The main question for me is... if there is a cap, why is everyone's different? Surely the general level of sales that somebody gets based on the number of items they have, the quality of those items, how much commercial appeal there is in those items, how much the person markets them and how well they title, describe and keyword them... is what sets the 'cap'?

And how would one identify the difference between that kind of cap, and one that is enforced by the agency?

The main question for me is... if there is a cap, why is everyone's different? Surely the general level of sales that somebody gets based on the number of items they have, the quality of those items, how much commercial appeal there is in those items, how much the person markets them and how well they title, describe and keyword them... is what sets the 'cap'?

And how would one identify the difference between that kind of cap, and one that is enforced by the agency?

If there were a cap you would expect to see less variation so every month close to $1k or whatever it happens to be. Unless the figure is exactly $1k then it becomes a matter of opinion if its natural variability or a result of manipulation. The discussion will never end.........(it seems some also think its a cap on rate of growth but same principle).

At the start of this if someone had said do agencies change algorithms which boost sales of some contributors and reduce them for others? I doubt there would be much disagreement.

Well if Chinese buyers prefer to buy images of Chinese workers... then surely it's the contributors fault for not having photos of Chinese workers in their port? Changing the algorithm may mean the Chinese buyer is less likely to see those African worker images, but as you say... would they buy them even if they were near the top of the list?

That's not a cap... that's effectively marketing to your buyers and making sure you're presenting them with relevant results.

Correct clever marketing! only the different algorithms do hurt many peoples earnings. Cap as such?? no not the kind of cap that some here are talking about and for each and every contributor that would be impossible and of course highly ethically questionable.
There was one agency trying for something like that some years back, they got done but re-surfaced under a different name!

I have an amazing idea. It may not settle the cap argument once and for all, but it might come close... one way or the other. Just need to do the math and run the numbers, but I'm mildly excited.

Quote from: namussi on February 19, 2018, 03:21

C'mon then.

Show us your spreadsheets. Show us your graphs. Show us your workings.

I can't because there are no caps. Show me proof of Nessie, the Bermuda Triangle, Vampires, shape shifting birds, or a yeti. You can't because just like caps, they are a children's fairy tale or belief based on repeated false evidence. There's no proof and that's why believers defend so much. They toss out other myths to prove the first one, like new people are pushed to the front. But wait, I'm on the first page of a number of searches and have been for those same for a long time. I guess SS like me better. 

I think they read this forum and punish people who write bad things. So you better watch out, they're making a list and checking it twice, Gonna find out who's naughty or nice. SS caps are coming to town. Then they will change the search so only people here drop down and push horrible new cheap images to the front so buyers will say, SS has terrible photos, we need to go someplace else.

Just because somebody makes a claims and a small minority of believers agree and make the same claim, that don't make it proof. Just false rumors. The number of wrong people doesn't make evidence, it just means more people who have no sense.

Another failure of the (incomplete) "inductive logic" so dear to Namussi 

Another turkey lost his head. 

There is nothing wrong in promoting fresh content.
Actually, most probably, this is what many old SS customers, bored by the "same old, same old" are asking for.

The main question for me is... if there is a cap, why is everyone's different? Surely the general level of sales that somebody gets based on the number of items they have, the quality of those items, how much commercial appeal there is in those items, how much the person markets them and how well they title, describe and keyword them... is what sets the 'cap'?

And how would one identify the difference between that kind of cap, and one that is enforced by the agency?

It's the wall, just another brick in the wall.

All in all you're just another brick in the wall
All in all you're just another brick in the wall

You built the system, you supported the crime, and now the system owns you, and that's the crime. The Micros own you. They are like a drug that took over your life, made you dependent and then stole your soul. Break the addiction, leave micro, stop the punishment and abuse, you are being a self exposed victim. You can leave, just go, don't you see, it's over now, not the same.

I think there is enough sensible people around, with sufficient sales data and longevity in the industry, not to completely ignore what they are saying about having their sales capped.

Whilst I have never subscribed to the capping theory (Why? How? Who to? Why would SS do it?) I think there may be another plausible explanation. I reached top tier back in 2014, and my sales kept going up and up until end of 2016, so I don't think its that. But something big happened to me in the beginning of 2017, a massive 50% drop in photo DLs, that has never really recovered. SS went from 50% of my total microstock sales, to around 30%, and if I hadn�t started video before that, I would have suffered deeply. This also affected a number of other people I know who made good sales. They saw the same significant % drop as well.


This takes a while to explain, so please bear with me, and forgive the long post.

Now, this is the other possible explanation that I think of. SS is big on having very complex algorithms. They pride themselves on it, in fact. right? Also keeping in mind that one of the biggest problems that clients have is seeing the same images every time at the top of searches. This drives the buyers nuts � and away. Even building in a function of time into their algorithm probably doesn�t cut it.

Also keeping in mind that SS has some big buyers � the very large advertising agencies or whatever,  that probably come in and buy up 10,000 photos or whatever for their needs. Now SS can�t afford to lose these guys. So, what if they wrote another algorithm just for them. If it was my business, I certainly would. And what if, that algorithm included, �if you have seen or purchased this image before � don�t show it!� ?? And what about the consequences to all the contributors who have sold a hell of a lot of images in their past? How much of their port would automatically disappear from view from these big buyers?

We can�t prove the individual capping theory because when we look our images are still there. But what if there are special algorithms for special big buyers??

So, my question is to others � did you also notice a sudden drop at a particular time? And are there other people here who also experienced a significant drop in January 2017?  I have been racking my brains the past 12 months as to what happened. Where did the buyers go? Not noticeably to other agencies. So, I am very, very interested in what others say.  More contributors and more images being added to their database would not have resulted in such a big sudden drop, it would have been more gradual.

(To explain how much data I have to collect, I started Microstock in December 2012, now have 8,000 photos, and for the past 3 years have earned over $30,000, every year, from microstock. Also, I keep RPIs and stats on just about everything, and up until January 2017 they were always very predictable. I specialised in Holidays and Events, which makes it even more predictable.)

@Milleflore

I had a similar drop in sales some six month before your reported drop, and I know of many large port, long term contributors noticing the same phenomenon of sales dropping by 40-50% virtually overnight.  At the time, I sought answer on forums but was slapped down.  A number of contributors who had not been affected just told me I needed to work harder and study the market more, believing that the problem must be something I was doing wrong. It was very upsetting to be suddenly losing several hundred dollars per month, but also distressing to be reaching out to a community to share experiences, only to be told that the fault was mine and I needed to wake up and smell the coffee.

Those who have experienced this will be entirely sympathetic to your plight, and will also be looking for answers. Those who haven't yet found themselves in this position will be quietly - or maybe not so quietly - smug. It doesn't matter which camp you are in, as neither side will be able to give you answers. Those who have experienced a drop with be looking for reasonable theories to explain things, and those who are still riding high will shout those theories down.

I don't buy in to the 'cap' conspiracy theory per se, but I do believe that we are victims of arbitrary search changes and, once you start to lose ground in the rankings, it's a slippery slope to the bottom.

I'm also sure that Shutterstock employ a good team of behavioural psychologists to analyse not just buyer behaviour, but also to anticipate contributor behaviour. When your sales dropped what was your instinct - quit, or work harder to get back to where your were? Are you still contributing a year on? Do you set yourself deadlines of 'if this doesn't improve by month end I'll stop uploading', only to be thrown a large SOD just when you are ready to throw in the towel? Are you telling yourself that you need to diversify to grow, trying new media or searching for an elusive niche? Have you adjusted your monthly expectations down, and effectively accepted the new 'norm'?

Look at the behavioural science behind the forming of habits - it only takes about 21 days for an action to become a habit - and we will continue this habit while we are being rewarded, making it deep-seated and harder to break. Companies know how to hook us, and have changed their reward pattern from regular to random, which keeps us engaged and makes us crave reward. On the flip side, an as many of us know, breaking a habit is difficult, even if we know it's something really bad for us. Many of us have joked about the addictive nature of this business, and I think that's exactly the truth. I'm 10 years into this, so it's a big life-shift to give it all up.

We are nothing more than hopeful lab rats craving a reward, and we are totally at the mercy of these big corporations to throw out a treat. They can, and will, do what they like, because their advisers tell them that, in reality, 80% of the hardened contributors will moan but carry on working. For those they lose, there is a queue of newcomers stepping over each other to get in the door.

I don't buy in to the 'cap' conspiracy theory per se, but I do believe that we are victims of arbitrary search changes and, once you start to lose ground in the rankings, it's a slippery slope to the bottom.

I'm also sure that Shutterstock employ a good team of behavioural psychologists to analyse not just buyer behaviour, but also to anticipate contributor behaviour.

Arbitrary search changes are simply a natural jobs for agencies
They have to sell more images, simply.
They are working for you, for me or for anybody who is able to produce good images that sells.
There is nothing wrong in this.

I really doubt that Shutterstock or any other agency want to invest in hours and people psychologist team that analyse contributor thoughts....

Shutterstock, and others, are not "psychology". They have zillion of files and simpy want to have maximum earnings return, so they try different way. And it's exactly the same as contributors do (or should do).

if I own shutterstock, I would never think to spend money and time for a specialist psychologys team  ;-)
Believe me... more industry is big. less is worried about the base economy

They don't really care about YOU. They knows about entire world of contributors, and it's really diferent thing.

Quote from: Milleflore on February 20, 2018, 16:46

I think there is enough sensible people around, with sufficient sales data and longevity in the industry, not to completely ignore what they are saying about having their sales capped.

Whilst I have never subscribed to the capping theory (Why? How? Who to? Why would SS do it?) I think there may be another plausible explanation. I reached top tier back in 2014, and my sales kept going up and up until end of 2016, so I don't think its that. But something big happened to me in the beginning of 2017, a massive 50% drop in photo DLs, that has never really recovered. SS went from 50% of my total microstock sales, to around 30%, and if I hadn�t started video before that, I would have suffered deeply. This also affected a number of other people I know who made good sales. They saw the same significant % drop as well.


This takes a while to explain, so please bear with me, and forgive the long post.

Now, this is the other possible explanation that I think of. SS is big on having very complex algorithms. They pride themselves on it, in fact. right? Also keeping in mind that one of the biggest problems that clients have is seeing the same images every time at the top of searches. This drives the buyers nuts � and away. Even building in a function of time into their algorithm probably doesn�t cut it.

Also keeping in mind that SS has some big buyers � the very large advertising agencies or whatever,  that probably come in and buy up 10,000 photos or whatever for their needs. Now SS can�t afford to lose these guys. So, what if they wrote another algorithm just for them. If it was my business, I certainly would. And what if, that algorithm included, �if you have seen or purchased this image before � don�t show it!� ?? And what about the consequences to all the contributors who have sold a hell of a lot of images in their past? How much of their port would automatically disappear from view from these big buyers?

We can�t prove the individual capping theory because when we look our images are still there. But what if there are special algorithms for special big buyers??

So, my question is to others � did you also notice a sudden drop at a particular time? And are there other people here who also experienced a significant drop in January 2017?  I have been racking my brains the past 12 months as to what happened. Where did the buyers go? Not noticeably to other agencies. So, I am very, very interested in what others say.  More contributors and more images being added to their database would not have resulted in such a big sudden drop, it would have been more gradual.

(To explain how much data I have to collect, I started Microstock in December 2012, now have 8,000 photos, and for the past 3 years have earned over $30,000, every year, from microstock. Also, I keep RPIs and stats on just about everything, and up until January 2017 they were always very predictable. I specialised in Holidays and Events, which makes it even more predictable.)

@Milleflore

I had a similar drop in sales some six month before your reported drop, and I know of many large port, long term contributors noticing the same phenomenon of sales dropping by 40-50% virtually overnight.  At the time, I sought answer on forums but was slapped down.  A number of contributors who had not been affected just told me I needed to work harder and study the market more, believing that the problem must be something I was doing wrong. It was very upsetting to be suddenly losing several hundred dollars per month, but also distressing to be reaching out to a community to share experiences, only to be told that the fault was mine and I needed to wake up and smell the coffee.

Those who have experienced this will be entirely sympathetic to your plight, and will also be looking for answers. Those who haven't yet found themselves in this position will be quietly - or maybe not so quietly - smug. It doesn't matter which camp you are in, as neither side will be able to give you answers. Those who have experienced a drop with be looking for reasonable theories to explain things, and those who are still riding high will shout those theories down.

I don't buy in to the 'cap' conspiracy theory per se, but I do believe that we are victims of arbitrary search changes and, once you start to lose ground in the rankings, it's a slippery slope to the bottom.

I'm also sure that Shutterstock employ a good team of behavioural psychologists to analyse not just buyer behaviour, but also to anticipate contributor behaviour. When your sales dropped what was your instinct - quit, or work harder to get back to where your were? Are you still contributing a year on? Do you set yourself deadlines of 'if this doesn't improve by month end I'll stop uploading', only to be thrown a large SOD just when you are ready to throw in the towel? Are you telling yourself that you need to diversify to grow, trying new media or searching for an elusive niche? Have you adjusted your monthly expectations down, and effectively accepted the new 'norm'?

Look at the behavioural science behind the forming of habits - it only takes about 21 days for an action to become a habit - and we will continue this habit while we are being rewarded, making it deep-seated and harder to break. Companies know how to hook us, and have changed their reward pattern from regular to random, which keeps us engaged and makes us crave reward. On the flip side, an as many of us know, breaking a habit is difficult, even if we know it's something really bad for us. Many of us have joked about the addictive nature of this business, and I think that's exactly the truth. I'm 10 years into this, so it's a big life-shift to give it all up.

We are nothing more than hopeful lab rats craving a reward, and we are totally at the mercy of these big corporations to throw out a treat. They can, and will, do what they like, because their advisers tell them that, in reality, 80% of the hardened contributors will moan but carry on working. For those they lose, there is a queue of newcomers stepping over each other to get in the door.

Thank you for posting this, Kat! Excellent post.  I agree with you. And as for the behavioural psychology - I believe you. This is part of any research and marketing that large firms should do, anyway. Probably more for buying patterns - but who knows?

As for what I did, I stopped shooting specifically for photos last year. And now just focus on video. Any photos that I uploaded the last 12 months came from my video shoots. I figured, I might as well keep feeding the beast. LOL. But I spent less than 1/2 day per week on editing and uploading photos. I don't think it warrants any more of my time than that. But now I hope and pray that the same thing doesn't happen to video. So far, they have seemed to have left the algorithms alone for footage, and don't mess around with them like they do for stills.

But I did jokingly say to a friend the other day about the demise of photo sales ... "Maybe there is a shelf-life for all contributors, and the algorithms will get you in the end!" LOL (But maybe its not so much of a joke?

I'm also sure that Shutterstock employ a good team of behavioural psychologists to analyse not just buyer behaviour, but also to anticipate contributor behaviour.

That doesn't scare me. I am a tarot reader.

Quote from: derek on February 23, 2018, 16:35

The overwhelming majority of stock -photographers are Bipolar and many of these are on the verge of Borderline. No its not a pretty business. I agree.

Show us the statistics that back that up.

I cant since there is a CAP on these conditions!