The whole idea of licensing something as 'stock' and reselling it as 'art' is just plain wrong.  I don't care if it's legal.  It's wrong.  Deceptive, misleading, unethical, and shabby.

I had over 3,000 photos approved in my portfolio and today and sold a few during the year and last night every last one was declined.  I wrote support and got this answer.

"Although your images were good and approved and sold, our new team felt they were not suitable for consumers today"

I don't have any of the 3,000 images anymore--I do have about two months left on my paid subscription which I will cancel very soon.  All this work gone down the drain.

Well photographers---Stay clear!!!

That's astounding.  Imagine spending the time uploading 3000 photos, actually seeing some sales, then being dropped without even an explanation.    I hope the "new team" gets the message that I'm not having anything to do with their company. 

It's been - I forget - 2 years since they went public?   A lot of people have probably left in that time.  After an IPO the pressure to deliver short-term profits just builds and builds.  The people who stick around tend to be the ones with nice fat stock options; middle and lower level people burn out.  They've probably lost all continuity in their IT group and the newer guys don't have the deep knowledge of the site code and infrastructure that would let them avoid, or quickly repair, these sorts of problems.

I'm not into video or Dissolve.  But isn't this just another case of the classic microstock problem: things inevitably get to the point where the agency is making good money, but the individual contributor can't?   Best case for the agency is to have every contributor in the world giving them just their best stuff.  And each of those contributors then makes diddly.   

In any business, there has to be a way for the suppliers to make money too, or they give up.  If Dissolve can't review all this material, wouldn't it have made sense to be more selective in approving contributors?  Then the ones who made the cut might be able to make enough for it to be worthwhile.   And they'd be less likely to post the same stuff on 10 other sites, further driving down prices.

Through the 80s, 90s and 00s, I watched my software work being increasingly transferred to Indian companies bidding 1/3 the price.  They had the educational system, were getting the connectivity, and the cost of living was a fraction of ours.  I didn't resent those guys, it was just their turn and they deserved the opportunity.   Eventually things started to level out as their wage demands went up and some of their shortcomings became evident; but that took years.  Same thing will happen to stock photography.   

There are other trends harder to overcome: oversupply and coverage saturation.   

But the biggest obstacle is the distortion of the market by a handful of middlemen who control the market, competing only on price and paying token commissions.   Software developers can form new companies, or go independent, and have ways of reaching potential customers.   Photographers currently don't have those options.

I quit shooting micro over a year ago, because of declining returns, but also because the future - subs, 'packages', giveaways - was obvious.  No offense guys, but in my math, 33 cents never adds up to anything.    Let's not even talk about 2.

Obviously there are people who would do this for nothing, at least for some period in their lives; and I think they'll get the chance. 

Total waste of time IMHO.   

The first step in the new plan was to cut the photographer's share by half.  And I guess step #2 hasn't been determined yet.

I closed my account as soon as this guy showed up, and forgot all about 500px.   If they ever decide what they're trying to be, I might look again.

"We are not interested in this image. Thank you for submitting"

Wow.  Talk about tone deaf.   

Quote from: ShadySue on November 08, 2016, 06:51

Quote

Many say that for every 1000 files you get one sale?

Per day? Per month? Per year?
Many?
Someone posted on the October sales thread that they'd got a sale with a port of <50. It's just if you happen to have what a buyer needs. Generally different buyers from micro. My best selling genre on iS doesn't sell at all (for me) on Alamy (different images, obviously), which is a great pity.

The consensus on the Alamy forums is that, on average, people there get one sale per month per 1000 images. Some do better, some do worse. Just like comparing yourself to the averages in the poll here. I average more than one sale per month per 1000 images. Sorry I wasn't clear before.

Surprisingly, sales from my small portfolio are in rough agreement with that figure.   And I had to stop and reflect on this for a minute because producing 1,000 quality stock photos is a huge amount of work - unless they're dead simple, no-brainer shots.  And the return you can expect on that work is pitiful, even from an honest agency like Alamy. 

It's not just you.  I think everyone who's every tried Zazzle has conclude the same thing: it's just a huge waste of time. And Society6 is just as bad.  I get the impression that if you're in any sense a 'pro', with hundreds of good photos, these sites don't want you.   

I emailed ArtOfWhere about my need for non-standard formats (including square), matting and framing.  I got a brief reply, basically what I expected: they have no immediate plans to get into that, but might in the future.

I suggest others email them too, if you're interested in these things, and maybe we create the impression of demand.