MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Cap on daily earnings?  (Read 18856 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #100 on: September 26, 2015, 09:17 »
0
It is funny how people love conspiracies these days.
And sad at the same time.

If you believe what you write, why do you not prove it?

It is so easy. Use a IP anonymizer and look where some of your images are in the results. After big sales, look if the positions are changed.

So many report so many conspiracies, but no one ever proved anything.

All nonsense.

Actually had you been a bit longer in this game and with a lets say a five times bigger portfolio. Believe me you would notice the differences.
There is no need to prove anything, it speaks for itself, unless of course you assume this business is the one and only business that is honest to the point of stupidity.

Lets face it, if a business, any business whatever model can improve their revenue they would be complete fools not to.

The repeatability for those with larger ports (I have almost 4,000 assets on SS) who have a monster day/week and then repeatedly see the next week or two fall the face of the planet happens all the time. Not one time.  If I have no stellar days/weeks, my income is fairly level loaded day over day. The behavior is then reproduced the next time I have a big day/week. I have enough evidence in my own experience over years to know this IS GOING TO HAPPEN.  Last week I had two good days ($150 or so per day). The entire last week has been at $13, $16, $10 per day, WAY BELOW MY DAILY AVERAGE.

Very frustrating but very factual.

I know! and agree with you. Same thing is happening here and to everyone I know. I have a massive port, still happening though.

Just that some people have a hard time digesting this and prefer a make believe world nice and cosy.

Right. I wasn't disagreeing with you at all. I meant to say a monster week the week before last, then last week was among the worst I have had when my port was only 500 images.

Well maybe I worded it wrong but I am 100% agreeing with you on this cap business. Its a reallity for sure. :)


« Reply #101 on: September 26, 2015, 09:25 »
0
My understanding is that if you upload for example 100 times more images in one agency this doesn't mean 100 times bigger income just because the clients there are the same and they will buy the same volume of images as before :)
It's very important also what kind of content we upload not only the quantity, because we can upload good salable images, but if there are similar is possible to not give us additional income. And if we add the wear and decline in the older files the result can be "the wall". Day after day all this becomes more complicated...

« Reply #102 on: September 26, 2015, 09:34 »
0
Here's a graph of my September so far.  I had a really excellent day yesterday, a $70 royalty.  So don't let throw you off.

« Reply #103 on: September 26, 2015, 10:48 »
0
Same here actually. Two EL's among others. Not bad for a Friday.

« Reply #104 on: September 26, 2015, 11:01 »
+1
Maybe your big days and ELs are coming because they promoted your ports?  It's funny when you're having a good day or week it's all because your images are great but when you have a bad day it's a conspiracy to keep you down.  Seems just as likely that your bad days should be the norm and SS is boosting you up to unnatural levels on your good days.

I don't know if you are specifically referring to me but if you are I never come in here touting "how good my port is". I am merely reporting what happens to me, regardless of my port quality. We are talking about known, repeatable patterns triggered by a specific event.

« Reply #105 on: September 26, 2015, 11:13 »
0
Maybe your big days and ELs are coming because they promoted your ports?  It's funny when you're having a good day or week it's all because your images are great but when you have a bad day it's a conspiracy to keep you down.  Seems just as likely that your bad days should be the norm and SS is boosting you up to unnatural levels on your good days.

I don't know if you are specifically referring to me but if you are I never come in here touting "how good my port is". I am merely reporting what happens to me, regardless of my port quality. We are talking about known, repeatable patterns triggered by a specific event.
Nope not aimed at anyone in particular.  Maybe your bad days are the fair normal ones and the good days are really SS propping up your ports at someone else's expense, seems just as likely as the alternative especially when you can easily test to see if your images are moved up or down the search.  I think since it's easy to find proof that they cap earnings but no one has it's most likely they aren't doing anything.  How hard is it to check the search results?

« Reply #106 on: September 26, 2015, 12:43 »
+6
Shutterstock is forever changing the search, all the time. Both Anthony and Scott admitted that openly. Called it a forever ongoing " experiment " to find the perfect search " which obviously takes them years/forever to find?

The truth of the matter is, one day you can find your image on lets say page four, the next day on page seven or one regardless of a sale or not.
There is no logic in the sort whatsoever.

« Reply #107 on: September 26, 2015, 13:07 »
0
The truth of the matter is, one day you can find your image on lets say page four, the next day on page seven or one regardless of a sale or not.
There is no logic in the sort whatsoever.
Hmmm wasn't the argument that there was some logic, namely that when you get a big sale or lots of sales you get pushed down in the search?  If there is no logic to it then there is no conspiracy to cap your earnings.

Hongover

« Reply #108 on: September 26, 2015, 13:13 »
+4
One of the benefits of being a contributor and stock buyer is that I can do a lot of tests. I rarely do it, because I don't believe in abusing my corporate subscription account for my own benefit. With that being said, I have bought my own stock in the past to see if the caps conspiracy was real. And the result was what I thought, it was bullcrap. There is no cap on earnings or downloads. I used up a full day of subs to test and it all went through.

When someone buys a stock image, the transaction is instant. I buy an image and it shows up on my download list a second or 2 later. There is barely any delay. I'm not going to do another test, because there is no need.

What people need to understand is that this is not some Office Space nonsense where a bunch of rogue programmers install a virus to skim off the top. This is automated software that handle millions of transactions a day and they happen instantaneously. If anyone dares to try it, it would be some disgruntle programmer, not the company itself.

The only thing that constantly changes is the search rankings. Images rise and images fall. Images with high consistent downloads rise to the top while images with no downloads fall to the bottom. It's the nature of search of search engines and the nature of competition. If you still think there is a conspiracy, that's your own problem, not anyone else's. You have neither or facts or numbers to back it up, just an excuse as to why your portfolio is not performing as well as you want.

« Reply #109 on: September 26, 2015, 13:15 »
0
The truth of the matter is, one day you can find your image on lets say page four, the next day on page seven or one regardless of a sale or not.
There is no logic in the sort whatsoever.
Hmmm wasn't the argument that there was some logic, namely that when you get a big sale or lots of sales you get pushed down in the search?  If there is no logic to it then there is no conspiracy to cap your earnings.

Well you know.  Logic, like too many Pints,  loses its beneficial effect when taken in too large quantities. ;)

« Reply #110 on: September 26, 2015, 13:56 »
0
You need 10k food images then, with 200 images new every month.


Quote
your images are perfect, you cannot earn 2k  with food, understand that.


Why not ? I believe that are many people who earn much more than that only with food pictures.

Hongover

« Reply #111 on: September 26, 2015, 14:44 »
0
Just to expand on transactions, when a buyer makes a purchase, a few things happen.

1. The image becomes part of the buyer's download history. They can access it at anytime unless the image gets deleted, which is like never. The buyer can download it an infinite number of times after they make the initial purchase.

2. The image becomes part of the seller's download history and the transaction is added to their daily earnings.

3. The download is recorded in other sections as well, like insights, which keep track of download stats and keywords.

There are so many audits logs for each download. It's almost impossible for Shutterstock to skim anything, let alone hide transactions. The most important part here is when the image becomes part of the buyer's download history. It's recorded and transactions happen as it should. If someone wants to compare the buyer and seller logs, they can easily do it.

I dare anyone to prove me wrong. Spend $299 on a monthly subscription and use up every sub. You'll be losing about $15 dollars (assuming you're a .38'er) if you use every download. I will guarantee you that every download and every transaction will go through as it should.


« Reply #112 on: September 26, 2015, 17:38 »
+1
It is funny how people love conspiracies these days.
And sad at the same time.

If you believe what you write, why do you not prove it?

It is so easy. Use a IP anonymizer and look where some of your images are in the results. After big sales, look if the positions are changed.

So many report so many conspiracies, but no one ever proved anything.

All nonsense.

Actually had you been a bit longer in this game and with a lets say a five times bigger portfolio. Believe me you would notice the differences.
There is no need to prove anything, it speaks for itself, unless of course you assume this business is the one and only business that is honest to the point of stupidity.

Lets face it, if a business, any business whatever model can improve their revenue they would be complete fools not to.

The repeatability for those with larger ports (I have almost 4,000 assets on SS) who have a monster day/week and then repeatedly see the next week or two fall the face of the planet happens all the time. Not one time.  If I have no stellar days/weeks, my income is fairly level loaded day over day. The behavior is then reproduced the next time I have a big day/week. I have enough evidence in my own experience over years to know this IS GOING TO HAPPEN.  Last week I had two good days ($150 or so per day). The entire last week has been at $13, $16, $10 per day, WAY BELOW MY DAILY AVERAGE.

Very frustrating but very factual.

Yes, I've noticed exactly the same thing.

However I don't think this is something devious and nasty going on - I suspect that SS is simply trying to be fair to as many suppliers as possible, and give as many people as possible a good slice of the pie.

« Reply #113 on: September 26, 2015, 18:17 »
0
It is funny how people love conspiracies these days.
And sad at the same time.

If you believe what you write, why do you not prove it?

It is so easy. Use a IP anonymizer and look where some of your images are in the results. After big sales, look if the positions are changed.

So many report so many conspiracies, but no one ever proved anything.

All nonsense.

Actually had you been a bit longer in this game and with a lets say a five times bigger portfolio. Believe me you would notice the differences.
There is no need to prove anything, it speaks for itself, unless of course you assume this business is the one and only business that is honest to the point of stupidity.

Lets face it, if a business, any business whatever model can improve their revenue they would be complete fools not to.

The repeatability for those with larger ports (I have almost 4,000 assets on SS) who have a monster day/week and then repeatedly see the next week or two fall the face of the planet happens all the time. Not one time.  If I have no stellar days/weeks, my income is fairly level loaded day over day. The behavior is then reproduced the next time I have a big day/week. I have enough evidence in my own experience over years to know this IS GOING TO HAPPEN.  Last week I had two good days ($150 or so per day). The entire last week has been at $13, $16, $10 per day, WAY BELOW MY DAILY AVERAGE.

Very frustrating but very factual.

Yes, I've noticed exactly the same thing.

However I don't think this is something devious and nasty going on - I suspect that SS is simply trying to be fair to as many suppliers as possible, and give as many people as possible a good slice of the pie.

Nor do I.  I believe it is as you state, hatman.

« Reply #114 on: September 27, 2015, 01:37 »
+3
One of the benefits of being a contributor and stock buyer is that I can do a lot of tests. I rarely do it, because I don't believe in abusing my corporate subscription account for my own benefit. With that being said, I have bought my own stock in the past to see if the caps conspiracy was real. And the result was what I thought, it was bullcrap. There is no cap on earnings or downloads. I used up a full day of subs to test and it all went through.

When someone buys a stock image, the transaction is instant. I buy an image and it shows up on my download list a second or 2 later. There is barely any delay. I'm not going to do another test, because there is no need.

What people need to understand is that this is not some Office Space nonsense where a bunch of rogue programmers install a virus to skim off the top. This is automated software that handle millions of transactions a day and they happen instantaneously. If anyone dares to try it, it would be some disgruntle programmer, not the company itself.

The only thing that constantly changes is the search rankings. Images rise and images fall. Images with high consistent downloads rise to the top while images with no downloads fall to the bottom. It's the nature of search of search engines and the nature of competition. If you still think there is a conspiracy, that's your own problem, not anyone else's. You have neither or facts or numbers to back it up, just an excuse as to why your portfolio is not performing as well as you want. So what would that be 0.002% of transactions on one day?


So you proved to yourself (if we can take this story at face value) that some of the sales are credited some of the time. We all knew that already, big deal.  You say that SS handles millions of transactions a day, and you checked on what 25, 50?  So what would that be 0.002% of transactions on one day?  Statistically insignificant.  It doesn't come near to addressing the capping concern, which would presumably occur at a specific time in the month/week around the time that the presumed threshold is reached.
In addition creaming off sales on 25/day downloads doesn't make anything like as much sense from the corporate point of view as SODs, EDs etc. for obvious reasons.

 Only last week, look at how VW have managed to hide defeat device software in their diesel cars, and actually deliver that software around the planet hundreds of thousands of times for years without being caught.

For anyone who believes that corporate fraud is just conspiracy theories, there's a top 10 worst cases here.  The fun facts in each case are particularly illuminating.
http://www.accounting-degree.org/scandals/

« Last Edit: September 27, 2015, 02:21 by green machine »

nicksimages

  • contact : nicksimages.com
« Reply #115 on: September 27, 2015, 05:28 »
+1
It is funny how people love conspiracies these days.
And sad at the same time.

If you believe what you write, why do you not prove it?

It is so easy. Use a IP anonymizer and look where some of your images are in the results. After big sales, look if the positions are changed.

So many report so many conspiracies, but no one ever proved anything.

All nonsense.

Actually had you been a bit longer in this game and with a lets say a five times bigger portfolio. Believe me you would notice the differences.
There is no need to prove anything, it speaks for itself, unless of course you assume this business is the one and only business that is honest to the point of stupidity.

Lets face it, if a business, any business whatever model can improve their revenue they would be complete fools not to.

There is no need to prove anything?

It is funny how people believing in various conspiracies always say that.
So how do you explain the plain fact that many people with large portfolio do not agree with your "proven" theory?

And how do you explain the reports of others, that after good days their images are on the same place in search?

So how is the "cap" achieved if your images are still on the same spots for buyers to purchase? I am a guy of facts. Give me facts and I will believe you.

nicksimages

  • contact : nicksimages.com
« Reply #116 on: September 27, 2015, 05:43 »
+1
Last week I had two good days ($150 or so per day). The entire last week has been at $13, $16, $10 per day, WAY BELOW MY DAILY AVERAGE.

Very frustrating but very factual.

So you had TWO good days in a row? Is this not kind of the evidence that this theory does not work ? (just joking)



« Reply #117 on: September 27, 2015, 08:19 »
0
It is funny how people love conspiracies these days.
And sad at the same time.

If you believe what you write, why do you not prove it?

It is so easy. Use a IP anonymizer and look where some of your images are in the results. After big sales, look if the positions are changed.

So many report so many conspiracies, but no one ever proved anything.

All nonsense.

Actually had you been a bit longer in this game and with a lets say a five times bigger portfolio. Believe me you would notice the differences.
There is no need to prove anything, it speaks for itself, unless of course you assume this business is the one and only business that is honest to the point of stupidity.

Lets face it, if a business, any business whatever model can improve their revenue they would be complete fools not to.

There is no need to prove anything?

It is funny how people believing in various conspiracies always say that.
So how do you explain the plain fact that many people with large portfolio do not agree with your "proven" theory?

And how do you explain the reports of others, that after good days their images are on the same place in search?

So how is the "cap" achieved if your images are still on the same spots for buyers to purchase? I am a guy of facts. Give me facts and I will believe you.

So you say youre a man of facts. Good! for you to understand facts you have to have a portfolio of thousands of files or else you will not see/experience what many of us here are experiencing. I mean with a smaller port you probably have a BME every single month, the amount from previous month isn't hard to beat.

Further more why use the word conspiracy? its no conspiracy. As I said lots earlier, this has been going on for years and years. Even many of the traditional agencies back in the film-days were doing this. Its nothing wrong, nothing illegal or shadey. Its a perfectly legit business action.
When people say "skimming off the top" now that is a conspiracy theory which I completely disagree with since there is no need for SS to do so.
In any case don't worry about it since it wont happen to you and when in fact most people don't notice or even think about it.

« Reply #118 on: September 27, 2015, 09:21 »
+2
Last week I had two good days ($150 or so per day). The entire last week has been at $13, $16, $10 per day, WAY BELOW MY DAILY AVERAGE.

Very frustrating but very factual.

So you had TWO good days in a row? Is this not kind of the evidence that this theory does not work ? (just joking)

Here's the very common pattern (for me). Could be nothing, could be very coincidental, or it could be level loading income. I honestly do not know for a fact (obviously since I don't work for SS).


Mon: $70
Tue: $45
Wed: $50
Thur: $65
Fri: $42
Sat: a few pennies
Sun a few pennies
Mon: $150
Tue: $135
Wed: $13
Thur: $16
Fri: $10
Sat: a few pennies
Sun: a few pennies
Mon $12
Tue: $19
Wed: $14
Thur: $11

This is my current pattern (dollars not exact). What typically happens next is I will ramp back up to my daily average when I don't have any stellar days, usually within a couple of weeks. Based on the years of these patterns, I anticipate that next week I will see a slow ramping of daily earnings back to "normal".

This is all I am saying. So when we post these behaviors it's not conspiracy theory per se, but rather a discussion as to why it's happening.

Hongover

« Reply #119 on: September 27, 2015, 12:59 »
0
So you proved to yourself (if we can take this story at face value) that some of the sales are credited some of the time. We all knew that already, big deal.  You say that SS handles millions of transactions a day, and you checked on what 25, 50?  So what would that be 0.002% of transactions on one day?  Statistically insignificant.  It doesn't come near to addressing the capping concern, which would presumably occur at a specific time in the month/week around the time that the presumed threshold is reached.
In addition creaming off sales on 25/day downloads doesn't make anything like as much sense from the corporate point of view as SODs, EDs etc. for obvious reasons.

 Only last week, look at how VW have managed to hide defeat device software in their diesel cars, and actually deliver that software around the planet hundreds of thousands of times for years without being caught.

For anyone who believes that corporate fraud is just conspiracy theories, there's a top 10 worst cases here.  The fun facts in each case are particularly illuminating.
http://www.accounting-degree.org/scandals/


It's well-known fact that I download stock images for personal projects and company projects. I'm one of the few who can compare seller and buyer logs and I have. I already told you what happens when someone buys an image. Each download creates a log on the buyer and the seller's history.

And based on the small sample that I tested, everything went through. If you think there is a conspiracy, then the burden of proof is on you, not me. If you stand to make an accusation, it's on you to prove it. And your low download numbers are not facts. Your scandals list companies that falsely report earnings, has little to nothing to do with what were talking about. For the record, I don't trust any company that operates in finance or anything that require government regulations.

I have over 1000 images in my portfolio and I consistently make over a certain amount on weekdays. I haven't seen any capping. I've seen plenty of fluctuations because of SODs and Enhanced Downloads, but I rarely go below a certain threshold. It's the nature of the retail business to have fluctuations, seasonal highs and lows. Every industry face this issue, but the vocal few always seem to think their experience is everyone's experience. It's not.

« Reply #120 on: September 27, 2015, 13:16 »
0
this is realy weird sales, my sales are every day almost the same +- 15%, even saturdays and sundays are every week the same.


Last week I had two good days ($150 or so per day). The entire last week has been at $13, $16, $10 per day, WAY BELOW MY DAILY AVERAGE.

Very frustrating but very factual.

So you had TWO good days in a row? Is this not kind of the evidence that this theory does not work ? (just joking)

Here's the very common pattern (for me). Could be nothing, could be very coincidental, or it could be level loading income. I honestly do not know for a fact (obviously since I don't work for SS).


Mon: $70
Tue: $45
Wed: $50
Thur: $65
Fri: $42
Sat: a few pennies
Sun a few pennies
Mon: $150
Tue: $135
Wed: $13
Thur: $16
Fri: $10
Sat: a few pennies
Sun: a few pennies
Mon $12
Tue: $19
Wed: $14
Thur: $11

This is my current pattern (dollars not exact). What typically happens next is I will ramp back up to my daily average when I don't have any stellar days, usually within a couple of weeks. Based on the years of these patterns, I anticipate that next week I will see a slow ramping of daily earnings back to "normal".

This is all I am saying. So when we post these behaviors it's not conspiracy theory per se, but rather a discussion as to why it's happening.

« Reply #121 on: September 27, 2015, 16:46 »
+10
As an ex-analyst (13 years as a Credit Scoring Analyst), I would say there is an element of control over the amount a contributor can earn in any one 7 day period. I believe this is part of their ranking system. Sad as it may be I still enjoy building SAS programmes that import and integrate data to find patterns and there is plenty of evidence to be found. It does't mean they are being underhand, i't just THEIR way of ranking contributors. Whether it's the right way is open to individual opinion.

Why do it? Keeping as many contributors happy as possible (earning money) means more varied work to present to clients. If the same people stayed at the top all the time while the rest sank below they would stop submitting and variety in images would decline. They have already stated they want to keep changing images for clients. Shifting images up and down the search means clients see a greater variety of images. However, it can also P1ss some off.... it's a balancing act. Time will tell if SS have got the balance right

One of the more interesting stats to watch is the 7 day rolling average. For me, I often see medium - large variation in daily sales. This is not unusual on it's own but when I see the 7 day average stay within a couple of $'s from the previous day after such a large variation in actual daily income, then it's either a massive coincidence or, there is a a cut off that slows sales down once a threshold is met. It would be very easy to manage / operate (anyone who's been involved in building scorecards would know). I'd imaging each contributor will have a score (rank) for each client type (subs, ODDs,SODs etc etc) and depending on who searches and for what, will alter what lands at the top of their search. From time to time they will alter the way the algorithm makes use of the contributor scores etc to see if the mix of images results in greater or reduced sales compared to what it was (champion / challenger analysis).

Here's an example of what I mean in terms of daily inc and the average over the previous 7 days.

Daily Inc        7day avg
$75.89   $ 177.34
$14.4   $ 179.34
$38.26   $ 177.05
$13.1   $ 176.29
$11.72   $ 176.61
$2.88   $ 175.08
$20.94   $ 177.19

This is just a 7 day average but there are ways to monitor similar patterns over 30days, 3 & 6 months etc. Very revealing.

« Reply #122 on: September 27, 2015, 17:09 »
0
As an ex-analyst (13 years as a Credit Scoring Analyst), I would say there is an element of control over the amount a contributor can earn in any one 7 day period. I believe this is part of their ranking system. Sad as it may be I still enjoy building SAS programmes that import and integrate data to find patterns and there is plenty of evidence to be found. It does't mean they are being underhand, i't just THEIR way of ranking contributors. Whether it's the right way is open to individual opinion.

Why do it? Keeping as many contributors happy as possible (earning money) means more varied work to present to clients. If the same people stayed at the top all the time while the rest sank below they would stop submitting and variety in images would decline. They have already stated they want to keep changing images for clients. Shifting images up and down the search means clients see a greater variety of images. However, it can also P1ss some off.... it's a balancing act. Time will tell if SS have got the balance right

One of the more interesting stats to watch is the 7 day rolling average. For me, I often see medium - large variation in daily sales. This is not unusual on it's own but when I see the 7 day average stay within a couple of $'s from the previous day after such a large variation in actual daily income, then it's either a massive coincidence or, there is a a cut off that slows sales down once a threshold is met. It would be very easy to manage / operate (anyone who's been involved in building scorecards would know). I'd imaging each contributor will have a score (rank) for each client type (subs, ODDs,SODs etc etc) and depending on who searches and for what, will alter what lands at the top of their search. From time to time they will alter the way the algorithm makes use of the contributor scores etc to see if the mix of images results in greater or reduced sales compared to what it was (champion / challenger analysis).

Here's an example of what I mean in terms of daily inc and the average over the previous 7 days.

Daily Inc        7day avg
$75.89   $ 177.34
$14.4   $ 179.34
$38.26   $ 177.05
$13.1   $ 176.29
$11.72   $ 176.61
$2.88   $ 175.08
$20.94   $ 177.19

This is just a 7 day average but there are ways to monitor similar patterns over 30days, 3 & 6 months etc. Very revealing.

Very interesting indeed. Another very feasible hypothesis.

« Reply #123 on: September 27, 2015, 20:52 »
+8
As an ex-analyst (13 years as a Credit Scoring Analyst), I would say there is an element of control over the amount a contributor can earn in any one 7 day period. I believe this is part of their ranking system. Sad as it may be I still enjoy building SAS programmes that import and integrate data to find patterns and there is plenty of evidence to be found. It does't mean they are being underhand, i't just THEIR way of ranking contributors. Whether it's the right way is open to individual opinion.

Why do it? Keeping as many contributors happy as possible (earning money) means more varied work to present to clients. If the same people stayed at the top all the time while the rest sank below they would stop submitting and variety in images would decline. They have already stated they want to keep changing images for clients. Shifting images up and down the search means clients see a greater variety of images. However, it can also P1ss some off.... it's a balancing act. Time will tell if SS have got the balance right

One of the more interesting stats to watch is the 7 day rolling average. For me, I often see medium - large variation in daily sales. This is not unusual on it's own but when I see the 7 day average stay within a couple of $'s from the previous day after such a large variation in actual daily income, then it's either a massive coincidence or, there is a a cut off that slows sales down once a threshold is met. It would be very easy to manage / operate (anyone who's been involved in building scorecards would know). I'd imaging each contributor will have a score (rank) for each client type (subs, ODDs,SODs etc etc) and depending on who searches and for what, will alter what lands at the top of their search. From time to time they will alter the way the algorithm makes use of the contributor scores etc to see if the mix of images results in greater or reduced sales compared to what it was (champion / challenger analysis).

Here's an example of what I mean in terms of daily inc and the average over the previous 7 days.

Daily Inc        7day avg
$75.89   $ 177.34
$14.4   $ 179.34
$38.26   $ 177.05
$13.1   $ 176.29
$11.72   $ 176.61
$2.88   $ 175.08
$20.94   $ 177.19

This is just a 7 day average but there are ways to monitor similar patterns over 30days, 3 & 6 months etc. Very revealing.

Excellent post HalfFull - I think this is exactly what's happening.   "...there is a a cut off that slows sales down once a threshold is met" - that's what I see. Which brings me back to my original question - does SS decide how much to pay each of us and we're just getting a salary? It sure feels like that to me. What's the point of improving then and growing your portfolio? Motivation - down the toilet...
Time to move out of this business.
« Last Edit: September 27, 2015, 21:20 by Elenathewise »

« Reply #124 on: September 28, 2015, 02:05 »
+2
As an ex-analyst (13 years as a Credit Scoring Analyst), I would say there is an element of control over the amount a contributor can earn in any one 7 day period. I believe this is part of their ranking system. Sad as it may be I still enjoy building SAS programmes that import and integrate data to find patterns and there is plenty of evidence to be found. It does't mean they are being underhand, i't just THEIR way of ranking contributors. Whether it's the right way is open to individual opinion.

Why do it? Keeping as many contributors happy as possible (earning money) means more varied work to present to clients. If the same people stayed at the top all the time while the rest sank below they would stop submitting and variety in images would decline. They have already stated they want to keep changing images for clients. Shifting images up and down the search means clients see a greater variety of images. However, it can also P1ss some off.... it's a balancing act. Time will tell if SS have got the balance right

One of the more interesting stats to watch is the 7 day rolling average. For me, I often see medium - large variation in daily sales. This is not unusual on it's own but when I see the 7 day average stay within a couple of $'s from the previous day after such a large variation in actual daily income, then it's either a massive coincidence or, there is a a cut off that slows sales down once a threshold is met. It would be very easy to manage / operate (anyone who's been involved in building scorecards would know). I'd imaging each contributor will have a score (rank) for each client type (subs, ODDs,SODs etc etc) and depending on who searches and for what, will alter what lands at the top of their search. From time to time they will alter the way the algorithm makes use of the contributor scores etc to see if the mix of images results in greater or reduced sales compared to what it was (champion / challenger analysis).

Here's an example of what I mean in terms of daily inc and the average over the previous 7 days.

Daily Inc        7day avg
$75.89   $ 177.34
$14.4   $ 179.34
$38.26   $ 177.05
$13.1   $ 176.29
$11.72   $ 176.61
$2.88   $ 175.08
$20.94   $ 177.19

This is just a 7 day average but there are ways to monitor similar patterns over 30days, 3 & 6 months etc. Very revealing.

Excellent post HalfFull - I think this is exactly what's happening.   "...there is a a cut off that slows sales down once a threshold is met" - that's what I see. Which brings me back to my original question - does SS decide how much to pay each of us and we're just getting a salary? It sure feels like that to me. What's the point of improving then and growing your portfolio? Motivation - down the toilet...
Time to move out of this business.


For the last seven months I have been within. 5% give or take of my monthly threshold. Amazing! having siad this I really don't mind being on a monthly salary as long as its a good salary. LOL. so I can't complain.

As far as improving, growing your port, uploading?  well thats gone down the drain long time ago. What we are seeing now is exactly a carbo-copy of what happened with the traditional photo-agencies back in the mid 90s followed by a few years and then it all collapses. :)


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
3 Replies
2042 Views
Last post August 19, 2012, 10:41
by WarrenPrice
0 Replies
1131 Views
Last post August 31, 2015, 17:34
by jcpjr
19 Replies
2864 Views
Last post January 27, 2016, 23:48
by marthamarks
3 Replies
1472 Views
Last post July 11, 2017, 19:56
by helloitsme
6 Replies
1457 Views
Last post April 25, 2019, 22:22
by pixel86

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results