I'd say there must have been a sudden gajillion percent increase in activity at SS, judging by RacePhoto's needle now pointing to the max.  If that math is correct, I'd say we'd hit the number in 1982. 

DT and FT are just the kind of agencies that show no promise whatsoever to me.

I used to see DT and FT as "siblings" running neck and neck every month to see who would deliver more earnings.

Then I reached Emerald at FT and doubled my prices and nearly doubled my earnings overnight.  Then DT cracked down on "similars" and started rejecting almost everything I submit.  Now FT challenges SS for #1 agency each month, while DT is joining IS in the "remember the good old days?" camp. 

So, is DT alive?  Yes, it's hanging in there, delivering good sales every month... but it's almost impossible now to grow there.

BME overall.

SS going great as ELs continue to pile up in good numbers.

IS down a bit from my peak there last fall, but showing signs of a rebound.

FT holding steady over the past few months.

DT down a bit... I blame the idiotic "too many similars" rejections which has caused me to rarely upload there

And the rest, which combined account for less than 10% of my earnings... 123RF a BME, BigStock steady, CanStockPhoto down a bit, etc.

Since RPI is being discussed, mine held steady at about $.12/day.  RPI has actually increased over the years as I've built my port.  (Now let the debate begin about how this is a meaningless number.)

My guess is that subscription sales come in waves because of the way designers work. They work in spurts - when a new job comes in, when a job is due, when a job is to be reviewed and different layouts have to be presented, when a deadline looms, after the job's first review and the client asks for more ideas (I'm talking both print and web designs), when the monthly newsletter or enewsletter is produced� Many of those scenarios work on cycles tied to time frames - end of week, month, year.

Pair that up with the nearing of the end of a subscription and the buyer wanting to get everything they might need in the future before the subscription expires may cause a flurry of subscription sales. If your portfolio contains images that any one buyer thinks is connected to their industry/customers/clients they may purchase many from you on the same day/week.

This makes some sense, but there is more going on.

The scenario you describe may explain the actions of an individual designer.  But I'm experiencing entire days with nothing but subscription sales then days with almost entirely credit sales.  For your theory to hold up, it would have to mean 5 to 10 designers buy nothing but sub images, then 5 to 10 designers buy nothing but credit images, then back and forth.

Anyone else have an explanation?

The daily tallies don't matter as much to me.  But in aggregate, I can see a 14-day rolling average, and plot that against prior years.  If the current average is heading downward, it could be seasonal, which the year-to-year comparisons would tell me.  But if it's going down at a period when history suggests I should be making gains, that suggests something is wrong and requires further analysis.  RPI is another measurement I track closely.  I compare today, this week, and this month to the same period last year and in prior years to see if I'm truly making gains.  If RPI slips, that suggests I'm not uploading the right stuff, perhaps even competing too much with my own port.

Maybe this is just anal, but it is working for me, so I'm sticking with what works.

Average month. Checking your sales daily is probably too frequent. Sales tend to go up and down at all sites. As long as each year increases I think is the main thing

You'll find that as your sales get higher, you're much more vested in watching the trends and wanting to move the needle higher.  If I just made a few sales a day at a given site, I would still probably check it at the end of every day.  I keep a daily tally of my sales, and I track a trend line that is a two-week rolling average.  Then I compare that to year-ago levels to see if I am in the middle of an annual cyclical trend or if I'm doing something right or wrong that is out of the ordinary, and I alter my course as needed by looking at what is or isn't selling.   Yes, it can take some time to do this correctly, but if you've reached a level where microstock is paying some or all of your bills, you'd be wise to give it the careful daily attention and analysis it takes to grow it further.

I think about this all the time.

I'm making a nice income now, and it would be nice to think it will continue to grow or at least remain steady for the next several decades.  My dream is to quit my day job at 50 and enjoy a comfortable, microstock-financed retirement, but I know that's naive.

All industries change, and anything tech related changes at a much faster pace.  Microstock as we know it will continue to evolve and maybe be completely replaced with a new model at some point.

But I comfort myself with this thought: images will always be needed.  Maybe they'll become more animated, more video-like, or maybe even holograms.  I'll just have to stay on top of the technology to create what's in demand.  I have enough faith in my ability to do so.  As for how we'll make money on sales of such images?  Maybe it will go to free downloads but advertising supported and we contributors get a cut.  Or maybe some other model we're not even thinking of.  It ultimately doesn't matter.  The creators of images will have to be compensated at a level that satisfies them enough to keep them creating.  Otherwise there will be no more images.  (At least, no more GOOD images, since the ones that people will create for no compensation will be crap.)

So I'm uncertain about microstock's future, but fairly confident that I'll be able to profit in some way as a contributor well into the future.

I must have missed something.  I didn't see any whining about loss of sales.  I thought the OP was asking if others had noticed that the 'feed the beast' philosophy had changed.  I think it has.  What do you think?

As I mentioned in my post, I agree the philosophy is changing, and that's a great thing:  "But taking the easy path of seeing what sells well today and copying will no longer earn you quick cash.  I, for one, am glad the new image bump is gone.  If it makes the copycats find something else to do, then SS, and microstock in general, is stronger for it."

Frankly I don't know what RM agencies will think of this, but if I were a RF reviewer, here's what I'd say...

Limited Commercial Value.

As a contributor to the microstock agencies, here's the approach I take:

Anytime you are about to upload an image, ask yourself, "Who would buy this, and what would they use it for?"  Looking at your photo, I can't think of an answer.  Can you?

The images that sell are those that convey a concept.  And best-selling images are those that best convey their concepts immediately upon sight.  That means the image has to SCREAM a concept.   As the buyer peruses a page of hundreds of choices, all of them in tiny thumbnail form, what is going to make your image jump off the page and demand to be bought?  It has to work well in a very small size on the screen, and it has to slap the viewer across the face with its message.

I'm not commenting on the quality of your pic.  Frankly, the microstock game is not about quality anymore.  Many, many people will get accepted into the agencies based on their work being of sufficient quality.  But few will have great success generating actual sales because they don't understand how to get into a buyer's head, how to pick the right subject matter, how to develop a unique style, and how to make their images scream a message or concept.  

Still, I do wish you well.  The more contributors who embrace this philosophy, the better microstock will be for buyers and sellers.   Best of luck!

If your images are good enough then they will sell. If they're not then they won't. No point in concocting elaborate conspiracy theories to explain a lack of sales because that is unlikely to be the issue.

+1

I'd say there was definitely a shift that did away with newest images being heavily favored, but that has not killed my sales of new images.  I'd say now my new images sell at the same rate as my older images, which is as it should be.

Perhaps Shutterstock's plan was to discourage uploads from contributors who could only sell based on the bump that new images used to receive.  If that's the only way someone can sell, that's a sign the contributor is only uploading "me too" stuff... subjects and styles that have been done to death... and Shutterstock surely knows it doesn't need any more of that.

For anyone to succeed now at SS, or anywhere for that matter, you'd better be watching the market closely.  Figure out what's been done to death and what subjects are undercovered.  Build a unique style.  It's tough to do, don't get me wrong.  But taking the easy path of seeing what sells well today and copying will no longer earn you quick cash.  I, for one, am glad the new image bump is gone.  If it makes the copycats find something else to do, then SS, and microstock in general, is stronger for it.

Does anyone else see that we as contributors are at least partly to blame for this?

123RF gives us a very fair commission of 50%, they perform pretty well for us, and in the meantime new agencies pop up offering lower commissions and prices and we stand in line to join. 

It's the Fotolia story all over again.  How can we expect the larger players that sell at higher prices and offer decent commissions to maintain those prices and commissions if we keep adding to the "race to the bottom" pressure?  It's simple economics, and we're a big part of the equation.

Quote from: helix7 on January 19, 2012, 15:57

Quote from: SNP on January 19, 2012, 15:54

this is true, unfortunately. but I think we're about to see iStock get swallowed up by the Getty machine. the question is whether to go with the flow or walk the plank and hope the sharks are friendly

That's what it sounds like, since all of the jobs lost were on the istock side. The "redundancies" all seem to favor the Getty team, so any replacement to JJRD would come from Getty. istock is being eaten.

I think istock will be around this year, as they streamline what images go to Getty and what goes to stinkstock, but then BOOM!, one day an announcement will come and istock will be gone. You will be directed to either Getty or thinkstock directly. The "artist formerly known as istockphoto" will cease to exist.

No.  iStock as a name has way too much brand equity.  That wasn't really the case with StockXpert.  Even people who only marginally know what microstock is probably have heard of iStock.  If they know one place to turn to for buying cheap pictures, it's probably iStock.

They will transform the business but keep the name.  People will likely be screwed... probably contributors... but if the management has an ounce of sense about making money, they will find a way to keep buyers with the name iStock.