MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Stock websites Google ranking  (Read 3566 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Level6

« on: December 26, 2021, 13:57 »
+1
I'm in Ontario Canada and just did a few Google searching for stock footage of________(various subjects) and Pexels, the notorious free site comes up #1 on Google almost every time, then there's Shutterstock followed by various others and it changes each time you search.

Pond5 has basically dropped off a cliff, rarely on page one of a Google search anymore.

What I don' know is how much of these rankings are organic traffic based vs pay to play.  I'll assume a free site that gives away free content like Pexels isn't paying hundreds of thousands to Google for placement unless they are financed by an existing agency and are operating as a front" for tax loss purposes.

At the end of the day it doesn't matter, if you're not on page one or two of a Google search you might as well not be on the internet.

Despite everything that's going on in "This thing of ours" known as the stock agencies, Pond5 is the best of the lot and if they don't come up #1 on Google this is a disaster.


NoNameIsGood

« Reply #1 on: December 26, 2021, 15:28 »
0
I can find my dreamstime photos when I use Google searching for "x lake" and stuff like that. Since those places are rarely uploaded online. It might depend on rarity of photo content too.

« Reply #2 on: December 26, 2021, 15:29 »
0
are you searching for "stock video xxx" or clicking video, then searching for "xxx"?

if the former, the first few results are shown as ads
« Last Edit: December 26, 2021, 18:26 by cascoly »

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #3 on: December 26, 2021, 15:59 »
+1
Wouldn't we need to know what proportion of actual buyers search via Google (or Bing or ...)?

I understood that few sales are made via the search engines.
Most people who know paying for stock will probably look through a lot of agencies then make a choice or a couple of choices based on whether they seem likely to meet most of their needs, especially if they're likely to buy a subscription or package.

BTW, I noticed a surprisingly big difference in the results of a google search for 'stock video horse' and 'stock footage horse', so again we'd need to know which term is more likely to be searched on by genuine buyers.

Level6

« Reply #4 on: December 26, 2021, 21:03 »
0
I can find my dreamstime photos when I use Google searching for "x lake" and stuff like that. Since those places are rarely uploaded online. It might depend on rarity of photo content too.

I was thinking more the agencies themselves coming up on Google as opposed to specific videos or photos hosted with the agencies, when I search for stock footage or stock video I'd like to see pond5 on page one, saw Pexels, the free site at the very top every time and I just gave up.

Level6

« Reply #5 on: December 26, 2021, 21:07 »
0
Wouldn't we need to know what proportion of actual buyers search via Google (or Bing or ...)?

I understood that few sales are made via the search engines.
Most people who know paying for stock will probably look through a lot of agencies then make a choice or a couple of choices based on whether they seem likely to meet most of their needs, especially if they're likely to buy a subscription or package.

BTW, I noticed a surprisingly big difference in the results of a google search for 'stock video horse' and 'stock footage horse', so again we'd need to know which term is more likely to be searched on by genuine buyers.

That would be a nice stat to have, I suspect its more than we think, professional long time buyers know who the main sites are, Pond5, Shutterstock, Adobe but others might very well at least start off with a Google search and click on stuff from there plus Google gives you a nice wide area view of what's out there, it's like looking at a paper map vs the small GPS screen.

YouTube is indexed by Google and I've seen some stuff come up that way as well when searching for stock.  Maybe it's time to promote our content on platforms that get easily indexed by Google.

« Reply #6 on: December 27, 2021, 05:30 »
0
Wouldn't we need to know what proportion of actual buyers search via Google (or Bing or ...)?

I understood that few sales are made via the search engines.
Most people who know paying for stock will probably look through a lot of agencies then make a choice or a couple of choices based on whether they seem likely to meet most of their needs, especially if they're likely to buy a subscription or package.

BTW, I noticed a surprisingly big difference in the results of a google search for 'stock video horse' and 'stock footage horse', so again we'd need to know which term is more likely to be searched on by genuine buyers.

That would be a nice stat to have, I suspect its more than we think, professional long time buyers know who the main sites are, Pond5, Shutterstock, Adobe but others might very well at least start off with a Google search and click on stuff from there plus Google gives you a nice wide area view of what's out there, it's like looking at a paper map vs the small GPS screen.

YouTube is indexed by Google and I've seen some stuff come up that way as well when searching for stock.  Maybe it's time to promote our content on platforms that get easily indexed by Google.

The only way I see buyers using Google to look for images is by using Google Search Operators as an alternative for the agency's own search engine/ranking algorithm.
For instance: "site: shutterstock.com sunset flower"

I don't think many potential buyers just type in keywords for the content they want, and then buy that image/illustration/video from any random agency that ends up on top of the search results. Most agencies make it quite difficult (or completely impossible) to just buy one image without any further hassle regarding subscription or credit packs. I can be wrong, but if this would be a burning need for buyers, it would pop up in the analytics of the agencies shopping baskets (content in basket without conversion rate) and they would adjust by making it way easier to just buy one single image.

Now I know there's a lot of complaining and negative reviews on sites like Trustpilot too, specifically for this topic. Buyers just wanted to buy one image, went on carelessly and ended up with an expensive subscription package which seems hard to cancel. Agencies couldn't care less apparently, so I don't think they put much effort in this part of the "market". They have a very strong focus selling subscriptions or credit packs, so I guess that's where the money is for them. Not in selling single images (or other content).

As far as selling your content on platforms that end up high in the Google search results: that would probably be a self hosted site. And I think it only makes sense if you have a clearly designated niche, so you can strongly optimize your SEO for that niche, and outcompete agencies or other platforms who have to broaden their SEO strategy. Wouldn't work for me, as my port tends to be all over the place.

Level6

« Reply #7 on: December 27, 2021, 12:53 »
0
Wouldn't we need to know what proportion of actual buyers search via Google (or Bing or ...)?

I understood that few sales are made via the search engines.
Most people who know paying for stock will probably look through a lot of agencies then make a choice or a couple of choices based on whether they seem likely to meet most of their needs, especially if they're likely to buy a subscription or package.

BTW, I noticed a surprisingly big difference in the results of a google search for 'stock video horse' and 'stock footage horse', so again we'd need to know which term is more likely to be searched on by genuine buyers.

That would be a nice stat to have, I suspect its more than we think, professional long time buyers know who the main sites are, Pond5, Shutterstock, Adobe but others might very well at least start off with a Google search and click on stuff from there plus Google gives you a nice wide area view of what's out there, it's like looking at a paper map vs the small GPS screen.

YouTube is indexed by Google and I've seen some stuff come up that way as well when searching for stock.  Maybe it's time to promote our content on platforms that get easily indexed by Google.

The only way I see buyers using Google to look for images is by using Google Search Operators as an alternative for the agency's own search engine/ranking algorithm.
For instance: "site: shutterstock.com sunset flower"

I don't think many potential buyers just type in keywords for the content they want, and then buy that image/illustration/video from any random agency that ends up on top of the search results. Most agencies make it quite difficult (or completely impossible) to just buy one image without any further hassle regarding subscription or credit packs. I can be wrong, but if this would be a burning need for buyers, it would pop up in the analytics of the agencies shopping baskets (content in basket without conversion rate) and they would adjust by making it way easier to just buy one single image.

Now I know there's a lot of complaining and negative reviews on sites like Trustpilot too, specifically for this topic. Buyers just wanted to buy one image, went on carelessly and ended up with an expensive subscription package which seems hard to cancel. Agencies couldn't care less apparently, so I don't think they put much effort in this part of the "market". They have a very strong focus selling subscriptions or credit packs, so I guess that's where the money is for them. Not in selling single images (or other content).

As far as selling your content on platforms that end up high in the Google search results: that would probably be a self hosted site. And I think it only makes sense if you have a clearly designated niche, so you can strongly optimize your SEO for that niche, and outcompete agencies or other platforms who have to broaden their SEO strategy. Wouldn't work for me, as my port tends to be all over the place.

Not sure about that, maybe but maybe not with everyone, Google traffic does matter a lot from what I've heard with most online businesses,  professional video and photo buyers would know who the main websites are, Pond5, Shutterstock etc but below that level I think Google would be a a good way to find anything and then click on the links that come up on page one and right now for video it's pexels.....a free site and Pixabay....just went down that rabbit hole again looking for various types of stock footage and Pexels ranks #1 most of the time, then SSTK, and a few others, can hardly find Pond5 anymore and they are the last semi-viable website to sell on.




Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #8 on: December 27, 2021, 17:52 »
+1
After paid placement, you can think of traffic numbers, backlinks and organic search results based on other factors. That will start to explain why site X comes up before site Z

Of course Pexels will come up on top or near the top, the most searched word on the Internet is "FREE".  :) That's why so many of the bait sites use Free Images to get anyone to see partner site images. The free sites live off of ad views and partner sales percentages.


« Reply #9 on: December 27, 2021, 19:25 »
0
Pexels is owned by Canva, FWIW

Level6

« Reply #10 on: December 27, 2021, 19:42 »
0
Pexels is owned by Canva, FWIW
]

Thanks! did not know that, searched their domain registry and last time I looked it came up in Iceland.  either way they have a ton of good video and photos both editorial and commercial and the site is so easy to use, just click, download and done, no sign up required.

So if they are owned by Canva then that's Canva's money losing busing which comes in handy at tax time, it's not abut luring customers to Canva, haven't come across a link yet that lures me to Canva, looks like they run the free site at a loss for tax purposes.


Level6

« Reply #11 on: December 27, 2021, 19:44 »
0
After paid placement, you can think of traffic numbers, backlinks and organic search results based on other factors. That will start to explain why site X comes up before site Z

Of course Pexels will come up on top or near the top, the most searched word on the Internet is "FREE".  :) That's why so many of the bait sites use Free Images to get anyone to see partner site images. The free sites live off of ad views and partner sales percentages.

In this recession probably even more so, that, and the generation that grew up on free everything from free wifi to free music and videos is no in the workforce and sourcing out more free stuff.  Why pay for anything from music to stock video to software development when you can find it for free.

It also means the end of doing this for a living.

« Reply #12 on: December 27, 2021, 20:31 »
0
Pexels is owned by Canva, FWIW
]

Thanks! did not know that, searched their domain registry and last time I looked it came up in Iceland.  either way they have a ton of good video and photos both editorial and commercial and the site is so easy to use, just click, download and done, no sign up required.

So if they are owned by Canva then that's Canva's money losing busing which comes in handy at tax time, it's not abut luring customers to Canva, haven't come across a link yet that lures me to Canva, looks like they run the free site at a loss for tax purposes.

Canva owns Pixabay as well. Getty owns Unsplash. These were all recently acquired for millions of dollars, and not for tax purposes.

Level6

« Reply #13 on: December 27, 2021, 20:36 »
0
Pexels is owned by Canva, FWIW
]

Thanks! did not know that, searched their domain registry and last time I looked it came up in Iceland.  either way they have a ton of good video and photos both editorial and commercial and the site is so easy to use, just click, download and done, no sign up required.

So if they are owned by Canva then that's Canva's money losing busing which comes in handy at tax time, it's not abut luring customers to Canva, haven't come across a link yet that lures me to Canva, looks like they run the free site at a loss for tax purposes.

Canva owns Pixabay as well. Getty owns Unsplash. These were all recently acquired for millions of dollars, and not for tax purposes.

So there's money in giving the product away for free?, that much money in the ad revenue?.  If that's the case then how long before websites like SSTK and Pond5 just go to all free all the time?.  Scary stuff.

« Reply #14 on: December 27, 2021, 22:13 »
0
I think search results vary from person to person. When I googled "stock footage" pond5 came up as the 4th ad from the top. In the organic section shutterstock was just below pexels. Also on the first page was istock, envato, pixabay and vimeo

Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #15 on: December 28, 2021, 10:17 »
0
I think search results vary from person to person. When I googled "stock footage" pond5 came up as the 4th ad from the top. In the organic section shutterstock was just below pexels. Also on the first page was istock, envato, pixabay and vimeo

Right! Especially for people like me who use Bing instead of Google.

Filmsupply, Shutterstock, Pond5, Storyblocks, and clipstock are the front page.

« Reply #16 on: December 28, 2021, 10:47 »
0
Adobe Stock's presence on Google search has been weak for me.

I often try searching for my best sellers on Google, using keywords I used with them. Alamy is the best (funny because I've never had a sale there). SS and iS are about as good as each other. AS is sadly not the third because they don't showed up at all.


Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #17 on: December 28, 2021, 10:59 »
0
Adobe Stock's presence on Google search has been weak for me.

I often try searching for my best sellers on Google, using keywords I used with them. Alamy is the best (funny because I've never had a sale there). SS and iS are about as good as each other. AS is sadly not the third because they don't showed up at all.

That's more interesting, especially since buyers probably don't search for "stock video" and do search for keywords and subjects of what they want. I have a couple of searches I use to find my images, I never considered trying to see which agency was first.

A quick look for some of mine. Hey look, Alamy is first and Dreamstime is second. I'm beginning to think that worrying about Google or Bing isn't worth the time, because that might not be how people find our work! None of mine showed anywhere using keyword phrases that are specific, like four words.
 

Level6

« Reply #18 on: December 28, 2021, 12:07 »
0
I think search results vary from person to person. When I googled "stock footage" pond5 came up as the 4th ad from the top. In the organic section shutterstock was just below pexels. Also on the first page was istock, envato, pixabay and vimeo

True, person to person and varies by IP address as well and what browser you're using.

Level6

« Reply #19 on: December 28, 2021, 12:09 »
0
Adobe Stock's presence on Google search has been weak for me.

I often try searching for my best sellers on Google, using keywords I used with them. Alamy is the best (funny because I've never had a sale there). SS and iS are about as good as each other. AS is sadly not the third because they don't showed up at all.

I've never seen Adobe stock come up on a Google search but maybe they don't do paid placement for their site as they market it through their editing products.



 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
16 Replies
4194 Views
Last post October 21, 2013, 07:59
by Sean Locke Photography
56 Replies
28504 Views
Last post April 26, 2015, 03:27
by Semmick Photo
0 Replies
2391 Views
Last post September 30, 2016, 04:18
by StockPerformer.com
19 Replies
11102 Views
Last post August 02, 2017, 11:35
by beketoff
20 Replies
6173 Views
Last post December 31, 2020, 13:33
by Uncle Pete

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors