I think we can all agree that luck plays a big role in the images life on shutterstock. Depending on the first sales, it either populates the "relevant" search order or it sinks in the "newest" search order.

For example, a week ago I submitted an illustration and a very similar one with a 3 day interval between them. They were also approved with a 3 day interval. One of the images has had 20 sales since then, the other zero. And they're so similar they would surely be rejected due to similarity if they were a part of the same batch. So, I can safely assume that the life of the image that sells well now will be pretty good. The other one, however, not so good.

Based on things like these, I'm contemplating the following. About a month ago I submitted around 60 images of a pretty female (and I know a lot of folks keywords their images with females as "pretty", when in reality the models are far from it, this is a really pretty girl) isolated on white doing various things like photographing in one outfit, standing confidently as a businesswoman and so on. The whole set was submitted in three batches. I have almost no sales on those files. And don't get me wrong, they're technically correct, they're not cheesy, there are no hard shadows (used an 120cm octobox as main).. still they just don't sell. And I'm thinking it must be luck. Why would my quality images sink in the mass of images without any downloads? Would it be unfair of me to delete all the images and just resubmit them, giving luck another try. I'm confident the images are good and I know how much luck has to do with everything on subscription-based sites like shutterstock, so I'm looking for your input on this. Thanks.

Thanks for the input, guys.

I guess I'll just have to think of alternative ways to get a similar shoot done.

Funny

When can we expect support for 123rf? Their earnings are (at least in my case) surpassing both FT and DT and it would me nice to have support for them.

Wow, thanks, very very useful!

I found one of my images that was licensed through alamy and published on one website, but there is no sale detected on Alamy! The article was published a month ago and the statistics say there has been no sale.

If anyone is experienced with problems such as these: what should I do?

Thanks!

My RPI is around 0.70$, so if that helps...

The bigger problem for me is finding what to shoot. It seems I have lost the inspiration since I've seen what effects can good executed shots with a clear concept have vs. shots that are uploaded just to boost up the numbers. So I try to shoot less, but better. Which gets me to the trap that none of the ideas are good enough. :/

Yeah, it could be that, too. With istock, one never knows.

Well, in that case, I welcome this error.

Sorry if this has been asked. I tried to find the PP thread, but was unsuccessful.

Anyways, every now and again I get a sole sale on PP which is worth about 38$. Does this happen to anyone else too. I'm wondering what could be the cause, especially since all the other downloads are subs.

So if anyone could enlighten me. Thanks.

I get it, however many of those older files with blue flames have been that way since prior to 2005.  They rocketed up in sales rather quickly back then. They continue to sell very well in most cases, but the big initial sales early on keep them near the top of best match.  Once again look through a big sellers portfolio.  Go back a year and find some excellent photos that are everybit the equal of his/her highest sellers overall.  Relatively few with big sales, and many great shots with 0 sales.  If those same photos were available in 2003, they would likely be blue flames long ago.  Of course there is still plenty of opportunity for a file to garner very significant sales quickly, but because of greatly increased competiton, it is simply harder to buyers to find it among the may thousands now available.  The days of a photo of dice showing double sixes, selling 6000 times, are probably gone, except for those that sold it big to begn with.

Yep, I agree completely.

One of the reasons the best match algorithm has to be changed is so the buyers don't buy the old 2003. double sixes by default. As it turns out, agencies are constantly revamping their best match algorithms - we can only debate can there be a better way.

Ultra-drop if compared with last three months:

I have opted in just a few best sellers and some other images that don't have that much competition, since they're very specific, so the buyer in reality doesn't have the choice to buy the lower priced image. We'll see how that works out.

Hi,

there seems to be a problem with changing my password. I use Opera11 and although my password meets the needs (one lowcase character, digit, over 8 chars...), it is always rejected so I am stuck with the default password. This makes me feel uncomfortable from a security standpoint and I would like to know is there going to be a fix for this problem.

Thank you in advance

Quote from: spike on December 14, 2010, 15:10

Quote from: Stu49 on December 14, 2010, 07:58

Quote from: Smithore on December 11, 2010, 14:02

Yes davidm, to downsize pictures for subscription sites like shutterstock is important, we can't sell the same image for the same size at so much different price between for example shutetrstock and istock.

What's to stop people up-sizing them after purchase ??  I would think the quality would be very good, as they were down-sized in the first place !?

Also what size do you submit to top 6 ??  (DT,FT,IS,SS,BS,123)

 

Downsample your avatar to 10x10 pixels and then enlarge it to the size you have now.

lol   Not a very realistic comparison !?

I'm talking 10MB down to 5MB, then back to 6 or 7MB !!

to compare with 10x10 pixels is rather silly really !  isn't it ?? 

The comparison is to illustrate a point.