Quote from: Brasilnut on June 21, 2024, 18:43


But there will come a point when it's absolutely not viable anymore. Perhaps if I'm earning just $50 from 15,000 images and 4,000 clips at Shutterstock on any given month it's really time to never upload again. I wouldn't close the account because at that point it's 100% passive.

Let's not kid ourselves, Alexandre: the day will come. And it won't be long now.

There was a time when microstock was really fun.

A few years ago, I said that I would quit Microstock if the monthly income fell below 1,000 euros.

The time has since come. I'm still involved, but my productivity has dropped to almost zero.

It also no longer makes sense as long as the legalities between AI and copyright have not been clarified.

Nevertheless, the microstock period also had its good side: money is still coming in. Less, much less, than before. But also without work.

Thank you all for your answers!

@Alexandre: It looks similar for me. June in a 5-year comparison at shutterstock:

06/2014:
- approx. 1,000 images in the portfolio
- $ 508

06/2019:
- approx. 1,200 images in the portfolio
- $ 353

06/2024 until now:
- 1,367 images in the portfolio
- $ 90

Worst month since December 2023.

Since 6 June, my download figures have deteriorated dramatically. Am I the only one or is it the same for someone else?

Quote from: PigsInSpace on June 15, 2024, 23:35
Wow! I'm impressed. My portfolio is about 50/50 sales/no.

Quote from: Wilm on June 15, 2024, 19:37
For me it starts on page 13 with the pictures without downloads.

Thank you, but there is no reason to be impressed.

- I've been with AS (former fotolia) for 15 years.  So many of my images have had a lot of time to be downloaded.
- With a small portfolio, it's easier for the proportion of images without downloads to be smaller than with very large portfolios.

We've discussed this before.

There was a large contributor with around 1.3 million images in his portfolio at that time. Of these, around 1 million images did not have a single download. However, this was also due to the fact that he always uploaded series on one topic. Out of 30 images in such a series, only 3 or maybe 5 images usually sell. The rest are commercially useless.

For me it starts on page 13 with the pictures without downloads.

Quote from: Uncle Pete on June 15, 2024, 17:28

Quote from: yuriy on June 15, 2024, 16:55
not related to the (shall we say spirited) discussion at hand... what portion of your portfolio has never sold?  i'm curious about some of the permanently sleeping files and if they ever wake up after years of slumber.  i notice a higher % of my photos have sold than video but video takes longer to pick up (and obviously fetches more $).

Does Adobe give us that percentage? Adobe doesn't even give us lifetime stats on images, DLs or earnings. If there's a spot that shows, how many images have sold at least one time, I'd be interested in seeing that, but it won't change anything. And for your question: good images tend to keep selling, some drop down and sell fewer after time. Images that are duds and those that have never sold, in all my years, have never suddenly woken up and started selling.

Hi Pete,


You are right that there are no statistics for live time revenue for an image at Adobe.

But there are for the downloads - see screenshots.
100 files are displayed per page. So in my case there are 16 pages.

I currently have 20.7% without a single download.

Quote from: DiscreetDuck on June 13, 2024, 19:26

Quote from: cobalt on June 13, 2024, 17:11
The struggle is real indeed. Only 8 sales today so far. pos 5140.

But I am already selling easter eggs...

I am trying to add more people, but it is a slow process.

Only 8! 
I did much more, and of course not a single AI image in my port, only the true world represented.
Where is your miracle of generating AI photograshits? 

I don't know how long you've been in the microstock business. But even if it hasn't been that long, you should still be aware that you could experience a total crash tomorrow if an agency were to change the algorithm. So if I were you, I would be very careful about gloating - at least that's how I perceive your words.

The statement "I did much more" says absolutely nothing. If you have a portfolio twice or five times as large, you should of course do "much more". Since you don't show any figures, your statement is pretty worthless in terms of content.

I don't have a single AI image in my portfolio myself. I also don't like the current development in the industry for various reasons.

But you can save yourself this spitefulness or keep it to yourself. We're not in kindergarten here. 

If you don't like AI and the resulting consequences, discuss it. That's what the forum is for. But not for spiteful comments.

Quote from: SuperPhoto on June 03, 2024, 05:02

Quote from: SpaceStockFootage on June 02, 2024, 19:06
I really would have stopped at f)... you sounded like a reasonably well-rounded, reasonably intelligent member of society up until that point. You always have to go and ruin it though!

Thank-you for giving me credit though for being an intelligent person, and quite well rounded. I am. My last statement was just as intelligent, well researched. Sounds like you are guy that needs to hear from someone who has credentials as well as an authority figure - I have them, very official ones too - and also spoke with many 'official authority figure' people in addition to reading many 'official reports' - so - I do know what I am talking about. I do photography for fun, and I like reading about photography in this forum.

Sorry to hear you fell for the convid scam... but it really was. I am assuming you got the injections - sorry to hear that - you really shouldn't get any more. It was pretty much purely psychological - nothing you could 'catch' (people 'got sick' from the intentional poisons sprayed on the PPE + military psych tactics), but people "needed" to get scared enough such that they couldn't think straight, would believe the tell-lie-vision and high paid off official figures to 'follow orders'. Most people sadly complied out of fear of 'poverty' (i.e., financial threats were used as a weapon), and/or some people genuinely trusted the t.v. and were 'afraid' of 'ill health'.

The really sad thing is that many people who believe strongly in the convid cult (and it really is just a belief, and very 'cultish' with all the rituals, the diaper/mask wearing, the incessant need to 'sanitize' their hands, etc) - sadly were pushed so hard emotionally - that right now they could be presented with all the facts & figures in the world - and would think 'those' were 'fake' - because it didn't align with their belief system that had been forcefully shoved into them. I haven't yet figured out how to get (consistently) through to people like that. I hope one day you figure it out one day, hopefully sooner than later.

The "ethnic diversity" is part of the subterfuge to undermine/impoverish primarily (white/caucasian) western nations. It's been in the work for decades, but really ramped up the last few years. Basically - with the pretense of 'helping others' - using people's money to provide free food, free lodging, free education, free cars, free free free - at the expense of most who worked their whole lives to go for a 'good life'. It's a tactic to attempt to make people's (fiat currency) savings/etc worthless. (There's ways around that - one of the biggest being to outright 'own' land - which people are being discouraged from doing). "Most" (of course, not all) but most other cultures don't share the same values as "Christian" nations, and don't share the same ethical or moral concerns as them. It's an attempt to both undermine the fabric of what once were prosperous people, while simultaneously attempting to impoverish them. There is also "reverse racism" - an open attack on "white/caucasian" people with things like hiring firms only hiring exclusively "bipoc" ("black/indigenous/people of color") people, again with the pretext of "helping others" - when in fact it really has absolutely nothing to do with that, as well as "laws" (i.e., "anti-hate" which in itself are actually quite 'hateful' and have absolutely nothing to do with 'stopping hate' - but are designed to make 'white/caucasian' people fearful of stating the obvious, and/or questioning what is really going on). It's been an open campaign by very wealthy oligarchs (i.e., ala open society foundation, bill & melinda gates foundation, etc, etc) to attack a way of life that western (white/european) countries became accustomed to.

Short version - "it" really was organized (has been for several decades, march 2020 was the 'launch' date) - by a small group of financially rich, but utterly insane psychotic individuals that crave power and control. Two main purposes (not the only ones) were to permanently maim people (via 'injections') because it is a lot easier to control 'sick' people as opposed to healthy people, as well as do massive money printing to steal their wealth via "mysterious inflation". Yes, people became 'ill' - but they did before - and the will after - there was nothing people could 'catch' (and still isn't) - it was the poisons on the PPE + psych tactics. And the way most people were controlled (surprisingly successfully) was through finances (threatening finances/fear, or financial incentives to 'go along' with it) + fear of ill health. There of course is a lot more to it than that, but that is the short & sweet synopsis.

I keep reading about these incredibly clever people - who are not stupid enough to believe in the mainstream and the lying press. These smart people know how the world works. Millions of scientists and hundreds of thousands of politicians are simply too stupid to realize that a secret elite around Bill Gates, the Rothschilds and other illustrious figures - all of whom are extremely rich - want to make the world dependent on them.

The same clever people think Elon Musk is a demigod.

And I always wonder where these incredibly clever people get all this information about the secret elite. I can only give one answer: they must be part of the circle, because they have insight into what is secret to everyone else.

Sorry, but I read this nonsense every day. I am absolutely aware that a lot has not gone well in terms of what you call the "convid cult" - no question about it. But what some circles, to which you obviously belong, derive from this is frightening.

I advise you to read what scientists in general write - and not just those from your information bubble. Read everything in the Lancet - not just what your bubble recommends. Maybe that will help you to see clearly. Also read other sources on climate change than those from your channels. Read what former states that were once part of the USSR have to say about Russia. And so on...

Quote from: cobalt on June 05, 2024, 12:09
But we can't see the money, right?

But it does help a lot, especially if newly uploaded content gets immediate sales.

Yes, a great new feature. Made so that you can be proud when the statistics improve. But in the end, what counts is the money that comes in – in total and for each individual download. This has been left out as a precaution. They will know exactly why.
So unfortunately I have no praise for this innovation.

Quote from: rod-09 on June 03, 2024, 11:33
I ask them and got this generic answer. I don't know what else to do.

Does anyone knows how to contact Mat?

I have just sent you a PM.

Average month for me - nothing special. But a little bit better than April 2023 and 2022.

Quote from: BelieveInStock on May 09, 2024, 17:38
I confirm, something strange is happening with Adobe this week. Sales are even worse than Easter week. Normally I have well over 200 downloads a day, today barely 100

Absolutely impressing. May I ask how many images you have online at AS?

Incredible!!! 

If something like this goes through, copyright will be ruined forever!

Have you submitted the raw data to shutterstock or made it clear there that you have it? Then that should solve the problem in my view. Unless, of course, you have photographically recreated someone else's photo 1:1.

Quote from: Stillsands on May 06, 2024, 06:27
Almost a month ago, I received a notification from Shutterstock that one of my images was flagged for a copyright violation and my account was being suspended. They offered a few methods to supply proof that I'm the copyright holder of the particular image. Very quickly I sent the evidence to them and received a response that my case would be escalated. Since that time I have received no further communication, and all of my images have been removed from the site, and I can't log in to my account. They have ignored the many e-mails I've sent. It should take no more than 10 minutes to look at the evidence I submitted and conclude my account should be reactivated.

Has anyone been through this process before and what was the outcome? There was also no indication from Shutterstock why they thought there was a copyright issue in the first place.

Can you show us the image?

And do you have the raw data?

I had about 400 downloads less this April than in April 2023. Amazing, but the revenue is still almost the same. However, I'm very far from a good April.

Quote from: Zero Talent on May 03, 2024, 18:11
Happy to report two events:

- Last month was my best April ever.
- My lifetime earnings crossed $400K

Congratulations on these figures! I know very, very few contributors who can achieve such success with such a small portfolio. They are my role models. And you, too, have remained true to your motto "rather less, but very good".

If I see it correctly, you have an RPF (return per file - images and videos mixed, with a ratio of approx. 4:1) of around $200. That's really good!

We can still argue about whether talent is part of it or not. I say yes, you say no. But ultimately it doesn't really matter. The fact is: you deliver "stocky" image material - and that pays off.

What I can't remember: Did I ever ask you how long you've been offering on microstock?

Quote from: milo22 on May 03, 2024, 10:48
wanted to let you know that my account has been reactivated since today, so far without answer what the problem was.

I just kept waiting and fortunately everything is ok now. for me the issue is closed

thanks for the feedback and also to uncle Pete, soon I will use my own account here

That's nice to hear.

I wish you good sales!

Pete, I'm looking at Alexandre Rotenberg's figures.

He has 3,000 files online at Wirestock. In March that earned him $7, in February $10, in January $4. In December and November 2023 it was $5 each.

Of course, I can't automatically transfer from Alexandre to other contributors. But his numbers suggest to me that Wirestock is not a good model.

Quote from: Uncle Pete on May 02, 2024, 21:46

Quote from: Wilm on May 02, 2024, 21:22

I have a similar view. The size of a portfolio is of course an important factor from a purely mathematical point of view.

Nevertheless, there have been and still are indications that an extremely fast and extensively growing portfolio does not automatically guarantee that the download figures and revenues will grow in parallel.

Of course, I don't know how the algorithms work. So I can only make assumptions. But I am firmly convinced that an extreme expansion of the portfolio with the pure goal of mass can even be very harmful for the findability of the images. I believe that a small portfolio with well-ranked images can be damaged if countless poor-quality images are added to it. But once again: I can't prove that.

With a similar point, people who say images need to age, to make better sales, are neglecting the math and fact, that you only know what sells, after the fact. So of course, after years, you will see what has sold more, than in weeks or months. The time is the difference, not because images will sell better, but because they HAVE sold better.

If we only know whether more images, made more sales, because there are more, or because the popularity of some images, which is hard to predict, is only because the cream rises to the top. I mean in this way. 100 great images and that's it, or 100 great images and 900 maybe, good enough images. If we know what a "great Image" is, then the only advantage would be, from the 900 others, we might have misjudged some, and they will make more total sales, than the just 100 images. 

Who here knows that this great image they just made is going to be a success, and has never been wrong? Or who here, has uploaded something, not so special, that probably wasn't going to work out, but it took off and unexpectedly sold.  Raise Your Hand? 

Back to the great 100 theory. The other 900 may not be significant, but there could be a sleeper in there, and there could be a dud or two in the best 100.

That's the only reason I'd say more is better. Pure math. Otherwise, "Nevertheless, there have been and still are indications that an extremely fast and extensively growing portfolio does not automatically guarantee that the download figures and revenues will grow in parallel."

900 additional "maybe good pictures" is not what I generally mean, Pete. I have that too. I upload images that I could imagine have what it takes to sell. But I don't upload a single image that I'm absolutely sure is so bad or replaceable that it won't sell. And I'm wrong often enough.

There are so many images that everyone who uploads them knows or should know from the outset that they are "not good enough" compared to what is already there.

Nevertheless, many contributors hope that these images might sell after all, even though they secretly know or at least suspect that this will not happen, and upload masses of them. But the opposite is probably the case: these images may harm the overall ranking of the portfolio.

Doug sums it up well: "But each of those image you submit must be well-shot, well-graded, and have good metadata to even have a sporting chance of success."

This - at least in my opinion - is not sufficiently taken into account by many contributors.

I also believe that shutterstock doesn't care about our personal opinion.

But I think that shutterstock is wondering whether the approval of pngs will bring in a lot of money for the competing agencies. And whether customers might migrate to the agencies that offer pngs. This may be an attempt to get an idea. And possibly get a slice of the pie.

Quote from: Doug Jensen on May 02, 2024, 19:02

Quote from: Roscoe on May 02, 2024, 17:57
But if yours is already longer on the market, and sold quite a few times (due to lower competition at that time) then the newer one will generally end up lower in the rankings, get less views, and yours will have the advantage. Right? (Of course, all depending on competition and saturation, as the algorithm mixes new content with established content. Niche markets are easier to break into than highly saturated area's of the market)

But now you are talking about something entirely different.  Yes, an older clip that has been successful and sold multiple times does have an advantage. But that has nothing to do with the overall size of the contributor's portfolio or how long the contributor has been a contributor.  That is the myth I was trying to dispel.  Please read my earlier post again, and I hope you can understand the difference.

But to address the point you are making, don't assume that the best-selling clip last year of a toddler eating spaghetti is going to continue to dominate year after year.  The algorithms are constantly trying to promote newer clips to keep the content fresh on the site.  In my own case, many of my clips that used to sell almost every day hardly ever sell at all anymore. Why is that?  Well, it is because other similar clips have probably pushed them off their pedestal. That's what competition does. And it has nothing to do with the size of the contributor's portfolio.  My point is that it is never to late to get your feet wet.  If you sit on the sidelines and say "it's too late", then you are guaranteed of 100% failure.

I have a similar view. The size of a portfolio is of course an important factor from a purely mathematical point of view.

Nevertheless, there have been and still are indications that an extremely fast and extensively growing portfolio does not automatically guarantee that the download figures and revenues will grow in parallel.

Of course, I don't know how the algorithms work. So I can only make assumptions. But I am firmly convinced that an extreme expansion of the portfolio with the pure goal of mass can even be very harmful for the findability of the images. I believe that a small portfolio with well-ranked images can be damaged if countless poor-quality images are added to it. But once again: I can't prove that.

Quote from: Doug Jensen on April 30, 2024, 23:08
Do what?  I have sales every day.

Reaching the $250,000 - that's what I meant. Or will you manage the 828 statistically missing downloads within two or three months? I don't know how long you've been at it.

Let's see if you can still do it in 2024.