MicrostockGroup
Agency Based Discussion => Shutterstock.com => Topic started by: ronyzmbow on January 20, 2022, 21:54
-
My monthly sales of images was about 150 images in average. in the last 2 months it dropped by half to about 75 images. is it only me+ What happens to Shutterstock? i do not have this kind of drop in other stock sites...
-
Not for me. Almost the same numbers for the last few months
-
Also not for me compared to previous year.
-
Not for me. I have added few photos in the last two months and continue to sell about the same amount.
-
Not for me, highest numbers for last 4 years, maybe more.
-
me too , sales are 50% less than it was in January 2021
-
Im showing almost exactly the same rate of sales (in terms of number of downloads) as last January (with a 8% bigger portfolio).
Im also seeing an identical 75% loss of revenue as last January due to the level reset and time to go back up through them.
-
Not half, but definitely down. Last year about 230/mo slowly declining to now about 160/mo. SS is now my worst performer.
-
Not half, but definitely down. Last year about 230/mo slowly declining to now about 160/mo. SS is now my worst performer.
I still remember your photos from the Shutterstock forum Reimar. Strange that you sell so well on Alamy (I thought) while I still hear very few satisfied people there. https://www.microstockgroup.com/alamy-com/alamy-sale-for-7-cents/msg572020/?topicseen#new (https://www.microstockgroup.com/alamy-com/alamy-sale-for-7-cents/msg572020/?topicseen#new)
-
Not half, but definitely down. Last year about 230/mo slowly declining to now about 160/mo. SS is now my worst performer.
These are gross earnings, I presume, right?
-
Not half, but definitely down. Last year about 230/mo slowly declining to now about 160/mo. SS is now my worst performer.
These are gross earnings, I presume, right?
I assume these are download numbers. At least that's what the thread is about...?
-
Compared to January 2021, I'm ahead on both downloads and revenue. Right now (the 21st), I'm 2 downloads off my January 2021 total and I am ahead on revenue by 37%.
That said, last January was by far my poorest month in 2021. I should also say that this week has been quite slow.
AS is tracking at about the same level as last year.
-
Not half, but definitely down. Last year about 230/mo slowly declining to now about 160/mo. SS is now my worst performer.
These are gross earnings, I presume, right?
I assume these are download numbers. At least that's what the thread is about...?
Yes, download numbers per month. Very low for more than 12,000 images, but there you go.
By "worst performer", there I meant net income.
-
At the moment, I'm stable year-to-date, with a +/- 5% difference since the beginning of the month.
It's important to mention, however, that sales are traditionally extremely low at the beginning of the month, and that licences other than subscriptions usually start to appear in the second half of January. It's kind of happening this year, and it's always been the same in the past few years. That's why January is usually totally unbalanced. I guess it comes from the fact businesses are a bit slow to pay their invoices in the beginning of the month for plenty of reasons, and compensate in the second part.
-
34 times less than January 2014 :o
-
The most important point to remember with Shutterstock is that Jon Oringer and his side kick Stan Pavlovsky are ripping you off.
Whatever you are making, they are stealing a vast amount more than you are getting in cash.
Feeding the site with images, is only feeding these crooks and their shareholders.
-
The most important point to remember with Shutterstock is that Jon Oringer and his side kick Stan Pavlovsky are ripping you off.
Whatever you are making, they are stealing a vast amount more than you are getting in cash.
Just like with every other company in the world?
-
The most important point to remember with Shutterstock is that Jon Oringer and his side kick Stan Pavlovsky are ripping you off.
Whatever you are making, they are stealing a vast amount more than you are getting in cash.
Just like with every other company in the world?
no Stocksy is different and Adobe has to care for photographers to some extent because they are one of their main customers especially if they don't do any stock but a further devaluing of pictures is something no photographer wanna see
-
This year I sold almost half of what I have sold in 2021.
-
This year I sold almost half of what I have sold in 2021.
Can you explain this in more detail?
More income in less than a month than in the whole of 2021?
-
I started to upload in november. So there were few sales in 2 first months.
-
I started to upload in november. So there were few sales in 2 first months.
That's a common pattern for a newcomer to stock.
Please come back in three or four years to let us know how it's going for you then.
-
The most important point to remember with Shutterstock is that Jon Oringer and his side kick Stan Pavlovsky are ripping you off.
Whatever you are making, they are stealing a vast amount more than you are getting in cash.
Just like with every other company in the world?
UTTER RUBBISH, crooks are crooks, not all companies are run like the mafia.
-
I started to upload in november. So there were few sales in 2 first months.
That's a common pattern for a newcomer to stock.
Please come back in three or four years to let us know how it's going for you then.
if we haven't all been replaced by AI artists & buyers by then
-
I started to upload in november. So there were few sales in 2 first months.
That's a common pattern for a newcomer to stock.
Please come back in three or four years to let us know how it's going for you then.
if we haven't all been replaced by AI artists & buyers by then
Good point!
-
Same here, I have not even reached half of my monthly sales.
-
The most important point to remember with Shutterstock is that Jon Oringer and his side kick Stan Pavlovsky are ripping you off.
Whatever you are making, they are stealing a vast amount more than you are getting in cash.
Just like with every other company in the world?
UTTER RUBBISH, crooks are crooks, not all companies are run like the mafia.
So there are companies where the employees earn more than the people who run and own the company? Interesting.
-
I actually see few answers to ronyzmbow's question (My monthly sales of images was about 150 images in average. in the last 2 months it dropped by half to about 75 images).
So not a setback compared to the past, but compared to two months before. I don't see that drop in my sale.
-
me too sale drop half.
-
The most important point to remember with Shutterstock is that Jon Oringer and his side kick Stan Pavlovsky are ripping you off.
Whatever you are making, they are stealing a vast amount more than you are getting in cash.
Just like with every other company in the world?
UTTER RUBBISH, crooks are crooks, not all companies are run like the mafia.
So there are companies where the employees earn more than the people who run and own the company? Interesting.
no one said that - it's a question of how big the wage gap is - in the US it's about 350 x avg worker while in europe it's much lower
-
The most important point to remember with Shutterstock is that Jon Oringer and his side kick Stan Pavlovsky are ripping you off.
Whatever you are making, they are stealing a vast amount more than you are getting in cash.
Just like with every other company in the world?
UTTER RUBBISH, crooks are crooks, not all companies are run like the mafia.
So there are companies where the employees earn more than the people who run and own the company? Interesting.
no one said that - it's a question of how big the wage gap is - in the US it's about 350 x avg worker while in europe it's much lower
USA minimum wage after taxes- 1256$. My country- 520$. You're right.
-
.
-
You should therefore also look at, for example, housing costs, health care costs, rent subsidy for low wages, costs of food, accrual pension, .....
It's called "cost of living". That's easier then summing up all kinds of examples :)
-
You should therefore also look at, for example, housing costs, health care costs, rent subsidy for low wages, costs of food, accrual pension, .....
It's called "cost of living". That's easier then summing up all kinds of examples :)
But who likes it nice and simple ;). "rent subsidy for low wages" and "accrual pension" not belong to "cost of living" :P
-
You should therefore also look at, for example, housing costs, health care costs, rent subsidy for low wages, costs of food, accrual pension, .....
It's called "cost of living". That's easier then summing up all kinds of examples :)
But who likes it nice and simple ;). "rent subsidy for low wages" and "accrual pension" not belong to "cost of living" :P
True and then again Thijs had a valid point. No use in comparing income in $ between countries when you do not take into account the cost of living.
-
Worst month in last several years for me, and one of my worst Januaries ever, 10% from my best January and rivaled with only 1st few years when I barely had any work uploaded. With occasional oscillations SS is on a steady decline for me, I'm wondering should I stop uploading there.
-
You should therefore also look at, for example, housing costs, health care costs, rent subsidy for low wages, costs of food, accrual pension, .....
It's called "cost of living". That's easier then summing up all kinds of examples :)
But who likes it nice and simple ;). "rent subsidy for low wages" and "accrual pension" not belong to "cost of living" :P
True and then again Thijs had a valid point. No use in comparing income in $ between countries when you do not take into account the cost of living.
US federal minimum wage is $7.25 & only a few states are moving to $15/hr , mostly bi-coastal states that tend Democratic (WA is $14.49, Ca $14)
$15 minimum wage is about $30K annual (often w no vacation & no health care from employer), and 2/3 of minimum wage workers do not have 40hr workweeks. and, even at $15, it's still not a livable wage.
https://www.minimum-wage.org/wage-by-state (https://www.minimum-wage.org/wage-by-state)
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/02/21/15-minimum-wage-wont-cover-living-costs-for-many-americans.html (https://www.cnbc.com/2021/02/21/15-minimum-wage-wont-cover-living-costs-for-many-americans.html)
-
You should therefore also look at, for example, housing costs, health care costs, rent subsidy for low wages, costs of food, accrual pension, .....
It's called "cost of living". That's easier then summing up all kinds of examples :)
But who likes it nice and simple ;). "rent subsidy for low wages" and "accrual pension" not belong to "cost of living" :P
True and then again Thijs had a valid point. No use in comparing income in $ between countries when you do not take into account the cost of living.
US federal minimum wage is $7.25 & only a few states are moving to $15/hr , mostly bi-coastal states that tend Democratic (WA is $14.49, Ca $14)
$15 minimum wage is about $30K annual (often w no vacation & no health care from employer), and 2/3 of minimum wage workers do not have 40hr workweeks. and, even at $15, it's still not a livable wage.
https://www.minimum-wage.org/wage-by-state (https://www.minimum-wage.org/wage-by-state)
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/02/21/15-minimum-wage-wont-cover-living-costs-for-many-americans.html (https://www.cnbc.com/2021/02/21/15-minimum-wage-wont-cover-living-costs-for-many-americans.html)
WHO CARES about the minimum wage or anything else that comes as an excuse, this is all BS, SHUTTERSTOCK are ripping off the talent, and have used criminal minded thinking to shaft everyone who uploads to them.
Get a grip, this is not about how much you pay here or their, it's about Jon Oringer and his side kick Stan Pavlovsky operating a scam.
-
You should therefore also look at, for example, housing costs, health care costs, rent subsidy for low wages, costs of food, accrual pension, .....
It's called "cost of living". That's easier then summing up all kinds of examples :)
But who likes it nice and simple ;). "rent subsidy for low wages" and "accrual pension" not belong to "cost of living" :P
True and then again Thijs had a valid point. No use in comparing income in $ between countries when you do not take into account the cost of living.
US federal minimum wage is $7.25 & only a few states are moving to $15/hr , mostly bi-coastal states that tend Democratic (WA is $14.49, Ca $14)
$15 minimum wage is about $30K annual (often w no vacation & no health care from employer), and 2/3 of minimum wage workers do not have 40hr workweeks. and, even at $15, it's still not a livable wage.
https://www.minimum-wage.org/wage-by-state (https://www.minimum-wage.org/wage-by-state)
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/02/21/15-minimum-wage-wont-cover-living-costs-for-many-americans.html (https://www.cnbc.com/2021/02/21/15-minimum-wage-wont-cover-living-costs-for-many-americans.html)
WHO CARES about the minimum wage or anything else that comes as an excuse, this is all BS, SHUTTERSTOCK are ripping off the talent, and have used criminal minded thinking to shaft everyone who uploads to them.
Get a grip, this is not about how much you pay here or their, it's about Jon Oringer and his side kick Stan Pavlovsky operating a scam.
just more whinging! your claims of SS criminality are nonsense (and, as usual, w no actual evidence back up your ludicrous claims)
put it in perspective! SS antics are insignificant compared to real world problems.
work w SS or not, but eternal bitching won't change anything.
-
Yeah, I see the drop too. However it's January, always a difficult month at Shutterstock for me, this month is really bad compared to others. Sales and RPD are dragging.
I broke my record of serial 10 cents sales... twice. 22 In a row was followed by 26 in a row. And only a few minor OD's which is rather exceptional.
Let's see how it evolves. I had a bad January in 2021 too, but sales and higher commissions really started to pick up in March and the months after, resulting in Shutterstock providing me nearly 50% of my microstock income in 2021.
On the positive side: Adobe is still on the rise for me, and I had a pretty decent December at iStock/Getty.
-
You should therefore also look at, for example, housing costs, health care costs, rent subsidy for low wages, costs of food, accrual pension, .....
It's called "cost of living". That's easier then summing up all kinds of examples :)
But who likes it nice and simple ;). "rent subsidy for low wages" and "accrual pension" not belong to "cost of living" :P
True and then again Thijs had a valid point. No use in comparing income in $ between countries when you do not take into account the cost of living.
US federal minimum wage is $7.25 & only a few states are moving to $15/hr , mostly bi-coastal states that tend Democratic (WA is $14.49, Ca $14)
$15 minimum wage is about $30K annual (often w no vacation & no health care from employer), and 2/3 of minimum wage workers do not have 40hr workweeks. and, even at $15, it's still not a livable wage.
https://www.minimum-wage.org/wage-by-state (https://www.minimum-wage.org/wage-by-state)
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/02/21/15-minimum-wage-wont-cover-living-costs-for-many-americans.html (https://www.cnbc.com/2021/02/21/15-minimum-wage-wont-cover-living-costs-for-many-americans.html)
WHO CARES about the minimum wage or anything else that comes as an excuse, this is all BS, SHUTTERSTOCK are ripping off the talent, and have used criminal minded thinking to shaft everyone who uploads to them.
Get a grip, this is not about how much you pay here or their, it's about Jon Oringer and his side kick Stan Pavlovsky operating a scam.
just more whinging! your claims of SS criminality are nonsense (and, as usual, w no actual evidence back up your ludicrous claims)
put it in perspective! SS antics are insignificant compared to real world problems.
work w SS or not, but eternal bitching won't change anything.
Ha, Ha, Ha,
It's not whinging or bitching, it's not even business, shutterstock's original business model was a win, win, they gave a reasonable return, for a low unit sale price but with a large amount of downloads.
This was the original contributor contract, now we have a win, lose, business model. They are taking not only a bigger slice of the pie, they are taking all the pie and leaving just a few crumbs.
The criminality comes from their behaviour, nobody signed up to a change with this new contract, in effect it was forced on everyone.
What is needed in the Western World is a law that makes these type of companies responsible to all Stake Holders on an equal basis, when a company is sold, takes on debt, commission rates or terms and condition changes, basically all contributors having a equal vote at the shareholders annual meeting.
As for my earlier point about it's not business; as time goes on Shutterstock will lose revenue as the talent will walk, anyone who has half a brain can see that it isn't in their financial interest to upload to this site, YOU and EVERYONE ELSE has to ask themselves, what will be there next financial move and lets face it, this is a one way street.
I stand by my claim that Jon Oringer and his side kick Stan Pavlovsky are nothing more than common criminals dressed up in suits and working in offices, they are the unacceptable face of capitalism.
Personally, I don't give my talent away for FREE, but, you obviously believe that YOU are quite happy to do this or you have no talent, either way it's your lose.
-
Personally, I don't give my talent away for FREE, but, you obviously believe that YOU are quite happy to do this or you have no talent, either way it's your lose.
Lucky me, I have zero talent to give away for free! :-*
-
You should therefore also look at, for example, housing costs, health care costs, rent subsidy for low wages, costs of food, accrual pension, .....
It's called "cost of living". That's easier then summing up all kinds of examples :)
But who likes it nice and simple ;). "rent subsidy for low wages" and "accrual pension" not belong to "cost of living" :P
True and then again Thijs had a valid point. No use in comparing income in $ between countries when you do not take into account the cost of living.
US federal minimum wage is $7.25 & only a few states are moving to $15/hr , mostly bi-coastal states that tend Democratic (WA is $14.49, Ca $14)
$15 minimum wage is about $30K annual (often w no vacation & no health care from employer), and 2/3 of minimum wage workers do not have 40hr workweeks. and, even at $15, it's still not a livable wage.
https://www.minimum-wage.org/wage-by-state (https://www.minimum-wage.org/wage-by-state)
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/02/21/15-minimum-wage-wont-cover-living-costs-for-many-americans.html (https://www.cnbc.com/2021/02/21/15-minimum-wage-wont-cover-living-costs-for-many-americans.html)
WHO CARES about the minimum wage or anything else that comes as an excuse, this is all BS, SHUTTERSTOCK are ripping off the talent, and have used criminal minded thinking to shaft everyone who uploads to them.
Get a grip, this is not about how much you pay here or their, it's about Jon Oringer and his side kick Stan Pavlovsky operating a scam.
just more whinging! your claims of SS criminality are nonsense (and, as usual, w no actual evidence back up your ludicrous claims)
put it in perspective! SS antics are insignificant compared to real world problems.
work w SS or not, but eternal bitching won't change anything.
...
The criminality comes from their behaviour, nobody signed up to a change with this new contract, in effect it was forced on everyone.
EVERYBODY signed up for this thru the TOS!!! RYFM
What is needed in the Western World is a law that makes these type of companies responsible to all Stake Holders on an equal basis, when a company is sold, takes on debt, commission rates or terms and condition changes, basically all contributors having a equal vote at the shareholders annual meeting.
that's not the way capitalism works - you need to review economics 101. how many shares of SS do you own? contributors are not shareholders & most companies have a small group who control company decisions. the only way your 'idea' would work would be you controlled more shares than the owners
I stand by my claim that Jon Oringer and his side kick Stan Pavlovsky are nothing more than common criminals dressed up in suits and working in offices, they are the unacceptable face of capitalism.
so, you admit you have absolutely no evidence to back up this silly claim. what is the crime??
-
I stand by my claim that Jon Oringer and his side kick Stan Pavlovsky are nothing more than common criminals dressed up in suits and working in offices, they are the unacceptable face of capitalism.
Personally, I don't give my talent away for FREE, but, you obviously believe that YOU are quite happy to do this or you have no talent, either way it's your lose.
Yeah odd that you never pointed out before, how unhappy you are with capitalism and a free market economy? (yes sarcastic)
You may want to read about something basic in the first chapter of any book on economics, like Supply and Demand? We supply images, there's a glut on the market. Buyers control the price of goods, by their demand. The agencies don't set the prices, they react to the market and what buyers are willing to pay.
What Microstock sites do you actually work? Not SS? I'm touched that you care so much for my personal welfare. ???
Small history lesson for how much we were promised and paid:
2005 Sub’s .20
2006 March 30th Sub’s increased to .25
2007 April 30 Sub’s increased to .30
2008 May 14th Levels introduced
Sub levels .25 - .33 - .36 - .38
-
Pete is right. You can hate the owners of Shutterstock how much you want but in the end it's all business. As long as contributors are willing to supply with whatever price and with the stock they currently have it's pretty easy to lower the contributor slice. They have to, in the end, because the market, where they are operating in, is very competitive. Alamy and Dreamstime for example are probably going to loose the battle (see the Chinese deals Alamy made for example). Adobe has another, and more important, revenue so they can still offer good minimum prices. But they are less interested in selling high priced licenses because it's not their business anyway. That's why you don't see EL's almost on Adobe but do see them at Shutterstock because for them it's their core business.
If a company would start by giving you the money you (think you) deserve for your effort and time invested they would go bankrupt pretty soon in this current market.
It's just life.
-
I have a question: Have you seen an increase in 10 cent sales under the SOD category? I've had five single and other category sales for 10 cents this month. I have not seen that before. What's with that?
-
I have a question: Have you seen an increase in 10 cent sales under the SOD category? I've had five single and other category sales for 10 cents this month. I have not seen that before. What's with that?
Reimar, I had a look and can not confirm that for me.
-
You should therefore also look at, for example, housing costs, health care costs, rent subsidy for low wages, costs of food, accrual pension, .....
It's called "cost of living". That's easier then summing up all kinds of examples :)
But who likes it nice and simple ;). "rent subsidy for low wages" and "accrual pension" not belong to "cost of living" :P
True and then again Thijs had a valid point. No use in comparing income in $ between countries when you do not take into account the cost of living.
US federal minimum wage is $7.25 & only a few states are moving to $15/hr , mostly bi-coastal states that tend Democratic (WA is $14.49, Ca $14)
$15 minimum wage is about $30K annual (often w no vacation & no health care from employer), and 2/3 of minimum wage workers do not have 40hr workweeks. and, even at $15, it's still not a livable wage.
https://www.minimum-wage.org/wage-by-state (https://www.minimum-wage.org/wage-by-state)
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/02/21/15-minimum-wage-wont-cover-living-costs-for-many-americans.html (https://www.cnbc.com/2021/02/21/15-minimum-wage-wont-cover-living-costs-for-many-americans.html)
WHO CARES about the minimum wage or anything else that comes as an excuse, this is all BS, SHUTTERSTOCK are ripping off the talent, and have used criminal minded thinking to shaft everyone who uploads to them.
Get a grip, this is not about how much you pay here or their, it's about Jon Oringer and his side kick Stan Pavlovsky operating a scam.
just more whinging! your claims of SS criminality are nonsense (and, as usual, w no actual evidence back up your ludicrous claims)
put it in perspective! SS antics are insignificant compared to real world problems.
work w SS or not, but eternal bitching won't change anything.
...
The criminality comes from their behaviour, nobody signed up to a change with this new contract, in effect it was forced on everyone.
EVERYBODY signed up for this thru the TOS!!! RYFM
What is needed in the Western World is a law that makes these type of companies responsible to all Stake Holders on an equal basis, when a company is sold, takes on debt, commission rates or terms and condition changes, basically all contributors having a equal vote at the shareholders annual meeting.
that's not the way capitalism works - you need to review economics 101. how many shares of SS do you own? contributors are not shareholders & most companies have a small group who control company decisions. the only way your 'idea' would work would be you controlled more shares than the owners
I stand by my claim that Jon Oringer and his side kick Stan Pavlovsky are nothing more than common criminals dressed up in suits and working in offices, they are the unacceptable face of capitalism.
so, you admit you have absolutely no evidence to back up this silly claim. what is the crime??
Everybody signed up because they had to, in effect it was coercion!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! - NOTE how I have out done you with more exclamation marks!
I could go on but in reality if you want to continue to be taken advantage of, ripped off and generally walked all over, while Jon Oringer and his side kick Stan Pavlovsk take your cash, carry on uploading!!!!!!!!!!!!!
AS AN ASIDE, I am a great believer in capitalism and a free market economy, BUT and here is the BUT, like all systems, it needs reforms and updates as time ticks by; I see legislation that empowers people as a way forward for a better and more progress society.
This proposal of a Stake Holders Law is a way of helping people to realise their efforts and taming the excesses of capitalism.
This is nothing new, working conditions and wage rises down the centuries have only been achieved by legislation and collective action, 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.
BUT, be my guest, continue to upload and live in poverty.
-
AS AN ASIDE, I am a great believer in capitalism and a free market economy, BUT and here is the BUT, like all systems, it needs reforms and updates as time ticks by
Nah, you are not.
You are simply a late believer in Marxism and its outdated class struggle ideology.
-
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.
-
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
-
The criminality comes from their behaviour, nobody signed up to a change with this new contract, in effect it was forced on everyone.
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!!
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
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)
-
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.
-
.... 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.
-
The criminality comes from their behaviour, nobody signed up to a change with this new contract, in effect it was forced on everyone.
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!!
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
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.
-
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?
-
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. ::)
-
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. ;)
-
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
-
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.
::)
-
Oh and I made Level 1 instantly. What can I say... I'm just that good!
-
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?
-
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 🤔
-
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!
-
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!
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
... 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)
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 ...
-
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.
-
As for shutterstock, I'm just too slow for the algorithm. Even if I uploaded at my previous pace, I would still have significant losses there. Maybe not quite as high as at the moment.
-
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.
Hi Wilm, if you could elaborate a bit more on how the algorithm works per agency, from your experience and point of view, it would very welcome to me and probably others. So if you have any other thoughts about this, please share :)
-
As for shutterstock, I'm just too slow for the algorithm. Even if I uploaded at my previous pace, I would still have significant losses there. Maybe not quite as high as at the moment.
I have uploaded far more content (mainly videos with an increase of over 25% or more depending on the agency which translates to over 100+ videos per port) in such a short period (two months) since my beginnings in February 2019. Despite this work, my results on Shutterstock for 2022 are the worst January in the three years since I've been contributing. The worst earnings of any month since February 2021. Earnings for January 2022 on Shutterstock compared to January 2021 is just 38% and for January 2020 just 36% (when I had way smaller ports and a tiny number of videos). It's almost like uploading has damaged sales, not helped them at all. Pretty much could be said for the others too (P5 and AS). Istock looks to be improving but that's only because I started late and had a very small port so it has grown a lot with the recent uploads. Overall feeling very disappointed seeing much worse results with more work.
-
Oh and I made Level 1 instantly. What can I say... I'm just that good!
Me too!
-
... 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)
My monthly RPD (jan2022) at SS is $0.25 (lifetime is $0.69). This month's RPD at AS is $0.70. At SS earnings total for Jan 22 = $30 and at AS = $34. I first noticed that my uploads to SS were getting almost no traction in 2018 due to the massive volume of competition coming in every day/hour. Approved images that stayed on page 1 of new in 2014-2015 for a day or more were now disappearing from the first hundred new images (P1) within hours of approval and that's when I decided it was no longer really worth the effort of uploading...it had become a lottery instead of a business (with actual opportunities)! When your new images are gone from from P1 of new within hours of approval, you have little chance of ever selling them (just IMHO).
I leave what I have already had approved up at SS because it involves no effort for the $1,000+ the small port brings in every year and whilst I have my reservations about Stan and Jon making all that stash off me but hey...it's $1K+ of free money/year for me and it contributes to my pension (again for no effort). If I thought I could get back to my old level of earnings of $3.5K (in 2014-15)by increasing my port size drastically, I would but I really don't thing that's realistic besides....that would be feeding the beast for Jon and Stan's benefit.
I'm lucky because for me January at SS (and the level reset) is the real pox but I don't care because January is my month of commissioned photography and SS earnings are less than pocket change in comparison. It is truly ridiculous how little stock at SS earns us compared to its value to the buyers/users and corporate SS of our images.
-
... 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)
My monthly RPD (jan2022) at SS is $0.25 (lifetime is $0.69). This month's RPD at AS is $0.70. At SS earnings total for Jan 22 = $30 and at AS = $34. I first noticed that my uploads to SS were getting almost no traction in 2018 due to the massive volume of competition coming in every day/hour. Approved images that stayed on page 1 of new in 2014-2015 for a day or more were now disappearing from the first hundred new images (P1) within hours of approval and that's when I decided it was no longer really worth the effort of uploading...it had become a lottery instead of a business (with actual opportunities)! When your new images are gone from from P1 of new within hours of approval, you have little chance of ever selling them (just IMHO).
..
thanks for your details - so basically, you're getting $.25 for each DL, still not great
but how do you define 1st page? if it's too generic, then you have millions in competition, the more specific your keywording, the higher you'll show up on less competitive combinations. if you're just looking at new images, there's no hope since you'll be swamped by the flood of newer images. but how many serious buyers look at new images for their needs?
i don't spend time trying to game position on some mythical 1st page, since we really dont know what buyers are looking for, but my older images (some 10+ yrs old now) continue to find buyers
so i spend my time editing metadata, rather than trying to figure out a black box to which i have nonaccess.
-
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.
Hi Wilm, if you could elaborate a bit more on how the algorithm works per agency, from your experience and point of view, it would very welcome to me and probably others. So if you have any other thoughts about this, please share :)
No, SVH, I can't say much useful about that. Of course, I don't know the algorithms either.
Ultimately, I can only write what I can observe myself - nothing more.
In the history, it was so that, for example, fotolia (Adobe Stock) occasionally changed the algorithm from one day to the next. I think that this was a test run in each case. Simply to try out what could bring the agency more money.
This caused a huge outcry among many contributors, because they suddenly lost their income. Other contributors, on the other hand, profited from it.
There is a huge risk to let images disappear in the search, which already had several thousand downloads, in order to check whether an algo, which puts current fresh material in front, leads to more sales.
A few times, the old algo was restored after several weeks. And calm returned to the contributors.
With any agency, after all, you can filter by "new images." The buyers with the big subscriptions, who need a lot of images, know that. The buyers who only buy a picture now and then probably always have the "sort by relevance" active - this is set automatically. These buyers are probably often not even aware that they have filtering options at all. Therefore, I can understand that the relevance sorting is preset - it makes the most sense from the agency's point of view. Because with this sorting, the "thousands of buyers can't be wrong" principle applies. From the agency's point of view, the images with the most downloads probably have the greatest chance of selling even more often. That's how supermarkets do it, after all. The products that sell the most are on an equal footing. A vicious circle for suppliers of new products, who thus have little chance of establishing themselves on the market.
The core issue is probably not the algorithm itself, but two other factors:
- the speed at which the database grows, and this is clearly highest at shutterstock,
- the vast number of very similar images, including copied images.
After all, for years there was the possibility to check which images sell best. These were then re-uploaded by other contributors in a very similar look. And already the original best-selling material has competition without end.
But with shutterstock, the biggest issue remains the immense growth of images.
If you want to get ahead, you have to feed the beast and never let up. I have one contributor under observation. There are close to 9,700,000 images on the topic he is dealing with. He started around 2019 and since then has uploaded more than 300,000 3D renderings on the topic (+ nearly 3000 videos). That's over 270 new images every day. In 5 days he has uploaded more images than I have in 11 years. Now every 32rd image on the theme is from this contributor. It is absolutely understandable that this displaces an extremely large number of images.
But you can't manage this amount on your own. So several people have to be fed by it. As a hobby contributor, you simply don't stand a chance against that.
When I search for images on the topic, I find his first image on page 2 - "popularity medium" (in my own portfolio this corresponds to about 3 downloads). It has overtaken my picture, which with almost 7000 downloads - "popularity high" - can also be found on page 2, but clearly behind his.
By the way, the name under which he offers is identical with the search term. Whether that plays a role, I do not know.
Let's move on to Adobe Stock. There are 13,500,000 images there for the same search term. His portfolio size there is 340,000, but he has a different contributor name there. In 2020, his images were always at the top of the list. In the meantime, none of his images can be found on the first 35 pages of the search. I have no idea from which page the first of his images can be found. But I can see from this that something has changed in the algorithm that has caused his images to slip so far - I assume that it is the poor download numbers.
I have to add that the images are really bad compared to what countless other contributors have in their portfolio. By bad, I don't mean the technical quality, but the aesthetic quality. And I know that his images have sold miserably at Adobe. How it looks with him at shutterstock, I don't know. He has 233 times the portfolio size at AS, but less than 2/3 of my downloads. How that adds up, I don't know either. Then there is another example to mention. There is a contributor who also specializes in this topic. He has less than 700 images in his portfolio and has nevertheless achieved more than twice as many downloads at AS as the contributor with 340,000 images. But on shutterstock he has very little success.
This shows to me that the pure upload volume is of little importance at AS. With shutterstock it does. In my opinion, this is the main difference between the two algorithms at the moment.
-
Hi Wilm, many thanks for the lenghty and very interesting read. Great insights to begin to understand the puzzle of algorithms. Especially your observations between SS and AS.
-
As for shutterstock, I'm just too slow for the algorithm. Even if I uploaded at my previous pace, I would still have significant losses there. Maybe not quite as high as at the moment.
I have uploaded far more content (mainly videos with an increase of over 25% or more depending on the agency which translates to over 100+ videos per port) in such a short period (two months) since my beginnings in February 2019. Despite this work, my results on Shutterstock for 2022 are the worst January in the three years since I've been contributing. The worst earnings of any month since February 2021. Earnings for January 2022 on Shutterstock compared to January 2021 is just 38% and for January 2020 just 36% (when I had way smaller ports and a tiny number of videos). It's almost like uploading has damaged sales, not helped them at all. Pretty much could be said for the others too (P5 and AS). Istock looks to be improving but that's only because I started late and had a very small port so it has grown a lot with the recent uploads. Overall feeling very disappointed seeing much worse results with more work.
Sorry to hear that.
I remember when you joined the Sstock forum and you were enjoying what you were doing and your success.
I hope sales pick up for you to help with the demoralization.
-
This shows to me that the pure upload volume is of little importance at AS. With shutterstock it does. In my opinion, this is the main difference between the two algorithms at the moment.
I disagree, it's not my experience.
I have a friend who has about 16,000 images (more quantity than quality), while I have about 5,000 images (more quality). 10+ years both ...
I earn twice as much as he does on SS and he earns twice as much as I do on AS ...
-
Okay, with 3.5 days to go in January, this is where my sales are in comparison to January 2021.
First, January 2021 was my worst month of last year by a long way. So we are starting from a low bar.
Anyway:
Size of portfolio ...... + 18%
Total downloads ..... +57%
Total revenue ..... +136%
RPD ..... +47%
This January (2022), despite the reset to level 1, has been better for revenue than five of the months in 2021.
AS is tracking normally. Slightly behind target but nothing to be alarmed about. RPD at AS is three times that of SS but downloads are almost eight times less. So total SS revenue is about 2.5 times greater than AS revenue. Of course, my portfolio at AS is quite a lot smaller than at SS.
-
My monthly sales of images was about 150 images in average. in the last 2 months it dropped by half to about 75 images. is it only me+ What happens to Shutterstock? i do not have this kind of drop in other stock sites...
Distracted again by side issues, I didn't answer. No it's not just you. Sales are down and even if the RPD is holding (which it's not for me) less sales aren't going to make what the volume of sales used to produce in earnings.
There are some people who have earned more on the new plan, but most of us have not.
-
Sales volume isn't my issue at the moment... just on 800, which is quite normal for Jan. It's the $ that have tanked this month. It will potentially be the worst January since 2014/15 for $. About half of a normal month. Personally... I hope the choke on the extra money they've stolen from us.
-
Sales volume isn't my issue at the moment... just on 800, which is quite normal for Jan. It's the $ that have tanked this month. It will potentially be the worst January since 2014/15 for $. About half of a normal month. Personally... I hope they choke on the extra money they've stolen from us.
[/b]
That might happen if their champagne goes down the wrong way or their caviar is a bit gritty.
-
Sorry to hear that.
I remember when you joined the Sstock forum and you were enjoying what you were doing and your success.
I hope sales pick up for you to help with the demoralization.
Many thanks DO. Yes I could not of envisaged that some work and energy would be met with such unproductive return. I'm hopeful it will pick up again. I'm also seeing that Shutterstock haven't reviewed a couple of my footage uploads in over two to three days. I know they state five days but this too is very unusual from my experience with uploading.
-
... 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)
My monthly RPD (jan2022) at SS is $0.25 (lifetime is $0.69). This month's RPD at AS is $0.70. At SS earnings total for Jan 22 = $30 and at AS = $34. I first noticed that my uploads to SS were getting almost no traction in 2018 due to the massive volume of competition coming in every day/hour. Approved images that stayed on page 1 of new in 2014-2015 for a day or more were now disappearing from the first hundred new images (P1) within hours of approval and that's when I decided it was no longer really worth the effort of uploading...it had become a lottery instead of a business (with actual opportunities)! When your new images are gone from from P1 of new within hours of approval, you have little chance of ever selling them (just IMHO).
..
thanks for your details - so basically, you're getting $.25 for each DL, still not great
but how do you define 1st page? if it's too generic, then you have millions in competition, the more specific your keywording, the higher you'll show up on less competitive combinations. if you're just looking at new images, there's no hope since you'll be swamped by the flood of newer images. but how many serious buyers look at new images for their needs?
i don't spend time trying to game position on some mythical 1st page, since we really dont know what buyers are looking for, but my older images (some 10+ yrs old now) continue to find buyers
so i spend my time editing metadata, rather than trying to figure out a black box to which i have nonaccess.
I have to admit that since 2018, I've basically give up on microstock. You're right to focus on metadata because that is possibly the one thing that can give you the edge over the 'mob'. The trouble for me is that I'm spoiled with the couple of commissions I have each year. For effectively 6 weeks work per year, I can earn 10X what I get from SS per year. But it is hard (physically demanding) work when age counts against you. And it was one of my reasons to get into stock in the first place....when the time shall come that I cannot physically perform the commissioned work, I would at least have some (pension-like) payments from stock.
Had microstock at SS not gone the way it has, I would have continued expanding my port there in the expectation that with, say, 5K images (and around $10k/year income I could have dropped the commissioned work). Around 2015 (my retirement age) these were pretty reasonable assumptions of future income growth from microstock. At the time, I had 500-600 images at SS and AS and the income produced at SS was 3-3.5K/year. Whodathunkit that income could have dropped so much and so fast!!...still thankful for the commissions and to have the satisfaction of knowing that some businesses do still value the particular skills of a experienced photographer and are prepared to pay for them (unlike microstock where images are simply a commodity to be licensed for the lowest possible payment to the author)!
Yes, I know that this is a typical tirade of the old bogger that can't keep up with the times...and everything was better in the old days! But prior to 2015-2016 micro's were truly a business in which one could make reasonable business decisions for the future based on past successes/planning. When SS opened the floodgates to anyone with ONE acceptable image, the business went out of the window for serious contributors and it became a lottery. Alas, it's the way the corporate world works....everything to placate the stockholders and make the senior management rich. All that at the expense of everyone else down the food chain (and we really are at the bottom of that with regard to power and influence).
-
First illustration sold in China for 27 Cents. Almost 4 times more than I got at Alamy! SS in China?? Since when?
-
SS in China?? Since when?
Since 2014.
-
First illustration sold in China for 27 Cents. Almost 4 times more than I got at Alamy! SS in China?? Since when?
Why shouldn't Shutterstock be in China? 0.27 cents is unfortunately quite normal for SS these days. That was not the case for the much lower prices for ALamy until recently. And they were mainly paid in China.
-
So, 4 weeks are now over.
As expected, January was certainly not the best month. The downloads were average, but the last 2 weeks the revenues were back on a normal level with a nice sale of 37 $ yesterday, which I luckily got in level 4 and not in lower level ;)
-
Ultimately, I can only write what I can observe myself - nothing more.
The core issue is probably not the algorithm itself, but two other factors:
- the speed at which the database grows, and this is clearly highest at shutterstock,
- the vast number of very similar images, including copied images.
But with shutterstock, the biggest issue remains the immense growth of images.
As a hobby contributor, you simply don't stand a chance against that.
And there's where we agree 100%
By the way, seeing you are an engineer or studied, I can fully understand wanting to know how things work. 8) It's just a natural question for anyone who thinks about why and how. I mean, why do I spend all kinds of time, looking at how the search works and what's on top and where mine end up? Just because I want to know. Not because I can control or change anything, but just wondering why?
Lets call it Shutterstock's Cat? ;) As long as we don't look...
-
Ultimately, I can only write what I can observe myself - nothing more.
The core issue is probably not the algorithm itself, but two other factors:
- the speed at which the database grows, and this is clearly highest at shutterstock,
- the vast number of very similar images, including copied images.
But with shutterstock, the biggest issue remains the immense growth of images.
As a hobby contributor, you simply don't stand a chance against that.
And there's where we agree 100%
By the way, seeing you are an engineer or studied, I can fully understand wanting to know how things work. 8) It's just a natural question for anyone who thinks about why and how. I mean, why do I spend all kinds of time, looking at how the search works and what's on top and where mine end up? Just because I want to know. Not because I can control or change anything, but just wondering why?
Lets call it Shutterstock's Cat? ;) As long as we don't look...
In case anyone didn't get Pete's allusion, and wants a headache, here's some light reading:
https://www.newscientist.com/definition/schrodingers-cat/ (https://www.newscientist.com/definition/schrodingers-cat/)
-
Regardless of the fact that my download volumes have decreased significantly, I have just now a small "anniversary" to celebrate.
Thus, shutterstock accounts for 45% of my total downloads.
-
Congratulations Wilm. You are a star 🍻
Good to read something here that is a success story and brings a smile 🙂
-
Congratulations Wilm. You are a star 🍻
Good to read something here that is a success story and brings a smile 🙂
Thanks a lot, Deb! :)
-
Regardless of the fact that my download volumes have decreased significantly, I have just now a small "anniversary" to celebrate.
Thus, shutterstock accounts for 45% of my total downloads.
Yes congrats, very impressive! How long did it take to get there?
-
Regardless of the fact that my download volumes have decreased significantly, I have just now a small "anniversary" to celebrate.
Thus, shutterstock accounts for 45% of my total downloads.
Yes congrats, very impressive! How long did it take to get there?
Thank you very much. I started at shutterstock on 09/11/2010.
-
Regardless of the fact that my download volumes have decreased significantly, I have just now a small "anniversary" to celebrate.
Thus, shutterstock accounts for 45% of my total downloads.
Congratulations Wilm. :D
I think the others would also be very grateful if you would remove the dirt in front of the dollar sign. ;)
-
Regardless of the fact that my download volumes have decreased significantly, I have just now a small "anniversary" to celebrate.
Thus, shutterstock accounts for 45% of my total downloads.
Congratulations Wilm. :D
I think the others would also be very grateful if you would remove the dirt in front of the dollar sign. ;)
Thank you, Ralf! Well, I guess the others should be able to approx. guess what is hidden there.
-
Regardless of the fact that my download volumes have decreased significantly, I have just now a small "anniversary" to celebrate.
Thus, shutterstock accounts for 45% of my total downloads.
Congratulations Wilm. :D
I think the others would also be very grateful if you would remove the dirt in front of the dollar sign. ;)
Thank you, Ralf! Well, I guess the others should be able to approx. guess what is hidden there.
If you told us the average $ per download we could work out the hidden sum 😊
I bet the total was higher for the 1st 50% of the downloads than the 2nd 🤔
-
Regardless of the fact that my download volumes have decreased significantly, I have just now a small "anniversary" to celebrate.
Thus, shutterstock accounts for 45% of my total downloads.
Congratulations Wilm. :D
I think the others would also be very grateful if you would remove the dirt in front of the dollar sign. ;)
Thank you, Ralf! Well, I guess the others should be able to approx. guess what is hidden there.
If you told us the average $ per download we could work out the hidden sum 😊
I bet the total was higher for the 1st 50% of the downloads than the 2nd 🤔
Both is absolutely correct, Debbie!
-
oufff huge drop of revenu on my side. sell around 120 photos per day but $$$ is not there. Very frustrated situation. I never see this on SS. For the february i am around 40% less that last years. That huge drop. January $$$ 30% less than last year. Adobe stock sell lot of photo and stable situation.
-
The problem is the $ per photo. I dont know what happen on 2022 but the number of $ per photo is very bad . I am level 4 and i sell less photo 35$ 100$. The extended and single have drop this years. 50% less than last year
-
My $ per photo is also very bad. Much worse than last year.
I got a .10 On Demand, which I have not seen before, and don't know how that could be calculated off of a single image purchase.
I would understand if they negotiated a "discount" rate, but assumed those would fall under SODs (understand does not equal being happy, I would just get their logic :-\ )
-
sell around 120 photos per day but $$$ is not there.
I am level 4
One of these numbers can't be right. With an average of 120 sales per day you should have more than double as many sales as are needed to reach level 5.
-
My SS is down 65% this year and iStock usually my best earner is down 30% while Adobe has doubled.
-
sell around 120 photos per day but $$$ is not there.
I am level 4
True!
One of these numbers can't be right. With an average of 120 sales per day you should have more than double as many sales as are needed to reach level 5.
-
sell around 120 photos per day but $$$ is not there.
I am level 4
One of these numbers can't be right. With an average of 120 sales per day you should have more than double as many sales as are needed to reach level 5.
True!
-
Last years i take the level 5 on Octobre. Also the problem with SS is that we dont sell new photo alot as 2 years ago. How can client can buy new original stock if they cant see it.
-
Last years i take the level 5 on Octobre. Also the problem with SS is that we dont sell new photo alot as 2 years ago. How can client can buy new original stock if they cant see it.
If you reached level 5 (2500 downloads ) in October, you have an average of 8-9 sales a day, depending on when in October you reached level 5 (10 months x 30 days = 300 days. 2500 downloads/ 300= 8.3). Not 120. :o
-
probably september i am not sure. 3000 photos per month x 10 = 30 000. 9 x 3000 = 27 000 for level 5
-
Last years i take the level 5 on Octobre. Also the problem with SS is that we dont sell new photo alot as 2 years ago. How can client can buy new original stock if they cant see it.
If you reached level 5 (2500 downloads ) in October, you have an average of 8-9 sales a day, depending on when in October you reached level 5 (10 months x 30 days = 300 days. 2500 downloads/ 300= 8.3). Not 120. :o
Scuse me level 6. I was thinking level 5 was the last. I dont check this exected on the first year month
-
The problem is the $ per photo. I dont know what happen on 2022 but the number of $ per photo is very bad . I am level 4 and i sell less photo 35$ 100$. The extended and single have drop this years. 50% less than last year
Yes, me too. My RPD dropped to 0.51 Jan and 0.48 Feb ... 2021 was 0.67 and 0.75 ... 50/60 sales day.
Shutterstock pushes subscriptions ... with subscriptions their earnings are higher, because SS only pay the royalties for the photos downloaded and not for the unsold ones.
-
Same here. RPD is as low as $0.27 while downloads are in normal level.
If this is where SS is going then it will bye bye from me >:(
-
Same here. RPD is as low as $0.27 while downloads are in normal level.
Ouch, incredible ! 0.27 it's not sustainable ...
I'm also considering exiting SS, but Adobe Stock needs to improve sales a bit more. Especially a few more extended licenses. This February zero extended licenses on AS.
-
Same here. RPD is as low as $0.27 while downloads are in normal level.
Ouch, incredible ! 0.27 it's not sustainable ...
I'm also considering exiting SS, but Adobe Stock needs to improve sales a bit more. Especially a few more extended licenses. This February zero extended licenses on AS.
Yes.. it's not sustainable
Fortunately Adobe Stock is very strong for me and is growing pretty fast. AS alone cover the losses I suffer from SS.
I'd like to think the buyers are moving from SS to AS but maybe I'm just being naive :P
-
Same here. RPD is as low as $0.27 while downloads are in normal level.
Ouch, incredible ! 0.27 it's not sustainable ...
I'm also considering exiting SS, but Adobe Stock needs to improve sales a bit more. Especially a few more extended licenses. This February zero extended licenses on AS.
Yes.. it's not sustainable
Fortunately Adobe Stock is very strong for me and is growing pretty fast. AS alone cover the losses I suffer from SS.
I'd like to think the buyers are moving from SS to AS but maybe I'm just being naive :P
I don't know that buyers are moving, but for myself, SSTK number of sales are down and the amount paid is down towards 10¢ while AS is steady or growing and they pay 36¢ or 99¢ subs, plus some higher custom. At minimum, AS is three times more for a sub, and easily 10 times more for many downloads. Not hard to beat SSTK at that. :)
-
If Adobe created some kind of exclusive collection where they paid us 50% of the download price and better positioning, I wouldn't waste my time with more agencies for certain photos.
-
Adobe is in a golden position now. If they want, they can make a deadly blow to Istock/Getty and SS. There are already top contributorst that don't supply Istock or Getty. The retreat of Arcurs from excl. might be a sign of the times.
If Adobe opens the gates to editorial and creates some premium collections with image exclusivity I many contributors will run away from Istock / SS.
Lets see if this year they see the opportunity and take it.
If Adobe created some kind of exclusive collection where they paid us 50% of the download price and better positioning, I wouldn't waste my time with more agencies for certain photos.
-
The good thing with AS is that with every normal sale it will outweigh SS by factor 3.3, 6.6 or 9.9. So one sale at AS of 99 cents you will need ten sales at SS to cover it.
The problem is that AS rarely has big sales. It seems they don't do extended licenses or just don't promote it. And then one good EL at SS will make up for all the lousy ten cents sales.
So what is better? If you don't go for both?
-
The good thing with AS is that with every normal sale it will outweigh SS by factor 3.3, 6.6 or 9.9. So one sale at AS of 99 cents you will need ten sales at SS to cover it.
The problem is that AS rarely has big sales. It seems they don't do extended licenses or just don't promote it. And then one good EL at SS will make up for all the lousy ten cents sales.
So what is better? If you don't go for both?
both, definitely - i don't recall anyone reporting an RPD of < 10c for SS
i don't need 10 SS sales for each AS sale since SS continues to have more EL, SOD; so, my SS RPD averages 40-50c while AS averages 90c over the last year. and since SS sales are about 1/3 of SS, SS generates 2x the income compared to AS
ymmv
-
The good thing with AS is that with every normal sale it will outweigh SS by factor 3.3, 6.6 or 9.9. So one sale at AS of 99 cents you will need ten sales at SS to cover it.
The problem is that AS rarely has big sales. It seems they don't do extended licenses or just don't promote it. And then one good EL at SS will make up for all the lousy ten cents sales.
So what is better? If you don't go for both?
both, definitely - i don't recall anyone reporting an RPD of < 10c for SS
i don't need 10 SS sales for each AS sale since SS continues to have more EL, SOD; so, my SS RPD averages 40-50c while AS averages 90c over the last year. and since SS sales are about 1/3 of SS, SS generates 2x the income compared to AS
ymmv
My concern is what happens if the SS bigger sales start to go away, then SS earnings will plummet. One could have a nightmare about endless 10 cent commissions!
-
The good thing with AS is that with every normal sale it will outweigh SS by factor 3.3, 6.6 or 9.9. So one sale at AS of 99 cents you will need ten sales at SS to cover it.
The problem is that AS rarely has big sales. It seems they don't do extended licenses or just don't promote it. And then one good EL at SS will make up for all the lousy ten cents sales.
So what is better? If you don't go for both?
both, definitely - i don't recall anyone reporting an RPD of < 10c for SS
i don't need 10 SS sales for each AS sale since SS continues to have more EL, SOD; so, my SS RPD averages 40-50c while AS averages 90c over the last year. and since SS sales are about 1/3 of SS, SS generates 2x the income compared to AS
ymmv
My concern is what happens if the SS bigger sales start to go away, then SS earnings will plummet. One could have a nightmare about endless 10 cent commissions!
always possible, but such calamity has been predicted by pessimists since the start of re-leveling.