pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Living from Stockphotography  (Read 11786 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #25 on: April 03, 2014, 10:40 »
-8
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.

high number of HCV images = + search exposure = false (it might get you increased exposure)

most certainly = search penalizes ports with large number of LCV images

man I am confused, that doesn't make any sense, so why are you having drops in earnings?

Luis I feel for you if you have dyslexia, you seem to consistently have trouble reading.  You either purposely post this scrambled garbage executive review or you have real challenges when reading.


« Reply #26 on: April 03, 2014, 10:48 »
+3
I don't have any issues man, not that I know at least, can you explain me why the F are your earnings dropping then?

your content isn't LCV, it is obviously HCV, shouldn't you be loaded? unless you are the guy with loads of HCV but no exposure 8)

I have written exactly what you have dude, what is wrong there? ;D

« Reply #27 on: April 03, 2014, 11:00 »
+4
It is a question if you choose super competition and darwinism or if you choose to live in some sort of human friendly civilisation.

Oh, no! It's not that bad! I'm one of the rats who has at least got his fingers scraping towards the top of the bucket - and I didn't have to kill anyone to do it. Look at Sean Locke - he's basked in the sun and nobody has been more friendly towards his competitors.

Batman

« Reply #28 on: April 03, 2014, 11:20 »
+2
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'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.

Do you have files on SS that are effected this way? Or are you making up stats again.

« Reply #29 on: April 03, 2014, 11:21 »
-1
.
« Last Edit: May 11, 2014, 22:09 by tickstock »

« Reply #30 on: April 03, 2014, 11:23 »
-2
I don't have any issues man, not that I know at least, can you explain me why the F are your earnings dropping then?

your content isn't LCV, it is obviously HCV, shouldn't you be loaded? unless you are the guy with loads of HCV but no exposure 8)

I have written exactly what you have dude, what is wrong there? ;D

No you did not write what I wrote, you misrepresented and mangled what I wrote to mean something completely different. It is becoming clear that is your intention.

Luis do you have any thoughts of your own or do you just meddle and snoop into other contributors business? You spend most of your time on these boards snooping into successful ports or taking sideways jabs at contributors who have viewpoints different than your own. 

It is my business where I submit my files and how they are doing not yours.




« Reply #31 on: April 03, 2014, 11:32 »
+1
I am not really going that way mate, if you are unhappy you can always ignore me, in the meantime go and read my post again, I even took the bits from your own post, I haven't made anything up

Goofy

« Reply #32 on: April 03, 2014, 11:35 »
+7
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...

« Reply #33 on: April 03, 2014, 11:43 »
+6
.
« Last Edit: May 11, 2014, 22:09 by tickstock »

Goofy

« Reply #34 on: April 03, 2014, 12:00 »
0
Maybe Leaf should consider turning MSG into a drama tv series...
Isn't that what the hearts, minuses, and emoticons have done?

LOL!  ;D


« Reply #35 on: April 03, 2014, 12:31 »
+1
I think the biggest problem of all is that earnings tend to erode over time, and sooner or later earnings will start to fall faster than you can possibly upload to keep your income as it is.

What that means is that unless you are able to earn much more than the minimum you need to live on, you will need to find other ways to add to your income. If you don't, you will gradually become poorer and poorer as time goes by.

Also, the time it takes to build a portfolio is also time that reduces the value of images. If you are making 10c per picture per month now, by the time you have 6,000 pictures online you will probably only be making 7.5c per picture. Six or seven years from now, when you have 12,000 online, they will probably only be making 5c per file - and another five years on it may only be 3c.

I'm experiencing the opposite. As my files age, the popular ones are becoming even more popular with increasing number of downloads/day as their search placement gets more and more solid. When they start to sell they go from few downloads a week to downloads every day, and when it gets to 2 or more downloads / day, they almost always end up getting 8-10+, 20 downloads every day.... which is logical because every sensible search engine takes it's hints form the customers' actions. So actually when I told myself that this isn't as profitable as it's supposed to be, a whole bunch of files started making a more and more money as they got old enough. This also means that new files coming in to the site have little / no effect on popular files because search preference is coming frome individual image's merits, and the head start those have is actually increasing with time.


« Reply #36 on: April 03, 2014, 12:45 »
+5

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.

« Reply #37 on: April 03, 2014, 12:51 »
0
The high cost of living where you are probably reflects a lifestyle you are buying into. In places where living is cheap the facilities probably wouldn't fit with your expectations.

I live in a Nordic country, we have pretty high standards here. But I know many (east-)European countries with acceptable standards but with average wages under half of what we have. That would mean that everything produced within that country (food, houses, rents, services, doctors etc.) would cost much less. Of course imported stuff would be only a little cheaper (less markup).

Of course there are those dirt cheap countries too, but they have too low standards (safety, internet, facilities) for long-time living.

« Reply #38 on: April 03, 2014, 12:56 »
0
I think the biggest problem of all is that earnings tend to erode over time, and sooner or later earnings will start to fall faster than you can possibly upload to keep your income as it is.

What that means is that unless you are able to earn much more than the minimum you need to live on, you will need to find other ways to add to your income. If you don't, you will gradually become poorer and poorer as time goes by.

Also, the time it takes to build a portfolio is also time that reduces the value of images. If you are making 10c per picture per month now, by the time you have 6,000 pictures online you will probably only be making 7.5c per picture. Six or seven years from now, when you have 12,000 online, they will probably only be making 5c per file - and another five years on it may only be 3c.

I'm experiencing the opposite. As my files age, the popular ones are becoming even more popular with increasing number of downloads/day as their search placement gets more and more solid. When they start to sell they go from few downloads a week to downloads every day, and when it gets to 2 or more downloads / day, they almost always end up getting 8-10+, 20 downloads every day.... which is logical because every sensible search engine takes it's hints form the customers' actions. So actually when I told myself that this isn't as profitable as it's supposed to be, a whole bunch of files started making a more and more money as they got old enough. This also means that new files coming in to the site have little / no effect on popular files because search preference is coming frome individual image's merits, and the head start those have is actually increasing with time.

That's an interesting result. It may reflect a difference between your portfolio and other peoples. My stuff is mostly LCV but I reckon that the huge competition among HCV subjects probably spreads the sales so thinly that my LCV sales are likely to be as good and the returns from average to decent HCV stuff.  Perhaps you have HCV plus exceptional quality. I can certainly see how that would reinforce sales. Indeed, it is the hallmark of the very top sellers.

« Reply #39 on: April 03, 2014, 12:58 »
0
The high cost of living where you are probably reflects a lifestyle you are buying into. In places where living is cheap the facilities probably wouldn't fit with your expectations.

I live in a Nordic country, we have pretty high standards here. But I know many (east-)European countries with acceptable standards but with average wages under half of what we have. That would mean that everything produced within that country (food, houses, rents, services, doctors etc.) would cost much less. Of course imported stuff would be only a little cheaper (less markup).

Of course there are those dirt cheap countries too, but they have too low standards (safety, internet, facilities) for long-time living.

Norway? Massive taxes and benefits, from what I heard. I'll be heading for Greece in due course. $1,000 goes a long way in Greece.

« Reply #40 on: April 03, 2014, 13:07 »
0
Quote from: BaldricksTrousers link=topic=22331.msg373544#msg373544
Norway? Massive taxes and benefits, from what I heard. I'll be heading for Greece in due course. $1,000 goes a long way in Greece.

Finland. Not quite as expensive as Norway, but on-par with Sweden. Massive taxes (good benefits tho).
Average salary 3109 euros/month (about $4200)
Median salary 2774 euros/month (about $3800)

To live like an average Joe and pay for equipment and pension I would need to sell stock images for at least $5000 per month, and I don't seem to be able to do it. But if I moved to Poland or Estonia I could do it instantly.
« Last Edit: April 03, 2014, 13:10 by Perry »

« Reply #41 on: April 03, 2014, 13:17 »
0
I think the biggest problem of all is that earnings tend to erode over time, and sooner or later earnings will start to fall faster than you can possibly upload to keep your income as it is.

What that means is that unless you are able to earn much more than the minimum you need to live on, you will need to find other ways to add to your income. If you don't, you will gradually become poorer and poorer as time goes by.

Also, the time it takes to build a portfolio is also time that reduces the value of images. If you are making 10c per picture per month now, by the time you have 6,000 pictures online you will probably only be making 7.5c per picture. Six or seven years from now, when you have 12,000 online, they will probably only be making 5c per file - and another five years on it may only be 3c.

I'm experiencing the opposite. As my files age, the popular ones are becoming even more popular with increasing number of downloads/day as their search placement gets more and more solid. When they start to sell they go from few downloads a week to downloads every day, and when it gets to 2 or more downloads / day, they almost always end up getting 8-10+, 20 downloads every day.... which is logical because every sensible search engine takes it's hints form the customers' actions. So actually when I told myself that this isn't as profitable as it's supposed to be, a whole bunch of files started making a more and more money as they got old enough. This also means that new files coming in to the site have little / no effect on popular files because search preference is coming frome individual image's merits, and the head start those have is actually increasing with time.

That's an interesting result. It may reflect a difference between your portfolio and other peoples. My stuff is mostly LCV but I reckon that the huge competition among HCV subjects probably spreads the sales so thinly that my LCV sales are likely to be as good and the returns from average to decent HCV stuff.  Perhaps you have HCV plus exceptional quality. I can certainly see how that would reinforce sales. Indeed, it is the hallmark of the very top sellers.

Nope, nothing exceptional (maybe some...) mostly because I'v been operating pretty cheaply. Mostly just a gal or a two of them, or a couple, amateur / semi pro models, easily accessible mostly public locations. I admit some of the locations are pretty nice tho, and I have a few amateur models that will melt your pants.


« Reply #42 on: April 03, 2014, 13:25 »
+1
Quote from: BaldricksTrousers link=topic=22331.msg373544#msg373544
Norway? Massive taxes and benefits, from what I heard. I'll be heading for Greece in due course. $1,000 goes a long way in Greece.

Finland. Not quite as expensive as Norway, but on-par with Sweden. Massive taxes (good benefits tho).
Average salary 3109 euros/month (about $4200)
Median salary 2774 euros/month (about $3800)

To live like an average Joe and pay for equipment and pension I would need to sell stock images for at least $5000 per month, and I don't seem to be able to do it. But if I moved to Poland or Estonia I could do it instantly.

Greece average wage $962 last year. And the sun shines (though never at midnight!).

« Reply #43 on: April 03, 2014, 13:30 »
+1
Quote from: BaldricksTrousers link=topic=22331.msg373544#msg373544
Norway? Massive taxes and benefits, from what I heard. I'll be heading for Greece in due course. $1,000 goes a long way in Greece.

Finland. Not quite as expensive as Norway, but on-par with Sweden. Massive taxes (good benefits tho).
Average salary 3109 euros/month (about $4200)
Median salary 2774 euros/month (about $3800)

To live like an average Joe and pay for equipment and pension I would need to sell stock images for at least $5000 per month, and I don't seem to be able to do it. But if I moved to Poland or Estonia I could do it instantly.

Greece average wage $962 last year. And the sun shines (though never at midnight!).

Really? I love Aegean sea ;D

« Reply #44 on: April 03, 2014, 13:33 »
+2

« Reply #45 on: April 03, 2014, 13:39 »
+1
people here need to buy an ugly house with millions, I said what kind of wasting , I wont spend my money to stuck in this place, i will move one day to the paradise of earth, hehehe ;D

« Reply #46 on: April 03, 2014, 14:35 »
0

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', because 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.

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.

Ron

« Reply #47 on: April 03, 2014, 14:42 »
+3
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

« Reply #48 on: April 03, 2014, 14:44 »
+3
.
« Last Edit: May 11, 2014, 22:08 by tickstock »

Ron

« Reply #49 on: April 03, 2014, 14:52 »
+1
You of all people need to comment on that. LOL. I have no gain in lying about my hobby  :)


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
11 Replies
6338 Views
Last post March 27, 2006, 12:29
by leaf
35 Replies
14919 Views
Last post January 26, 2007, 20:10
by phildate
18 Replies
8676 Views
Last post November 07, 2015, 23:38
by PeterChigmaroff
50 Replies
14212 Views
Last post April 08, 2009, 20:24
by vonkara
Living in the Florida Keys

Started by WarrenPrice Off Topic

9 Replies
2369 Views
Last post January 26, 2013, 16:27
by trek

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle