pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Drop in sales - is it only me?...  (Read 10147 times)

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

H2O

    This user is banned.
« Reply #50 on: January 25, 2022, 15:41 »
+1


BUT, be my guest, continue to upload and live in poverty.

I don't want to get so deeply into what for me is a rather strange discussion.
Although January was, as expected, not so great, Shutterstock's revenues at least compensate for the increased energy prices. I really can't see that this agency is driving me into poverty.

AND in five years time . . . . .  You will have realised to late, it's simple, just like the thousands of contributors on Shutterstock's Forum who have stopped uploading.

Personally I'm just leaving my Portfolio on SS as I have put thousands of hours and over ten years into it, I made Level 1 in eight days, I really don't care about the money and have never been governed by it.

If you want to wast your time  . . . carry on uploading . . .  Ha, Ha, Ha


« Reply #51 on: January 25, 2022, 15:50 »
+2
The criminality comes from their behaviour, nobody signed up to a change with this new contract, in effect it was forced on everyone.



Quote
 
Everybody signed up because they had to, in effect it was coercion


hoist on your own petard - you can't even remember what you first wrote!!

Quote
I could go on but in reality if you want to continue to be taken advantage of,
yes but all your blather doesnt provide any actual evidence of your claims


Quote
otherwise here in the UK, we would still have the same rights (which would be none) as when we had the seventh century mill owners claiming poverty as to why they were cutting the wages of the workers, while living in palatial mansions.
so you failed history as well as economics!  SEVENTH century???  (understanding you have no actual links to these absurdities)
 

S2D2

« Reply #52 on: January 25, 2022, 15:52 »
0


BUT, be my guest, continue to upload and live in poverty.

I don't want to get so deeply into what for me is a rather strange discussion.
Although January was, as expected, not so great, Shutterstock's revenues at least compensate for the increased energy prices. I really can't see that this agency is driving me into poverty.

AND in five years time . . . . .  You will have realised to late, it's simple, just like the thousands of contributors on Shutterstock's Forum who have stopped uploading.

Personally I'm just leaving my Portfolio on SS as I have put thousands of hours and over ten years into it, I made Level 1 in eight days, I really don't care about the money and have never been governed by it.

If you want to wast your time  . . . carry on uploading . . .  Ha, Ha, Ha

Thousands on the Sstock forum?

I only remember about 20 regular posters in total, and they hadn't all stopped uploading.

Strange arithmetic.

« Reply #53 on: January 25, 2022, 16:00 »
+3
.... I made Level 1 in eight days ....



Hmm, ok, I assume that most of us have reached level 1 much earlier  ;)
 The rest of your text I have not really understood even after translation and found it quite confused. In any case, I wish you much success, for whatever.

H2O

    This user is banned.
« Reply #54 on: January 25, 2022, 16:19 »
+1
The criminality comes from their behaviour, nobody signed up to a change with this new contract, in effect it was forced on everyone.



Quote
 
Everybody signed up because they had to, in effect it was coercion


hoist on your own petard - you can't even remember what you first wrote!!

Quote
I could go on but in reality if you want to continue to be taken advantage of,
yes but all your blather doesnt provide any actual evidence of your claims


Quote
otherwise here in the UK, we would still have the same rights (which would be none) as when we had the seventh century mill owners claiming poverty as to why they were cutting the wages of the workers, while living in palatial mansions.
so you failed history as well as economics!  SEVENTH century???  (understanding you have no actual links to these absurdities)


Really, what a nutter you are, you don't seem to even understand English.

SVH

« Reply #55 on: January 25, 2022, 16:22 »
+3


BUT, be my guest, continue to upload and live in poverty.

I don't want to get so deeply into what for me is a rather strange discussion.
Although January was, as expected, not so great, Shutterstock's revenues at least compensate for the increased energy prices. I really can't see that this agency is driving me into poverty.

AND in five years time . . . . .  You will have realised to late, it's simple, just like the thousands of contributors on Shutterstock's Forum who have stopped uploading.

Personally I'm just leaving my Portfolio on SS as I have put thousands of hours and over ten years into it, I made Level 1 in eight days, I really don't care about the money and have never been governed by it.

If you want to wast your time  . . . carry on uploading . . .  Ha, Ha, Ha

Not that I want to feed the beast, but why haven't you closed your account with them, if they are your personal enimies and the greatest criminals of all times?

« Reply #56 on: January 25, 2022, 16:31 »
+3

Really, what a nutter you are, you don't seem to even understand English.

What about your knowledge of Spanish, German or French  ;). Your level of argumentation is really underground. ::)

« Reply #57 on: January 25, 2022, 16:45 »
0
I personally think that working for (almost) free is no go for me. I opt out at SS because I don't feel happy with (video) revenue. Yes, my portfolio contains 98% of video. So, I'm staying (for now) at SS and P5. How long I don't know. This market is really dripping down. Like crypto right now. ;)

« Reply #58 on: January 25, 2022, 17:07 »
0
I personally think that working for (almost) free is no go for me. I opt out at SS because I don't feel happy with (video) revenue. Yes, my portfolio contains 98% of video. So, I'm staying (for now) at SS and P5. How long I don't know. This market is really dripping down. Like crypto right now. ;)

that's a completely rational decision - unlike those who see SS as the coming of the apocalypse

SpaceStockFootage

  • Space, Sci-Fi and Astronomy Related Stock Footage

« Reply #59 on: January 25, 2022, 18:12 »
+5


BUT, be my guest, continue to upload and live in poverty.

I don't want to get so deeply into what for me is a rather strange discussion.
Although January was, as expected, not so great, Shutterstock's revenues at least compensate for the increased energy prices. I really can't see that this agency is driving me into poverty.

AND in five years time . . . . .  You will have realised to late, it's simple, just like the thousands of contributors on Shutterstock's Forum who have stopped uploading.

Personally I'm just leaving my Portfolio on SS as I have put thousands of hours and over ten years into it, I made Level 1 in eight days, I really don't care about the money and have never been governed by it.

If you want to wast your time  . . . carry on uploading . . .  Ha, Ha, Ha

You still have your portfolio on SS?! My God, man... I can't believe you're contributing to the wealth of Jon and Stan and are supporting their criminal ways by allowing them to sell your content and get richer off it. Where are your morals... your ethics?! You should be ashamed of yourself.

 ::)

SpaceStockFootage

  • Space, Sci-Fi and Astronomy Related Stock Footage

« Reply #60 on: January 25, 2022, 18:13 »
+5
Oh and I made Level 1 instantly. What can I say... I'm just that good!

« Reply #61 on: January 26, 2022, 02:07 »
+3


BUT, be my guest, continue to upload and live in poverty.

I don't want to get so deeply into what for me is a rather strange discussion.
Although January was, as expected, not so great, Shutterstock's revenues at least compensate for the increased energy prices. I really can't see that this agency is driving me into poverty.

AND in five years time . . . . .  You will have realised to late, it's simple, just like the thousands of contributors on Shutterstock's Forum who have stopped uploading.

Personally I'm just leaving my Portfolio on SS as I have put thousands of hours and over ten years into it, I made Level 1 in eight days, I really don't care about the money and have never been governed by it.

If you want to wast your time  . . . carry on uploading . . .  Ha, Ha, Ha

You still have your portfolio on SS?! My God, man... I can't believe you're contributing to the wealth of Jon and Stan and are supporting their criminal ways by allowing them to sell your content and get richer off it. Where are your morals... your ethics?! You should be ashamed of yourself.

 ::)

You still haven't explained to me where to find these special companies you were talking about where by working for them you don't contribute to the wealth of your superiors and the company owners.

We all know and agree with you that the money contributors get from Shutterstock is not a fair share. But you really need to get this strange notion out of your head that Jon and Stan are the only people in the world that get rich off other people's work and that this wasn't basically how every single company in the world was run. People at the top of every company always get the most money and live fancy lives while people at the bottom work their ass off for as little as minimum wage. Yes, their are companies that pay their employees more than others. They still work to make the CEOs and company owners richt.  So stop pretending like this was some Shutterstock-unique evil sheme and Oringer any worse than every other CEO. Every CEO's goal is to get his company and hismelf as much money as possible. You have some sick obsession with Oringer and sound like some bitter dropped ex-girlfriend.
 You don't want to support this and talk about morals and ethnics? The only way to get around it is by being self employed. You will not find an employment job where your boss pays you equaly or more than he gets himself.  But not everyone can work like this. I tried the self-employment route for many years, it didn't work out for me. But microstick works for me.

Most of all, stop slandering every contributor who still contributs to Shutterstock. You sound incredibly bitter, because other people still make decent money with Shutterstock, but apparently you don't. What's the point in telling people who make decent money there to go to some other place where they will be exploited in the same way? I could quit my microstock job and go to McDonals to flip burgers. I would still make someone else incredibly rich, I'd get less money and have a goss job. Why should I?
« Last Edit: January 26, 2022, 02:29 by Firn »

S2D2

« Reply #62 on: January 26, 2022, 03:32 »
0
We are all intelligent adults who can make our own choices in life.
I just kept my port static after the change but this morning found a pleasing SOD on a very old bird photo.
If people are still earning money that is sufficient for them on Sstock then why should they stop uploading or delete their ports on a principle?
Anyway, H2O is so vehement in his/her criticism of other Sstock contributors that I really don't understand why H2O keeps an active port there 🤔
« Last Edit: January 26, 2022, 04:46 by DO »

SpaceStockFootage

  • Space, Sci-Fi and Astronomy Related Stock Footage

« Reply #63 on: January 26, 2022, 03:53 »
+1


BUT, be my guest, continue to upload and live in poverty.

I don't want to get so deeply into what for me is a rather strange discussion.
Although January was, as expected, not so great, Shutterstock's revenues at least compensate for the increased energy prices. I really can't see that this agency is driving me into poverty.

AND in five years time . . . . .  You will have realised to late, it's simple, just like the thousands of contributors on Shutterstock's Forum who have stopped uploading.

Personally I'm just leaving my Portfolio on SS as I have put thousands of hours and over ten years into it, I made Level 1 in eight days, I really don't care about the money and have never been governed by it.

If you want to wast your time  . . . carry on uploading . . .  Ha, Ha, Ha

You still have your portfolio on SS?! My God, man... I can't believe you're contributing to the wealth of Jon and Stan and are supporting their criminal ways by allowing them to sell your content and get richer off it. Where are your morals... your ethics?! You should be ashamed of yourself.

 ::)

You still haven't explained to me where to find these special companies you were talking about where by working for them you don't contribute to the wealth of your superiors and the company owners.

We all know and agree with you that the money contributors get from Shutterstock is not a fair share. But you really need to get this strange notion out of your head that Jon and Stan are the only people in the world that get rich off other people's work and that this wasn't basically how every single company in the world was run. People at the top of every company always get the most money and live fancy lives while people at the bottom work their ass off for as little as minimum wage. Yes, their are companies that pay their employees more than others. They still work to make the CEOs and company owners richt.  So stop pretending like this was some Shutterstock-unique evil sheme and Oringer any worse than every other CEO. Every CEO's goal is to get his company and hismelf as much money as possible. You have some sick obsession with Oringer and sound like some bitter dropped ex-girlfriend.
 You don't want to support this and talk about morals and ethnics? The only way to get around it is by being self employed. You will not find an employment job where your boss pays you equaly or more than he gets himself.  But not everyone can work like this. I tried the self-employment route for many years, it didn't work out for me. But microstick works for me.

Most of all, stop slandering every contributor who still contributs to Shutterstock. You sound incredibly bitter, because other people still make decent money with Shutterstock, but apparently you don't. What's the point in telling people who make decent money there to go to some other place where they will be exploited in the same way? I could quit my microstock job and go to McDonals to flip burgers. I would still make someone else incredibly rich, I'd get less money and have a goss job. Why should I?

I really do hope that's aimed at H2O!  :D

I had hoped the severity of the comment would make it clear I was being sarcastic, while also giving H2O a 'dose of his own medicine', while also highlighting the irony of his severe aversion to SS even though he still sells his content there!

OM

« Reply #64 on: January 26, 2022, 06:04 »
0
January 2022 dls = 113 so far.
January 2021 dls (full month) = 204
$$ (so far) less than half of last year.

Around 900 SS images. No uploads for 2+ years. AS (same number and same images) has brought in more $$ than SS this month so far with only 43 dls!

« Reply #65 on: January 26, 2022, 06:18 »
+1


I really do hope that's aimed at H2O!  :D

I had hoped the severity of the comment would make it clear I was being sarcastic, while also giving H2O a 'dose of his own medicine', while also highlighting the irony of his severe aversion to SS even though he still sells his content there!

Yes, that was aimed at H2O, sorry! Was very early in the morning.  ;D

« Reply #66 on: January 26, 2022, 09:19 »
+1
January 2022 dls = 113 so far.
January 2021 dls (full month) = 204
$$ (so far) less than half of last year.

My January with SS is also pretty slow... and to many small abos.
So at the moment the earnings are far under average.


« Reply #67 on: January 26, 2022, 14:49 »
+4
I've been on SS for 7 years, and my downloads have continued to decline over the past year for the first time. A bigger issue is that 2 years ago my most common royalty was $ .38.  Since SS "restructured their payments" that has changed to $ .10.
Do the math, and it's no surprise that I used to make twice my minimum payout every month and it now takes me 3 months to barely make it.

I stopped uploading to them a year ago when I saw that no new images were being purchased and my income from SS dropped every month.

AdobeStock, on the other hand, is going gangbusters. BigStock, Dreamstime, and Deposit are dead to me.

« Reply #68 on: January 26, 2022, 18:53 »
0
... A bigger issue is that 2 years ago my most common royalty was $ .38.  Since SS "restructured their payments" that has changed to $ .10.
Do the math, and it's no surprise that I used to make twice my minimum payout every month and it now takes me 3 months to barely make it. ....

but what's your RPD? surely not $.10 - while the low-end may be most common, higher single sales bring my RPD to about 50c each month.. in absolute terms, my SS income is down about 30-40% over last 2 yrs - with only Canva showing a significant increase (due to their revenue sharing of subscriptions)

thijsdegraaf

« Reply #69 on: January 27, 2022, 03:14 »
+1
My earnings are nothing compared to others (and have only been working for over two years), but I earn in January at least more than last year and about the same as December. If I take into account that I went from about 1200 photos to 2200, the increase in sales numbers is way too low.
However.... my port has become much bigger, but the number of photos I have to compete with on Sutterstock is also much larger in a year. So actually my port has grown a lot less than it seems.
That's why I find it strange that some people have not uploaded photos for a long time and still continue to sell about the same numbers (at a lower average). Apparently their photos don't sink into the crowd.

S2D2

« Reply #70 on: January 27, 2022, 03:59 »
+1
My earnings are nothing compared to others (and have only been working for over two years), but I earn in January at least more than last year and about the same as December. If I take into account that I went from about 1200 photos to 2200, the increase in sales numbers is way too low.
However.... my port has become much bigger, but the number of photos I have to compete with on Sutterstock is also much larger in a year. So actually my port has grown a lot less than it seems.
That's why I find it strange that some people have not uploaded photos for a long time and still continue to sell about the same numbers (at a lower average). Apparently their photos don't sink into the crowd.

The contributor we know who reports on his sales in this way, is professional and has been contributing for quite a few years.  He also specialises in a sought after subject.

I think that is partly the reason why.  His images would presumably remain at the top of the searches because they have sold so well for so long. Self perpertuating.

It would be interesting to know if there are any other contributors with static portfolios (ie for years) whose sales numbers have remained consistent.
« Last Edit: January 27, 2022, 04:50 by DO »

thijsdegraaf

« Reply #71 on: January 27, 2022, 05:02 »
+1
My earnings are nothing compared to others (and have only been working for over two years), but I earn in January at least more than last year and about the same as December. If I take into account that I went from about 1200 photos to 2200, the increase in sales numbers is way too low.
However.... my port has become much bigger, but the number of photos I have to compete with on Sutterstock is also much larger in a year. So actually my port has grown a lot less than it seems.
That's why I find it strange that some people have not uploaded photos for a long time and still continue to sell about the same numbers (at a lower average). Apparently their photos don't sink into the crowd.

The contributor we know who reports on his sales in this way, is professional and has been contributing for quite a few years.  He also specialises in a sought after subject.

I think that is partly the reason why.  His images would presumably remain at the top of the searches because they have sold so well for so long. Self perpertuating.

It would be interesting to know if there are any other contributors with static portfolios (ie for years) whose sales numbers have remained consistent.

I mainly thought of Wilm and OM. OM lives near me and is indeed professional. I don't really know about Wilm (but his pictures do look very professional indeed). It would indeed be interesting to know how it is with others.
« Last Edit: January 27, 2022, 05:12 by thijsdegraaf »

« Reply #72 on: January 27, 2022, 06:33 »
+5
Yes, that's right, my portfolio is static. There are 1300 images at shutterstock, 1470 at Adobe. There I uploaded a few more images in the last years, like at other agencies.

But my numbers have not remained consistent by far. And I know that with other contributors with static portfolios it has also become significantly worse. But there are differences between agencies.

Here's how it looks for me:

  • Adobe Stock is stable with me. I had less downloads in 2021 than in 2013 (minus 570) and in 2015 (minus 150), but more than in all other years (up to plus 600).

    Also stable is canstock - but at a very very low level.

    istock has also stabilized in recent years. But there was a break from 2017 to 2018 (minus 1000).

    It has become somewhat less at deposit (minus 100 compared to 2020, minus 200 compared to 2019 and 2018).

    At 123, it is getting worse from year to year in steps of a hundred up to minus 800 compared to 2012 and 2013.

    dreamstime was stable until 2016, since then it has also been going downhill continuously. It's so bad now that I wonder if it's even worth uploading. If it would not go so fast, I would have already given up.

    The disaster is shutterstock. There it was stable in the period from 2018 to 2020. In 2021 I lack 1000 downloads there compared to the previous year and 5200 compared to 2015.


The fact is that the agencies have different algorithms. And that a portfolio that does not grow is most penalized at shutterstock. This is also confirmed by those who are very active. For them, the development is positive - Firn and Ralf I name as examples.

The fact that it has remained stable at AS shows that the images that successively disappear in nirvana at shutterstock must be mostly timeless, otherwise they would no longer be bought at AS. But the concept of shutterstock aims more at fresh content. I don't know which concept is better and more profitable for the agencies. I know that the algorithms have been changed again and again on a trial basis. And some of them were brought back to the old status.

Thijs, I run stock only as a hobby on the side, but as a studied industrial designer I have a professional background, which may be a little helpful.

S2D2

« Reply #73 on: January 27, 2022, 09:17 »
0
Thank you for that detailed analysis Wilm.

Interesting how Sstock algorithm appears to work in favour of an active port.

Maybe I should start uploading to them again to rejuvinate my sales.

Or maybe not ...
« Last Edit: January 27, 2022, 09:33 by DO »

thijsdegraaf

« Reply #74 on: January 27, 2022, 09:56 »
0
Yes, that's right, my portfolio is static. There are 1300 images at shutterstock, 1470 at Adobe. There I uploaded a few more images in the last years, like at other agencies.

But my numbers have not remained consistent by far. And I know that with other contributors with static portfolios it has also become significantly worse. But there are differences between agencies.

Here's how it looks for me:

  • Adobe Stock is stable with me. I had less downloads in 2021 than in 2013 (minus 570) and in 2015 (minus 150), but more than in all other years (up to plus 600).

    Also stable is canstock - but at a very very low level.

    istock has also stabilized in recent years. But there was a break from 2017 to 2018 (minus 1000).

    It has become somewhat less at deposit (minus 100 compared to 2020, minus 200 compared to 2019 and 2018).

    At 123, it is getting worse from year to year in steps of a hundred up to minus 800 compared to 2012 and 2013.

    dreamstime was stable until 2016, since then it has also been going downhill continuously. It's so bad now that I wonder if it's even worth uploading. If it would not go so fast, I would have already given up.

    The disaster is shutterstock. There it was stable in the period from 2018 to 2020. In 2021 I lack 1000 downloads there compared to the previous year and 5200 compared to 2015.


The fact is that the agencies have different algorithms. And that a portfolio that does not grow is most penalized at shutterstock. This is also confirmed by those who are very active. For them, the development is positive - Firn and Ralf I name as examples.

The fact that it has remained stable at AS shows that the images that successively disappear in nirvana at shutterstock must be mostly timeless, otherwise they would no longer be bought at AS. But the concept of shutterstock aims more at fresh content. I don't know which concept is better and more profitable for the agencies. I know that the algorithms have been changed again and again on a trial basis. And some of them were brought back to the old status.

Thijs, I run stock only as a hobby on the side, but as a studied industrial designer I have a professional background, which may be a little helpful.

Thanks Wilm.
I actually thought you were about the same in terms of numbers.
There is something to be said for both systems. If the old images remain high it is less interesting to upload new ones. On the other hand, why would you lower high-selling images.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
9 Replies
6634 Views
Last post April 05, 2006, 02:48
by CJPhoto
6 Replies
3778 Views
Last post June 19, 2010, 06:34
by lagereek
20 Replies
6488 Views
Last post December 15, 2010, 12:07
by donding
8 Replies
3922 Views
Last post June 28, 2012, 00:55
by CD123
25 Replies
9514 Views
Last post July 12, 2013, 04:35
by Phadrea

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle