MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - kuriouskat

Pages: 1 ... 12 13 14 15 16 [17] 18 19 20 21 22 ... 28
401
General Stock Discussion / Re: SS sales this week
« on: March 27, 2018, 14:16 »
I really don't think Shutterstock is interested in standards these days - they've gone with the 'pile it high and sell it cheap' mentality.

With the last two blog posts explaining shutter speed and aperture, it's kind of obvious that they are grooming the 'woot woot I made $10 this month' crowd.

402
General Stock Discussion / Re: SS sales this week
« on: March 27, 2018, 11:47 »
My better months on SS net me some 2000 downloads. I am under 700 so far this month, with this week being particularly slow, so I guess we are slowly going down the pan.

403
iStockPhoto.com / Re: January earnings
« on: March 20, 2018, 06:36 »
I can't even access the site to look :(

I keep getting 'too many redirects'. Anyone else having problems?

404
Shutterstock.com / Re: Anyone have sales today?
« on: March 14, 2018, 08:37 »
Its not the usual tons of bugs and glitches we are seeing at SS right now I spoke to somebody with 100% insight of this and he said thousands of ports are affected with either zero or really low earnings?? wouldnt say what it was though! just saying!

Now I dont want any ghost buster coming along with the same bunch of crap because I am just forwarding some info I got hold of.

I must be in the 'really low' group, and yesterday and today have totally tanked - down by about 75% over the usual day. Did your friend give any insight as to when we might expect this to be fixed?

Same here!

Then I guess misery loves company - I am glad to know I'm not alone!

I keep expecting something to be fixed and trigger the sales again but, at the moment, there are no signs of a reprieve. I can't see any obvious bugs, like missing keywords that have been reported by other contributors recently, and I'm praying this isn't some sort of new norm.

I know sales patterns have changed a lot over the last 18-24 months, but this is suddenly very poor, even by my adjusted expectations.

405
Shutterstock.com / Re: Anyone have sales today?
« on: March 14, 2018, 05:52 »
Its not the usual tons of bugs and glitches we are seeing at SS right now I spoke to somebody with 100% insight of this and he said thousands of ports are affected with either zero or really low earnings?? wouldnt say what it was though! just saying!

Now I dont want any ghost buster coming along with the same bunch of crap because I am just forwarding some info I got hold of.

I must be in the 'really low' group, and yesterday and today have totally tanked - down by about 75% over the usual day. Did your friend give any insight as to when we might expect this to be fixed?

406
I uploaded a handful of images to test it, using good sellers that have been in my portfolio for years. I know these images are all over the internet, because I can find hits using Google or Tineye. In a but one case, Pixsy didn't find any matches.

407
I don't buy in to the 'cap' conspiracy theory per se, but I do believe that we are victims of arbitrary search changes and, once you start to lose ground in the rankings, it's a slippery slope to the bottom.

I'm also sure that Shutterstock employ a good team of behavioural psychologists to analyse not just buyer behaviour, but also to anticipate contributor behaviour.

Arbitrary search changes are simply a natural jobs for agencies
They have to sell more images, simply.
They are working for you, for me or for anybody who is able to produce good images that sells.
There is nothing wrong in this.

I really doubt that Shutterstock or any other agency want invest in hours and people psychologist team that analyse contributor thoughts....

Shutterstock, and others, are not "psychology". They have zillion of files and simpy want to have maximum earnings return, so they try different way. And it's exactly the same as contributors do.

if I own shutterstock, I would never think to spend money and time for a specialist psychologys team  ;-)
Believe me... more industry is big. less is worried about the base economy

They don't really care about YOU. They knows about entire world of contributors, and it's really diferent thing.

I think you misunderstand me, and assume I am criticising Shutterstock for their actions. I'm not - I'm merely stating things as I see it. I, and others, may see a negative impact from an algorithm change, but others will see a positive. This kind of shift actually backs up the random reward theory. It's very good for business from Shutterstock's perspective and keeps more contributors engaged for longer.

As for doubting whether Shutterstock, or any other large agency would invest in analysing contributor behaviour, I'd be very surprised if they didn't. It's common practice for companies to assess the productivity of their staff in this way and, as Shutterstock is totally reliant on their contributors to provide a steady flow of new, quality work, they are unlikely to leave things to chance and misjudge the mood of their suppliers.

I don't expect them to care about ME, I expect them to care about their business, which is what they are doing.

408
I think there is enough sensible people around, with sufficient sales data and longevity in the industry, not to completely ignore what they are saying about having their sales capped.

Whilst I have never subscribed to the capping theory (Why? How? Who to? Why would SS do it?) I think there may be another plausible explanation. I reached top tier back in 2014, and my sales kept going up and up until end of 2016, so I don't think its that. But something big happened to me in the beginning of 2017, a massive 50% drop in photo DLs, that has never really recovered. SS went from 50% of my total microstock sales, to around 30%, and if I hadnt started video before that, I would have suffered deeply. This also affected a number of other people I know who made good sales. They saw the same significant % drop as well.


This takes a while to explain, so please bear with me, and forgive the long post.

Now, this is the other possible explanation that I think of. SS is big on having very complex algorithms. They pride themselves on it, in fact. right? Also keeping in mind that one of the biggest problems that clients have is seeing the same images every time at the top of searches. This drives the buyers nuts and away. Even building in a function of time into their algorithm probably doesnt cut it.

Also keeping in mind that SS has some big buyers the very large advertising agencies or whatever,  that probably come in and buy up 10,000 photos or whatever for their needs. Now SS cant afford to lose these guys. So, what if they wrote another algorithm just for them. If it was my business, I certainly would. And what if, that algorithm included, if you have seen or purchased this image before dont show it! ?? And what about the consequences to all the contributors who have sold a hell of a lot of images in their past? How much of their port would automatically disappear from view from these big buyers?

We cant prove the individual capping theory because when we look our images are still there. But what if there are special algorithms for special big buyers??

So, my question is to others did you also notice a sudden drop at a particular time? And are there other people here who also experienced a significant drop in January 2017?  I have been racking my brains the past 12 months as to what happened. Where did the buyers go? Not noticeably to other agencies. So, I am very, very interested in what others say.  More contributors and more images being added to their database would not have resulted in such a big sudden drop, it would have been more gradual.

(To explain how much data I have to collect, I started Microstock in December 2012, now have 8,000 photos, and for the past 3 years have earned over $30,000, every year, from microstock. Also, I keep RPIs and stats on just about everything, and up until January 2017 they were always very predictable. I specialised in Holidays and Events, which makes it even more predictable.)

@Milleflore

I had a similar drop in sales some six month before your reported drop, and I know of many large port, long term contributors noticing the same phenomenon of sales dropping by 40-50% virtually overnight.  At the time, I sought answer on forums but was slapped down.  A number of contributors who had not been affected just told me I needed to work harder and study the market more, believing that the problem must be something I was doing wrong. It was very upsetting to be suddenly losing several hundred dollars per month, but also distressing to be reaching out to a community to share experiences, only to be told that the fault was mine and I needed to wake up and smell the coffee.

Those who have experienced this will be entirely sympathetic to your plight, and will also be looking for answers. Those who haven't yet found themselves in this position will be quietly - or maybe not so quietly - smug. It doesn't matter which camp you are in, as neither side will be able to give you answers. Those who have experienced a drop with be looking for reasonable theories to explain things, and those who are still riding high will shout those theories down.

I don't buy in to the 'cap' conspiracy theory per se, but I do believe that we are victims of arbitrary search changes and, once you start to lose ground in the rankings, it's a slippery slope to the bottom.

I'm also sure that Shutterstock employ a good team of behavioural psychologists to analyse not just buyer behaviour, but also to anticipate contributor behaviour. When your sales dropped what was your instinct - quit, or work harder to get back to where your were? Are you still contributing a year on? Do you set yourself deadlines of 'if this doesn't improve by month end I'll stop uploading', only to be thrown a large SOD just when you are ready to throw in the towel? Are you telling yourself that you need to diversify to grow, trying new media or searching for an elusive niche? Have you adjusted your monthly expectations down, and effectively accepted the new 'norm'?

Look at the behavioural science behind the forming of habits - it only takes about 21 days for an action to become a habit - and we will continue this habit while we are being rewarded, making it deep-seated and harder to break. Companies know how to hook us, and have changed their reward pattern from regular to random, which keeps us engaged and makes us crave reward. On the flip side, an as many of us know, breaking a habit is difficult, even if we know it's something really bad for us. Many of us have joked about the addictive nature of this business, and I think that's exactly the truth. I'm 10 years into this, so it's a big life-shift to give it all up.

We are nothing more than hopeful lab rats craving a reward, and we are totally at the mercy of these big corporations to throw out a treat. They can, and will, do what they like, because their advisers tell them that, in reality, 80% of the hardened contributors will moan but carry on working. For those they lose, there is a queue of newcomers stepping over each other to get in the door.

409
Hmm, thought I'd give this a try and signed up for the free account.

Unfortunately, that only give cover for 500 images now, and not the 5000 mentioned above.

410
Shutterstock.com / Re: Customer refund
« on: February 06, 2018, 08:49 »
No sales in the last 3 hours ... An issue ?

I'm seeing things on the map, but when I try to view sales it fluctuates between 1 or 9 - neither of which are correct, so I guess they will fix it eventually.

I checked the SS forums and it looks to be a widespread issue.

411
Shutterstock.com / Re: Customer refund
« on: February 06, 2018, 02:50 »
I think it's a glitch and not a refund, as I'm pretty sure Shutterstock absorb all refund costs, unless they think that you may be personally involved in a scam of some sort, and then they will freeze your account to investigate.

I had 3 sales showing for today a few minutes ago, then 0, then 3 again and now 0. I'm sure it will settle down when whatever is going on is fixed.


412
123RF / Re: 123rf reducing commissions
« on: February 05, 2018, 08:45 »
I'm rather furious to have also dropped from level 4 to level 2. A sneaky pay cut is a slap in the face for hard-working contributors.

I will think long and hard before I upload anything further.

413
Hmm, thought so. So how come the get to use the images for free e-cards? Shouldn't the  contributor have a say in that or is there some small print that covers it somewhere?

414
Copyright 2018, Crosscards.com. All rights reserved. Article Images Copyright 2018 JupiterImages Corporation.


JupiterImages are part of Getty aren't they?

415
I upload because it's easy to include them in my workflow, but I'm often baffled by their rejections, and it does appear to be a total crap-shoot rather than any logic on their part.

If there was more effort then I would have quit them a long time ago, as the 20-30$ i get there per month is only a very small fraction of my stock income. I hit a submit button about once a week and get about 300$ a year for it, so it's worth that minimal effort.

I smile when I get the approved/rejection email, trash it and move on without another thought. I used to get cross, and resubmit as a matter of principle, but decided they are not worth wasting energy on.

I only get slightly irked when I see the gaps on my Stockperformer page, but that's about liking things to be neat and tidy ;)

416
Newbie Discussion / Re: Curiosity
« on: January 26, 2018, 13:45 »
Looking at the image number, it's been online for a long time. In the early days none of the stock sites worried so much about releases, I guess until they started getting treats of lawsuits.

Rules change for new uploads, but the sites don't worry too much about the old stuff unless they know that the subject is likely to be problematic. So people who got approved images before the tightening of the rules, are lucky that they have a monopoly but are also more at risk of the stock sites holding them responsible in the event of a claim.

417
I looked at Colourbox and decided the commission was an insult.

When looking, I also noticed a copy of one of my vectors, about 95% the same, with identical description and keywords. I reported the copy at several sites, who promptly took it down, but Colourbox told me it was different enough and acceptable.

The whole experience put me off Colourbox completely.

418
Shutterstock.com / Re: Is there a problem on Shutterstock today?
« on: January 12, 2018, 12:46 »
I had a lot of trouble opening my contributor page this morning, so with the stats not downloading to Stockperformer, I'm hoping there is a problem that has caused a delay and the numbers will suddenly jump.

If not, perhaps it's time to trow in the towel?

419
Shutterstock.com / Is there a problem on Shutterstock today?
« on: January 12, 2018, 12:24 »
I know everything has slowed down there a lot over the last 18 months, but I've gone from average 80 downloads per day to around 40. Today is 7? Also, my Stockperformer won't download any information for Shutterstock today, which makes me wonder if there are site problems?

420
123RF / Re: Login issues
« on: January 01, 2018, 05:29 »
I can now login but my December earnings is also at zero. Now doubt it will be fixed soon :)

421
123RF / Re: Login issues
« on: January 01, 2018, 04:04 »
Same for me :(

422
Stocksy / Re: Call To Artists is Open!
« on: December 09, 2017, 11:53 »

"As it took two months to make a decision, a fuller response would have been helpful so that I would at least know whether the rejection was based on my photographic style rather than a property release issue. "

It wouldn't be for a release.  We have to correct releases all the time.  It's not a crime. 


I didn't have (and can't get) releases - that why I'm curious. Shutterstock would take them straight out, whereas Fotolia would reject them requesting a release. I don't know what Stocksy's position is on this, so I took a chance and uploaded, figuring someone would tell me if I got it wrong.

423
Stocksy / Re: Call To Artists is Open!
« on: December 08, 2017, 17:56 »
I got a no as well.

Unfortunately, the response was a standard wording email saying I wasn't a good fit for Stocsky. My application included some parts of buildings, (all taken from public positions and not from private land), and some stock sites would take these where others might request a property release.

As it took two months to make a decision, a fuller response would have been helpful so that I would at least know whether the rejection was based on my photographic style rather than a property release issue.

I get that they've been swamped, but without pointing us in the right direction, we won't know what we need to modify for next time.

424
@ikostudio, I think you have a clear case here to report the other photographer to Shutterstock, as it certainly looks as if you can provide the solid evidence that your composite came first, (and you own all elements within it), and that the other contributor lifted your balloons to use in a later composite.

I'm not sure why some are starting to distrust you? I guess maybe they are getting their wires crossed.

Anyway, good luck with reporting this, and please let us know the outcome.

425
Shutterstock.com / Re: New submission editor page
« on: November 12, 2017, 09:47 »
I've just tried it again, and concluded I don't think I like it.

I submitted a couple of times earlier, but only one image batches, and they worked fine. It's horrible for larger batches though, because as soon as you select more that one image to edit, you lose the ability to see either the title, description or number of keywords per image. When it fails to submit, you have to deselect everything then reselect individually to see what the problem is.

Total PITA :(

Pages: 1 ... 12 13 14 15 16 [17] 18 19 20 21 22 ... 28

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors