: March 19, 2006, 03:35 »
0
How long do you think an image will sell for.

I am not sure what it would take for a landscape image to become unsaleable... perhaps megapixel size, but I am not sure what else.  But is the life of a landscape REALLY unending?

As for fashion, technology and such images, I wonder if 5 years is about a max life?  However perhaps after 15 years they will become markatable again,because they are then hot for retro images.

what do you think?


« Reply #1 on: March 19, 2006, 09:43 »
0
I think any image that doesn't have anything in it to suggest a date will most likely always sell.  Such as food, landscape, objects and etc.  An image would have to be hugely popular before it would loose it market value from over use.  Fashion of course changes constantly and you will need to update you images.  Thus I think that is part of the reason there is and probably always will be a strong demand for people pictures.  You can't pull out your library of images over the last 20 years and upload them.  They have to be somewhat recent.

Mark

« Reply #2 on: May 26, 2018, 21:30 »
0
I am seeing some leveling off with some 4k videos I filmed 4 years ago. I am not sure if it is temporary or not. during the 4 year period, sales were consistent monthly, until a few months ago. this is the oldest material that I am tracking. all of my other sales are steady.

as a general rule, I calculate that I lose 10% of my business every year if I am not actively filming.

does anyone else have any comments for the lifespan of a photo or video?

« Reply #3 on: May 27, 2018, 03:04 »
+11
Not on a 12 year old thread

Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #4 on: May 27, 2018, 21:13 »
+1
Not on a 12 year old thread

LOL yes, but it actually fits the question. And what is the life of a forum subject.  :o

2016 photo, I'd estimate the life expectancy of this image was 24 hours. Not like some artistic, commentary or illustrative images. Logos and location. Too bad because he just won the Indy 500, much deserved.



 

« Reply #5 on: May 30, 2018, 21:40 »
0
I am not sure what it would take for a landscape image to become unsaleable... perhaps megapixel size, but I am not sure what else.  But is the life of a landscape REALLY unending?

Ansel Adams landscapes are still popular.

namussi

« Reply #6 on: June 01, 2018, 20:08 »
0
Not on a 12 year old thread

It would be interesting for Leaf to tell us, 12 years after the original post, how things worked out....

Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #7 on: June 02, 2018, 10:53 »
+2
I am not sure what it would take for a landscape image to become unsaleable... perhaps megapixel size, but I am not sure what else.  But is the life of a landscape REALLY unending?

Ansel Adams landscapes are still popular.

That's the name of the artist not just the content of the photo(s). We're in a different market with stock. His work is traded as art, not stock.

But I'd agree that unless something major in the scenery changes, the life of a landscape is much longer. News is the shortest of all. Styles, trends, fashion, foods and the like, can be in one day and out the next. Hopefully those fake Polaroids and light flare shots have had their time and died!

I've found that some of my photos that sold in 2007 and 2008 have no sales now. Bottom line, they are crappy photos. Better choices for buyers now.  :)

"What's the life expectancy of an image?" What's the image? Anyone can have ideas or debate forever, but there's no general answer. Every image is it's own answer.

Examples:

One Day


Timeless?


« Reply #8 on: June 02, 2018, 10:55 »
+1
Yuri Accurs had one good mathematical formula which works fine!
But I can't find any more that post about it here...

Something similar to radioactive half-life calculation...

« Reply #9 on: June 02, 2018, 15:04 »
+3
I think on average over a large number of images and sites it is some sort of half life decay that has more to do with the onslaught of new images and the search engines than anything else. For individual images and sites I think the vagaries of the search engine and the image itself are pretty critical. The images I have paid attention to on sites with lots of sales - eg best sellers on SS have sold fairly steadily until one day the search changes and then sales plummet for good. Obviously some images with outdated technology and styles will drop off over time for those reasons.

Noedelhap

  • www.colincramm.com

« Reply #10 on: June 03, 2018, 03:36 »
+1
I think shelf life only applies to:

- certain photo or footage or graphic trends (e.g. web 2.0 buttons with reflections)
- images that contain outdated technology or fashion (e.g. A 2004 generic stock photo of a man sitting behind a laptop or using an older phone)
- a lower production quality (i.e. SD instead of HD or 4K)
 
Unless the work can be labeled as "retro" or classic (e.g. a 50s jukebox or a man posing as a hippie) it will have a certain shelf life.
The Great Depression might not be a good example, because it symbolizes a historical event, has already received worldwide regonition and is considered a work of art.
Stock photos will never be art.


« Reply #11 on: June 03, 2018, 03:46 »
+4
I think shelf life only applies to:

- certain photo or footage or graphic trends (e.g. web 2.0 buttons with reflections)
- images that contain outdated technology or fashion (e.g. A 2004 generic stock photo of a man sitting behind a laptop or using an older phone)
- a lower production quality (i.e. SD instead of HD or 4K)
 
Unless the work can be labeled as "retro" or classic (e.g. a 50s jukebox or a man posing as a hippie) it will have a certain shelf life.
The Great Depression might not be a good example, because it symbolizes a historical event, has already received worldwide regonition and is considered a work of art.
Stock photos will never be art.
Anything created by humans can be art,  really "stock" is a sales channel rather than a type of photo though there's no relation between value as a stock photo and artistic merit.

« Reply #12 on: June 03, 2018, 08:41 »
0
How long do you think an image will sell for.

I am not sure what it would take for a landscape image to become unsaleable... perhaps megapixel size, but I am not sure what else.  But is the life of a landscape REALLY unending?

As for fashion, technology and such images, I wonder if 5 years is about a max life?  However perhaps after 15 years they will become markatable again,because they are then hot for retro images.

what do you think?

Have images that are heavily dated in my opinion (fashionwise) and still selling regularly. Come to think of it, I myself is quite dated when it comes to fashion and regularly wear t-shirts, jeans that are 10-15 years old - so perhaps dated images are viewed as true realism (which is the current trend)...

« Reply #13 on: June 03, 2018, 10:20 »
+3
The current trend is stylised realism....not many images of overweight middle aged businessmen in ill fitting suits in shabby offices or I'd be selling more selfies ;-)

« Reply #14 on: June 03, 2018, 12:02 »
0
Twelve years later we should have some actual answers based on experience...When I started I read a book that said most stock photos last about 5 years. That's one prediction about stock photography that was wrong and actually turned out better than I'd hoped.

Landscape and some travel (beaches and other outdoor/nature that don't change much - as well as medieval towns) in my experience still do well even 12 years later, while cityscape images may not last as long depending upon the city. Interestingly, I've even had older images of festivals sell many years later. I think it just depends on whether something appeals to a buyer - and of course being placed well in the search engine - when SS is working for me I'll get nearly daily sales of some images taken eight years ago.

Sometimes people come back into the news. I had photos of Hillary Clinton, taken when I did a magazine cover shoot back in 2006, that became popular during the election and now of course sadly are no longer so. Meantime, the photos I took a year to a day before the election, which I thought would have legs - well, some lasted less than 24 hours when the news changed...

A couple of slightly artsy purposely blurred images of my husband at a laptop taken in 2010 (with I believe an even older computer) sell all the time both on Alamy and the micros - the tech would be outdated if the image was in focus, but because of the way I shot them, they still work with lots of copy space and a modern feel. It's funny, I don't really like my lensbaby lens - I can't seem to get what I want from it - but the few times I've managed to get what I want for stock, the photos have earned me hundreds to over a thousand, so it paid for itself very quickly. Maybe I should play with it again soon...

I also think that some older images uploaded between 2008-2011 have an advantage having risen in the search engines.

« Reply #15 on: June 03, 2018, 21:45 »
0
Is this a record for the oldest tread revived ?

Trying to extend the lifetime of a microstock group thread ?

Above comments from word planet are generally my experience.

A lot of images dead on arrival, much harder to get sales on new content now than before.

« Reply #16 on: July 14, 2018, 16:28 »
0
I pretty much started My career doing Staff fashion with Eileen ford agency in the Mid 1960's.  Shelf life was maybe a Month. then I did stock and In those Days our commission was about $400 a Pic. thats about $2400 in todays Money. we could buy a car or a lot of food and rent was $90 a month  then.

nobody

« Reply #17 on: July 14, 2018, 17:44 »
+2
I pretty much started My career doing Staff fashion with Eileen ford agency in the Mid 1960's.  Shelf life was maybe a Month. then I did stock and In those Days our commission was about $400 a Pic. thats about $2400 in todays Money. we could buy a car or a lot of food and rent was $90 a month  then.

This is 2018 just in case you're wondering. You're lucky if you get $.38 for your best pic and it will be bumped off in less than one year with the millions of new images per month!


« Reply #18 on: July 14, 2018, 17:49 »
+2
Anyway on stock agencies, images have a "predetermined" or "forced" lifecycle, with a lifespan of about 3 years (http://blog.microstockgroup.com/the-tyranny-of-the-microstock-lifecycle/).

On Shutterstock I noticed that some popular images have an increased lifespan, maybe 4-5 years.

Here is the actual lifecycle of one of my images on Shutterstock. We can clearly see the ramp up phase of 3-6 months at the beginning, and the following constant decline. Almost all my images follow this same pattern on Shutterstock.

« Reply #19 on: July 15, 2018, 00:40 »
0
On the other hand I still have images from 2013 that sell consistently as ever and have noticed one that is selling again after disappearing for a couple of years.

« Reply #20 on: July 15, 2018, 01:00 »
0
Well, I got two unrelated sales from files uploaded in the summer of 2005 on Friday, and there's nothing unusual about that.

« Reply #21 on: July 15, 2018, 01:35 »
0
Even news footage can still be active for 5+ years. For example, if you have some politically themed stock footage. I recorded Putin in 2011 and it still occasionally sells, better than in the beginning.

namussi

« Reply #22 on: July 16, 2018, 03:53 »
+1
Anyway on stock agencies, images have a "predetermined" or "forced" lifecycle, with a lifespan of about 3 years (http://blog.microstockgroup.com/the-tyranny-of-the-microstock-lifecycle/).




I read the article, and I think your comment is misleading.

The article is about observations.

But there is nothing in it about "forced" lifecycles.

"Forced" in this context to me means something done deliberately that goes against what would happen normally.

The article doesn't really deal with that.

« Reply #23 on: July 16, 2018, 05:28 »
+1
I read the article, and I think your comment is misleading.

The article is about observations.

But there is nothing in it about "forced" lifecycles.

"Forced" in this context to me means something done deliberately that goes against what would happen normally.

The article doesn't really deal with that.

Yes, you are right, the article only speaks about observations. Sorry if my comment was misleading, it was not my intention. The same for me: I only have my own observations. Stock agencies never speak about lifecycle of images, and we can easily guess that they would not like to.

However those observations show most of the time the same lifecycle. From one image to another one, it is mostly the vertical scale that differs: number of downloads, or popularity of the image. But the shape is the same.

And it is not only on Shutterstock: on Adobe Stock, iStock and Dreamstime, images' lifecycles are quite similar too.

My guess is that this behaviour is coded somewhere in the search algorithm, directly, or indirectly. But it can be only a guess, because those algorithms are never disclosed.

It doesn't mean that old images will not sell anymore, but that, on average, they will sell less at the end of the cycle. On my previous chart, we can see that amount of downloads nowadays is not 0, but nevertheless much less than during the first 6 months.

In my experience, some images don't follow this lifecycle, for example seasonal images (Christmas, summer vacation, ...) behave a bit differently.

namussi

« Reply #24 on: July 16, 2018, 07:06 »
0
I read the article, and I think your comment is misleading.

The article is about observations.

But there is nothing in it about "forced" lifecycles.

"Forced" in this context to me means something done deliberately that goes against what would happen normally.

The article doesn't really deal with that.

Yes, you are right, the article only speaks about observations. Sorry if my comment was misleading, it was not my intention. The same for me: I only have my own observations. Stock agencies never speak about lifecycle of images, and we can easily guess that they would not like to.

However those observations show most of the time the same lifecycle. From one image to another one, it is mostly the vertical scale that differs: number of downloads, or popularity of the image. But the shape is the same.

And it is not only on Shutterstock: on Adobe Stock, iStock and Dreamstime, images' lifecycles are quite similar too.

My guess is that this behaviour is coded somewhere in the search algorithm, directly, or indirectly. But it can be only a guess, because those algorithms are never disclosed.

It doesn't mean that old images will not sell anymore, but that, on average, they will sell less at the end of the cycle. On my previous chart, we can see that amount of downloads nowadays is not 0, but nevertheless much less than during the first 6 months.

In my experience, some images don't follow this lifecycle, for example seasonal images (Christmas, summer vacation, ...) behave a bit differently.
\

Thanks!

niktol

« Reply #25 on: July 16, 2018, 08:24 »
0


My guess is that this behaviour is coded somewhere in the search algorithm, directly, or indirectly. But it can be only a guess, because those algorithms are never disclosed.



or in the finite size of the market

« Reply #26 on: July 16, 2018, 12:02 »
0


My guess is that this behaviour is coded somewhere in the search algorithm, directly, or indirectly. But it can be only a guess, because those algorithms are never disclosed.



or in the finite size of the market

Well, I think the finite size of the market influences the vertical scale of the lifecycle graph (the volume of downloads), but not its shape (up, then down).

Let's take the example of a landscape photo of London.

The number of downloads per month depends on:
- The number of potential buyers (here is the size of the market, or the demand)
- The number of photos from competitors available on stock (more competition = more offer = less downloads for our photo)

I believe that for a landscape photo of London, the demand is stable or increases.

What could create the up and down shape of the lifecycle is an increase of the competition: the photo becomes online, then it gains popularity during the first months, then the competition becomes stronger, and there are less and less sales for our photo.

However photos after photos, subjects after subjects, I notice a consistent shape of the lifecycle. It cannot be random.  I believe that search algorithms take into account the "age of the photo" to show less the old photos, and provide more turnover, so customers always have fresh content. I imagine the three main criteria in search algorithms are:
- Relevance with the search (the higher the relevance, the higher the position in search results)
- Popularity of the photo (the higher the popularity, the higher the position in search results)
- Age of the photo (the oldest, the lower the position in search results)

New photos are not popular, so we don't sell them that much during the first months.
Then maybe they become popular and sell a lot.
Then they get old, go further in the search results, thus become less popular, and sell less and less

« Reply #27 on: July 16, 2018, 12:17 »
+5
I believe you are overthinking it....all products in any industry have a similar life cycle. Nothing "special" about microstock pictures.

« Reply #28 on: July 17, 2018, 01:27 »
0
I believe you are overthinking it....all products in any industry have a similar life cycle. Nothing "special" about microstock pictures.

Meh, many industries would call it "Market Saturation" I think in stock some photos definitely have a time of relevance ... which may occur well before saturation. Think Saturation if it ends up as a meme and relevance if it's a timely editorial photo.

« Reply #29 on: July 17, 2018, 02:06 »
0

niktol

« Reply #30 on: July 17, 2018, 08:30 »
0

ShadySue

« Reply #31 on: July 17, 2018, 19:30 »
+1
Let's take the example of a landscape photo of London.
The number of downloads per month depends on:
- The number of potential buyers (here is the size of the market, or the demand)
- The number of photos from competitors available on stock (more competition = more offer = less downloads for our photo)
I believe that for a landscape photo of London, the demand is stable or increases.
Poor example, as London's cityscape is changing extremely quickly, probably more now than for some decades previously. I don't live there, but I visited in the same week this year as last year, and there is so much building going on, and buildings which were under construction last year are now completed, with more buildings being built around them. I'd expect a lot of London cityscapes to have a more limited shelf life, as files become dated, unless people are doing 'then and now' articles.

« Reply #32 on: July 18, 2018, 02:01 »
0
Let's take the example of a landscape photo of London.
The number of downloads per month depends on:
- The number of potential buyers (here is the size of the market, or the demand)
- The number of photos from competitors available on stock (more competition = more offer = less downloads for our photo)
I believe that for a landscape photo of London, the demand is stable or increases.
Poor example, as London's cityscape is changing extremely quickly, probably more now than for some decades previously. I don't live there, but I visited in the same week this year as last year, and there is so much building going on, and buildings which were under construction last year are now completed, with more buildings being built around them. I'd expect a lot of London cityscapes to have a more limited shelf life, as files become dated, unless people are doing 'then and now' articles.
Probably a more "timeless"  landscape would be a better example though even then with political and geological instabilities you can't be sure.....I think while we can all see that every image has a lifespan predicting it for an individual one is impossible...but we can estimate an average.

Brasilnut

  • Author Brutally Honest Guide to Microstock & Blog

« Reply #33 on: July 18, 2018, 06:25 »
0
I recently published an article on UNESCO World Heritage Sites. This is in light of UNESCO this month adding 19 new locations:

http://brutallyhonestmicrostock.com/2018/07/05/unesco-world-heritage-sites/

Further to the comments above, save for some catastrophic event, local authorities have a legal obligation to to preserve such sites, therefore such images should have a long shelf life.

Most relevant is that supposing you have some quality images of one or more of the 19 new locations. I would predict that the value of such images (even if done at mediocre standard) have gone up considerably owing to the popularity of these world heritage sites. Eventually demand would taper off as the buzz fades away and more visitors snap away. Here's the complete list of new entrants (link to full list of sites on link above):

Aasivissuit Nipisat in Denmark
Al-Ahsa Oasis in Saudi Arabia
Ancient City of Qalhat, Oman
Archaeological Border complex of Hedeby and the Danevirke, Germany
Caliphate City of Medina Azahara, Spain
Gbekli Tepe, Turkey
Hidden Christian Sites in the Nagasaki Region, Japan
Ivrea, Italy
Naumburg Cathedral, Germany
Sansa, Buddhist Mountain Monasteries, Republic of Korea
Sassanid Archaeological Landscape of Fars Region, Iran
Thimlich Ohinga Archaeological Site, Kenya
Victorian Gothic and Art Deco Ensembles of Mumbai, India
Barberton Makhonjwa Mountains, South Africa
Chaine des Puys Limagne fault tectonic arena, France
Fanjingshan, China
Chiribiquete National Park The Maloca of the Jaguar, Colombia
Pimachiowin Aki, Canada
Tehuacn-Cuicatln Valley: original habitat of Mesoamerica, Mexico
 
I was recently in Tarragona, Spain and managed a nice shot of the Roman Amphitheater, as part of the Archaeological Emsemble of Tarraco - UNESCO World Heritage Site. Maybe has a chance as only 286 similar images on SS. Did some time lapses and real time footage there as well.



 

namussi

« Reply #34 on: July 18, 2018, 08:42 »
+1
I recently published an article on UNESCO World Heritage Sites. This is in light of UNESCO this month adding 19 new locations:

http://brutallyhonestmicrostock.com/2018/07/05/unesco-world-heritage-sites/

Further to the comments above, save for some catastrophic event, local authorities have a legal obligation to to preserve such sites, therefore such images should have a long shelf life.

Most relevant is that supposing you have some quality images of one or more of the 19 new locations. I would predict that the value of such images (even if done at mediocre standard) have gone up considerably owing to the popularity of these world heritage sites. Eventually demand would taper off as the buzz fades away and more visitors snap away. Here's the complete list of new entrants (link to full list of sites on link above):

Aasivissuit Nipisat in Denmark
Al-Ahsa Oasis in Saudi Arabia
Ancient City of Qalhat, Oman
Archaeological Border complex of Hedeby and the Danevirke, Germany
Caliphate City of Medina Azahara, Spain
Gbekli Tepe, Turkey
Hidden Christian Sites in the Nagasaki Region, Japan
Ivrea, Italy
Naumburg Cathedral, Germany
Sansa, Buddhist Mountain Monasteries, Republic of Korea
Sassanid Archaeological Landscape of Fars Region, Iran
Thimlich Ohinga Archaeological Site, Kenya
Victorian Gothic and Art Deco Ensembles of Mumbai, India
Barberton Makhonjwa Mountains, South Africa
Chaine des Puys Limagne fault tectonic arena, France
Fanjingshan, China
Chiribiquete National Park The Maloca of the Jaguar, Colombia
Pimachiowin Aki, Canada
Tehuacn-Cuicatln Valley: original habitat of Mesoamerica, Mexico
 
I was recently in Tarragona, Spain and managed a nice shot of the Roman Amphitheater, as part of the Archaeological Emsemble of Tarraco - UNESCO World Heritage Site. Maybe has a chance as only 286 similar images on SS. Did some time lapses and real time footage there as well.


Brutally honest?

More like "touchingly naive". :-)

Brasilnut

  • Author Brutally Honest Guide to Microstock & Blog

« Reply #35 on: July 18, 2018, 09:14 »
0
Quote
Brutally honest?

More like "touchingly naive". :-)

77,982 Eiffel Tower stock photos
37,205 Big Ben stock photos
30,141 Statue Of Liberty stock photos
29,971 Colosseum stock photos

Compared to the above usual oversupplied suspects, 286 mainly mediocre images means I may have a shot at a few sales somewhere.

----

I think it's naive to underestimate the prestige that comes with a UNESCO World Heritage Site nomination.
« Last Edit: July 18, 2018, 09:22 by Brasilnut »

ShadySue

« Reply #36 on: July 18, 2018, 09:35 »
+2
Quote
Brutally honest?

More like "touchingly naive". :-)

77,982 Eiffel Tower stock photos
37,205 Big Ben stock photos
30,141 Statue Of Liberty stock photos
29,971 Colosseum stock photos

Compared to the above usual oversupplied suspects, 286 mainly mediocre images means I may have a shot at a few sales somewhere.

----

I think it's naive to underestimate the prestige that comes with a UNESCO World Heritage Site nomination.
I thought he meant it was sweet of you to give us all the heads up!

namussi

« Reply #37 on: July 18, 2018, 20:22 »
0
Quote
Brutally honest?

More like "touchingly naive". :-)

77,982 Eiffel Tower stock photos
37,205 Big Ben stock photos
30,141 Statue Of Liberty stock photos
29,971 Colosseum stock photos

Compared to the above usual oversupplied suspects, 286 mainly mediocre images means I may have a shot at a few sales somewhere.

----

I think it's naive to underestimate the prestige that comes with a UNESCO World Heritage Site nomination.

But how does prestige translate into sales?

I suspect not enough to finance a photo-taking trip to some of those new sites.


Brasilnut

  • Author Brutally Honest Guide to Microstock & Blog

« Reply #38 on: July 19, 2018, 03:12 »
0
Quote
But how does prestige translate into sales?


Prestige by itself won't necessarily translate into sales since even run-of-the-mill historic sites can be highly profitable depending on a number of factors such as supply/demand/life cycle/technicals, etc. However, sticking with the point about UNESCO, such rubber-stamp seal of approval, in my opinion, gives such historical/natural sites a higher standing than others, regardless if deservedly or not. Nat Geo, Travel guides (such as Lonely Planet), travel blogs, airliner ads/magazines, etc love featuring such sites and of course mention the label.

There's always a danger with speaking generally since there are so many exceptions and I don't want this response to be too long. Venice and its Lagoons is listed as a World Heritage Site (Ref 394), but a quick search will indicate that such images of Venice are oversupplied. I've been there 3 times and came back with 100s of images which rarely sell.

There are many sites which are deservedly world-class but few people have heard of them since perhaps they don't receive the coverage they deserve. It's like the the whole "if a tree falls in a forest does it make a sound" riddle. In the travel stock world it's more like "if nobody has heard of it, will it sell?" An argument can be made to put it in a specialist agency and not on micros but that's another matter.

Therefore, selecting to capture such sites and within a budget may translate into sales. Next onto the budget.

Quote
I suspect not enough to finance a photo-taking trip to some of those new sites.


I'm fortunate that I spend quite a bit of time in Italy which is the country with the highest number of World Heritage Sites (55). I'm in Milan and within a 300km basis I can relatively easily and at low cost reach one of at least 20 sites on a day-trip, perhaps even more than one.

For those who live in the Midwest of the US, for example, it's not so easy, of course. Vast distances and huge costs. All depends where you live. Here's a link to the UNESCO site listing all the locations by country via an interactive map.

http://whc.unesco.org/en/interactive-map/

It's nearly impossible to justify huge expenses for images that end up on micros. I suspect a trip to Al-Ahsa Oasis in Saudi Arabia won't come cheap and you'll get awkward questions by immigration officers on your return to the US.

« Last Edit: July 19, 2018, 03:16 by Brasilnut »

« Reply #39 on: July 30, 2018, 12:18 »
0
I believe you are overthinking it....all products in any industry have a similar life cycle. Nothing "special" about microstock pictures.

Or microstock the business, the agents, or our photos. Secret codes, where does this come from, sci-fi movies? "Klaatu barada nikto"

« Reply #40 on: August 04, 2018, 20:30 »
+2
I believe you are overthinking it....all products in any industry have a similar life cycle. Nothing "special" about microstock pictures.

Or microstock the business, the agents, or our photos. Secret codes, where does this come from, sci-fi movies? "Klaatu barada nikto"

Yes it does and freedom of speech is not a license to be stupid. But forums are a place for anyone to put up any crazy idea and somebody will believe them and repeat it as a fact. Dumb is dumb all over. Doesn't matter how many people say the same dumb things, that isn't making it more truth.

« Reply #41 on: August 06, 2018, 23:33 »
0
I believe you are overthinking it....all products in any industry have a similar life cycle. Nothing "special" about microstock pictures.

Or microstock the business, the agents, or our photos. Secret codes, where does this come from, sci-fi movies? "Klaatu barada nikto"

Yes it does and freedom of speech is not a license to be stupid. But forums are a place for anyone to put up any crazy idea and somebody will believe them and repeat it as a fact. Dumb is dumb all over. Doesn't matter how many people say the same dumb things, that isn't making it more truth.
As your post proves. Still almost 14 Years later My #1 seller is still My first Uploaded pic to Micro.

« Reply #42 on: August 07, 2018, 11:47 »
+1
I believe you are overthinking it....all products in any industry have a similar life cycle. Nothing "special" about microstock pictures.

Or microstock the business, the agents, or our photos. Secret codes, where does this come from, sci-fi movies? "Klaatu barada nikto"

Yes it does and freedom of speech is not a license to be stupid. But forums are a place for anyone to put up any crazy idea and somebody will believe them and repeat it as a fact. Dumb is dumb all over. Doesn't matter how many people say the same dumb things, that isn't making it more truth.
As your post proves. Still almost 14 Years later My #1 seller is still My first Uploaded pic to Micro.

You mean this one (last photo on your SS port when ordered by "New")?
Excuse me, but I have hard time believing it.
« Last Edit: August 07, 2018, 11:55 by Zero Talent »

« Reply #43 on: August 08, 2018, 14:28 »
+1
Nope, far from first Image Just Like most things on SS. screwed up.Spoon of sugar  was early  though If that helps your Point whatever that is.Also that Football Image had a very successful Print /Gallery run 3 Years Prior to Micro.It was film BTW, If thats helps whatever spin your trying to do.
   ID: 424161

The Forward Line  July 14th 2005.

« Reply #44 on: August 08, 2018, 15:03 »
0
I believe you are overthinking it....all products in any industry have a similar life cycle. Nothing "special" about microstock pictures.

Or microstock the business, the agents, or our photos. Secret codes, where does this come from, sci-fi movies? "Klaatu barada nikto"

Funny Tragic, true story. about 35 Years ago or More Im at a restaurant across the street from My Office On Sunset Blvd.. I see Patrica Neal sit down and My all time Fav scifi Flick comes up in My head. i say to myself I have to do this. I get up walk over to her and very Politely say Klaatu Barada Nikto and said I have to know what it meant and what did Gort think? and even told her it was what you said to Gort because she looked confused... she Looked up and said. Im so sorry But, I have no idea what your talking about. Man, I felt Bad. a week Later I was told she had a stroke. Being a Lifelong film buff she always blew me away. Especially In HUD.I found out years later it meant save the world

« Reply #45 on: August 08, 2018, 15:06 »
0
And....Im old so speaking of travel shots and Venice. I saw the same Pictures In Nat geo when I was a kid.65 Yrs ago.I even took venice Pics Long before micro. and yes a spoonful of sugar. so sue me.i even have a rotten Apple......LOL that was a huge seller and ...Written about.

« Reply #46 on: August 08, 2018, 15:20 »
+1
Nope, far from first Image Just Like most things on SS. screwed up.Spoon of sugar  was early  though If that helps your Point whatever that is.Also that Football Image had a very successful Print /Gallery run 3 Years Prior to Micro.It was film BTW, If thats helps whatever spin your trying to do.
   ID: 424161

The Forward Line  July 14th 2005.

My spin is that your are contradicting yourself, trying to do your own spin. I can understand that often it's hard to keep track of details, when you are spinning.

You don't have a photo with the ID: 424161!

You could be talking about your first photo related to football you ever uploaded to micro. That's photo ID: 432037 (see below).


So, while that football photo could be your best seller, indeed (it's a good shot, currently on the second global popular page when searching for "football line" photos), it's clearly NOT the first photo you have uploaded to micro.
Assuming that SS was the first micro agency you ever tried, then the spoon shot is, very likely, your "first Uploaded pic to Micro", unless you deleted some of your early uploads.

You should know better than blaming Shutterstock for your mistakes. Half truths are worse than full lies.
« Last Edit: August 09, 2018, 10:20 by Zero Talent »

« Reply #47 on: August 14, 2018, 00:09 »
+1
I pretty much started My career doing Staff fashion with Eileen ford agency in the Mid 1960's.  Shelf life was maybe a Month. then I did stock and In those Days our commission was about $400 a Pic. thats about $2400 in todays Money. we could buy a car or a lot of food and rent was $90 a month  then.

This is 2018 just in case you're wondering. You're lucky if you get $.38 for your best pic and it will be bumped off in less than one year with the millions of new images per month!

I do get 38 Cents and BTW. I track My sales because It;s My business and....BY FAR my sales are Images from 6/7 years ago with Very slight Variations.  a few days of new then Bam right back to the same 200 Or so from That time zone. I am also a true believer of them manipulating Our sales. and That statement is Not a tinfoil Hat . just experience.

« Reply #48 on: August 14, 2018, 11:29 »
0
I am also a true believer of them manipulating Our sales. and That statement is Not a tinfoil Hat . just experience.

Define "manipulating".

I said it before, even your local supermarket is "manipulating" their sales by placing specific products in high traffic areas, let alone Amazon & Co, through their sophisticated ways of tracking buyers preferences. Why would SS be different?

Speaking about tin foil: what do you think about "Better Call Saul"?  ;D

« Reply #49 on: August 14, 2018, 14:03 »
0
I am also a true believer of them manipulating Our sales. and That statement is Not a tinfoil Hat . just experience.

Define "manipulating".

I said it before, even your local supermarket is "manipulating" their sales by placing specific products in high traffic areas, let alone Amazon & Co, through their sophisticated ways of tracking buyers preferences. Why would SS be different?

Speaking about tin foil: what do you think about "Better Call Saul"?  ;D
and of course any process that ranks images put in front of customers cannot be "fair". (always look at the bottom and top shelves for the best value in your supermarket)
« Last Edit: August 14, 2018, 14:19 by Pauws99 »

« Reply #50 on: August 14, 2018, 14:41 »
+1
I am also a true believer of them manipulating Our sales. and That statement is Not a tinfoil Hat . just experience.

Define "manipulating".

I said it before, even your local supermarket is "manipulating" their sales by placing specific products in high traffic areas, let alone Amazon & Co, through their sophisticated ways of tracking buyers preferences. Why would SS be different?

Speaking about tin foil: what do you think about "Better Call Saul"?  ;D

Don't get him started, he'll claim it was his idea and he thought of it in 1980. But he knows all the actors personally, they are party pals.

nobody

« Reply #51 on: August 14, 2018, 17:29 »
0
I am also a true believer of them manipulating Our sales. and That statement is Not a tinfoil Hat . just experience.

Define "manipulating".

I said it before, even your local supermarket is "manipulating" their sales by placing specific products in high traffic areas, let alone Amazon & Co, through their sophisticated ways of tracking buyers preferences. Why would SS be different?

Speaking about tin foil: what do you think about "Better Call Saul"?  ;D

Don't get him started, he'll claim it was his idea and he thought of it in 1980. But he knows all the actors personally, they are party pals.

who knows- maybe he invented the digital camera  8)



 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
41 Replies
10710 Views
Last post August 07, 2008, 21:35
by PaulieWalnuts
7 Replies
1929 Views
Last post November 22, 2012, 02:41
by fotoVoyager
26 Replies
5669 Views
Last post August 14, 2013, 10:52
by Beppe Grillo
22 Replies
3147 Views
Last post August 01, 2013, 08:12
by luissantos84
2 Replies
1449 Views
Last post May 27, 2018, 04:37
by qunamax

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results