MicrostockGroup
Microstock Photography Forum - General => General Stock Discussion => Topic started by: Madrolly on July 24, 2016, 23:20
-
What is the number one pic that got you the most sales? Post a link with it. Chceers! :D
Here's mine: http://www.shutterstock.com/pic.mhtml?id=303935765 (http://www.shutterstock.com/pic.mhtml?id=303935765)
-
I doubt you'll get many takers for this whilst its not hard to do a bit of research on what sells. I think most people would want to make it a bit harder than this!
-
Do videos count? http://www.shutterstock.com/video/video.html?id=11325599 (http://www.shutterstock.com/video/video.html?id=11325599)
-
Do videos count? [url]http://www.shutterstock.com/video/video.html?id=11325599[/url] ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/video/video.html?id=11325599[/url])
Great clip! My bestseller is obviously more simple :)
http://www.shutterstock.com/ru/video/clip-12154754 (http://www.shutterstock.com/ru/video/clip-12154754)
-
Here is mine: http://www.shutterstock.com/video/video.html?id=8026351 (http://www.shutterstock.com/video/video.html?id=8026351)
This is the most downloaded.. but not the one that gave me the highest earning ;)
-
Here are my bestsellers:
video - http://www.shutterstock.com/video/video.html?id=4997387 (http://www.shutterstock.com/video/video.html?id=4997387)
photo - http://www.shutterstock.com/pic.mhtml?id=138071525 (http://www.shutterstock.com/pic.mhtml?id=138071525)
-
What is the number one pic that got you the most sales? Post a link with it. Chceers! :D
Here's mine: [url]http://www.shutterstock.com/pic.mhtml?id=303935765[/url] ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/pic.mhtml?id=303935765[/url])
Why so other people can go and copy our best sellers??
No thanks
-
It's to understand what buyers are looking for despite what YOU THINK are looking for. It's for us, contributors, especially for those who are in this business for years and maybe they see lots of income drops without knowing why. So i think we all should make an analysis on our portfolios to see if we lost our way somewhere on the path. It's to motivate those contributors to get up if they feel down, if they feel like there is nothing more in this microstock type of business. And is for beginners to understand what and why are those shots or footages best selling.
have a great day!
-
Your 'reasons' are spurious. Best sellers can easily get smothered by search algorithm changes, or by changes in style.
-
Your 'reasons' are spurious. Best sellers can easily get smothered by search algorithm changes, or by changes in style.
Spurious is a bit harsh I think but without knowing more a image of a "best seller" doesn't really tell you much e.g how many sales, when? A bit of interrogation of sites can give better information.
-
Your 'reasons' are spurious. Best sellers can easily get smothered by search algorithm changes, or by changes in style.
Spurious is a bit harsh I think but without knowing more a image of a "best seller" doesn't really tell you much e.g how many sales, when? A bit of interrogation of sites can give better information.
How many sales? When? These were criteria of this topic. Most sales of all time since your inception into microstock
-
Your 'reasons' are spurious. Best sellers can easily get smothered by search algorithm changes, or by changes in style.
Chasing algorithms theories for me it's a completely waste of valuable production time, but hey. It's just me :)
-
Your 'reasons' are spurious. Best sellers can easily get smothered by search algorithm changes, or by changes in style.
Chasing algorithms theories for me it's a completely waste of valuable production time, but hey. It's just me :)
Fine, but it isn't a theory, it's easily provable (on iS anyway), and it can affect which files sell, which is what you claimed to want to know. Whatever. It makes chasing 'best sellers' a waste of time.
And on iS, trying to guess by sorting Most Popular - this year/this month is also pretty inaccurate, as is sorting by new. I can't speak to that for other sites.
These are my most recent credit sales on iStock. Note the preponderance of very-low-selling files - what can that be apart from tweaking best match results? A few weeks ago, and for months before that, I had a huge 'imbalance' (regularly over 50%) in credit sales of files uploaded in 2011. What was that? Where have these sales gone?
(http://www.lizworld.com/rs.jpg)
Years back, I also used to pooh-pooh the importance of the best match algorithm.
Then I began to look at the evidence.
This also suggests that just because a file doesn't sell, it's unsellable: it might just mean that customers don't see it.
I also accept that these are only my stats on one site and others may vary.
-
Your 'reasons' are spurious. Best sellers can easily get smothered by search algorithm changes, or by changes in style.
Spurious is a bit harsh I think but without knowing more a image of a "best seller" doesn't really tell you much e.g how many sales, when? A bit of interrogation of sites can give better information.
How many sales? When? These were criteria of this topic. Most sales of all time since your inception into microstock
That's exactly what I'm talking about. It's irrelevant which of my files sold best historically if they are now way down in the default search.
Here are my top nine historic sellers. Only one has sold (credit sale) this year:
(http://www.lizworld.com/ts9.jpg)
-
Your 'reasons' are spurious. Best sellers can easily get smothered by search algorithm changes, or by changes in style.
Spurious is a bit harsh I think but without knowing more a image of a "best seller" doesn't really tell you much e.g how many sales, when? A bit of interrogation of sites can give better information.
How many sales? When? These were criteria of this topic. Most sales of all time since your inception into microstock
Like most sales 2 in 2010?
-
Your 'reasons' are spurious. Best sellers can easily get smothered by search algorithm changes, or by changes in style.
Spurious is a bit harsh I think but without knowing more a image of a "best seller" doesn't really tell you much e.g how many sales, when? A bit of interrogation of sites can give better information.
How many sales? When? These were criteria of this topic. Most sales of all time since your inception into microstock
That's exactly what I'm talking about. It's irrelevant which of my files sold best historically if they are now way down in the default search.
Here are my top nine historic sellers. Only one has sold (credit sale) this year:
([url]http://www.lizworld.com/ts9.jpg[/url])
Now listen. I didn't mean to offend or to upset anyone by any form. That was not my intention. I was simply asking people of this community to share (if they want) their best selling picture of all time for various reasons that i mentioned in the previous reply!
I am using a 3rd party software that tracks my sales and how the pictures behave on different agencies. Is called Microstockr Pro(the PC version).
From there you can see how many downloads you had on a particular picture, how much income your pictures generated, from all agencies or from a particular agency.
I was simply sorting those by best selling, by all agencies and i applied the 'all time' filter. And the i got my results.
So i'm sorry if you thought that my intentions were to copy all of others contributors picture... although i shared mine first.
-
I'm certainly not "upset" and if anyone wants to share pics thats up to them. I'm merely saying its of limited use.
-
I'm certainly not "upset" and if anyone wants to share pics thats up to them. I'm merely saying its of limited use.
Me2
-
I'm certainly not "upset" and if anyone wants to share pics thats up to them. I'm merely saying its of limited use.
Right. I have images that don't see much anymore, but they were hotties. 700-1000 downloads, not I am lucky to see a few over a year. BUT.....that does not mean they won't come back with a algorithm change. Hard, though, to compete with millions of new images which does affect the overall choice for buyers. So to me it is competition and algorithm unless your image is very unique and hard for someone to duplicate its message.
-
I'm certainly not "upset" and if anyone wants to share pics thats up to them. I'm merely saying its of limited use.
Right. I have images that don't see much anymore, but they were hotties. 700-1000 downloads, not I am lucky to see a few over a year. BUT.....that does not mean they won't come back with a algorithm change. Hard, though, to compete with millions of new images which does affect the overall choice for buyers. So to me it is competition and algorithm unless your image is very unique and hard for someone to duplicate its message.
Now let me tell you something i figured out in this microstock business. Let's say that you're shooting 10 pics of an apple. For me that's one potential client that has 10 options to choose. So you're client in this criterias is looking for an apple. But if you're shooting 10 pics of an apple, a banana, an orange, a lemon and a kiwi in the same picture, you have 6 potential clients. the 6th may want a multifruit shot. Considering that fruits are on white background. So you see my point here? you have 10 shot in both cases but in the second case the probability percentage will be higher.
-
I'm certainly not "upset" and if anyone wants to share pics thats up to them. I'm merely saying its of limited use.
Right. I have images that don't see much anymore, but they were hotties. 700-1000 downloads, not I am lucky to see a few over a year. BUT.....that does not mean they won't come back with a algorithm change. Hard, though, to compete with millions of new images which does affect the overall choice for buyers. So to me it is competition and algorithm unless your image is very unique and hard for someone to duplicate its message.
Now let me tell you something i figured out in this microstock business. Let's say that you're shooting 10 pics of an apple. For me that's one potential client that has 10 options to choose. So you're client in this criterias is looking for an apple. But if you're shooting 10 pics of an apple, a banana, an orange, a lemon and a kiwi in the same picture, you have 6 potential clients. the 6th may want a multifruit shot. Considering that fruits are on white background. So you see my point here? you have 10 shot in both cases but in the second case the probability percentage will be higher.
I don't reckon it works quite like that. The buyer won't want that combination or arrangement. You could go on forever making endless combinations and arrangements, and you can see attempts to do this very thing by some contributors on some sites.
Far better to take the best isolated on white fruit images you can as individual fruits, and then leave the buyer to comp them, or most likely others, as they please.
I'm sure you already know this, but I really wouldn't bother shooting isolated fruit though these days!
-
I'm certainly not "upset" and if anyone wants to share pics thats up to them. I'm merely saying its of limited use.
Right. I have images that don't see much anymore, but they were hotties. 700-1000 downloads, not I am lucky to see a few over a year. BUT.....that does not mean they won't come back with a algorithm change. Hard, though, to compete with millions of new images which does affect the overall choice for buyers. So to me it is competition and algorithm unless your image is very unique and hard for someone to duplicate its message.
Now let me tell you something i figured out in this microstock business. Let's say that you're shooting 10 pics of an apple. For me that's one potential client that has 10 options to choose. So you're client in this criterias is looking for an apple. But if you're shooting 10 pics of an apple, a banana, an orange, a lemon and a kiwi in the same picture, you have 6 potential clients. the 6th may want a multifruit shot. Considering that fruits are on white background. So you see my point here? you have 10 shot in both cases but in the second case the probability percentage will be higher.
Not really as there might be a thousand people wanting a picture of an apple and one wanting an apple and a Kiwi. The hard bit is figuring out where demand outstrips supply and that's getting harder and harder.
-
I'm certainly not "upset" and if anyone wants to share pics thats up to them. I'm merely saying its of limited use.
Right. I have images that don't see much anymore, but they were hotties. 700-1000 downloads, not I am lucky to see a few over a year. BUT.....that does not mean they won't come back with a algorithm change. Hard, though, to compete with millions of new images which does affect the overall choice for buyers. So to me it is competition and algorithm unless your image is very unique and hard for someone to duplicate its message.
Now let me tell you something i figured out in this microstock business. Let's say that you're shooting 10 pics of an apple. For me that's one potential client that has 10 options to choose. So you're client in this criterias is looking for an apple. But if you're shooting 10 pics of an apple, a banana, an orange, a lemon and a kiwi in the same picture, you have 6 potential clients. the 6th may want a multifruit shot. Considering that fruits are on white background. So you see my point here? you have 10 shot in both cases but in the second case the probability percentage will be higher.
Not really as there might be a thousand people wanting a picture of an apple and one wanting an apple and a Kiwi. The hard bit is figuring out where demand outstrips supply and that's getting harder and harder.
The one buying a picture of an apple and a kiwi is not buying it because he needs specifically these two fruits, but because he gets a kiwi picture for free and he may use it someday.
-
Sorry for being offtopic, but how does Istock set their collections? I mean Signature, Signature+ etc. I guess Signature+ is the most expensive one?
-
Sorry for being offtopic, but how does Istock set their collections? I mean Signature, Signature+ etc. I guess Signature+ is the most expensive one?
The system was once different, but nowadays exclusives can nominate files for a further inspction to possibly become Sig+, which don't cost any more than credit sales, but are mirrored to Getty, at least in theory, where they can be sold for less than an exclusive credit file on iStock (or you might get lucky and earn more). If a file is Sig+, you get $2.50 for a sub sale instead of 75c.
-
Sorry for being offtopic, but how does Istock set their collections? I mean Signature, Signature+ etc. I guess Signature+ is the most expensive one?
The system was once different, but nowadays exclusives can nominate files for a further inspction to possibly become Sig+, which don't cost any more than credit sales, but are mirrored to Getty, at least in theory, where they can be sold for less than an exclusive credit file on iStock (or you might get lucky and earn more). If a file is Sig+, you get $2.50 for a sub sale instead of 75c.
Thank you! So all my non-exclusive clips will never be mirrored to Getty and stay in Essentials collection, right?
-
Sorry for being offtopic, but how does Istock set their collections? I mean Signature, Signature+ etc. I guess Signature+ is the most expensive one?
The system was once different, but nowadays exclusives can nominate files for a further inspction to possibly become Sig+, which don't cost any more than credit sales, but are mirrored to Getty, at least in theory, where they can be sold for less than an exclusive credit file on iStock (or you might get lucky and earn more). If a file is Sig+, you get $2.50 for a sub sale instead of 75c.
Thank you! So all my non-exclusive clips will never be mirrored to Getty and stay in Essentials collection, right?
Correct; I don't do video, but IIRC, all exclusive videos get mirrored (I don't think there's Sig+ for video?)
I wouldn't say 'never' though; iS is well known for surprising about turns.
-
Correct; I don't do video, but IIRC, all exclusive videos get mirrored (I don't think there's Sig+ for video?)
I wouldn't say 'never' though; iS is well known for surprising about turns.
There is Signature+ for videos, but I don't think they are treated any different than Signature.
-
Do videos count? [url]http://www.shutterstock.com/video/video.html?id=11325599[/url] ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/video/video.html?id=11325599[/url])
Great clip! My bestseller is obviously more simple :)
[url]http://www.shutterstock.com/ru/video/clip-12154754[/url] ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/ru/video/clip-12154754[/url])
-- that "simplicity" is exactly what makes yours a great clip (and apparently also a sought-after one). Good job @Irina Anosova!
-
Don't blame the search, understand the competition.
In 2010 there were probably 2000 isolated apple on white of 1 million photos, now there are 223,473 choices of 100 million, for the same. Buyers will not buy your older shot, even if it's better then most of the new, because buyers have many more choices for exactly what they want. Not just because the search changed.
New photos get a search boost on most agencies to compensate for old photos having the most sales. This gives the buyers a better choice and selection, instead of the old files having a slanted advantage based on nothing but times sold. Agencies don't care about us or our place in the search, they care about buyers experience and best choices for new and different materials to download.
The algorithm is not going to change back to anybodys favor. Ever!
-
Do videos count? [url]http://www.shutterstock.com/video/video.html?id=11325599[/url] ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/video/video.html?id=11325599[/url])
Great clip! My bestseller is obviously more simple :)
[url]http://www.shutterstock.com/ru/video/clip-12154754[/url] ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/ru/video/clip-12154754[/url])
-- that "simplicity" is exactly what makes yours a great clip (and apparently also a sought-after one). Good job @Irina Anosova!
Thank you :)