pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Living from Stockphotography  (Read 16616 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #50 on: April 03, 2014, 15:04 »
0
Honest about sales patterns? You have never even produced one honest number in this forum. No one knows one iota about your business because you choose to be anonymous.

Oh the irony, two anonymous people arguing about each others claims, when they both never showed one figure ever. LOL

Considering the way a few of you behave, I think I made a wise decision. Carry on bragging about your larger than life sales.


Ron

« Reply #51 on: April 03, 2014, 15:07 »
+5
Bragging about 600 dollar per month? lol. You are too funny, you bragging of being part of a family with a fortune 200 company, selling his amazing images for 38 cents. You cant make stuff up like that.

« Reply #52 on: April 03, 2014, 15:08 »
+2

Enjoy your denial while it lasts. I have files with download numbers that would surprise you and they have been sent to the nether regions. SS purposely killed them and buyers can not find them in searches no matter how many pages they go through.

You will not believe it until it happens to you, but then you are trolling and do not really deserve a rational response. It is too bad that people who are honest about sales patterns are treated with this type of contempt,  because it prevents honest feed back that could help other contributors make wise business decisions.

Oh man you are the moses of microstock.

"I have files with download numbers that would surprise you"

0? -1?

:)


you make yourself a big target, hard to resist :)))
« Last Edit: April 03, 2014, 17:06 by topol »

« Reply #53 on: April 03, 2014, 15:15 »
+3

Over the last year many older contributors have seen as much as a 70% drop in annual earnings as the sites give their files less exposure in the search. Some of them have seen 30% to 70% overnight drops in earnings as the sites make search changes that no longer give their files exposure in the searches.

Shutterstock has publicly stated that "they have not raised prices to buyers for many years and do not intend to raise prices in the future as a long term strategy to gain market share". This is sustainable for them because their volume is far higher than any producer can ever achieve and they use the new contributor boost carrot to bring in higher numbers of new contributors who earn lower royalties. 

The sad tactics they use to gain market share has been profitable for them but has reduced our earnings potential by diminishing the value of our files while inflation and the need to increase quality and file numbers increases our annual production expenses.

Even the very high volume HCV microstock factories who receive more exposure in the search via extreme file numbers are seeing eroding returns per image over time. Yuri and other factories talk about this quite often and as a result Yuri built his own site and made other strategic changes to limit his exposure to the model long term.

The common perception that producing high number of images to gain search exposure is misguided and false. Large numbers of good quality very HCV files might bring you increased exposure. However the search most certainly penalizes ports with large numbers of LCV images.

I never ever experienced any 'sudden overnight drops'. Only the regular fluctuations according to season/holidays, etc. I suspect you are taking your hints from certain 'SS forum superstar' contributors, who's portfolios don't seem to be noticed by their fans for actually being a piss-poor collection of photography "don't do"-s. :)


I don't think the search penalizes ports for anything, I think the search simply doesn't do anything to 'ports', becasue it only works on individual images.... regardless of their source. I'm not saying it's impossible, but it's extremely unlikely. Just doesn't make any sense.
I have a high selling image (for me) that was floating around the first 10 positions for years at iStock (I started in 2003). Then they got wild with the Best match and it fell a few pages. Here in the last few weeks  it is rattling around position 360 (with well over 1000 downloads on record). I have many images that now come much earlier in the search results and these images have under 100 downloads. I am convinced iStock is depressing something related to my best selling images. It could be good to stir the pot and give good low selling images another day in the sun. However, it is costing me because the shift has lost more sales from the previously high sellers than is being made up buy multiple low sellers higher in the search. Ports, image sales, age, I don't know the criteria, but currently my best selling images are buried per my view.

« Reply #54 on: April 03, 2014, 15:47 »
+2
Bragging about 600 dollar per month? lol. You are too funny, you bragging of being part of a family with a fortune 200 company, selling his amazing images for 38 cents. You cant make stuff up like that.

snip

« Reply #55 on: April 03, 2014, 15:53 »
-3
Bragging about 600 dollar per month? lol. You are too funny, you bragging of being part of a family with a fortune 200 company, selling his amazing images for 38 cents. You cant make stuff up like that.

Clearly I am not in this for the money. However after growing up in a company that does offer the people who power it, a fair living income. I find the greed of this model increasingly offensive.

Whether you choose to believe or listen to my viewpoints or not, is of no concern to me. It is the truth plain and simple.

« Reply #56 on: April 03, 2014, 16:05 »
+2
Bragging about 600 dollar per month? lol. You are too funny, you bragging of being part of a family with a fortune 200 company, selling his amazing images for 38 cents. You cant make stuff up like that.

Clearly I am not in this for the money. However after growing up in a company that does offer the people who power it, a fair living income. I find the greed of this model increasingly offensive.

Whether you choose to believe or listen to my viewpoints or not, is of no concern to me. It is the truth plain and simple.

I guess that deserves another snip, sorry to say but that was the most pathetic thing I have ever read in this forum, it is just unbelievable looking at all the moaning you do regarding the devaluation of stock photography, Jon should pay you in peanuts!

« Reply #57 on: April 03, 2014, 16:10 »
-2
.
« Last Edit: May 11, 2014, 22:07 by tickstock »

Ron

« Reply #58 on: April 03, 2014, 16:22 »
+7


Clearly I am not in this for the money.

Bwhahahahahahahahahaha. So you are spending all this time on MSG, pissing and moaning about shutterstock's sub model, when you are not even in this for the money. Hahahahahahahahahaha. I have one word for you.

FLICKR

« Reply #59 on: April 03, 2014, 17:02 »
+1
I guess that deserves another snip, sorry to say but that was the most pathetic thing I have ever read in this forum, it is just unbelievable looking at all the moaning you do regarding the devaluation of stock photography, Jon should pay you in peanuts!

It's funny the price of a pound of peanuts is similar to what Shutterstock is paying, 27 cents a pound but in December it was 50 cents, I know not everyone makes 27 cents per pound:
http://www.usda.gov/nass/PUBS/TODAYRPT/pnpr0114.pdf


I wish I could get peanuts for .27 per pound. even .38/pound would be a bargain.

« Reply #60 on: April 03, 2014, 17:16 »
+3
.
« Last Edit: May 11, 2014, 22:07 by tickstock »

« Reply #61 on: April 03, 2014, 17:56 »
+2
The cost of bird seed exceeds .38 per pound.   Perspectives on earnings is dictated by how low or high your bar has been set.

http://tinyurl.com/ljfkruo


Ron

« Reply #62 on: April 03, 2014, 18:10 »
+1
The cost of bird seed exceeds .38 per pound.   Perspectives on earnings is dictated by how low or high your bar has been set.

http://tinyurl.com/ljfkruo


I honestly dont get you. You act as if the bar is set high for you, but still you chose to submit to Shutterstock in 2004 to get 20 cents per sale.

« Reply #63 on: April 03, 2014, 18:10 »
+3
In my best estimate I would need just shy of 10000 to be able to just get by only on stock. The main thing to be weary of is the lowering value of our images, making it that much harder to sustain a decent amount of income. I find videos to still have a decent return and they have been my main focus. Downside is they take up more time in editing and uploading. As of now I am happy with stock supplementing my income. I think the potential is there to earn a living with stock if you are willing to devote the majority of you time and able to squeeze by the first few years on peanuts. I think it is relevant to state I am in the US, and it might be easier in countries with lower costs of living.


Uncle Pete

« Reply #64 on: April 03, 2014, 18:53 »
0
Wait a minute... you mean it's not just a drama series, this is real?  ???

How's does an innocent post- "Living from Stock Photography' turn into a massive Gang Banging? Maybe Leaf should consider turning MSG into a drama tv series...

Link Please? Where SS discloses this data?

I'm not sure if this is related but at Shutterstock the best selling files from 2013 sold about 20% less than the best selling files from 2012.  There are probably a few different ways to interpret that stat.

Odd isn't it, when best sellers have 10 million more competing files, they will sell less. How revolutionary is that? Why "Surprise, Surprise" More competition makes for less individual sales. Even a "best Seller" which is a vague enough term in itself. Best compared to what. The next 20 million new images?

Smaller piece of the pie and dilution because of competition is not some kind of conspiracy.

« Last Edit: April 03, 2014, 19:00 by Uncle Pete »

« Reply #65 on: April 03, 2014, 19:42 »
+1
.
« Last Edit: May 11, 2014, 22:07 by tickstock »

« Reply #66 on: April 03, 2014, 20:11 »
0
I honestly dont get you. You act as if the bar is set high for you, but still you chose to submit to Shutterstock in 2004 to get 20 cents per sale.


I have explained my position with supporting facts to you many times over. You simply choose not to listen, you choose to rally your position despite the hard cold facts.  Trying to communicate with you leaves most of us in a similar position to Anderson's in this absurd flick  http://tinyurl.com/prdy6b9
« Last Edit: April 03, 2014, 20:14 by gbalex »


Goofy

« Reply #67 on: April 03, 2014, 20:28 »
+1
I guess that deserves another snip, sorry to say but that was the most pathetic thing I have ever read in this forum, it is just unbelievable looking at all the moaning you do regarding the devaluation of stock photography, Jon should pay you in peanuts!

It's funny the price of a pound of peanuts is similar to what Shutterstock is paying, 27 cents a pound but in December it was 50 cents, I know not everyone makes 27 cents per pound:
http://www.usda.gov/nass/PUBS/TODAYRPT/pnpr0114.pdf


I wish I could get peanuts for .27 per pound. even .38/pound would be a bargain.

Maybe we should start a petition asking to get paid in peanuts?


Very simple to get paid peanuts- just become 'Exclusive' to iStock  ;)

shudderstok

« Reply #68 on: April 03, 2014, 20:29 »
+4
How's does an innocent post- "Living from Stock Photography' turn into a massive Gang Banging? Maybe Leaf should consider turning MSG into a drama tv series...

it is caused by a lot of failed wannabees that have inflated ego's with more time on their hands to tell us how to do it than to actually do it. same guys who yell at the tv telling the coach how to run his team. or what i simply call armchair travelers. this forum is a joke albeit entertaining and delusional

Uncle Pete

« Reply #69 on: April 03, 2014, 22:50 »
0
With 20 million images to choose from:
Best sellers of photo, illustration, and vector (not including video) from 2012:  13,968

With 30 million images to choose from:
Best sellers of video, photo, illustration, and vector from 2013:  11,340

Hardly a trend that new files aren't selling as well, when the best sellers are such a minute percentage, .004% of the total files vs a higher number .006% for 2012, to start with. It's like saying by counting unused straws you can figure out how many soft drinks are sold at McDonald's.

Relative decline is insignificant, not 20% - more like .002% while choice for customers increased 33%? If you were in business and your competition increased 33% and your market share dropped .002% would you call is suspicious or free fall decline?

Without even including videos for 2012 the best sellers had 20% less sales than the best sellers from the previous year.  I don't know if that means best sellers are punished or there is something else at work but a 20% decline seems significant.

Sorry. Not convinced there's anything suspicious going on, or best sellers are being "punished". On the contrary, they seem to be holding up against the competition pretty well.


« Reply #70 on: April 03, 2014, 23:55 »
0
With 20 million images to choose from:
Best sellers of photo, illustration, and vector (not including video) from 2012:  13,968

With 30 million images to choose from:
Best sellers of video, photo, illustration, and vector from 2013:  11,340

Hardly a trend that new files aren't selling as well, when the best sellers are such a minute percentage, .004% of the total files vs a higher number .006% for 2012, to start with. It's like saying by counting unused straws you can figure out how many soft drinks are sold at McDonald's.

Relative decline is insignificant, not 20% - more like .002% while choice for customers increased 33%? If you were in business and your competition increased 33% and your market share dropped .002% would you call is suspicious or free fall decline?

Without even including videos for 2012 the best sellers had 20% less sales than the best sellers from the previous year.  I don't know if that means best sellers are punished or there is something else at work but a 20% decline seems significant.

Sorry. Not convinced there's anything suspicious going on, or best sellers are being "punished". On the contrary, they seem to be holding up against the competition pretty well.

The illustration from 2012 looks a lot more impressive to me. Of course that has nothing to do with what makes a best seller, but I agree it is hardly a freefall considering the increase in the total numbers. Looking at the number of sales from the top 1% of files would be a lot more informative but I guess we only get the info they reveal.

Ron

« Reply #71 on: April 04, 2014, 01:43 »
-1
How's does an innocent post- "Living from Stock Photography' turn into a massive Gang Banging? Maybe Leaf should consider turning MSG into a drama tv series...

it is caused by a lot of failed wannabees that have inflated ego's with more time on their hands to tell us how to do it than to actually do it. same guys who yell at the tv telling the coach how to run his team. or what i simply call armchair travelers. this forum is a joke albeit entertaining and delusional
The only inflated egos I see here are anonymous, telling everyone else they have it right, and the rest is wrong. When confronting them with their own contradictions, they start to ridicule and throw insults.

« Reply #72 on: April 04, 2014, 02:43 »
0
With 20 million images to choose from:
Best sellers of photo, illustration, and vector (not including video) from 2012:  13,968

With 30 million images to choose from:
Best sellers of video, photo, illustration, and vector from 2013:  11,340

Hardly a trend that new files aren't selling as well, when the best sellers are such a minute percentage, .004% of the total files vs a higher number .006% for 2012, to start with. It's like saying by counting unused straws you can figure out how many soft drinks are sold at McDonald's.

Relative decline is insignificant, not 20% - more like .002% while choice for customers increased 33%? If you were in business and your competition increased 33% and your market share dropped .002% would you call is suspicious or free fall decline?

Without even including videos for 2012 the best sellers had 20% less sales than the best sellers from the previous year.  I don't know if that means best sellers are punished or there is something else at work but a 20% decline seems significant.

Sorry. Not convinced there's anything suspicious going on, or best sellers are being "punished". On the contrary, they seem to be holding up against the competition pretty well.


Is there a concrete definition of 'best seller', that we can know of + a way to check that files pointed out actually do fit the definition? Because if there isn't, this is 100% completely meaningless. Might as well just plant your face on the keyboard and publish it as the year's stats, bit like the poll here :D

shudderstok

« Reply #73 on: April 04, 2014, 05:00 »
-2
How's does an innocent post- "Living from Stock Photography' turn into a massive Gang Banging? Maybe Leaf should consider turning MSG into a drama tv series...

it is caused by a lot of failed wannabees that have inflated ego's with more time on their hands to tell us how to do it than to actually do it. same guys who yell at the tv telling the coach how to run his team. or what i simply call armchair travelers. this forum is a joke albeit entertaining and delusional
The only inflated egos I see here are anonymous, telling everyone else they have it right, and the rest is wrong. When confronting them with their own contradictions, they start to ridicule and throw insults.

i must have struck a nerve.

« Reply #74 on: April 04, 2014, 05:03 »
-2
How's does an innocent post- "Living from Stock Photography' turn into a massive Gang Banging? Maybe Leaf should consider turning MSG into a drama tv series...

it is caused by a lot of failed wannabees that have inflated ego's with more time on their hands to tell us how to do it than to actually do it. same guys who yell at the tv telling the coach how to run his team. or what i simply call armchair travelers. this forum is a joke albeit entertaining and delusional

yeah the joke is on you ;)


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
11 Replies
7709 Views
Last post March 27, 2006, 12:29
by leaf
35 Replies
17787 Views
Last post January 26, 2007, 20:10
by phildate
18 Replies
10273 Views
Last post November 07, 2015, 23:38
by PeterChigmaroff
50 Replies
17785 Views
Last post April 08, 2009, 20:24
by vonkara
Living in the Florida Keys

Started by WarrenPrice Off Topic

9 Replies
3099 Views
Last post January 26, 2013, 16:27
by trek

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors