April was slightly better for istock than March, but a bit worse than April 2025 and significantly worse than April 2024

April 2026 – I have images only:

RPD istock: $1.10
RPD AS: $0,87
RPD dreamstime: $0.52
RPD shutterstock: $0.46
RPD deposit: $0,26

Quote from: Uncle Pete on May 16, 2026, 18:13
Then take a look "Similar Images" their own content.  https://www.shutterstock.com/search/similar/1483126889

Fantastic!  :-(

Quote from: Micha91 on April 21, 2026, 07:36
My year-over-year results for April:

2015 – $1476.75
2016 – $3632.88
2017 – $4279.75
2018 – $3464.22
2019 – $4082.64
2020 – $3656.61
2021 – $3112.74
2022 – $2557.24
2023 – $2266.04
2024 – $1919.26
2025 – $941.15
2026 – $260.12

Still excluded from unlimited. Regular uploads don't help, new content sells occasionally, but the higher sales gone. Currently, Shutterstock is a waste of time for me.

How many images do you have?

April 2015: $ 791,15
April 2016: $ 508,16
April 2017: $ 418,02
April 2018: $ 396,35
April 2019: $ 350,53
April 2020: $ 307,63
April 2021: $ 392,98
_________________
New revenue structure
________________
April 2022: $ 141,81
April 2023: $ 151,29
April 2024: $ 159,97
April 2025: $   36,89
April 2026: $   23,31

Quote from: Jaggy on April 15, 2026, 19:45

Quote from: Uncle Pete on April 15, 2026, 18:43

Quote from: gnirtS on April 03, 2026, 12:44

Quote from: Uncle Pete on April 02, 2026, 19:58
Getty is taking over.

Part of me thinks thats better than the other way around given what SS do to aquisitions.

Just a note:  Full Year 2024 vs. 2023, Net income: $35.9M (down from $110.3M) There's something pretty negative in that, while I'm ignoring all the progress, future, promising, BS, Etc. They lost 66% of their income. They increased their income in 2025 by improving dataset sales. The stock photo business is about 80% of the revenue for SSTK.

So for all the acquisitions, (and you're right) the majority of the revenue still comes from stock images, and that business is struggling.

I think Shutterstock is pretty much done.

Exactly how I see it, too.

Addendum: Microstock is an international market. The automotive industry, for example, is also an international market. Here in Germany, this industry is currently facing massive problems. Donald Trump's customs policy is only a small part of the problem. A major problem is the Chinese automotive industry. It can produce much more cheaply, the cars are cheaper, and the quality is now beyond doubt. In my view, it is therefore to be expected that the Chinese automotive industry will become the new global leader.

Here in Europe, there is virtually no textile industry left. Production used to take place in Central Europe. When that became too expensive, production shifted to Eastern and Southeastern Europe. Now production takes place in Southeast Asia. This is because local buyers don't want to spend $100 on a T-shirt either. Just as microstock buyers now want to spend less money on average than they used to.

It is also possible that in the future, contributors from poorer countries and emerging markets could become the top dogs in the microstock market, as long as this market is not completely replaced by AI. These are normal market laws. And if customers are now satisfied with lower quality, we have to accept that.

My annual Microstock-RPI used to be $17 (with a simple compact camera and standard software). I remember people whose annual RPI was $220 or much higher at that time. The quality of those contributors' images was probably significantly higher than my own. At that time, however, you were still welcome in the microstock community because every contributor added to the agencies' broader range of offerings and overall sales increased because the agencies still had customer growth. Today, due to the glut of images, it's exactly the opposite.
In any case, I wouldn't invest in expensive equipment today because it's no longer economically viable here in Germany compared to other jobs.

Quote from: DiscreetDuck on February 20, 2026, 05:04

Quote from: Wilm on February 19, 2026, 23:45

Quote from: Bauman on January 08, 2026, 22:15
I agree with Duck.

The problem isn't that I don't want Sinandogan to sell his images; he can.

The problem is that I don't think he should sell them alongside professional photographers and illustrators and amateurs of medium-to-high quality.

The two markets should be separated, otherwise the noise of the huge volumes uploaded risks making quality work invisible. A good photographer risks being irrelevant to the algorithm.

Call it what you will: enshittification or slopification.

https://www.theringer.com/2025/12/17/pop-culture/ai-slop-meaning-meme-examples-images-word-of-the-year

https://sarah-stumboeck.com/blog/the-great-slopification-why-the-future-belongs-to-human-artists

But this is what's happening on all platforms, especially now with AI, not just stock image platforms, but also music, art, and news platforms. The creative industry is at risk if mid/high-quality work and crap work is mixed.

This is done to lower production costs and pay image creators less and less.

But this way, the web is dying under a tsunami of low-quality content. People are getting tired of scrolling through junk feeds.

I have 6,000 to 7,000 high-quality images created over 15 years, and they generate between $600 and $800 a month on Adobe Stock, while Shutterstock still barely surpasses Adobe. Sinandogan has four times as many images as I do, but he earns in a year what I earn in a month.

There's clearly a quality issue. I suggest Sinandogan submit fewer images and study to improve the quality of his shots.

I don't think it's fair to play in the same game. What do we offer clients? Low-quality images? That keeps clients away! Some say: professionals should go to premium agencies. Unfortunately, premium agencies don't sell anything anymore; even the most prestigious newspapers and magazines and the most famous commercial brands buy stock images from Shutterstock, Adobe, or Istock.

I would be in favor of bringing back an entrance exam for selling through agencies. If you deserve it, you can sell. Otherwise you start studying to improve your images until you reach an acceptable level.

The problem isn't that agencies are flooded with images. The problem - as you yourself write - lies in the algorithm.

If this algorithm favors masses of images over high-quality images, it's logical and right to do without expensive camera equipment because you can no longer recoup the cost.
What I'm trying to say - this is also directed at DiscreetDuck - is: Why should contributors refrain from flooding the database with potentially second-rate images if it brings them enough money from their point of view? And what's wrong with using a smartphone in that case?

The problem is not the flood of images and the providers who create this flood, but the agencies with their market assessments, which then define the algorithm.

And while we're at it: Who has the right to complain? The one with an RPI of 45 x 0.0023 (which corresponds to an RPI of 0.1)? The one with an RPI of 1? The one with an RPI of 5? It's a question of subjective standards. Because someone with an RPI of 5 could also complain that the one with an RPI of 1 is flooding and clogging up the database.

Generally speaking, I agree – purely subjectively. $600 a year for 26,560 images and videos would be completely out of the question for me. But in Turkey, it might be an incentive. In countries such as Bangladesh, Afghanistan, or Zimbabwe, the financial situation is completely different, and even $50 a month can make a big difference. And the motivation for these income opportunities may be many times higher than in the US or Europe. In my opinion, this is probably a very important reason for the flood of images at the agencies.

Finally, the main problem may stem from the fact that there are different markets but only one price for a snapshot or more artistic photo and everything is lumped together, at the same level. Algorithms ignore quality, soul, and authenticity (even some contributors, eheh). Only sales bring the invisible to the surface, but it often takes an incredibly long time. Are you sure that only people who work hard to produce quality or exception can understand what they are exposed to? All have to be equal today? incompetence equals competence? laziness equals effort? beginner equals experimented? I think there is a generational question here.
So, people living in Bangladesh, Afghanistan, or Zimbabwe are inevitably people who flood collections with second-rate images? Does competence depend on nationality for you? Personally, I don't think so. There are people on this forum who prove that incompetence (or even mediocrity) is not incompatible with being American or European. 

Propose a vision that is exception and authentic emotion is the opposite of AI Machinery.
Nothing could be more fitting than the lyrics of a song to evoke an enlightened consciousness.
Yes, there was so much soul and human creativity in Propaganda's P:Machinery 

It's your turn, Bauman. Sorry for answering before you did, I look forward to hearing from you.

This interpretation of my words is unfair, incorrect, and polemical. I never said that people from poorer countries deliver poor-quality images.

What I wrote was that a contributor with significantly lower living costs is likely to be more motivated in the microstock business, simply because the sale of images accounts for a higher proportion of their total income.
Example: A contributor earns $100 per month.
In Bangladesh, that is almost half the average monthly income ($235).
In Switzerland, the average monthly income is $10,000. You would have to be an outstanding contributor to be able to make a living from microstock in Switzerland. In Bangladesh, on the other hand, this is easily possible. If I can make a living from something, I can invest more time in it—it's not just a hobby on the side.

That's what I meant.

Quote from: Bauman on January 08, 2026, 22:15
I agree with Duck.

The problem isn't that I don't want Sinandogan to sell his images; he can.

The problem is that I don't think he should sell them alongside professional photographers and illustrators and amateurs of medium-to-high quality.

The two markets should be separated, otherwise the noise of the huge volumes uploaded risks making quality work invisible. A good photographer risks being irrelevant to the algorithm.

Call it what you will: enshittification or slopification.

https://www.theringer.com/2025/12/17/pop-culture/ai-slop-meaning-meme-examples-images-word-of-the-year

https://sarah-stumboeck.com/blog/the-great-slopification-why-the-future-belongs-to-human-artists

But this is what's happening on all platforms, especially now with AI, not just stock image platforms, but also music, art, and news platforms. The creative industry is at risk if mid/high-quality work and crap work is mixed.

This is done to lower production costs and pay image creators less and less.

But this way, the web is dying under a tsunami of low-quality content. People are getting tired of scrolling through junk feeds.

I have 6,000 to 7,000 high-quality images created over 15 years, and they generate between $600 and $800 a month on Adobe Stock, while Shutterstock still barely surpasses Adobe. Sinandogan has four times as many images as I do, but he earns in a year what I earn in a month.

There's clearly a quality issue. I suggest Sinandogan submit fewer images and study to improve the quality of his shots.

I don't think it's fair to play in the same game. What do we offer clients? Low-quality images? That keeps clients away! Some say: professionals should go to premium agencies. Unfortunately, premium agencies don't sell anything anymore; even the most prestigious newspapers and magazines and the most famous commercial brands buy stock images from Shutterstock, Adobe, or Istock.

I would be in favor of bringing back an entrance exam for selling through agencies. If you deserve it, you can sell. Otherwise you start studying to improve your images until you reach an acceptable level.

The problem isn't that agencies are flooded with images. The problem - as you yourself write - lies in the algorithm.

If this algorithm favors masses of images over high-quality images, it's logical and right to do without expensive camera equipment because you can no longer recoup the cost.
What I'm trying to say - this is also directed at DiscreetDuck - is: Why should contributors refrain from flooding the database with potentially second-rate images if it brings them enough money from their point of view? And what's wrong with using a smartphone in that case?

The problem is not the flood of images and the providers who create this flood, but the agencies with their market assessments, which then define the algorithm.

And while we're at it: Who has the right to complain? The one with an RPI of 45 x 0.0023 (which corresponds to an RPI of 0.1)? The one with an RPI of 1? The one with an RPI of 5? It's a question of subjective standards. Because someone with an RPI of 5 could also complain that the one with an RPI of 1 is flooding and clogging up the database.

Generally speaking, I agree – purely subjectively. $600 a year for 26,560 images and videos would be completely out of the question for me. But in Turkey, it might be an incentive. In countries such as Bangladesh, Afghanistan, or Zimbabwe, the financial situation is completely different, and even $50 a month can make a big difference. And the motivation for these income opportunities may be many times higher than in the US or Europe. In my opinion, this is probably a very important reason for the flood of images at the agencies.

Quote from: Zero Talent on February 19, 2026, 20:14

Quote from: SimonSays on February 19, 2026, 20:05

Quote from: Zero Talent on February 19, 2026, 18:44
Lately, a majority of my Shutterstock submissions are being marked as "data marketplace" within seconds of upload, which is essentially a rejection. I don't want my content used to train AI competitors, so I'm not interested in the "data marketplace".
I'm unsure why this has started and was wondering if anyone else has experienced this issue.

Fortunately, they go through without any problems on AS, which is doing great lately.

Opt out and it will not happen. They will have to choose between accept or reject but not the option of data marketplace. I know some don't agree with this reasoning but that how it works for me.

I am opted out already
This is why these uploads remain forever in a pending state with a "data marketplace" label underneath..

Unbelievable! And sad at the same time! What has become of this once great agency?

Quote from: DaLiu on February 17, 2026, 11:29
All the big sales are gone from SS. I don't see anything higher than $3 anymore, which is crazy for Shutterstock. I'm Level 5 for images, and I used to have sales like that on a daily basis. Not anymore this year, they clearly changed something.

If even you have reason to complain now, things must really be bad at Shutterstock.

In mid-February 2026, I am at exactly one percent of the revenue I had on February 17, 2016. I checked: my images have become completely invisible in the Shutterstock search. All the images that had four-digit download numbers have completely disappeared. I have no idea if this is related to the fact that I selected "Image data licensing – no." Or if other factors are at play. On average, each of my images has more than 60 downloads on Shutterstock. Apparently, that's not enough to remain visible. All I can say is that I haven't uploaded anything to Shutterstock for a long time and won't be doing so again. Because if an image doesn't reach a certain number of downloads, it's no longer worth the effort. Especially not in times when the RPD is getting lower and lower. If we've reached the point where I only get $6 for those 60 downloads per image today, there's no point in feeding the beast!

The bug seems to be fixed.

Yes. Here too!

The problem with Shutterstock is crystal clear. Anyone can read about it (https://investor.shutterstock.com/news-releases/news-release-details/shutterstock-reports-third-quarter-2025-financial-results). And any potential investor will shy away when they see these figures, which Shutterstock also calls "financial highlights." The latest report available on the site shows the figures for the third quarter of 2025. Cathastrophy!

Just for your information: in 2010, after seven years, Shutterstock celebrated finally having 10 million files online. And all the figures were on the rise. The company was successful.

Later came the sale by the former owners and, with it, the new revenue structure. As a result, the stock climbed to $110 at the end of 2021. Today, we are at 537 million files. And at $16.75.

Nearly the same as 2023 but 20% less than 2024.

Quote from: DaLiu on January 20, 2026, 11:40

Quote from: Wilm on January 19, 2026, 21:43

Quote from: DaLiu on January 16, 2026, 12:21
First time ever when at this time at the month even tho I am level 4 on SS after 1st week, AS is passing SS on income overall with 3 times less sales.

On January 6, you posted that you had a total of 171 downloads on Shutterstock in January up to that point. Did you get 330 downloads on the rest of January 6 and January 7? That's impressive.

Sorry, I meant 2nd week.

Ah, okay. Still impressive!

Quote from: DaLiu on January 16, 2026, 12:21
First time ever when at this time at the month even tho I am level 4 on SS after 1st week, AS is passing SS on income overall with 3 times less sales.

On January 6, you posted that you had a total of 171 downloads on Shutterstock in January up to that point. Did you get 330 downloads on the rest of January 6 and January 7? That's impressive.

Quote from: everest on December 21, 2025, 22:31
At that time I was exclusive in Photo although i was also sending images to Gettyimages. 12 k every month give or take was 2012 . That was the year they massively hiked prices and many customers went to competition sites. At that time I only had 3000 images in Istock. Now I have 20k and make 1k but I have not uploaded anything for years so that is residual money. Welcome but it is amazing how much t has collapsed. It has to be really tough to make a good salary nowadays from stock

Quote from: Pacesetter on December 20, 2025, 23:44

Quote from: everest on December 20, 2025, 20:59
In the good days I was doing 12k monthly. Now first time just 1k. Amazing how this has degraded

Is that for all agencies combined or just iStock? Massive decline nonetheless.

12k with 3000 images is excellent!

Worst November ever there. Less than half of last November.

Absolutely! It makes perfect sense and leads to a clear win-win situation.

You get $60 to $80 for a piddly 500 to 1000 photos. That's a whopping $0.06 to 0.16 per photo. All you need is
- a good camera
- a tripod
- a powerful internet connection
- backup hardware
- possibly a car, the rent for a studio with appropriate lighting, models, the material to be photographed, etc.
- a few hours of time to read the briefing, take the photos, and upload the data.

And just like that, you're earning huge sums of money. And Adobe probably only earns a hundred or a thousand times that amount.

As I said: an absolute win-win situation.

If you don't jump at such an attractive offer, you only have yourself to blame!

I can't see any increase. On the contrary. My downloads are below average.

Less than half an hour for me. The quickest review of all agencies. The last reviews sometimes took less than 5 minutes. But ultimately, that doesn't really matter because sales are steadily declining.

Quote from: Newsfocus1 on October 11, 2025, 10:29

Quote from: Wilm on October 11, 2025, 07:50

Quote from: mindoozas on October 09, 2025, 06:21

The same photo again. Previously, there was one sale for $450.

When I click on your screenshot, I am taken to a page called "imgbb." But the screenshot says Shutterstock. Can you please explain this contradiction?

Wilm -Imgbb is an image hosting site. Upload to there in order to post it on MSG (you cannot upload images direct to here).

Ah, okay - thank you for this explanation. (But cobalt/Jasmine is right - you can upload screenshots directly here)

Quote from: mindoozas on October 09, 2025, 06:21

The same photo again. Previously, there was one sale for $450.

When I click on your screenshot, I am taken to a page called "imgbb." But the screenshot says Shutterstock. Can you please explain this contradiction?

Quote from: Big Money on October 10, 2025, 14:36

Quote from: stocker2011 on October 09, 2025, 22:44
What's your source for the article, or was it written by AI ?

AFAIK the merger hasn't yet been finalized. Regardless, SS (and P5) sales have been steadily declining since 2020 so I don't think it could get much worse. And if iStock decides to reduce rates to 15% then they'll have to compensate by increasing our sales to make up it.

AI but I do agree with a lot of what was gathered. Sure some folks are making a killing on SS but for me it's dead. I used to reach $1,000 a month several years back but now less then $50 a month and I continue to upload and my skills are much better. Guess it's the new world and time to find new revenues sources.

These figures apply pretty much exactly to me too. However, I haven't uploaded much for quite some time now.