Quote from: Bauman on February 02, 2022, 13:53

Quote from: Wilm on February 02, 2022, 10:21

This could be a reasonable explanation indeed.

Yes ... Pavlovsky himself said so in the latest financial reports.

Subscribers are increasing both in number and in average revenue per customers.

2020 255000 subscribers
2021 336000 subscribers

2020 $328 average revenue per customer
2021 $361 average revenue per customer

But downloads are the same ... (44.3 2021 vs 43.4 2020)

So revenue per download (Three Months Ended September) is:

2020 $3.79
2021 $4.30

Revenue per download was:

2013 $2.35
2015 $2.85
2017 $3.24

My RPD:

2013 $0.59
2015 $0.75
2017 $0.88
2020 $0.83
2021 $0.76
2022 (Jan $0.51)

So, real royalty earnings % is:

2013 0.59/2.35= 25.10%
2015 0.75/2.85= 26.31%
2017 0.88/3.24= 27.16%
2020 0.83/3.79= 21.89%
2021 0.76/4.30= 17.67%

17.67% (not 30 or 35% of level 4 o 5) is very close to Istock's actual 15% ... a real theft against contributors.

I do stock full time and unfortunately I have to pay my expenses and SS is still 40% of my income. I hate them with all my heart. I'm thinking of quitting, but it's not an easy choice.

Of course, this is not an easy choice, Baumann. We already had this topic in the shutterstock forum. Shutterstock knew exactly that countless contributors had no choice because this was their main source of income. As I wrote there, the ugly face of capitalism was revealed because the new revenue structure was introduced at the very time when many contributors had lost other sources of income through Corona. And because this was the case, many contributors could not simply delete their portfolios from shutterstock, which they would certainly have liked to do out of conviction.

The largest contributor - Africa Studio - did it. I have a lot of respect for that, because some employees have to be paid. I am sure that the decision was very difficult for them.

I myself did not do it. I am only a tiny light. But I couldn't bring myself to give up a four-figure income per year. Nevertheless, my shutterstock motivation is at absolute zero.

Quote from: Bauman on February 02, 2022, 10:11

SS pushes for subscription packs because their earning is higher due to unsold photos in packages.

This could be a reasonable explanation indeed.

Quote from: ribtoks on February 01, 2022, 16:08
Hey folks

Last autumn I did an analysis of Shutterstock portfolios on Petapixel and the general ask was to do the same for Adobe Stock. Sorry it took so long, but here it is finally: https://xpiksapp.com/blog/adobe-stock-top-500-portfolios/

Please let me know what do you think of it!

The numbers are indeed interesting. And it really shows that the sheer size of a portfolio doesn't matter, at least with Adobe Stock.

One contributor conglomerate has 1,337,294 files in its portfolio and appears 78 times in the top 500 search results. Another has less than 2,600 files in its portfolio (one five-hundredth) and appears there 53 times.

Quote from: RalfLiebhold on February 01, 2022, 21:56

Quote from: Wilm on February 01, 2022, 21:09
The core problem is that you have to wait for the big SODs at shutterstock. When these don't come in, it is a disaster. Shutterstock has become a microstock lottery.

I don't have that problem with the competitors.

Wilm, the core problem is not shutterstock, but stock photography itself in my opinion 

My core problems are:

123Rf: RPD 21 cent (they do not even seem to have ODs)
Alamy: 1 cent sales to china
Adobe: Few downloads
istock: RPD partly in single digits (iStock is actually my biggest disaster. There you fight through this moronic vocabulary, and then such a lousy result).
Eyeem: zero sales
Mostphotos: zero sales
Deposit: RPD ~ 30 cents (they do not have a lot ODs either)
Dreamstime: High payout limit with low RPD

It's a real mystery to me why the frustration here is directed exclusively at one agency. 

Ralf, yes, the downward trend affects almost all agencies. For me, AS and istock are the only exceptions at the moment. Canstock is also stable, but I don't count them because that is not statistically relevant in my case.

But shutterstock used to be the agency where I took in the most. With a clear gap to the other agencies. Now shutterstock has landed in third place for me - also by a clear margin.

I really don't have a loss of 7/8 with any other agency between the best and the worst month. That is really extreme.

When over 13000 images bring $39, then it's time to question whether it still makes sense.
The other figures also brutallyhonestly show that microstock is a discontinued model.

Thanks for your info, Alex. As far as the trend goes, it's in line with my experience.

The core problem is that you have to wait for the big SODs at shutterstock. When these don't come in, it is a disaster. Shutterstock has become a microstock lottery.

I don't have that problem with the competitors.

Quote from: DO on February 01, 2022, 09:54
Wilm, having read your sales posts since I joined the Sstock forum in 2019, it is sad to read this one

It will be interesting to see how Sstock itself is doing.  I believe they are reporting this month.

I hope that February is a good month for all of us.

Thanks, Deb!

Yes, I'm curious about the numbers as well.

Now I have it in black and white. It was by far the worst month ever on shutterstock.

My worst month up to this point was my first month - November 2010. In January 2022, I am down 41.6% compared to that month. And this, although I got only $0.25 for each subscription as a beginner in the former level 1, and not $0.38 - former level 4.

My first shutterstock download is from November 9, 2010, which means that I earned much more in only 22 days compared to January 2022 with 31 days.

Compared to my best shutterstuck month, I earned exactly one-eighth.

January was bad overall. I missed the four figure downloads overall. AS was also worse than the previous January. But there the minus is "only" 21,2%. However, I must say that January 2021 was above average for me there.

Quote from: Mimi the Cat on January 31, 2022, 06:26

Quote from: Wilm on January 30, 2022, 21:22

Quote from: Pacesetter on January 28, 2022, 13:24

Quote from: Mimi the Cat on January 18, 2022, 16:48
Shitterstock is a pile of beans this month but I'm sure Stan Pavlosky is doing alright 

To put some context on shitterstock

Jan 18 ~ $318 sales 287 rpd 1.11
Jan 19 ~ $212 sales 287 rpd 0.73
Jan 20 ~ $125 sales 225 rpd 0.56
Jan 21 ~ $100 sales 218 rpd 0.45
Jan 22 ~ $50   sales 157 rpd 0.32 (up to Jan 28)

For a few moments there, I thought you were talking your daily rates for January 2022, not your January totals since 2018 (had to read an older post for context).  Was thinking, what's wrong with this guy, he earns hundreds of dollars a day on a bad month ha ha.

Oh, that would have meant over $9,500 just in shutterstock in one month for Mimi for 2018. There weren't that many sellers who could do that at the time.

I'll make just over $50 for January 2022 on shitterstock

Oh crap! It is sad to have to read this.

Quote from: Pacesetter on January 28, 2022, 13:24

Quote from: Mimi the Cat on January 18, 2022, 16:48
Shitterstock is a pile of beans this month but I'm sure Stan Pavlosky is doing alright 

To put some context on shitterstock

Jan 18 ~ $318 sales 287 rpd 1.11
Jan 19 ~ $212 sales 287 rpd 0.73
Jan 20 ~ $125 sales 225 rpd 0.56
Jan 21 ~ $100 sales 218 rpd 0.45
Jan 22 ~ $50   sales 157 rpd 0.32 (up to Jan 28)

For a few moments there, I thought you were talking your daily rates for January 2022, not your January totals since 2018 (had to read an older post for context).  Was thinking, what's wrong with this guy, he earns hundreds of dollars a day on a bad month ha ha.

Oh, that would have meant over $9,500 just in shutterstock in one month for Mimi for 2018. There weren't that many sellers who could do that at the time.

Quote from: RalfLiebhold on January 30, 2022, 16:41

Quote from: Wilm on January 30, 2022, 16:10
It will be by far the worst month ever at shutterstock. There I now also have the lowest RPD of all agencies. $0.30.
For comparison:
January 2021 $0.43
January 2020 $0.59
January 2019 $0.65
January 2018 $0.82
...

At AS, it's $1.17 in January 2022, which means I'd have to achieve four times the amount of downloads at shutterstock to earn the same as I do at AS. And I am very far from that.

Wilm, that's bitter, of course, and it's for sure not much fun under these circumstances.

I myself had imagined the month after the first week worse but the sales have recovered. My January RPD is at 62 cents, ok not the best, but that was to be expected.

This at least is twice as much as mine, Ralf. 62 cents would be very acceptable to me because my lifetime RPD at shutterstock is also only 0.69.

It will be by far the worst month ever at shutterstock. There I now also have the lowest RPD of all agencies. $0.30.
For comparison:
January 2021 $0.43
January 2020 $0.59
January 2019 $0.65
January 2018 $0.82
...

At AS, it's $1.17 in January 2022, which means I'd have to achieve four times the amount of downloads at shutterstock to earn the same as I do at AS. And I am very far from that.

Quote from: ShadySue on January 28, 2022, 13:19
Ah, this is on the iStock board, so I wasn't thinking about SS.
(I'm not on SS anyway.)

Oooops! I'm sorry - I didn't notice that. 

Yes, that's right. istock payment was on January 21st.

Quote from: ShadySue on January 28, 2022, 12:45

Quote from: Wilm on January 28, 2022, 12:00
I received the money on January 7.

From December's sales? That's ten days before the reporting came in.

@ OP:  Mine came in on the 21st Jan. That was PayPal.
I believe that dates can be different for the different payment methods, but I think the contract says they have to pay you by the 25th. That doesn't seem to be in the contract, but on the Reports/Statement page it says (for me for PayPal): Tuesday, January 25, 2022 (but I received mine in my PayPal a/c on the 21st.
First check what date they've said for you, then double-check if you got an email confirming they'd paid you, and triple check by looking at the account into which the money should go.
If you are a non-US resident, check that you don't have to re-do the Tax Interview, which has to be redone every so often.
After all that, all you can do is take out a Support Ticket.
Good luck.

Yes, Sue, I also wonder why it took so long for you. It always comes around the 7th.

I received the money on January 7.

Quote from: SVH on January 27, 2022, 16:52

Quote from: Wilm on January 27, 2022, 11:33
Yes, that's right, my portfolio is static. There are 1300 images at shutterstock, 1470 at Adobe. There I uploaded a few more images in the last years, like at other agencies.

But my numbers have not remained consistent by far. And I know that with other contributors with static portfolios it has also become significantly worse. But there are differences between agencies.

Here's how it looks for me:

• Adobe Stock is stable with me. I had less downloads in 2021 than in 2013 (minus 570) and in 2015 (minus 150), but more than in all other years (up to plus 600).
  
  Also stable is canstock - but at a very very low level.
  
  istock has also stabilized in recent years. But there was a break from 2017 to 2018 (minus 1000).
  
  It has become somewhat less at deposit (minus 100 compared to 2020, minus 200 compared to 2019 and 2018).
  
  At 123, it is getting worse from year to year in steps of a hundred up to minus 800 compared to 2012 and 2013.
  
  dreamstime was stable until 2016, since then it has also been going downhill continuously. It's so bad now that I wonder if it's even worth uploading. If it would not go so fast, I would have already given up.
  
  The disaster is shutterstock. There it was stable in the period from 2018 to 2020. In 2021 I lack 1000 downloads there compared to the previous year and 5200 compared to 2015.

The fact is that the agencies have different algorithms. And that a portfolio that does not grow is most penalized at shutterstock. This is also confirmed by those who are very active. For them, the development is positive - Firn and Ralf I name as examples.

The fact that it has remained stable at AS shows that the images that successively disappear in nirvana at shutterstock must be mostly timeless, otherwise they would no longer be bought at AS. But the concept of shutterstock aims more at fresh content. I don't know which concept is better and more profitable for the agencies. I know that the algorithms have been changed again and again on a trial basis. And some of them were brought back to the old status.

Thijs, I run stock only as a hobby on the side, but as a studied industrial designer I have a professional background, which may be a little helpful.

Hi Wilm, if you could elaborate a bit more on how the algorithm works per agency, from your experience and point of view, it would very welcome to me and probably others. So if you have any other thoughts about this, please share

No, SVH, I can't say much useful about that. Of course, I don't know the algorithms either.

Ultimately, I can only write what I can observe myself - nothing more.

In the history, it was so that, for example, fotolia (Adobe Stock) occasionally changed the algorithm from one day to the next. I think that this was a test run in each case. Simply to try out what could bring the agency more money.
This caused a huge outcry among many contributors, because they suddenly lost their income. Other contributors, on the other hand, profited from it.

There is a huge risk to let images disappear in the search, which already had several thousand downloads, in order to check whether an algo, which puts current fresh material in front, leads to more sales.

A few times, the old algo was restored after several weeks. And calm returned to the contributors.

With any agency, after all, you can filter by "new images." The buyers with the big subscriptions, who need a lot of images, know that. The buyers who only buy a picture now and then probably always have the "sort by relevance" active - this is set automatically. These buyers are probably often not even aware that they have filtering options at all. Therefore, I can understand that the relevance sorting is preset - it makes the most sense from the agency's point of view. Because with this sorting, the "thousands of buyers can't be wrong" principle applies. From the agency's point of view, the images with the most downloads probably have the greatest chance of selling even more often. That's how supermarkets do it, after all. The products that sell the most are on an equal footing. A vicious circle for suppliers of new products, who thus have little chance of establishing themselves on the market.

The core issue is probably not the algorithm itself, but two other factors:
- the speed at which the database grows, and this is clearly highest at shutterstock,
- the vast number of very similar images, including copied images.

After all, for years there was the possibility to check which images sell best. These were then re-uploaded by other contributors in a very similar look. And already the original best-selling material has competition without end.

But with shutterstock, the biggest issue remains the immense growth of images.

If you want to get ahead, you have to feed the beast and never let up. I have one contributor under observation. There are close to 9,700,000 images on the topic he is dealing with. He started around 2019 and since then has uploaded more than 300,000 3D renderings on the topic (+ nearly 3000 videos). That's over 270 new images every day. In 5 days he has uploaded more images than I have in 11 years. Now every 32rd image on the theme is from this contributor. It is absolutely understandable that this displaces an extremely large number of images.
But you can't manage this amount on your own. So several people have to be fed by it. As a hobby contributor, you simply don't stand a chance against that.

When I search for images on the topic, I find his first image on page 2 - "popularity medium" (in my  own portfolio this corresponds to about 3 downloads). It has overtaken my picture, which with almost 7000 downloads - "popularity high" - can also be found on page 2, but clearly behind his.
By the way, the name under which he offers is identical with the search term. Whether that plays a role, I do not know.

Let's move on to Adobe Stock. There are 13,500,000 images there for the same search term. His portfolio size there is 340,000, but he has a different contributor name there. In 2020, his images were always at the top of the list. In the meantime, none of his images can be found on the first 35 pages of the search. I have no idea from which page the first of his images can be found. But I can see from this that something has changed in the algorithm that has caused his images to slip so far - I assume that it is the poor download numbers.

I have to add that the images are really bad compared to what countless other contributors have in their portfolio. By bad, I don't mean the technical quality, but the aesthetic quality. And I know that his images have sold miserably at Adobe. How it looks with him at shutterstock, I don't know. He has 233 times the portfolio size at AS, but less than 2/3 of my downloads. How that adds up, I don't know either. Then there is another example to mention. There is a contributor who also specializes in this topic. He has less than 700 images in his portfolio and has nevertheless achieved more than twice as many downloads at AS as the contributor with 340,000 images. But on shutterstock he has very little success.

This shows to me that the pure upload volume is of little importance at AS. With shutterstock it does. In my opinion, this is the main difference between the two algorithms at the moment.

Quote from: Uncle Pete on January 27, 2022, 16:57
I guess everyone who is making claims that sales are controlled by position and uploading and we lose because of the algorithm have decided to ignore my photo evidence to the contrary? Or at least look at it?

The same photos are on the first page, except for a very small number, for years. The same photos move around on the front page.

Also since most of this is simple personal experience and not collected empirical data, I need to add, I upload a bit, on a consistent basis, day to day and week to week, and my sales and income have dropped. That includes images that used to sell more often, year after year. Some of those are still on page one, first few lines.

It's nice to believe that SS "punishes" people for not uploading, but there is also contrary personal observation from people who stopped completely for a couple years, and their downloads are stable.

It's just too easy to see what we want to see and come up with some theory to pass around on the forum. My theory is based more on facts. We don't know.

Pete,

your example is interesting. And it's great that you kept the screenshots.

Still, I think you have to distinguish a bit between different subjects.

A tomato does not change. It looked exactly the same 100 years ago as it does today. The same goes for tigers, trees, etc.

But there are other subjects where there are changes over the years. For example, color trends, hairstyles, fashion trends. If someone generates now purposefully mock ups and orients itself thereby at current color trends, it is quite conceivable from my view that the pictures do not slip only therefore, in the ranking, because the buyer taste changed, but because possibly the Algo considers with new uploads whether a picture corresponds to the current trends better, than a comparable picture, which does not meet any longer hundred per cent the current trend.

Just a thesis - I can't prove anything anyway.

As for shutterstock, I'm just too slow for the algorithm. Even if I uploaded at my previous pace, I would still have significant losses there. Maybe not quite as high as at the moment.

Yes, that's right, my portfolio is static. There are 1300 images at shutterstock, 1470 at Adobe. There I uploaded a few more images in the last years, like at other agencies.

But my numbers have not remained consistent by far. And I know that with other contributors with static portfolios it has also become significantly worse. But there are differences between agencies.

Here's how it looks for me:

• Adobe Stock is stable with me. I had less downloads in 2021 than in 2013 (minus 570) and in 2015 (minus 150), but more than in all other years (up to plus 600).
  
  Also stable is canstock - but at a very very low level.
  
  istock has also stabilized in recent years. But there was a break from 2017 to 2018 (minus 1000).
  
  It has become somewhat less at deposit (minus 100 compared to 2020, minus 200 compared to 2019 and 2018).
  
  At 123, it is getting worse from year to year in steps of a hundred up to minus 800 compared to 2012 and 2013.
  
  dreamstime was stable until 2016, since then it has also been going downhill continuously. It's so bad now that I wonder if it's even worth uploading. If it would not go so fast, I would have already given up.
  
  The disaster is shutterstock. There it was stable in the period from 2018 to 2020. In 2021 I lack 1000 downloads there compared to the previous year and 5200 compared to 2015.

The fact is that the agencies have different algorithms. And that a portfolio that does not grow is most penalized at shutterstock. This is also confirmed by those who are very active. For them, the development is positive - Firn and Ralf I name as examples.

The fact that it has remained stable at AS shows that the images that successively disappear in nirvana at shutterstock must be mostly timeless, otherwise they would no longer be bought at AS. But the concept of shutterstock aims more at fresh content. I don't know which concept is better and more profitable for the agencies. I know that the algorithms have been changed again and again on a trial basis. And some of them were brought back to the old status.

Thijs, I run stock only as a hobby on the side, but as a studied industrial designer I have a professional background, which may be a little helpful.

Quote from: thijsdegraaf on January 25, 2022, 10:41

Quote from: Wilm on January 25, 2022, 10:32

Quote from: Pacesetter on January 22, 2022, 00:37

Quote from: Wilm on January 21, 2022, 23:31

Quote from: Josephine on January 21, 2022, 18:47
and it will take around half a year til you the get your 28 Cents....

I'll never get the 28 cents anyway because my sales are only $51 and my resulting earnings (about $16) are below the payout limit.

But that doesn't bother me at all. Alamy doesn't seem to be doing well - so I'm happy to give them this small donation. It seems to be needed.

I hope that all agencies that think and act like this - because Alamy is not alone - are aware that they are digging their own grave. This pricing policy won't work for long. Not for us. But not for the agencies either. That much is certain!

Wilm, if you close your account with Alamy, they will pay it as they did mine which was around $3.

I don't know how long it will take though as mine was sitting there for a while so had probably made it through the accounting process which takes some weeks or months.

How did you close your account? I can't find anything concerning this on their website.

https://www.alamy.com/contributor/faqs/leaving-alamy/   

As long as I don't have the idea that the photos on Adobe and Shutter are selling worse because of that, I'll leave them there. If earnings are even lower after July, I'll stop uploading photos.

Thanks a lot, Thijs!

Quote from: Pacesetter on January 22, 2022, 00:37

Quote from: Wilm on January 21, 2022, 23:31

Quote from: Josephine on January 21, 2022, 18:47
and it will take around half a year til you the get your 28 Cents....

I'll never get the 28 cents anyway because my sales are only $51 and my resulting earnings (about $16) are below the payout limit.

But that doesn't bother me at all. Alamy doesn't seem to be doing well - so I'm happy to give them this small donation. It seems to be needed.

I hope that all agencies that think and act like this - because Alamy is not alone - are aware that they are digging their own grave. This pricing policy won't work for long. Not for us. But not for the agencies either. That much is certain!

Wilm, if you close your account with Alamy, they will pay it as they did mine which was around $3.

I don't know how long it will take though as mine was sitting there for a while so had probably made it through the accounting process which takes some weeks or months.

How did you close your account? I can't find anything concerning this on their website.

Quote from: Disappear on January 23, 2022, 18:41
This year I sold almost half of what I have sold in 2021.

Can you explain this in more detail?

More income in less than a month than in the whole of 2021?

Yesterday I received my istock statement for December.

On istock, December 2021 was my best month since March 2017.
RPD was $1.33 which was exactly the same as Adobe.
For comparison: At shutterstock, the RPD in December was $0.66 - despite level 5.
For the first time, istock was in 2nd place for me after Adobe - well ahead of shutterstock.

Quote from: Pacesetter on January 22, 2022, 00:37

Quote from: Wilm on January 21, 2022, 23:31

Quote from: Josephine on January 21, 2022, 18:47
and it will take around half a year til you the get your 28 Cents....

I'll never get the 28 cents anyway because my sales are only $51 and my resulting earnings (about $16) are below the payout limit.

But that doesn't bother me at all. Alamy doesn't seem to be doing well - so I'm happy to give them this small donation. It seems to be needed.

I hope that all agencies that think and act like this - because Alamy is not alone - are aware that they are digging their own grave. This pricing policy won't work for long. Not for us. But not for the agencies either. That much is certain!

Wilm, if you close your account with Alamy, they will pay it as they did mine which was around $3.

I don't know how long it will take though as mine was sitting there for a while so had probably made it through the accounting process which takes some weeks or months.

Thank you for this Information.

Quote from: marthamarks on January 21, 2022, 18:49

Quote from: Wilm on January 21, 2022, 18:38

Personally, I'm also happy because I'm going to delete all the pictures and won't have to be annoyed in the future.

Wilm, that's exactly how I feel watching this sad story play out.

Something or other turned me off on Alamy years ago. Not sure if I even submitted an image or two back then, but I'm glad I don't have to suffer through being annoyed at them now. Went through that already with iS and SS.

I probably would have uploaded a lot more because Alamy had a good reputation.

But with vector graphics it was very complicated there and the process of keywording and everything else was extremely time-consuming.

If the rhetorically well-written lines were even remotely true, I probably would have invested more time. But from my point of view, there are immense gaps between statements and reality.

Anyway, it's time to say goodbye. For me, anyway.