MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Are new images selling?  (Read 10470 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #25 on: August 17, 2017, 06:26 »
0
It wouldn't cost them any money if we could sell new images at the lowest rate.  I would like that option.


« Reply #26 on: August 17, 2017, 06:58 »
+6
So now you're asking for a pay cut?
Why only for your new images, the same argument - they might push images from lower royalties contibutors - also holds for old images.

Better solution would be to get rid of all those levels and pay out the same rates for everybody. Preferably the rate that is currently the highest level.
Not going to happen though.

« Reply #27 on: August 17, 2017, 09:46 »
0
The upload age doesn't matter as much as what is the image! New and old sell if buyers want them. I have new that sell the first week and old that sell over and over for years. I also have flops that have never sold in years and some that are new that will probably never sell. It's not the age that matters, it's the what is it.

Not necessary. The same image on different sites with the same keywords have a different behaviour.

Also buyers on different sites are different. I have photos that have never sold on SS in years, that have 25 downloads on FT in under a year. But true same keywords on different sites, have different results, we have no control.

As for any agency pushing lower earning contributors to the front, there's has never been one letter of proof or speck of evidence that this is true. Just people on the forum making up a conspiracy that could be true.No Proof ever! And I have a friend who says so, or why do so many people say so, isn't proof. It's just believing that something that's possible is true, because we are looking for answers where their are none evident or available, except rumors, suspicion and conjecture.

For those here who repeat the conspiracy and make up financial reasons, show me proof, not inventions or personal theories.

« Reply #28 on: August 21, 2017, 03:18 »
0
In short: NEW IMAGES ARE NOT SELLING BECAUSE SS SEARCH ENGINE IS CONFIGURED LIKE THAT.
Explanation: It was a part of SS fight against spam, there are exceptions from that rule like new contributors not older than 6 months.

In addition: they are testing new anti-spam strategy called "similar images" since previous month.
It is a half automatic process: when you send new files to review, software places tahm side-by-side with most similar images from the same contributor.
After that reviewer could easily selects which images will be rejected for "similar images" reason and which not.
If it is obvious that the whole batch is a spam he could mark them all as "similar images" with one click.

Selling of a new images probably depends on a success rate of that anti-spam strategy.
If that goes well than selling of a new images could return back to normal.

« Reply #29 on: August 21, 2017, 03:27 »
0
mistake! dont know what happened here but all text disappeared!

anyway answer to sharpshots post: of course they do!  been doing for a long time now. You can test it! upload 5 shots and then ask somebody on 0.25c to upload at the very same time. You wont believe it youre shots are basically nowhere to be seen. Done it a few times just to be sure. Never fails and just to point out for the usual non believers. This is NOT a conspiracy theory its been going on since last X-mas. Sure there are exceptions but on the whole thats their strategy. Its business if they can earn more agency revenue that way why not?  I would do the same.

100% true.
One of my "experiments" was exactly like that, one old 0.35c account and one newbie 0.25c account with the "very similar" files.
Time period is also accurate, and yes, I would also do the same.

« Reply #30 on: August 21, 2017, 03:44 »
0
It is reversed with video.... we never sold any new video. Always older files sell. Whatever we upload today, if we get lucky it could get a sale in 6 months, but almost for sure after a year.

csm

« Reply #31 on: August 21, 2017, 05:48 »
0
It is reversed with video.... we never sold any new video. Always older files sell. Whatever we upload today, if we get lucky it could get a sale in 6 months, but almost for sure after a year.

Interesting.
I`ve something similar before about video, in that most video clips sell a year after they`ve been uploaded onwards.
Don`t know how true this is, I know things are more long term with video.

I started contributing to Pond5 and and everyone else at the start of the year, P5 still yet to take off and wondering if this is the reason why?...

« Reply #32 on: August 21, 2017, 06:11 »
0
Yes, it's just that there's a delay of about a month before they start selling.

« Reply #33 on: August 21, 2017, 06:39 »
+2
You know, it's funny but SS seems to be presenting a lot of 'Additional Resources' written by wannabe curators or film/video buffs. Many of those shots illustrating the article have that 'wow' factor (fabulous landscapes etc) but when I view the contributor's portfolio, the particular shot is nowhere to be found on the first 2 pages of popular which indicates to me that it may be a 'I wish I'd taken that' shot but it just doesn't put any money in the bank @38 cents for a sub.

Sure seems to me that SS is doing things to deliberately mislead us.

When you look at your own portfolio as a buyer would, looking at the "Popular" tab, you see all new stuff, right?  Wouldn't "Popular" by definition show you stuff that is actually selling?  For a moment I feel good looking at my Popular page, thinking that the work I'm doing now is paying off, but I know in reality it is not.

And when I look at my Earnings Summary for today -- the page SS "improved" a few months back with an all new and all terrible way of presenting our earnings -- they sort by image number which makes it impossible to see how well new stuff is selling vs old stuff.

Together, these tricks appear designed to hide the fact SS is burying our new uploads while motivating us to keep uploading more to protect their bragging rights of having the largest portfolio of any agency.  Very disheartening.

« Last Edit: August 21, 2017, 07:05 by stockmarketer »

angelawaye

  • Eat, Sleep, Keyword. Repeat

« Reply #34 on: August 21, 2017, 17:14 »
+2
Totally agree with you (stockmarketer),

"they sort by image number which makes it impossible to see how well new stuff is selling vs old stuff."

The new design is such a pain. The old way of displaying the sales was much better. I knew right away if the new images had been sold.

langstrup

« Reply #35 on: August 22, 2017, 12:38 »
+2
I have a hard time seeing that Shutterstock would push down images from high earners, to make profit! Designers are looking for good images, not cheap images.

We upload 80-150 images a week, and it usually sells right away.

If it do not sell, its usually not that good. Sorry to say, but that it my experience! It is confirmed by comparing sales on multiple sites. A good image usually sells well on all sites.

We all get the feeling sometimes probably, and then its time to up your game :)

Best wishes
Stefan 

« Reply #36 on: August 22, 2017, 12:56 »
0
You know, it's funny but SS seems to be presenting a lot of 'Additional Resources' written by wannabe curators or film/video buffs. Many of those shots illustrating the article have that 'wow' factor (fabulous landscapes etc) but when I view the contributor's portfolio, the particular shot is nowhere to be found on the first 2 pages of popular which indicates to me that it may be a 'I wish I'd taken that' shot but it just doesn't put any money in the bank @38 cents for a sub.
I find Alamy's 'Additional Resources' much more helpful and relevant to the business of stock photography.

I was featured in one of their spring blogs, "What do you shoot in spring?" They invited me to submit, so I offered two good shots of nesting Great Egrets. The editors positioned my pics at that top in the e-newsletter and the blog proved to be very popular with friends I showed it to. Unfortunately, the images themselves have hardly sold at all, before or after that blog came out. Go figure.
« Last Edit: August 22, 2017, 12:59 by marthamarks »

« Reply #37 on: August 22, 2017, 14:09 »
0
You know, it's funny but SS seems to be presenting a lot of 'Additional Resources' written by wannabe curators or film/video buffs. Many of those shots illustrating the article have that 'wow' factor (fabulous landscapes etc) but when I view the contributor's portfolio, the particular shot is nowhere to be found on the first 2 pages of popular which indicates to me that it may be a 'I wish I'd taken that' shot but it just doesn't put any money in the bank @38 cents for a sub.
I find Alamy's 'Additional Resources' much more helpful and relevant to the business of stock photography.

I was featured in one of their spring blogs, "What do you shoot in spring?" They invited me to submit, so I offered two good shots of nesting Great Egrets. The editors positioned my pics at that top in the e-newsletter and the blog proved to be very popular with friends I showed it to. Unfortunately, the images themselves have hardly sold at all, before or after that blog came out. Go figure.

Same here, I was also interviewed and featured on one of their blogs, but this has hardly triggered any extra sales. Maybe just a few.
For about a week, I was also a "featured contributor" on Dreamstime, where a selection of my port was rotated every few minutes, on their main page. Same result, maybe a handful of extra sales.
One of my photos was featured by Alamy, on their landing page, for several days in a row and I didn't see any spike in sales.
« Last Edit: August 22, 2017, 14:18 by Zero Talent »

« Reply #38 on: August 22, 2017, 19:11 »
0
You know, it's funny but SS seems to be presenting a lot of 'Additional Resources' written by wannabe curators or film/video buffs. Many of those shots illustrating the article have that 'wow' factor (fabulous landscapes etc) but when I view the contributor's portfolio, the particular shot is nowhere to be found on the first 2 pages of popular which indicates to me that it may be a 'I wish I'd taken that' shot but it just doesn't put any money in the bank @38 cents for a sub.
I find Alamy's 'Additional Resources' much more helpful and relevant to the business of stock photography.

I was featured in one of their spring blogs, "What do you shoot in spring?" They invited me to submit, so I offered two good shots of nesting Great Egrets. The editors positioned my pics at that top in the e-newsletter and the blog proved to be very popular with friends I showed it to. Unfortunately, the images themselves have hardly sold at all, before or after that blog came out. Go figure.

Same here, I was also interviewed and featured on one of their blogs, but this has hardly triggered any extra sales. Maybe just a few.
For about a week, I was also a "featured contributor" on Dreamstime, where a selection of my port was rotated every few minutes, on their main page. Same result, maybe a handful of extra sales.
One of my photos was featured by Alamy, on their landing page, for several days in a row and I didn't see any spike in sales.

I declined their offer. 

« Reply #39 on: August 24, 2017, 05:16 »
+1
We upload 80-150 images a week, and it usually sells right away.

For 25c per image?

« Reply #40 on: August 24, 2017, 07:38 »
0
We upload 80-150 images a week, and it usually sells right away.

For 25c per image?
Well its obviously not 25c is it?

« Reply #41 on: August 24, 2017, 10:09 »
0
My recent experience with SS is that a lot of my newly accepted photos get sold for the first time blazing fast (from within few hours to few days), however after that there are no sales of these assets at all. Which makes me suspect that there's something strange in this pattern. For a pure coincidence there are just too many examples with my portfolio like this, with the most recent being earlier today.

Anybody else with the same experience?


« Reply #42 on: August 24, 2017, 11:46 »
0
My recent experience with SS is that a lot of my newly accepted photos get sold for the first time blazing fast (from within few hours to few days), however after that there are no sales of these assets at all. Which makes me suspect that there's something strange in this pattern. For a pure coincidence there are just too many examples with my portfolio like this, with the most recent being earlier today.

Anybody else with the same experience?


It happens to me the same, also. In the series of last images uploaded, in the same day or the next day a few (not even the best one) are sold. And then, from that batch, no sells, absolutely nothing. I notice this for at least 2 months


« Reply #43 on: August 24, 2017, 15:04 »
0
My recent experience with SS is that a lot of my newly accepted photos get sold for the first time blazing fast (from within few hours to few days), however after that there are no sales of these assets at all. Which makes me suspect that there's something strange in this pattern. For a pure coincidence there are just too many examples with my portfolio like this, with the most recent being earlier today.

Anybody else with the same experience?


It happens to me the same, also. In the series of last images uploaded, in the same day or the next day a few (not even the best one) are sold. And then, from that batch, no sells, absolutely nothing. I notice this for at least 2 months

As someone who buys microstock images, I occasionally click on the New tab to see what is fresh. And Ive downloaded images from the new section.

When more images get uploaded, your images will no longer be on the top of the New tab, so buyers cant find them there anymore. At this point, images need to rely on good keywording to be found again and make its way to the top.

langstrup

« Reply #44 on: August 24, 2017, 15:21 »
+1
We upload 80-150 images a week, and it usually sells right away.

For 25c per image?

No ;)

« Reply #45 on: August 24, 2017, 16:13 »
0
As someone who buys microstock images, I occasionally click on the New tab to see what is fresh. And Ive downloaded images from the new section.

When more images get uploaded, your images will no longer be on the top of the New tab, so buyers cant find them there anymore. At this point, images need to rely on good keywording to be found again and make its way to the top.

What you say bears some logic and sense to me, but not entirely so as to convince. Imagine that my keywords are just fine (i.e. adequate and relevant, no spam). In addition, this image has been downloaded already once so compared to others which were not (and I assume there are tons of these with similar subject, location, etc.), it should increase its position or at least maintain in the top of the Popular and Relevant tabs (first, second, third search result pages...). In other words, following your scenario the image may get buried in the New tab if one searches only there, agree, but how about Popular and Relevant pages where this image will find its place (and it is a case as I check often my images in the search results and can often find them in the top 3-4-5 page results). So how come it's never downloaded again if it's in demand (in demand, since it was downloaded right away after upload, so people are looking up for these images).

In addition, the same pattern almost never happens on other agencies. I never get a download of a newly uploaded image until after weeks and months after on other agencies. One can say that they have different search algorithms compared to SS, and that SS has so much more newly added content each week. But I know that my images are still quite competitive within agency's global portfolios, i.e. there are no tens of thousands of similar images of the same location or subject. So they must be downloaded more often. And still, there are not, as explained above. It just seems weird to me.

« Reply #46 on: August 24, 2017, 18:15 »
+1
What you say bears some logic and sense to me, but not entirely so as to convince. Imagine that my keywords are just fine (i.e. adequate and relevant, no spam). In addition, this image has been downloaded already once so compared to others which were not (and I assume there are tons of these with similar subject, location, etc.), it should increase its position or at least maintain in the top of the Popular and Relevant tabs (first, second, third search result pages...). In other words, following your scenario the image may get buried in the New tab if one searches only there, agree, but how about Popular and Relevant pages where this image will find its place (and it is a case as I check often my images in the search results and can often find them in the top 3-4-5 page results). So how come it's never downloaded again if it's in demand (in demand, since it was downloaded right away after upload, so people are looking up for these images).

In addition, the same pattern almost never happens on other agencies. I never get a download of a newly uploaded image until after weeks and months after on other agencies. One can say that they have different search algorithms compared to SS, and that SS has so much more newly added content each week. But I know that my images are still quite competitive within agency's global portfolios, i.e. there are no tens of thousands of similar images of the same location or subject. So they must be downloaded more often. And still, there are not, as explained above. It just seems weird to me.

Depending on the subject matter. It can take as little as 1 download to get to the first page for some keywords and as many as 10-15 for others. 1 download makes very little headway in popular categories. You may have increased your position from the bottom of page 7 to the middle of page 7 in the Popular tab. In order to get to the first page, you have to keep getting downloads for that image. More often than not, when I download images, I usually find what I need in the first couple pages and rarely venture deeper. So being on page 4 or page 5 means very little for a search term.

I imagine SS's search results as a group of people in a marathon. Everyone is fighting to get to front of the group, and everyone is moving at the same time. You can move up in position if someone else tires (no downloads for a while) or if you get a burst of energy (a download). Have that happen enough times and your image will appear on page 1. SS's tab design makes it easy to switch sections compared to FT, where you have click on a dropdown menu. 1 extra click can make a big difference.

niktol

« Reply #47 on: August 25, 2017, 06:32 »
0
Old content is selling normally but new uploads sales almost stopped for me from couple of weeks.
Is same happening with you guys?

No, they sell just fine for me


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
4 Replies
2182 Views
Last post March 13, 2013, 20:27
by dbvirago
12 Replies
4826 Views
Last post November 26, 2015, 18:31
by Mackie
55 Replies
13656 Views
Last post March 31, 2017, 08:11
by dragonblade
1 Replies
1632 Views
Last post May 23, 2018, 07:41
by PZF
1 Replies
871 Views
Last post January 20, 2019, 12:27
by Newsfocus1

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results