Getting better and better lately. I assume it's probably because of search algorithm changes. I never invested time in keyword order and that's almost certainly the reason Fotolia was crappy in the past.

p.s.: But I still hate .svg format limitations of 1MB, unfriendly IPTC data migration on rasters (why on earth does it parse IPTC description in the title box?) and on vectors (.svg format doesn't support it).

Done, lovely photo. Congrats, man.

Well, the image price for buyers isn't astonishing and I could bet that those already purchasing "our" images on other sites are not swapping agencies at all.

p.s.: Let's not forget there are other competitors out there with, imho, better site structure, better buyer experience browsing-wise and primarily lower prices.
p.p.s.: The good news is that we don't lose a nickle. SS subscribers will definitely not change plan (from sub to sod), which means this is mostly a marketing boost for SS.. They now offer the complete package (that is nevertheless less competitive in the "credit" department than what most other agencies offer).

As little as a singular opinion would matter, their first announcement never shocked me anyways. My EL sales across all the sites were and are non existent. Vector artists usually don't get them at all (unless their product is of a very particular sort). Said that, when StockXpert announced that they would expand their market potential to photos.com with regular subscriptions (at least to me: 0.30$ not getting ELs is still 0.30$, no matter the usage) and offering PPD options for EPS format vectors ranging from 50$-250$, I confess I was delighted. PPDs priced as mid-macrostock is good news and on top of that on a site that I would never get anyways. This fact to me sounded like contributing to an additional site with subscriptions plus PPDs for free (no uploading process, no anything).

I will stay opted in and the latest news don't concern me at all. But I deeply understand all those that confide in EL sales (with certain differences not to be ignored) and don't want to throw them away for free. I do not get EL sales anyways, so this is no matter what a win-win situation. I'm completely aware that a lot of my sales are used illegally for purposes not covered by standard RF license, but that's something I knew from the very beginning.

For vector artists like me, PPDs and semi-EL subscription (for raster versions) are good news. For photographers that value their work and found their income (and honor) in ELs, there's the opt-out option sorting things out. If you can't accept it, bail out. It's easy (at last).

p.s.: I'm not fond of this subscriptions trend, but if that's where the agencies are going, I'd rather stay in (with earnings on the rise) than "close shop" for pride reasons (btw, there's a LOT of low earners leading the pack for these EL sales and a couple of dozen Dollars a month - excuse the term - I'm really grateful for their free community work, but sometimes they could spend less time on forums and more in shooting/drawing pictures). At the end of the day, if you work (hard or not, relative to your expectations and plans), ELs mean nothing. Getting robbed while earning for bread (and a lot more)? Fine with me - that's how things work in the microstock industry. If you can't stand it, look elsewhere.

The same.

Well, judging by the most popular keywords stats, the site is pretty much dead (still). They're hell of a lot too random.

p.s.: I'll keep uploading, cause it's easy and only takes a FTP transfer and few clicks, but it doesn't seem like they're investing in marketing at all.

It depends on what type of imagery you produce. If it's design elements, they tend to buy vector formats more than if you make "finalized" designs.

Hard to explain, but you get the point. Creations that allow "recycling" get downloaded in vector format more easily. And of course the same thing applies to a complexity curve.

p.s.: Either way, lately Dreamstime buyers have a happy trigger with subscription sales (vector-wise). So you might take this into account as well. I personally don't mind, since it all levels out anyways, but you might like to know it.

Isn't complaining about complaining always hypocritical? By definition it is.

I've been noticing really disgusting color balance reproduction on automatically generated thumbnails for vector uploads (EPS AI8) lately. Anyone else having the same problem?

Since BPS rasterizes vector format images itself, as things stand right now, no buyer is going to pick those with ugly colors (guess it's a recent phenomenon, maybe one or two weeks, can't say). No chance. It looks like there's no color profile and the saturation is way, way off. Not sure if this applies to thumbnails only, though. But logically I'd assume the whole rasterization process is broken...

Even if Miz's post is provocative and jerky (lately pretty much a constant), there's truth written all over it.

p.s.: And some might take it personal (myself included), but that's the way things stand. I've been saying the same * thing regarding Shutterstock for a couple of months now.
p.p.s.: The problem is "mediocre" (defined by God or Miz, whatever) sells. And the vicious circle of a saturated market affects us all.

Bateleur, you're right, but it made me laugh big time;)

p.s.: Can't say that I'm nervous, though. The uploading process was a breeze and the guys, especially Roger, are very helpful and friendly. Hope they make something out of it. But I would be angry if I spent days uploading and keywording (which I of course didn't).

So, any sales yet, guys?

The only reason I'm still there is because the uploading procedure is fast, very fast. (even if lately the FTP didn't work, files never showed up in the tagging area)

p.s.: If it wasn't for that, I'd quit a "long" time ago. No sales yet.

I still firmly stand on the opinion that the main reasons why Shutterstock earnings are falling are:
- Shutterstock hasn't changed crap for years now (sticking to their becoming-obsolete subscription model when everyone else is evolving in a complex mixture of either credits AND subs or "subbed" credits; not marketing enough, not responding to competition advances, last but not least not upgrading their brand),
- the quality standards have CONSIDERABLY degraded,
- and consequently the flood of new images does not have only a quantitative effect (dilluting database) but also a qualitative turn-off for buyers.

There are wider economical considerations to be taken into account, but this is mainly a Shutterstock related issue. I would not pick excuses outside the house.