|
MicrostockGroup Sponsors
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 - gbalex
Pages: 1 ... 25 26 27 28 29 [30] 31 32 33 34 35 ... 64
726
« on: January 28, 2014, 17:50 »
Over the last few months I have notice a trend by those who are doing well to marginalize those of us who have experienced sudden and extreme drops in sales at shutterstock.
Carry on mates and enjoy your bump in sales, it does not change the fact that some of us are in fact seeing huge drops after the search changes after we worked long and hard to build respectable incomes on SS. There are plenty of us speaking out and if you think you are immune, you are not.
Sounds like what happened at the previous msg fave site.
Those who were doing well there tended to disparage those who were seeing falling sales, blaming it all on their quantity and/or quality. Funny how most of them seem to have totally disappeared.
Unfortunately that did come to mind, we always think that hard work and research will protect us.
727
« on: January 28, 2014, 17:48 »
I see people complaining about sales and when I check their port I see they are submitting their old images isolated on white, but now isolated on black and in black and white. Not sure what that strategy will do for your sales.
In fact its hurting your portfolio more than it helps. Because your similar images will show all the versions. Instead of showing more different similar images, it will now show the white version, the black version, and the black and white version.
Ahhh again the master of spreading misinformation. First you say I am dumping shutterstock (never said that) and now without knowing what type of content most of us produce you make generalizations about what we produce. Most of your remarks are made up out of thin air or at the very least representative of a few ports you have visited. I guess if you repeat your fabricated misinformation enough times, you think you can convince people your comments are true. There are plenty of contributors on top of current 2014 trends that are seeing huge drops. Again you are doing a fine job of promoting SS and presenting it in the most positive of light.
728
« on: January 28, 2014, 10:50 »
Over the last few months I have notice a trend by those who are doing well to marginalize those of us who have experienced sudden and extreme drops in sales at shutterstock.
Carry on mates and enjoy your bump in sales, it does not change the fact that some of us are in fact seeing huge drops after the search changes after we worked long and hard to build respectable incomes on SS. There are plenty of us speaking out and if you think you are immune, you are not.
729
« on: January 27, 2014, 17:10 »
It seems some think they have a divine right to be top of the search algorithms 
Historically the SS search was based on the merit of individual content. Or in other words the buyers chose which images would be successful and which would sink to the bottom rankings. Once SS decided to start giving higher search preference to low cost content; merit has little value in the search and that is not good for any of us.
730
« on: January 26, 2014, 18:45 »
When SS makes more money, I make more money, because I get 23-30% of that. Well done SS.
Only if your images are included in front page searches, the ramifications will not hit you until your content is excluded over files that will drive SSTK Revenue Per Download higher. Until then reality will continue to fly right over your head.
731
« on: January 26, 2014, 17:54 »
Even if the market is growing as long as it is growing slower than the number of new images then the slice that goes to the individual contributor will on average shrink.
Maybe the long term contributors with huge and successful ports were getting a larger market share than they deserved from advantageous search placement and now they are getting what they deserve. (deserve isn't necessarily the right word, but perhaps early sales back when there was little competition was weighted more heavily before and now it isn't). The larger the image libraries get the more important search placement is.
If the number of contributors and the number of images doubles and the number of sales doubles then the agency take doubles but each contributor sees no change. Now imagine if the images and contributors double but sales only go up 50% - the agency still wins but the contributor gets a smaller slice. It doesn't mean microstock is dead or the market is crashing, but contributors need to reevaluate.
No need for conjecture, we have the actual numbers and downloads are not growing slower than the number of new images added. In fact it is the opposite, growth in downloads is growing faster than images added. Despite the influx of new IS contributors. That is still not good news because SS is purposly keeping the value of our images down to gain market share when key decision makers admit that they could raise prices and have not done in many years so that they can low ball our assets to gain market share. Downloads per image on SS have actually risen from 1.094 downloads per image in 2011 to 1.169 downloads per image in 2013.Revenue per download for Shutterstock SSTK rose from $2.10 in 2011 to $2.35 in 2013. And Revenue per download @ SSTK rose by $.25 cents.
732
« on: January 26, 2014, 13:08 »
Thanks gbalex that explains it better, I didn't quite understand what you were getting at. I wouldn't be on the top 100 page anyway. But makes sense from your perspective, sales and history.
I was thinking in terms of general sales, the general mood, where old photos don't sell, new photos don't sell, and "everyone" is showing lower in the search than they used to be. Some impossible claims that are being made. I tend to think that people are generalizing and trying to explain it somehow, instead of accepting that - the slice of the pie is getting smaller with 32,933,525 royalty-free stock images / 234,470 new stock images added this week.
It's bound to hurt anyone's sales because of spreading the wealth, or the ever slowing, dribble of pocket change, depending on how one views it. And still an 80 on the survey here? Next best is 37? Pete it is a fallacy and not true that the slice of the pie is getting smaller. Shutterstocks market share is growing by leaps and bounds. Downloads per image on SS have actually risen from from 1.094 downloads per image in 2011 to 1.169 downloads per image in 2013. While Revenue per download for Shutterstock SSTK rose from $2.10 in 2011 to $2.35 in 2013. It is telling how long term contributors with more experience, better equipment and often times better content are seeing revenue decreases while at the same time Revenue per download @ SSTK rose by $.25 cents. It is also telling that many long term contributors are complaining about experiencing large drops when they should be seeing an increase in sales per image uploaded. Three Months Ended September 30, 2011 2013 Number of paid downloads 14.8 25.4 Revenue per download $ 2.10 $ 2.35 Images in our collection (end of period) 16.2 29.7 Three Months Ended September 30, Images in SS collection (end of period) 16.2 29.7 Divided By Number of paid downloads 14.8 25.4 1.094 1.169 http://investor.shutterstock.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=251362&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=1874040http://investor.shutterstock.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=251362&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=1759499
733
« on: January 26, 2014, 12:54 »
I don't think the SS flotation indicated anything negative about the market from the agency's point of view. There's no reason why they shouldn't keep building their market - the problem is purely for the suppliers. If there are four times as many of us next year and we are all making half as much as we did, then that would mean the agency had doubled its earnings.
Falling earnings for suppliers actually benefit the agencies, who hang on to money longer before having to pay out.
Downloads per image on SS have actually risen from from 1.094 downloads per image in 2011 to 1.169 downloads per image in 2013. While Revenue per download for Shutterstock SSTK rose from $2.10 in 2011 to $2.35 in 2013. It is telling how long term contributors with more experience, better equipment and often times better content are seeing revenue decreases while at the same time Revenue per download @ SSTK rose by $.25 cents. It is also telling that many long term contributors are complaining about experiencing large drops when they should be seeing an increase in sales per image uploaded. Three Months Ended September 30, 2011 2013 Number of paid downloads 14.8 25.4 Revenue per download $ 2.10 $ 2.35 Images in our collection (end of period) 16.2 29.7 Three Months Ended September 30, Images in our collection (end of period) 16.2 29.7 Number of paid downloads 14.8 25.4 1.094 1.169 http://investor.shutterstock.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=251362&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=1874040http://investor.shutterstock.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=251362&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=1759499
734
« on: January 26, 2014, 06:45 »
One thing is for sure. I joined in 2008 and you had to look real hard to find any negative postings about SS, anywhere. Nowadays they are everywhere. Among them an SS doom thread 145 page long and not just by anybody but with some serious people. Something must be up.
Some people with big portfolios, and 3 of the same people who probably were good for 140 of the 145 pages. Lately that doom and gloom is only about people not having downloads for a few hours. Come on. Or having a bad Saturday when the whole world is BBQing or Skiing.
I am not denying there are some weird drops and there are portfolios that shouldnt see such a drop, but doom and gloom to me is not having a poor Saturday. Sorry.
You seem to have selective reading and serious contributors are posting in various threads. One recent short thread on SS http://tinyurl.com/kb3e9f4Snip Joined: 15 Jun 2007 Worst January since 2010 for me. And on top of that I have added 300 images over the last 2 and half months. Sales keep going down for me..... It is a bit depressing though - new equipment (5D MkIII) and many hours of work only to see sales go DOWN! Joined: 12 Jul 2005 I added a LOT of new Images. We all know the time it takes to do this, I wasted a LOT of time and got a backwards return for my investment. Im selling Mostly Very Old stuff due to search. What a waste of time Joined: 29 Jan 2006 Last month and this month are about 40% less than the year before. I've been uploading new images but they rarely sell so that doesn't help much. Joined: 29 Jan 2006 It's just crazy how sales could drop that much. My DLs were consistent from Jan-Oct. then they came tumbling down fast in Nov-Current. Is the Apocalypse coming? It makes me want to scream! Joined: 03 Oct 2007 But there does seem to be a trend towards the people who have been here the longest (often also the people on the highest rate) who are reporting the falling figures and the much newer people reporting the increases. Obviously if you are constantly adding to your portfolio you would expect to see an increase year on year, but that's no longer the case for some of us on SS. Joined: 20 Jun 2006 I think quite a few people have noticed that. I can only go by what I see here on the forums but so many of us who have been here for a long time are showing definite downward trends. I used to see more downloads at the time I got up early in the morning than I am seeing now at 3 in the afternoon. I have never seen it this bad. Joined: 08 Mar 2008 Awful slow 2 weeks for me, 50% down if compared to Jan 2013. I do not know what is going on??? Joined: 11 May 2006 For me so far, the slowest month ever. Joined: 12 Jul 2008 I'm also very disappointing with the actual policy. Everytime they made a change (and of course I'm talking about the searching rules and alghorithm) our downloads fall down. I have a big portfolio and I used to sell several thousands of images on monthly basis... When I see 20 0r 30% down in dls... from a week to another I'm always worried... in the past those kind of changes has never pickup completely.. and good old dls days of 2011 are simply gone!! Joined: 26 Jan 2007 Very slow month so far. Just checked my sales from January 2012 and 2011 and they were higher than right now. What's up with that? Joined: 03 Mar 2008 Very, very slow for me. Totally different than last year...  Joined: 07 Aug 2007 very slow week for me too... uncommonly so even for this time of year
735
« on: January 24, 2014, 11:21 »
Not going to disagree with what you pointed out about most popular.
Or luissantos84. Which is a conflict, because I'd rather if they didn't show the top 100 at all, it just leads new people so be "inspired" and copy those images, because, hey, it's one of the top 100, isn't it? 
But the suddenly broken part? How's that? Ten year old site and a feature that's been there since the start, suddenly stops functioning?
New photos favored, old photos favored, people still shout both and have personal proof in their numbers. I know it can't be both and suspect it's neither. No advantage for anything and that's why the varied and conflicting claims.
How does anyone from either end, explain that someone the same day will write the complete opposite about their New or Old photos? Doesn't make sense.
I would enjoy Shutterstock more if they fixed their buggy site on the contributor end and raised their prices to a level sustainable & fair to contributors. And I have issues with their NEW heavy skew toward a search that gives the competitive advantage to new ports.
Let me ask you this. After ten plus years of providing download information on the Top 100 downloads page; why do you suppose it suddenly became broken? And why do you suppose they have not fixed it?
For over ten years SS did not have a problem exposing our Top 100 images to hords of copiers. Suddenly just when they are making massive search changes the Top 100 becomes stuck on an old date when the programming had previously been set to the current week. That does not happen to a simple query unless you make changes to the page. In the beginning I too was happy to see that my best sellers were not visible the copy brigade, until I realized that I was no longer getting the numbers on new images necessary to be included on that page. SS exposed our images to copiers so that they could make more money themselves, I highly doubt that the new IPO caused a sudden serge in concern for the welfare of top 100 contributors. It is clear that they do not want us to see the images being favored or promoted by the search over the images that have been buried so deeply that buyers will never see them.
736
« on: January 22, 2014, 22:03 »
Gostwyck, in this case the market hasn't decided - SS has, and they admit it. Haven't you read the comments which GBAlex has posted so many times? They have chosen to price our images low to win market share.
No one is defending IS, and no one thinks their are images are precious. We all know the market is saturated. Our images are nothing more than the Pawns being swept around and off the board as the Kings slug it out.
No, again you're off the mark. SS haven't decreased prices (unlike Istock). They simply haven't increased prices of subscriptions for a few years (and neither have FT or DT). That's fair enough. A business will always choose to operate either for growth or for profit ... according to market conditions. SS know that they already have their foot on the windpipe of most of their competitors. Why on earth would they choose to release it now? Would you if you were in their position?
Gbalex always 'quotes' minuscule segments, usually so out of context that they lose their meaning anyway. If only Istock/Getty were so open in their financial reporting then we could also judge them by the same standards as Gbalex pretends to do with SS.
I know you and many others mourn for the heady days of 2010 when, as Istock exclusives, you earned far more than you had previously believed was possible (and then began to believe it was you birth-right to do so for ever more) but unfortunately it was simply unsustainable. Now where have you heard that word before?
No worries mate it has become clear you permanently have your SS blinders on. I would expect that harsh facts will either be ignored or go right over your head. Cause and effect seem to be beyond your comprehension. Carry on with the insults and ostrich routine
737
« on: January 22, 2014, 18:58 »
Once sold 5 ELs in one day at IS, for over $500 total, back in the good old days...BDE.
Used to get regular $300 days at iS in 2010 with no EL's.
Anyway back on topic Woo Yay for 38c sales.
Where have they gone then? Why blame SS for poor sales over at IS. According to Bunhill IS is cheaper then SS.
Straight from the SS founders mouth "If you look at us compared to other stock marketplaces like an iStock or others, it's two or three or four times more expensive to not use Shutterstock. " Snip Duck Swartz Talking about your present strategy longer term?Timothy E. Bixby - CFO We think we can raise the prices over the long term but were primary in the growth mode right now and we would like to continue to cover as much of the world as possible and take as much as growth in the business that we can before we play with the pricing level. We havent raised prices in many years and then been a great strategy so far to grow.Snip Jonathan Oringer - Founder, CEO & Chairman of the Board It still multiples. So it's order of magnitude whether it's if you look at us compared to other stock marketplaces like an iStock or others, it's two or three or four times more expensive to not use Shutterstock. If you look at the higher end sort of more traditional marketed might be 6 or 8 or 10 times more expensive.http://seekingalpha.com/article/1841072-shutterstocks-management-presents-at-the-goldman-sachs-us-emerging-smid-cap-growth-conference-transcript?page=2&p=qanda&l=last
738
« on: January 22, 2014, 18:52 »
how cannot I not enjoy SS when they play a big role in contributing to Micro (believe I am not the only one looking at the Poll results here), sure I would love to get 50% royalties like FT, DT, 123RF, IS are paying but in the end SS is the only one putting some food on my belly 
I am sure you have found something nobody else did so enjoy
I would enjoy Shutterstock more if they fixed their buggy site on the contributor end and raised their prices to a level sustainable & fair to contributors. And I have issues with their NEW heavy skew toward a search that gives the competitive advantage to new ports.
Let me ask you this. After ten plus years of providing download information on the Top 100 downloads page; why do you suppose it suddenly became broken? And why do you suppose they have not fixed it?
is that your contributor bug issue? looking at the most downloads? if so that is scary, honestly I believe SS should leave that feature for good, doesn't make any sense to tell other what is "hot"
It is not a bug, they disabled the simple Top 100 Database Query so that we will not see where they are pushing sales.
739
« on: January 22, 2014, 15:41 »
how cannot I not enjoy SS when they play a big role in contributing to Micro (believe I am not the only one looking at the Poll results here), sure I would love to get 50% royalties like FT, DT, 123RF, IS are paying but in the end SS is the only one putting some food on my belly
I am sure you have found something nobody else did so enjoy
I would enjoy Shutterstock more if they fixed their buggy site on the contributor end and raised their prices to a level sustainable & fair to contributors. And I have issues with their NEW heavy skew toward a search that gives the competitive advantage to new ports. Let me ask you this. After ten plus years of providing download information on the Top 100 downloads page; why do you suppose it suddenly became broken? And why do you suppose they have not fixed it?
740
« on: January 22, 2014, 15:21 »
Well, you seem to keep quoting me, so you leave me no choice.
You are doing a find job as a shutterstock ambassador Ron. There are plenty of shutterstock fans on MS to offer one sided glowing reviews of SS. There is not a company on the planet that does not have room for improvement, I try address areas with room for improvement.
You like all the others, complaining but do nothing about it. How is that working out for you.
Like a few others here you always seem to go there.  You conclude that because my sales have dropped that your own sales are higher than my own.
I learned long ago that it is not wise to share successes within the stock world.
Let me clear two things up here because you are the master of fallacies.
Read back and you will see that I was just posting facts, and didnt include any opinion of my own. Just to counter some comments here that were only showing one side of the medal.
Second, I have never ever even one second thought my sales are higher then yours. I have always assumed you were a big player. You friend and attack people depending on their view of SS, and that is what is bothering me, nothing else.
As for your ambassador card, keep playing that, its just a silly attempt to try and put me in a bad light. I am positive about SS because MY sales keep growing and because they at least show they care about contributors. I am not happy about everything SS does, and I have always and still do make that very clear when needed.
Good luck pulling your port.
Ahh the master of clouding issues and spreading fallacies has spoken. I have never said I was pulling my port, thou they will no longer get my better work. If key shutterstock managment openly admits; that long term they do not plan on raising prices or royalties, so that they can low ball competitors to gain market share. I will be happy to provide them content of lesser value. I think it is apparent to most that I am not attacking you, I do occasionally disagree with some of the comments you post. Two completely different animals.
741
« on: January 22, 2014, 13:31 »
742
« on: January 22, 2014, 13:24 »
Well, you seem to keep quoting me, so you leave me no choice.
You are doing a find job as a shutterstock ambassador Ron. There are plenty of shutterstock fans on MS to offer one sided glowing reviews of SS. There is not a company on the planet that does not have room for improvement, I try address areas with room for improvement.
You like all the others, complaining but do nothing about it. How is that working out for you.
Like a few others here you always seem to go there. You conclude that because my sales have dropped that your own sales are higher than my own.
I learned long ago that it is not wise to share successes within the stock world.
I can conclude one for you, how about 20-30 times more income at SS comparing with IS?
I no longer have a port on IS and not because of sales, I find their business ethics deplorable. The kicker for me was the google drive fiasco.
743
« on: January 22, 2014, 13:03 »
Well, you seem to keep quoting me, so you leave me no choice.
You are doing a find job as a shutterstock ambassador Ron. There are plenty of shutterstock fans on MS to offer one sided glowing reviews of SS. There is not a company on the planet that does not have room for improvement, I try address areas with room for improvement. You like all the others, complaining but do nothing about it. How is that working out for you.
Like a few others here you always seem to go there. You conclude that because my sales have dropped that your own sales are higher than my own. I learned long ago that it is not wise to share successes within the stock world.
744
« on: January 21, 2014, 15:19 »
They went from 0.20 cent one rate to $0.25 $0.33 $0.36 $0.38 and $28 EL and ODDs $0.81 to $2.85 + introduction of SODs 20% to 30% of sale price. People reporting royalties of over $150.
Apples and apples. You can quote the same stuff over and over, maybe you just need to put your words to actions and delete your port from SS and send them an email why you did it.
I thought you were not going to talk to me anymore, carry on comparing apples to oranges Your doing a great job promoting SS. Stick to managing your own port , I will decide where to place to ours.
745
« on: January 21, 2014, 13:19 »
Here is how Istock values my images:
Date (DD/MM/YYYY) Size License Royalty
20/01/2014 8:28 PM MST Large Regular $1.00 USD
12/03/2013 12:41 PM MDT Large Regular $3.12 USD
'nuff said
It is called the SS effect, it was easy for IS to see who was gaining market share and they dropped prices in an attempt to plug the dam.
SS has no problem at all devaluing out assets to gain market share! As long at we believe the conditioned fallacy that we can do nothing to stop them, the micros will take advantage of our learned helplessness.
Instead of spreading the misinformation that we can do nothing about this inequity, it is time that we step up to the plate and demand fair compensation for out time, talent and resources.
We do have power we just have to take it back, if IS did not feel threatened by the contributor response of deleting images, they would not have removed Sean's portfolio. I removed my port from IS after that response and more people are doing it every day. They bought Yuri's and Andres ports but we all know the margins are slim and if they continue to lose quality contributors and ports one day they will find they will not be able to compete in the market or buy higher end contributors to fill the missing niches.
I think the trend has already started, I know more high end contributors who are shooting for macro sites, while leaving their sub par images for the micro sites. As this trend accelerates quality will drop on the micros and customers will migrate to sites with quality images. I know my own buying patterns are changing.
Shutterstock Earnings:
2004 - $0.20
http://web.archive.org/web/20041103054525/http://submit.shutterstock.com/faq.mhtml#23
2008 April - $0.25 (25% raise) + introduction of $0.30 and $20 EL
http://web.archive.org/web/20080415045654/http://submit.shutterstock.com/earnings_schedule.mhtml?
2008 July - $0.25 or $0.33 (10% raise) and $28 EL (40% raise) + Introduction of $0.36 and $0.38
http://web.archive.org/web/20080709054042/http://submit.shutterstock.com/earnings_schedule.mhtml
2008 September - $0.25 $0.33 $0.36 $0.38 and $28 EL + Introduction of ODDs $0.81 to $2.85
http://web.archive.org/web/20080901004029/http://submit.shutterstock.com/earnings_schedule.mhtml
2011 October - $0.25 $0.33 $0.36 $0.38 and $28 EL and ODDs $0.81 to $2.85 + introduction of SODs 20% to 30% of sale price. People reporting royalties of over $150
http://web.archive.org/web/20111029071122/http://submit.shutterstock.com/earnings_schedule.mhtml
You are comparing apples to oranges, we were shooting with point and shoots back then. Images were very low end. Quality of Images at SS in 2004 - Jon E Oringer's Portfoliohttp://www.shutterstock.com/portfolio/search.mhtml?gallery_username=shutterstock&page=27Snip Duck Swartz So whats changed in the marketplace thats giving you the opportunity to locate in the enterprise in a more, in a more robust way?Timothy E. Bixby - CFO The quality of the images has increased pretty dramatically over the past 10 years and as that now work keeps moving back and forth. The contributors 40,000 of them all over the world are constantly competing with each other. So in the past five years the contents gone up to a level where the biggest publishers in the world mediated either starting to notice that is price, these images are not only price well, but they are also similar to some images that they have paid thousands of dollars for and also had to be on the phone for an hour negotiating the license for that image.Duck Swartz Talking about your present strategy longer term?Timothy E. Bixby - CFO We think we can raise the prices over the long term but were primary in the growth mode right now and we would like to continue to cover as much of the world as possible and take as much as growth in the business that we can before we play with the pricing level.
We havent raised prices in many years and that has been a great strategy so far to grow.http://seekingalpha.com/article/1841072-shutterstocks-management-presents-at-the-goldman-sachs-us-emerging-smid-cap-growth-conference-transcript?page=2&p=qanda&l=last
746
« on: January 21, 2014, 13:10 »
I said this 8 years ago. We are the fault of where we are. Our Work is "Our" assets. NOT THERES. thats the issue and until we understand that fact...We are screwed. But I think it's way to late now, We got lazy and did nothing about it when we could have and the majority were so happy with 25 cents and "Someone Liked my work" attitude and wanted to keep quiet. We can have the power, But we don't. Now, 20,000 can quit and be replaced in 30 Days. We had a chance and we didn't take it. 2005/2006. The owners saw this and said...Hmmmm , they don't care. So they took it.
We are only screwed if we choose to give up our power. I absolutely do not agree that we can be replaced in 30 days, that is a fallacy, there are many contributors but not many are cut out to produce HCV images. If IS did not miss Sean's images they would not have replaced his port with Yuri's and Andres's. Learned Helplessness (The video's owner prevents external embedding)
747
« on: January 21, 2014, 12:56 »
Here is how Istock values my images:
Date (DD/MM/YYYY) Size License Royalty
20/01/2014 8:28 PM MST Large Regular $1.00 USD
12/03/2013 12:41 PM MDT Large Regular $3.12 USD
'nuff said
It is called the SS effect, it was easy for IS to see who was gaining market share and they dropped prices in an attempt to plug the dam. SS has no problem at all devaluing out assets to gain market share! As long at we believe the conditioned fallacy that we can do nothing to stop them, the micros will take advantage of our learned helplessness. Instead of spreading the misinformation that we can do nothing about this inequity, it is time that we step up to the plate and demand fair compensation for our time, talent and resources. We do have power we just have to take it back, if IS did not feel threatened by the contributor response of deleting images, they would not have removed Sean's portfolio. I removed my port from IS after that response and more people are doing it every day. They bought Yuri's and Andres ports but we all know the margins are slim and if they continue to lose quality contributors and ports one day they will find they will not be able to compete in the market or buy higher end contributors to fill the missing niches. I think the trend has already started, I know more high end contributors who are shooting for macro sites, while leaving their sub par images for the micro sites. As this trend accelerates quality will drop on the micros and customers will migrate to sites with quality images. I know my own buying patterns are changing.
748
« on: January 20, 2014, 10:53 »
300 images in two months isn't a lot any more. When I'm working on my port, I'm adding 50-100 a week and that's low production.
It's also hard to judge what's going on when people aren't specific. New files do sell, just not all of them. I don't expect all new images to sell right away. And all of those other new images coming in make it harder.
These long term contributors saw sales decline on their older images when their older images weren't as popular anymore. I don't think see why you're arguing with that. It's like arguing that the earth isn't round.
I am not talking about 300 images, those were just some examples of contributors with good content who are not seeing sales on new images.
Conversely you are seeing returns on new images when you admit that you are indeed a low producer.
I guess my content is bad and that's why I'm seeing sales on new images.
Really you decided to go there. There are many photogs who produce fresh & buyer relevant technically perfect content. However if SS does not include that content in upfront searches there is not a snow balls chance in hell that the buyers will ever see those images.
750
« on: January 19, 2014, 12:45 »
300 images in two months isn't a lot any more. When I'm working on my port, I'm adding 50-100 a week and that's low production.
It's also hard to judge what's going on when people aren't specific. New files do sell, just not all of them. I don't expect all new images to sell right away. And all of those other new images coming in make it harder.
These long term contributors saw sales decline on their older images when their older images weren't as popular anymore. I don't think see why you're arguing with that. It's like arguing that the earth isn't round.
I am not talking about 300 images, those were just some examples of contributors with good content who are not seeing sales on new images. Conversely you are seeing returns on new images when you admit that you are indeed a low producer.
Pages: 1 ... 25 26 27 28 29 [30] 31 32 33 34 35 ... 64
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
