Author Topic: do sales normally fall off quickly (Read 13303 times)

greenstockcreative · « **on:** July 12, 2008, 15:58 »

I'm new to shutterstock with about 100 accepted images up for just over two weeks (50% acceptance ratio) with about 200 total downloads.
I am very happy with the results.
After 7-20 downloads per day, I suddenly have none. Is it normal for sales to drop off so rapidly?

Any regular sellers who can give me an idea of a typical "curve" of download activity (not counting for seasonal ups and downs).

I understand the need to continually upload bit by bit, but I'd hate to think that I have to upload hundreds every two weeks just to maintain sales.

Thanks

vphoto · « **Reply #1 on:** July 12, 2008, 16:05 »

To maintain sales you have to upload some every week.

PaulieWalnuts · « **Reply #2 on:** July 12, 2008, 16:43 »

My first month I earned about $3 per image. Even though I uploaded images every month afterwards, earnings increase very little. On a month where I didn't upload anything it dropped to about .40 per image but I still had stable sales. Not bad but not great.

If you're saying downloads litterally stopped I would say that's not normal. Not at least in my experience.

jsnover · « **Reply #3 on:** July 12, 2008, 17:33 »

Quote from: greenstockcreative on July 12, 2008, 15:58

Any regular sellers who can give me an idea of a typical "curve" of download activity (not counting for seasonal ups and downs)

I'm still selling images that I uploaded in 2004. It depends on the image.

100 images is a very small portfolio in the pool of 3+ million. You'll need to get more images up there to insulate yourself from some of the ups and downs. Weekends are quiet at the best of times and summer weekends are quieter still.

I've had months where I've been unable to upload much and although there's a bit of a dip, I still see a pretty decent stream of downloads.

hatman12 · « **Reply #4 on:** July 12, 2008, 17:51 »

Quote from: greenstockcreative on July 12, 2008, 15:58

Is it normal for sales to drop off so rapidly?

Yes.

You will quickly discover, as many thousands of other Shutterstock contributors have, that Shutterstock is not a 'get rich quick' opportunity or a 'horn o' plenty'.

To maintain or improve your initial sales experience you will have to upload similar numbers every week.

And with the rapidly increasing number of contributors you will have to upload more and more and more just to stand still.

A year ago Shutterstock was accepting 20,000 new images a week. Now they accept 50,000 a week.

Shutterstock is like sex - its great but the thrill can be short lived. You certainly wouldn't want to marry it.

greenstockcreative · « **Reply #5 on:** July 12, 2008, 19:12 »

Thanks for all your responses. It was just odd that today (albeit a weekend) was the first morning in weeks that I woke up to check that there had been no downloads overnight (usually 4-6). Oddly enough, since posting I've had 3 or 4. So it looks like they haven't completely stopped.

p.s. I never looked at stock, micro or otherwise, as get rich quick. It's growing into a decent supplement though.

ami/gsc

Pixart · « **Reply #6 on:** July 12, 2008, 22:19 »

Quote from: hatman12 on July 12, 2008, 17:51

Shutterstock is like sex - its great but the thrill can be short lived. You certainly wouldn't want to marry it.

OMG, you kill me.

designalldone · « **Reply #7 on:** July 13, 2008, 03:20 »

Quote from: greenstockcreative on July 12, 2008, 19:12

Thanks for all your responses. It was just odd that today (albeit a weekend) was the first morning in weeks that I woke up to check that there had been no downloads overnight (usually 4-6). Oddly enough, since posting I've had 3 or 4. So it looks like they haven't completely stopped.

p.s. I never looked at stock, micro or otherwise, as get rich quick. It's growing into a decent supplement though.

ami/gsc

This is very normal - Saturdays are the worst for me, with downloads dropping to about a fifth of what I would get on a normal week day. Although I find Sundays are always slightly better, for some reason.

Fran · « **Reply #8 on:** July 13, 2008, 03:29 »

Quote from: hatman12 on July 12, 2008, 17:51

Shutterstock is like sex - its great but the thrill can be short lived. You certainly wouldn't want to marry it.

Brilliant

Is it possible they "tweak" the search engine to give a boost to new contributors?

Jimi King · « **Reply #9 on:** July 13, 2008, 04:22 »

I think that Shutterstock has a hardcore of regular subscribers that go through all the new uploads daily (although probably not Saturday it seems) and get their hands on anything that they think they might want in the future just to use up their 25 per day allowance.

Also worth remembering that part of Sunday for people in the Northern hemisphere is actually Monday morning in Australia and New Zealand, so some of your Sunday sales may technically be Monday sales.

Anegada · « **Reply #10 on:** July 14, 2008, 01:54 »

Shutterstock has been very unsteady to me. I use to upload a new batch (small, like 3 - 10 photos) as soon as the last batch is reviewed. That means, new images almost every day. My sales have been better some month ago, might it now be the summer slow down, might it be that I am not a "new" contributor anymore, might it be a change in the search modus - who knows.

But all in all, it is going up and down, from 60 dl's a day to 20, very funny are the weekends: for months, I had 10 or 20 downloads every saturday and sunday, once it was even 60 on a sunday (after a very slow week!) Yesterday I had only 2...

But I have to say, although you must upload new images to be found by the buyers, I still do sell a lot of my old stuff every day. So shutterstock is still my number one earner, but... kind of special.

Adeptris · « **Reply #11 on:** July 14, 2008, 02:17 »

Quote from: greenstockcreative on July 12, 2008, 19:12

Thanks for all your responses. It was just odd that today (albeit a weekend) was the first morning in weeks that I woke up to check that there had been no downloads overnight (usually 4-6). Oddly enough, since posting I've had 3 or 4. So it looks like they haven't completely stopped.

p.s. I never looked at stock, micro or otherwise, as get rich quick. It's growing into a decent supplement though.

ami/gsc

I had the same as Ami, joined SS, uploaded my images, plenty of downloads, stopped uploading and the downloads bottomed right out, I did not think it a good long term prospect so I closed my accounts and I am now with the Macrosites, where the statistics are updated 5 times a week, once a day Monday to Friday.

Personal preference for me is 1 RF Sale netting me $85.00 on the macrosite, rather than 340 RF Sales on SS, so if I do not have to uploads hundreds of images just to get $85, the Image that sold had been on the micros but I had withdrawn it before my sale so I could have nearly lost out on $84.75 if they had looked found it on SS.

David

Magnum · « **Reply #12 on:** July 14, 2008, 14:20 »

It must be the more good commercial images you have in your portfolio, the less you notice the ups and downs. If you have mostly nature and architecture they get berried among 4 milions, so that you need to continue uploading every week to maintain steady sales. Right?

lisafx · « **Reply #13 on:** July 14, 2008, 14:45 »

I find sales drop off when I stop uploading to Shutterstock, in spite of having over 3500 photos on there.

Their search engine is so heavily weighted toward new images that your pics get buried fast regardless of what you shoot.

MikLav · « **Reply #14 on:** July 15, 2008, 09:23 »

The number of sales depends on new uploads.

However best selling images aren't always new ones. My best selling images remain on my top since early 2006, making it into weekly top-50 from time to time.

Microbius · « **Reply #15 on:** July 30, 2008, 07:19 »

Their new ads emphasize the number of new uploads rather than total size of their library, so I fear things are only going to get worse.

PaulieWalnuts · « **Reply #16 on:** July 31, 2008, 21:34 »

Quote from: Microbius on July 30, 2008, 07:19

Their new ads emphasize the number of new uploads rather than total size of their library, so I fear things are only going to get worse.

They have to emphasize new uploads. What other differentiator do they have? They can't brag about total images, subscriptions, or quality because that's what every other site is already bragging about.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #17 on:** July 31, 2008, 21:36 »

Great taste...

PaulieWalnuts · « **Reply #18 on:** July 31, 2008, 21:37 »

Less filling?

helix7 · « **Reply #19 on:** July 31, 2008, 23:48 »

Quote from: lisafx on July 14, 2008, 14:45

...Their search engine is so heavily weighted toward new images that your pics get buried fast regardless of what you shoot...

I'm wondering if that will ultimately be the downfall of SS. On a long enough timeline, there really is no catching up to the trend. In theory, if you get the same images accepted at SS and any other big site, the rate of income increase will likely be higher at the other site(s). On that same timeline, SS could become a smaller and smaller percentage of your income.

That's the trend I'm seeing already, and I have to imagine that it's a common one.

RacePhoto · « **Reply #20 on:** August 04, 2008, 13:40 »

Here's what I've concluded is at work, at SS. Call it a WAG or observation from others results. Call it dumb-ass and wrong. I don't care.

1) New members and new uploads get heavy positive weighting in the search.

2) Photos that sell well, get extra promotion in the search engine. (The rich get richer, elevated in the search) People can't buy what they can't see, older images and images without sales, drop down in the search.

3) There is a core group of repeat buyers who appear to search daily for good images for their collection.

4) As the total number of images up for sale on any site increases, exposure of any single image, will decrease proportionally. However if you have something unusual and unique, it will stay up near the top longer.

----

Also noted by some: You need to "feed the beast" on a regular basis to keep it happy.

Hypothetical: You have 40 new images.

Theory: Uploading ten per week will get you better sales and results than uploading 40 and doing nothing for a month.

Personal experience from anyone who has tested this theory would be interesting. It seems logical considering all the other assumed factors.

----

Last one, and I'm not buying it, because of the variables and unknowns. Some people say they get better sales if a new photo appears on SS on Monday. (and lower sales if it first appears on a Friday) Since there's no way to know when you will be reviewed, or what day the photos will go live, this makes no sense.

Also I suspect that more people have time on weekends to take or upload new photos, so the volume of uploads would be highest Saturday and Sunday, then Monday, and depending on the time it takes to have them reviewed, there will be an influx of new photos, later in the week, as a result of the increased uploading.

More new photos, means most of the old photos on site, drop down the search faster. In other words, it's not the day of the week that affects sales, it's the number of new competing photos that appear, that will drive down sales.

takestock · « **Reply #21 on:** August 04, 2008, 16:49 »

Racephoto

I suspect your observations are not very far out.

One thing you didn't mention is size of portfolio, how important this is, but I suppose it depends heavily on the quality within.

Also, surely it cant be all dependent on new work. I'm sure some buyers must search Most Popular, delve further into photographers portfolios or bookmark contributors etc.

Quote from: RacePhoto on August 04, 2008, 13:40

Here's what I've concluded is at work, at SS. Call it a WAG or observation from others results. Call it dumb-ass and wrong. I don't care.

1) New members and new uploads get heavy positive weighting in the search.

2) Photos that sell well, get extra promotion in the search engine. (The rich get richer, elevated in the search) People can't buy what they can't see, older images and images without sales, drop down in the search.

3) There is a core group of repeat buyers who appear to search daily for good images for their collection.

4) As the total number of images up for sale on any site increases, exposure of any single image, will decrease proportionally. However if you have something unusual and unique, it will stay up near the top longer.

----

Also noted by some: You need to "feed the beast" on a regular basis to keep it happy.

Hypothetical: You have 40 new images.

Theory: Uploading ten per week will get you better sales and results than uploading 40 and doing nothing for a month.

Personal experience from anyone who has tested this theory would be interesting. It seems logical considering all the other assumed factors.

----

Last one, and I'm not buying it, because of the variables and unknowns. Some people say they get better sales if a new photo appears on SS on Monday. (and lower sales if it first appears on a Friday) Since there's no way to know when you will be reviewed, or what day the photos will go live, this makes no sense.

Also I suspect that more people have time on weekends to take or upload new photos, so the volume of uploads would be highest Saturday and Sunday, then Monday, and depending on the time it takes to have them reviewed, there will be an influx of new photos, later in the week, as a result of the increased uploading.

More new photos, means most of the old photos on site, drop down the search faster. In other words, it's not the day of the week that affects sales, it's the number of new competing photos that appear, that will drive down sales.

vphoto · « **Reply #22 on:** August 04, 2008, 16:58 »

regardless of quality a portfolio at SS is a bucket with a big hole; it's weight is your revenue. you have to fill it continuously not to be disappointed with the return.

Aurelio · « **Reply #23 on:** August 04, 2008, 17:52 »

After few years with shutterstock i made decision to go exclusive with Istock. Its not just about the money, there is something more hidden there. After constant pursuit for more and more new images i think there is a big chance that quality of your photos will suffer. Shutterstock is very hungry beast which is difficult to feed after some time, for example for few days a had about 200dls a day, week after about 60- 70 if i didn't upload new stuff.After reaching more than 4000 images in my gallery i could say that a had similar income as i had with first 1000 photos. So i think in a long run shutterstock cant be a good solution, its good for beginners or for some speedy money, but thats all. My 0.2$

Dreamframer · « **Reply #24 on:** August 06, 2008, 04:27 »

I have small portfolio of some 111 images, but I never, ever before had 0 dl's per day except few sundays. But now, I have three days in a row with 0 dl's and I uploaded my last batch one week ago. It's really strange for SS

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: do sales normally fall off quickly (Read 13303 times)

greenstockcreative

vphoto

PaulieWalnuts

jsnover

hatman12

greenstockcreative

Pixart

designalldone

Fran

Jimi King

Anegada

Adeptris

Magnum

lisafx

MikLav

Microbius

PaulieWalnuts

Sean Locke Photography

PaulieWalnuts

helix7

RacePhoto

takestock

vphoto

Aurelio

Dreamframer

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors