MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Google has sunk the entire stock market  (Read 22448 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: May 27, 2015, 08:06 »
+2
With the latest update to its Penguin algorithm, Google has sunk the entire stock market.
As you noticed sales have dropped dramatically in the past few weeks(almost on all agencies) and all i can see it is a huge buzz in the stock marketing world.

Most agencies are trying a new look more friendly for their "daddy" google , others have already operated a sum of changes and comfortable waiting their Daddy's to send them clients...
At this moment I see chaos all over the place and I don't know when things will rearrange.

What do you think?


« Reply #1 on: May 27, 2015, 08:28 »
+1
Dont really have time researching so can you say in short whats Penguin algorithm change about ?

« Reply #2 on: May 27, 2015, 09:13 »
+1
There are many changes that google made to its Penguin algorithm (search engine)...But I can give you two examples which effects ALL agencies:
1: all sites with "duplicate content" = Google's penalty (i think this is a huge problem for all agencies, since all agencies have duplicate content)
2. all sites which r not "mobile friendly" = Google's penalty (this type of problem can be solved with a new look, but it takes time "months" to regain the position you lost it in google)

« Reply #3 on: May 27, 2015, 09:40 »
+23
   I think there is a flaw in your theory. Most serious microstock buyers don't use Google to search for an image to buy. They use their favorite agency. In fact, most of the big advertising agencies have contracts with Shutterstock, iStock, Dreamstime, etc. The search results for an image within the agency, doesn't involve Google.

jareso

  • Boris Jaroscak
« Reply #4 on: May 27, 2015, 09:51 »
+2
Interesting opinion Suliman. You may be even right about that. But, does it really affect all agencies?

Shouldnt at least one, that is considered by Google algorithm as the source of original content, actually receive all that traffic, the other agencies lost? I mean, there are no empty spaces in SERP and never will be, no matter what types of Penguin algorithms come, so if position of some website is lost, the other website will take its place. Thus, I guess at least one agency will be always considered as the source of original content, even if it is not, otherwise there wouldnt be any sources of stock images for sale, e.g. agencies, shown in SERP. That's unlikely to happen.

Btw. It would be ideal if author's personal portfolio websites could be qualified/verified somehow as the source of the original content in eyes of Google or other search engines, so that they could be seated on first positions in SERP, surpassing all other websites where the same images are available, but I guess that's just the pure utopia. :)
« Last Edit: May 27, 2015, 10:01 by jareso »

« Reply #5 on: May 27, 2015, 09:55 »
+9
   I think there is a flaw in your theory. Most serious microstock buyers don't use Google to search for an image to buy. They use their favorite agency. In fact, most of the big advertising agencies have contracts with Shutterstock, iStock, Dreamstime, etc. The search results for an image within the agency, doesn't involve Google.

That's what I've always thought.  I don't imagine many serious buyers use google to find an image.

« Reply #6 on: May 27, 2015, 10:08 »
+5
"Most serious microstock buyers don't use Google to search for an image to buy"

Yes, i think u're right but what about the other buyers ? For example i'm a seroius buyer and i have a favorite agency to buy from.
5 years ago i searched in google to find it , until then I did not know of its existence...
From what I read on forums, sales that are made through search engines r kinda 50% to an average agency.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #7 on: May 27, 2015, 10:14 »
+2
"Most serious microstock buyers don't use Google to search for an image to buy"

Yes, i think u're right but what about the other buyers ? For example i'm a seroius buyer and i have a favorite agency to buy from.
5 years ago i searched in google to find it , until then I did not know of its existence...
From what I read on forums, sales that are made through search engines r kinda 50% to an average agency.
I can't believe that 50% of image sales are made through Google/search engines. Where did you read that?
Possibly, 50% of people suddenly needing to purchase a stock image (new buyers) may well look at a generic search first, but after that, they'll probably either take out a subscription/buy credits with one agency, so that's their first port of call in future.
I'd imagine (but have no stats) that most people searching for images via Google etc aren't looking for images to licence, but just looking for images for 'whatever' reason.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #8 on: May 27, 2015, 10:15 »
+2
With the latest update to its Penguin algorithm, Google has sunk the entire stock market.
So if it has sunk the entire stock market equally, where are buyers buying from now?

« Reply #9 on: May 27, 2015, 10:18 »
+3
I've seen situations, when many people found my clips in google and wondered how can they buy those clips...(without knowing any particular agency)
I don't think it's one thing to ignore and waiting for the "serious microstock buyers to come "

« Reply #10 on: May 27, 2015, 10:23 »
+12
This morning I did notice the sky decidedly lower and with a cracked appearance.

« Reply #11 on: May 27, 2015, 10:25 »
0
ShadySue , there r many small and medium agencies with sales (exceeding 50%) made through Google/search engines

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #12 on: May 27, 2015, 10:34 »
0
ShadySue , there r many small and medium agencies with sales (exceeding 50%) made through Google/search engines
You state that as if it were a fact, but with no evidence offered to back it up.
But I see now you've moderated the sweeping 'entire stock market' statement to 'small and medium' agencies.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #13 on: May 27, 2015, 10:40 »
+3
I just googled 'businessman stock photo', and guess what: the front page is full of stock agencies.
When I switched to images, the top images all had agency watermarks over them.

That is my evidence to show that if someone Googles actually wanting to license a stock image, it's more than easy.


« Reply #14 on: May 27, 2015, 10:41 »
+4
The sites must get a lot of business from google or they wouldn't be bending over backwards to keep them happy.  I wish more people would use alternatives to google.  Almost everyone using the same search engine all the time is going to cause problems.  Competition is good.

« Reply #15 on: May 27, 2015, 11:07 »
0
ShadySue , and if it is not so important "the search engine"  ... how can u explain the new look of those from fotolia and depositphotos,
once Google announced new changes to their Search Engine ?? - all the people knew they were not mobile friendly.

And by the way not all the people,newspapers,magazines,studios...etc, in the world know about stock agencies (know about the word "stock")
Many of those people r searching as simple as posible "businessman or cat or europe" and are well-intentioned and potentially.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #16 on: May 27, 2015, 11:18 »
+1
ShadySue , and if it is not so important "the search engine"  ... how can u explain the new look of those from fotolia and depositphotos, once Google announced new changes to their Search Engine ?? - all the people knew they were not mobile friendly.
That's more or less a straw man argument.
Equivalent to this:
"Rhino horn is not an aphrodisiac. It's made of keratin like our fingernails."
"Then why are the Chinese spending huge sums of money to poach rhinos to grind their horn into aphrodisiacs?"

Even if your contention was correct, then Fotolia and DP must be pulling in all the new buyers. Does the evidence support that?

Quote
And by the way not all the people,newspapers,magazines,studios...etc, in the world know about stock agencies (know about the word "stock")
Many of those people r searching as simple as posible "businessman or cat or europe" and are well-intentioned and potentially.
I'm pretty certain (with no more evidence than you're presenting) that most newspapers, magazines and studios do know about stock agencies. Apart from those who just steal.
If people don't know about stock agencies, or the term 'stock image' (or the equivalent in other languages, as relevant) how would they know about licensing images?

Is your argument, so far totally unverified, that people who Google wanting to license images, wanting to buy them, can't find any images to license?
If you do a google images search on 'businessman', the top images are nearly all stock photos, 'in use'. However, after just a few lines, there are stock images directly from the agencies.
« Last Edit: May 27, 2015, 11:26 by ShadySue »


« Reply #17 on: May 27, 2015, 11:18 »
+3
And by the way not all the people,newspapers,magazines,studios...etc, in the world know about stock agencies

All the successful ones do. ;)

« Reply #18 on: May 27, 2015, 11:30 »
+3
Well, I'm cleared with your knowledge of SEO... When you'll show me an agency (or any other site) that is not dependent on search engines and doing sales...
i'll believe u.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #19 on: May 27, 2015, 11:35 »
-2
Well, I'm cleared with your knowledge of SEO... When you'll show me an agency (or any other site) that is not dependent on search engines and doing sales...
i'll believe u.
You started the discussion, yet have not provided any evidence of any agencies, relevant to msg, which are 'dependent' on search engines for their business.

« Reply #20 on: May 27, 2015, 11:36 »
+3
ShadySue , there r many small and medium agencies with sales (exceeding 50%) made through Google/search engines
You state that as if it were a fact, but with no evidence offered to back it up.
But I see now you've moderated the sweeping 'entire stock market' statement to 'small and medium' agencies.

Well I seriously doubt that agencies would be ready to reveal the info about where from are their buyers coming from that we would be consider "evidence"

But for example FAA officially claimed in a forum post I red recently that majority of their sales are happening from google.

Clearly thats not the same niche but i wouldn't be surprise if nice cut of microstock sales happening from google especially in credit sales or EL.

I can imagine situation the someone see an image on google images follows the link and licences the image and I can also accept the possibility that it happens more often than I would guess.

 

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #21 on: May 27, 2015, 11:43 »
0
But for example FAA officially claimed in a forum post I red recently that majority of their sales are happening from google.
That wouldn't surprise me in the least - like you say, it's a totally different market* - though usually their forum claims that most sales are from artists' direct marketing, which no doubt includes Google Ads.
BTW, FAA has really dropped in SEO recently. Time was that just about any 'representable' noun had at least one FAA page or file in the first Google page. Not now.

*"I'd like to buy a painting of a horse" isn't really the same as "I need to license an image of a horse".

I'm not saying that no images are licensed via Google, I'm saying that I don't think it's a high percentage. It's just agencies juggling for who will attract any 'new' licencees (if that's the word).
« Last Edit: May 27, 2015, 13:50 by ShadySue »

« Reply #22 on: May 27, 2015, 11:51 »
+1
But for example FAA officially claimed in a forum post I red recently that majority of their sales are happening from google.
That wouldn't surprise me in the least - like you say, it's a totally different market* - though usually their forum claims that most sales are from artists' direct marketing.
BTW, FAA has really dropped in SEO recently. Time was that just about any 'representable' noun had at least one FAA page or file in the first Google page. Not now.

*"I'd like to buy a painting of a horse" isn't really the same as "I need to license an image of a horse".

I'm not saying that no images are licensed via Google, I'm saying that I don't think it's a high percentage. It's just agencies juggling for who will attract any 'new' licencees (if that's the word).

Yes, I basically agree with you just saying I wouldn't be surprised if I'm wrong because my opinion is based on my personal perception and not on clear facts so I leve the doors open to a possibility that google influences sales in higher % than i would guess. :)

« Reply #23 on: May 27, 2015, 11:54 »
+4
I can't believe that 50% of image sales are made through Google/search engines. Where did you read that?
Possibly, 50% of people suddenly needing to purchase a stock image (new buyers) may well look at a generic search first, but after that, they'll probably either take out a subscription/buy credits with one agency, so that's their first port of call in future.
I'd imagine (but have no stats) that most people searching for images via Google etc aren't looking for images to licence, but just looking for images for 'whatever' reason.

What I can imagine happening is someone goes to their favorite agency, finds an image, then does a google search to see if some nitwit has posted a high resolution version of it on their blog. That way, they can snag it from the google search for free.  ::)

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #24 on: May 27, 2015, 12:05 »
0
And by the way not all the people,newspapers,magazines,studios...etc, in the world know about stock agencies (know about the word "stock")
How would they find an image to license if they just type in a word?
How would they know which of all the images they'll find is licensable? If they don't know about stock agencies, what would make them somehow know that seeing 'iStock' or 'Shutterstock' or any of the others as watermarks would mean they were available to licence?
If they don't know about stock agencies, they won't recognise the watermarks, or know that certain watermarks means licensable, though others don't.
« Last Edit: May 27, 2015, 12:20 by ShadySue »


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
5 Replies
4885 Views
Last post April 21, 2009, 15:18
by Rahul Pathak
4 Replies
2440 Views
Last post November 28, 2012, 14:51
by tab62
29 Replies
18135 Views
Last post August 31, 2015, 14:31
by ObviousTroll
0 Replies
3550 Views
Last post June 27, 2016, 20:24
by gridengine
11 Replies
5109 Views
Last post August 21, 2017, 22:12
by Jo Ann Snover

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors