My last 60 sales are ALL 25-A day.
An entire week 😢


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Assuming, based on your number of 60 sales per week, you have a small port or a LCV port, the ODD/SOD sales wont occur that much.

They still exist.

It surprises me that people always look at the short term when worrying about their sales. Often it's just a normal fluctuation.

You're right.  I just got used to about 5 a week or so.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Nope your right ODDs and SODS are definitely down by 50%

Quote from: Liorpt on November 14, 2014, 05:08
My last 60 sales are ALL 25-A day.
An entire week 😢


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

be glad you are getting sales where many others sell none  to include myself...

So far this month I'm averaging one OD/SOD per every 7.7 DLs, which is better than most months.  Total DLs for me are down about 25% on SS and way more than that on most other sites but at least the OD/SOD rate is holding steady.

why is OD/SOD so important? the earning vary. shouldn't u be more concerned with the total earning per month? i have SOD going from 33 cts to 105 dollars, as well as 25 a day averaging a dollar.
it used to be that the big earning fall under Extended Licence, but i don't see that anymore.
generally, i notice the big single earnings ranging from 28 - 105 dollars occur quarterly. i assume it is when the brochure, catalogue, encyclopedia,etc come in. so we get them quarterly but mostly in oct.

is anyone here seeing a trend when the big single earnings occur and are they just in OD SOD, because as i said, i have also 33 cts in OD as well. just wondering aloud . thx

Good question - where did SoDs go?
In March I had them every week, now, since first April there's no even one SoD... I hope it's not the result of new terms changes for clients on SS (higher copy limits etc)?

Of course, SS's long term goal is to herd all their buyers onto subscriptions, where the money is in up-front fees that the photographer never sees, and so-called royalty payments are arbitrary token amounts.  So we should see fewer and fewer ODs over time.

I quit submitting at SS over a year ago.  If they raise contributor payments significantly - and no, 2 cents is not significant - I might submit some more.  If they cut payments by any amount, I'm deleting everything and walking away for good.  You can probably guess which outcome I think is more likely.

If that was their goal why wouldn't they have just stuck to subs only? Why introduce all the other payment options, select, Offset, etc.?

It's a bit amazing to me that I get minus-ed for my previous post.  Are there that many people here who actually think subscriptions are good for contributors?   Or who still believe that SS's intention is for microstock to be profitable for photographers?   

The will to believe is strong.

Quote from: stockastic on April 10, 2015, 20:25
It's a bit amazing to me that I get minus-ed for my previous post.  Are there that many people here who actually think subscriptions are good for contributors?

There always will be that kind of ... people. You should really not care about minuses. The world is full of photogs who even don't think about producing and uploading to SS. Many authors left. Many think about it, or stopped uploading, or upload only, lets say, less valuable work. You should care more about pluses on your account more than minuses from the forum, lol Do what your intuition tell you

And back to my question, I though SS earns more with SoDs sales (like we/ I do) than on subs... It's easy - one ~100$ sale = xxx 0,3x sales... (for SS that means easy 200$ in pocket with only one sale) I don't think they would cut out SoDs and preffer subs. There must be something else, just don't have idea what it is...

Getting Lots and Lots of OD's very few SOD's and EL's are very ,Very scarce. I used to get a lot. 8 EL's a day is my Personal Best.

Quote from: stockastic on April 10, 2015, 20:16
Of course, SS's long term goal is to herd all their buyers onto subscriptions, where the money is in up-front fees that the photographer never sees, and so-called royalty payments are arbitrary token amounts.  So we should see fewer and fewer ODs over time.

I quit submitting at SS over a year ago.  If they raise contributor payments significantly - and no, 2 cents is not significant - I might submit some more.  If they cut payments by any amount, I'm deleting everything and walking away for good.  You can probably guess which outcome I think is more likely.

Can only speak for myself but subs make up less than half of my total earnings. So, I'd say that total payments have increased with the addition of ELs and now SODs (which make up about 12% of my total income each). People who focus solely on the price of the subs are missing the bigger picture.

Quote from: stockastic on April 10, 2015, 20:25
It's a bit amazing to me that I get minus-ed for my previous post.  Are there that many people here who actually think subscriptions are good for contributors?   Or who still believe that SS's intention is for microstock to be profitable for photographers?   

The will to believe is strong.

They pay better than anyone else for most people. If all that mattered were how much they sold each image for, then you should only contribute to 500px or something.

Quote from: stockastic on April 10, 2015, 20:25
It's a bit amazing to me that I get minus-ed for my previous post.  Are there that many people here who actually think subscriptions are good for contributors?   Or who still believe that SS's intention is for microstock to be profitable for photographers?   

The will to believe is strong.

There are many of us who can not be represented by Getty, or make enough sales as an iStock exclusive. For us SS makes the most by far. Basically, by telling us subs are bad you're asking us to stop making money so you can make more money. Ummmmm.......no.

Three ELs last month, most since last July, which was also my BME

Plenty of SODs, but most are small, < $10

Quote from: stockastic on April 10, 2015, 20:25
It's a bit amazing to me that I get minus-ed for my previous post.  Are there that many people here who actually think subscriptions are good for contributors?   Or who still believe that SS's intention is for microstock to be profitable for photographers?   

The will to believe is strong.

Minuses are just indications that someone disagreed with what you wrote.

People are still allowed to disagree with eachother you know.

For me it's just the 4.35 sods which have completely stopped - I used to get quite a few.  Whatever they were......
Other small sods as normal...

Quote from: PZF on April 11, 2015, 07:48
For me it's just the 4.35 sods which have completely stopped - I used to get quite a few.  Whatever they were......
Other small sods as normal...

If I recall, these are based on contracts they have with certain large clients. Perhaps these contracts are for a rolling 12 months and some have ended. Probably likely. But I believe that it will get harder and harder for SS to land big clients who will pay more money because of how many more cheap image outlets there are for cheaper licenses that yield similar or the same terms as the SOD terms, whatever those are. SOD type of sales are simply going to erode and move closer to free.

Or maybe the lack of SOD sales is due to a successful Premier Select Trial and many of the SODs are going to the selected high lifetime earners?

Quote from: stockastic on April 10, 2015, 20:25
It's a bit amazing to me that I get minus-ed for my previous post.  Are there that many people here who actually think subscriptions are good for contributors?   Or who still believe that SS's intention is for microstock to be profitable for photographers?   

The will to believe is strong.

You hit the nail on the head with that one.

Quote from: objowl on April 11, 2015, 14:55
Or maybe the lack of SOD sales is due to a successful Premier Select Trial and many of the SODs are going to the selected high lifetime earners?

That was my thought, they have directed sales to select contributors.

Quote from: gbalex on April 11, 2015, 20:35

Quote from: stockastic on April 10, 2015, 20:25
It's a bit amazing to me that I get minus-ed for my previous post.  Are there that many people here who actually think subscriptions are good for contributors?   Or who still believe that SS's intention is for microstock to be profitable for photographers?   

The will to believe is strong.

You hit the nail on the head with that one.

you will get a minus if you don't like SS and their subs model, i get them all the time. and yes, sadly there are that many people who rave about subs. i don't get it at all.