Quote from: Peruphotoart on September 19, 2019, 17:20
Since the month has begun and seen my sales collapse in shutterstock (September), I have no sales on demand or invidviduales (which is rare because I always have sales of this type of licenses) I only have a subscription (0.33) my pace of Sales was already bordering 100 dollars a month, but this month to the feha alone and sold 28 dollars (not normal for me) and the sales of my referrals have not reached me (although my colleagues I referred to are selling )
My question is the following:
is this normal? Do I have to send an email for the sales earnings for my referrals that do not reach me?

thanks in advance and I hope someone can help

Been going down steadily for me in the past couple of years but September '19 is a drama for me too. Also +/- $100/month for the last 3-4 months but September so far is $40 with one week to go....they must have changed the algo....almost always the reason for dramatic changes in sales. Almost no ODDs only subs this month.

(Methinks the SS regulars still have their subs accounts which they buy and use every month. However, the ODDs buyers come more from smaller agencies/independents that go to SS now and again, find what they want and pay for an ODDs package. I reckon these people now search Pixabay and Unsplash first and only go to SS when they can't find what they want. Hence the dramatic drop in $$$ from lack of ODDs.)

Quote from: Uncle Pete on September 11, 2019, 18:38

Quote from: DiscreetDuck on September 09, 2019, 21:35

Quote from: Uncle Pete on September 09, 2019, 20:19
Perfect example of proof by using a terrible example. One word search for Landscape? Are you joking?
What buyer would do that? Landscape 

Consider I did not want to test a buyer vision, I just wanted to observe recent submissions.
Try this :
https://www.shutterstock.com/fr/search?sort=newest&image_type=photo

Better for you?
Your perspective may be different considering you entered here late 2017, I started microstock mid 2004. Maybe I'm not that stupid regarding query and search engine.

LOL another invalid conclusion. Because I joined here in what? That's my third time, I closed my account because of being frustrated with how the forum had gone down hill. Better now. Would you care that I started in Microstock in 2007 or so? I mean would that mean my opinion would be more valid to you? 

A one word search doesn't represent what any intelligent buyer is going to search and the word landscape is even worse because it's so vague. Just pointing out that one word search to prove something, does not prove anything.

I did click the link, what was I supposed to see? Recent submissions, I get that, what's your point? If you mean SS is accepting junk, yeah I'd agree. The whole review process seem to fall apart in about 2012 when they went for "we have the most photos". But just in case, can you be specific what I should be looking at in recent uploads?

Here's a good three word search that should make you wonder what SS is thinking...  https://www.shutterstock.com/search/sliced+vegetables+isolated?sort=newest&image_type=photo
446,334 sliced vegetables isolated stock photos - and it's most recent since you suggested that.

Seems that the limit is around four similar images, although we both know that reviewers are luck, chance and some are more vigilant about enforcing strict rules. (in other words, full of a false sense of power)  Some will probably reject twp images as similar, because they are outsourced and many are just making money, without the concept of what their job is. To review and accept suitable images. Instead they see it as, finding things wrong and rejecting images.

So anyway, tell me what I'm supposed to be seeing in recent uploads, I'm unclear what your point was?

UFB!

Search SS 'Relevant' Landscape and that brings up far better stuff than the garbage on 'Fresh Content'.
Mind you, go to Unsplash and search 'Landscape'...pretty good for free!

1 credit = $1.00 = €1.00 = GBP£0.75

Thanks for the link. Interesting historical stuff. I downloaded a couple of shots in the lower res TIFF size (approx. 20Mp) but found that they were not particularly sharp at 100% screen. I don't know what the original transparency size was (guessing 35mm) because I've digitized 6x9cm format transparencies before and they can be very sharp. Wonder how they were digitized....almost certainly not on a drum scanner and maybe on some sort of flatbed?

Quote from: Stockmaan on August 29, 2019, 13:34

Quote from: OM on August 29, 2019, 13:08
By chance I came across this article on wine from June last year in the Smithsonian magazine:

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/california-wine-shows-traces-fukushima-fallout-180969726/

I think that their use of a free photo from Pixabay (pity that the meniscus of the wine is not horizontal!) also tells us that decining sales of traditional microstock may also have to do with 'free'. Before 'free', reputable magazines relied on SS etc as their first port of call for images. Now they first go to 'free' and if they can't find what they want, they then go to the regular MS agencies.

I have no doubt that many other image users also do similar. (No doubt the reason that SS and Adobe see fit to sponsor Pixabay with ads...which suggest that if the client can't find what he wants at Pixabay they should go to SS or Adobe).

Who upload on Pixabay images and videos and gives them away for free?

Sufficient amateurs with (often) sufficient talent to make it worthwhile for traditional microstock buyers to go there first. The quality of 'free' has become considerably better than it used to be and there may be a site that actually reviews/curates your submission before allowing it. Now, that's a really great way to hook the amateurs.
But not only amateurs.... I once read an article about a pro? food photographer who put some good photos on Unsplash to attract potential buyers to her studio for commissioned work. How successful she was, I don't know but she used 'free' as a marketing instrument.

By chance I came across this article on wine from June last year in the Smithsonian magazine:

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/california-wine-shows-traces-fukushima-fallout-180969726/

I think that their use of a free photo from Pixabay (pity that the meniscus of the wine is not horizontal!) also tells us that decining sales of traditional microstock may also have to do with 'free'. Before 'free', reputable magazines relied on SS etc as their first port of call for images. Now they first go to 'free' and if they can't find what they want, they then go to the regular MS agencies.

I have no doubt that many other image users also do similar. (No doubt the reason that SS and Adobe see fit to sponsor Pixabay with ads...which suggest that if the client can't find what he wants at Pixabay they should go to SS or Adobe).

I find it weird that 'good discoverability/poor discoverability' of an image seems to be determined by number of keywords above 40. I have less than 100 images (not editorial) there and have sold (not unsurprisingly) zero in 3 years!

Quote from: christiano on August 01, 2019, 13:47

Quote from: OM on August 01, 2019, 01:52
Canukistan is a funny place......they have govt allowed cannabis but all their coinage and notes may not be photographed in any way. Years ago I had a shot of a Maple Leaf gold coin as a small part of an 'artistic' photo but SS were forced to delete it anyway by some Canuck ruling about currency which it wasn't (wel, not really)!

What are you talking about OM, do a SIMPLE research (https://www.shutterstock.com/fr/search/canada+money?pl=PPC_GOO_CA_BD-351482062029&cr=ec&kw=shutterstock&gclid=CjwKCAjwm4rqBRBUEiwAwaWjjExJNOImgyETMtZIIUhUhnGaF5c3NBJanskdryZHc8Eumd9HlOaWGRoC1sUQAvD_BwE&gclsrc=aw.ds before writing stupidities. Your comment, besides being condescending is racist and brings nothing to the discussion.

Thank you for your attack. When SS accepted my photo of a Maple Leaf  coin it was before the Canadian Govt ruled that all coins and notes could not be reproduced.

Quote from: Uncle Pete on August 24, 2019, 03:16

Quote from: cascoly on August 23, 2019, 08:42

Quote from: morfon on August 23, 2019, 06:22
This thread is not about falling sales. It's about all sales suddenly coming to a complete halt. I'm pretty sure they tweaked their system.

your evidence for such tweaking?

YMMV - but like many others, I still see sub sales every day, tho EL are rarer

sadly every time someone sees reduced sales they assume the search has changed - the simple fact is you're competing against millions of other images

And then today I get an EL and an OD.  None of this is as predictable as it was in the past. So I guess the tweak was a boost for Pete tweak? 

Quote from: Pauws99 on August 22, 2019, 15:35

Quote from: cascoly on August 22, 2019, 07:56

Quote from: StockDaebak on August 22, 2019, 05:56
I think it's the suddenness and longevity of the drought that is throwing some producers for a loop, I do video and it's been at least six days on SS since I had a sale as well but one came in today, could always be worse, could be pond5 and zero sales for longer than six days.
....

it's not sudden -- sales have been declining for more than a year

People have been reporting falling sales for the 7 years I've been on this site. The trend is accelerating and some will buck it but on average sales will decline.

Looking at all three, I'd say, I can agree. But the drought isn't just one place, it's pretty much everywhere. The drop has been more than a year and seven years is more than a year.

I'm not going to try to point to a cause when I don't know. While people that toss out, search change or a conspiracy, or some other theories about how the agencies manipulate the sales, are just guessing. Over the years, we've heard "a well informed inside source says..." but never any solid facts or proof, or who's that source. Anyone can make up an inside source that confirms what they are guessing.

Pretty hard to cover up the truth across an entire industry. That truth would be that it's all rigged.

I can not like the way sales are going and not like the income drop or not like the way the agencies have changed commissions or levels or ended programs and promises. I don't like those. But I also don't see some trick or game involved. It's just the way this industry has been sorting out and we are the ones who get cut out first. Everything is directed at making buyers happy so they come back. Everything is designed for making the company a profit.

If any agency says they are our friend, they care about us, or they are trying to help us make money, don't believe them. We are the last thought.[/b][/b]

This is the truth.

I wouldn't know whether the new policy is having any impact on spamfolios already accepted but it does seem to have reduced the number of images being added which is now down from the regular 1.6 million/week to 950K this week.

Shutterstock knows their power and basically has a captive base of suppliers (us) which they keep in the dark about any deals they make with third party agencies (WIX, FB, FAA etc) because for SS any sale is a sale and adds to the bottom line whether or not the compensation for use to the contributor is reasonable /equitable for that licensing.
The corporate SS doesn't care. It's only duty is to that of the stockholders/investors and as we were never part of any negotiation to make deals, we have neither say in our commission nor in any possible conflict in interest in direct dealing with FAA.....take it or leave it.
To SS it's irrelevant; any sale is money in the bank. If you leave there's 10 others to take your place...so long and thanks for all the fish!

I thought it interesting that cpaulfell who first reported the thief math313 left it at that. I looked at their port (3200 pics) and found that hey had stolen 4 shots from an artist's duo based in London. Because the artists had recently been published in a national UK newspaper it was easy to find an email address and I mailed them pointing out the apparent 'inconsistency' with this guy at SS in Turkey claiming copyright of their work. I asked them to send DMCA notices (4X), gave 'em the link to Shutterstock infringement claims and they or their gallery people must have done so immediately because within 24 hours math313's port of 3200 images was gone completely.

This was the the tread that was taken down and for which Brasilnut had his forum account suspended. BTW thread is still there...they only deleted the link.

So, whether it was the number of DMCA notices or the fact that these guys were serious trouble, I dunno but SS shut down the entire account within 24 hours.

I got it immediately especially helped by the linked photo......but that prolly cos I'm a Brit who's lived most of his life in NL! I'm soooo cynical especially about corporate business practices. 

Quote from: Brasilnut on August 06, 2019, 12:21

Quote from: OM on August 06, 2019, 01:51

Quote from: Brasilnut on August 06, 2019, 00:34

Quote from: Sammy the Cat on August 05, 2019, 19:53
I see SS deleted the latest "stolen images" threads and if I read correctly before the thread was deleted it seems Alex (Brasilnut) has been banned from the forum (waits to be corrected)
What is this some kind of weird big brother mentality in that outfit?

I can confirm that my account has been suspended for 3 days followed by 28 days of moderation for posting this suggestion to the SS forum.

Their actions look pathetic and puerile. But today looks like a small success if the 3200 image account of math313 has been taken down and stays down. I hope that your sales account hasn't been suspended and only your forum account, otherwise that is shocking!

My account, which is what really matters, has been unaffected.

Glad to hear that.

On a slightly different subject.....I sent an email to Adobe last night because I noticed that a contributor in the toppers of the week had a few photos in their port which looked a bit sus. One had a trademark clearly visible with a description of something else entirely and the second shot was available as a Wikimedia commons and on Unsplash. I told them of my concerns and this morning (within 12 hours) the offending photo's plus a few more that I hadn't complained about were gone from his port. The majority of his small port is still up so I presume that Adobe does want his shots of desert, camels and what appear to be North African buildings!

At least they dealt with it quickly and without demanding a DMCA (which I couldn't give as the offending photos weren't mine).

Edit: One day later and his account is 'empty'. Pointer to SS....it can be done.

Quote from: Brasilnut on August 06, 2019, 00:34

Quote from: Sammy the Cat on August 05, 2019, 19:53
I see SS deleted the latest "stolen images" threads and if I read correctly before the thread was deleted it seems Alex (Brasilnut) has been banned from the forum (waits to be corrected)
What is this some kind of weird big brother mentality in that outfit?

I can confirm that my account has been suspended for 3 days followed by 28 days of moderation for posting this suggestion to the SS forum.

Their actions look pathetic and puerile. But today looks like a small success if the 3200 image account of math313 has been taken down and stays down. I hope that your sales account hasn't been suspended and only your forum account, otherwise that is shocking!

I was a commercial photographer in the 'good ole daze' from mid-80's through to end-90's. Had a bit of a barren 6 years until an old advertising client asked me to do their Easter and Christmas product brochures and got some work from other clients in the food industry as a result of the work for that client but never had any client work as a result of stock (at Adobe/FT since 2008 and SS since 2012.

I have been asked by the client to ferret out stock photos of backgrounds or subjects that would be too expensive to shoot but haven't had any new clients enquiring about commissions because of my stock work. I must say though that I have absolutely no social media presence and don't even have an Instagram account. I think I would hate being a 'starting' commercial/freelance photographer today. You probably have to find a really small niche for yourself and do it extremely well before clients will consider paying you proper photographer rates. 

Math 313 (3200 images) is gone very quickly. Presumably the copyright holder sent the 4 DMCA notices today!

Canukistan is a funny place......they have govt allowed cannabis but all their coinage and notes may not be photographed in any way. Years ago I had a shot of a Maple Leaf gold coin as a small part of an 'artistic' photo but SS were forced to delete it anyway by some Canuck ruling about currency which it wasn't (wel, not really)!

Problem with feebay and preypal is that even if you have removed the buyer's payment from your paypal account to your bank account, you're still not safe because your agreement with preypal says they can still raid your credit card account or bank account to retrieve monies they consider owed.

Dunno whether it is still the same way but the Germans used to do it best by completely avoiding all payments through preypal. You had to pay in Euro to an IBAN account number of the vendor. Once the money is on the account, the buyer will have great difficulty in getting it returned even when they're not a scammer.

The corporate kleptocracy always wins (until the revolution which will never happen this time around).

Quote from: fotorob on June 05, 2019, 17:11

Quote from: microstockrank.com on June 04, 2019, 13:20

Quote from: gillian vann on June 04, 2019, 06:55
Now that there is advertising on the Unsplash site do the photographers realise they've been taken for fools? I'd laugh, but it's not funny.

With the cost of Unsplash, hard to believe that it will stay free for a very long time ...
But, Where did you see advertising?

source : https://medium.com/unsplash/what-does-unsplash-cost-in-2019-f499620a14d0

Thanks for the interesting link.
I did some analysis of where the money at Unsplash comes from here, in German though (Google Translate might help):
https://www.alltageinesfotoproduzenten.de/2019/01/15/das-geschaeftsmodell-hinter-kostenlosen-bildern-am-beispiel-unsplash/

Most enlightening and the Google translation is good. Thanks.
Interesting that the Unsplash model for monetization is different to that of Pixabay and on that subject there's a link given to another article "The business model of Pixabay and possible consequences" which is also worth a read (Google translate from the original German text).

Edit: Sorry Robert. Didn't realise that you're author of both articles...many thanks.

One of the others may not be as big as Unsplash but Pixabay is a tad more blatant in its advertising....their sponsors are our old friends........SS and AS...no doubt using their cut from the proceeds of licensing our images to 'sponsor' the competition.

Quote from: cathyslife on May 31, 2019, 14:01

Quote from: OM on May 31, 2019, 07:54

Quote from: cathyslife on May 29, 2019, 20:57

Quote from: OM on May 29, 2019, 20:23
Not sure how to do that so I've removed the last link. Not sure either how it helps thieves if their image is clickable. No-one here is going to pay for one of their images at SS are they?

SEO


example: pixabay dot com slash nameslash 342q dot com

Don't see a lot of people doing that. I'll just not post....it's easier!
Don't know if it's true anyway as I'm not an expert: Defer to Chichikov:

https://www.microstockgroup.com/30839/30839/msg533349/#msg533349

Is he an expert?

This is to where the link was supposed to direct:

Chichikov

Aparently not but who is?

"It is a (half) myth!
Apparently you repeat what you have read (like many others), but you don't really know how SEO works, and how a website rises in the rankings.
I often wonder why people who know nothing about it should feel compelled to peddle false information!

There are different opinions, on the part of SEO experts, that clicking on a link improves the ranking in search engine results.
According to few experts, this would place the site at a higher level;
According to others, this would only have an effect if the clicks are very numerous and repeated, and over a long period of time (several months, even several years).
Do you really think that the users who visited this thread and clicked on the links had a tangible effect on improving the ranking of these sites?
Still according to experts who say that clicks have an effect on site ranking, this effect would be so minimal that it is not worth considering, whether it is millions or billions of clicks...
And according to other experts, this would have no effect at all.
In fact, it seems that Google no longer takes clicks on url into account for ranking, since a many years now, to avoid the effect of click generators.
Do a research on the subject and you will find different theses on this subject, theses confirming it and theses invalidating it.
In fact, search engines are very secretive about how their algorithms work, and even the SEO experts are not so sure how it really works.....

That being said, I'm not an expert, but I'm sure you're far from being one too........"

Microstock's time has passed. It was good while it lasted and used to provide a reasonable supplemental income for a reasonable investment of effort. Now it doesn't (with still photo's, vectors etc). Agency greed, easing of standards, theft, free sites and the need to feed yo' Instagram page have caused disruptions in the status quo for MS'ers just as MS did in the early 2000s to the established stockphoto business. It's over and time to move on to something else. Attempting to hold back the flood of free or stolen by rendering unclickable links is, to my mind, like King Canute trying to command the tide to go back (prolly didn't do that really but you get my drift).

Quote from: Brasilnut on May 29, 2019, 21:35
Anybody working with Unsplash/Pexels/Pixabay is indirectly aiding and abetting criminal activity. Now we have Canva partnering up with them and spinning like it's such a great deal for us!

SS and Adobe are doing that with Pixabay by sponsoring them with advertising.

Quote from: cathyslife on May 29, 2019, 20:57

Quote from: OM on May 29, 2019, 20:23
Not sure how to do that so I've removed the last link. Not sure either how it helps thieves if their image is clickable. No-one here is going to pay for one of their images at SS are they?

SEO


example: pixabay dot com slash nameslash 342q dot com

Don't see a lot of people doing that. I'll just not post....it's easier!
Don't know if it's true anyway as I'm not an expert: Defer to Chichikov:

https://www.microstockgroup.com/30839/30839/msg533349/#msg533349