MicrostockGroup
Agency Based Discussion => Shutterstock.com => Topic started by: CatTheCat on October 09, 2016, 14:58
-
So I was working exclusively for the microstock industry. Shutterstock alone was sending me more then enough monthly to pay my bills. Now I see the earnings are like 30, 40 % down comparing to last year, and the new images I uploaded lately, they don't sell at all, and I mean 00000! and their quality is really good, similar or even better to older ones that already sold more than 2000 times.
So I had to get another occupation, I just leave the portfolio there and will see it go to insignificant earnings in record time. :'( it is pointless now to upload there.
So sad...
-
The industry has been shifting over the last few years and if you want to thrive selling media you need to think outside the box, predict future trends, and slowly build a loyal customer base. Being an unnamed image producer drowned in a swarm of others gives you too little of a consumer monopoly, and so if trends shift, you can suddenly become irrelevant.
Very sorry to hear about your circumstance this year and hope the best for you.
-
Yeah Shutterstock seems to be in a free fall!
-
robin, do you think its better to be an unnamed image seller on google than on shutterstock?
-
Yeah Shutterstock seems to be in a free fall!
I usually don't bother commenting on the negative bs going on here, but.. really?! Shutterstock is not "in free fall". Contributor's individual earnings are under pressure because of the huge competition. Shutterstock itself is doing just fine.
-
Yep the "I've had a couple of bad sales days Microstock is dead" school of thought is common on here
-
There's someone who posts the quarterly results here for SS. I only skim read them, but they always seem to be on the up. One person having bad sales doesn't mean SS is having bad sales. In fact, everybody having bad sales on SS doesn't mean that SS is having bad sales. It might just mean that there are considerably more authors uploading considerably more content... so even an overall increase in sales, could mean less sales for authors when everything is divided up.
A simple example just in case that wasnt that clear. Maybe a bit too simple, son sorry if it's obvious...
2015. 100 authors with 100 items and 100,000 sales per month. Every author gets 10 sales per item per month. 1000 in total. Happy days!
2016. 150 authors with 150 items and 125,000 sales per month. Every author gets 5.5 sales per item per month. 833 in total. It's the beginning of the end and Shutterstock is going the way of the dinosaur.
But... sales are 25% up for Shutterstock.
-
Q1 + Q2 2015
Earnings: 198.000.000 $
Download: 69.300.000
Items (June 2015): 57.200.000
Q1 + Q2 2016
Earnings: 240.000.000 $ (+21%)
Download: 84.200.000 (+21%)
Items (June 2015): 92.000.000 (+61%)
-
Q1 + Q2 2015
Earnings: 198.000.000 $
Download: 69.300.000 $
Items (June 2015): 57.200.000 $
Q1 + Q2 2016
Earnings: 240.000.000 $ (+21%)
Download: 84.200.000 $ (+21%)
Items (June 2015): 92.000.000 $ (+61%)
Actually, if it was my company, I wouldn't be that happy with only a 21% sales increase from a 61% asset increase over the period. Translate those figures to contributors, and it won't be long before many of them chose to bail out.
-
Actually, if it was my company, I wouldn't be that happy with only a 21% sales increase from a 61% asset increase over the period. Translate those figures to contributors, and it won't be long before many of them chose to bail out.
Yes ... and often new items are low low quality images and vectors ...
-
Actually, if it was my company, I wouldn't be that happy with only a 21% sales increase from a 61% asset increase over the period. Translate those figures to contributors, and it won't be long before many of them chose to bail out.
Yes ... and often new items are low low quality images and vectors ...
It's not a sustainable business model as it currently stands. The 'biggest' library is no longer the best, and buyers, (and contributors), are shifting focus to other smaller, but well curated libraries.
Shutterstock need to put the breaks on how much they approve and refocus on quality. If they continue as they are, by next year they will need to double the library to see 20% profit, then triple it. Contributors won't continue to upload anything of quality if they are not seeing a return, so they will end up only getting submissions of sub par images.
It's not yet 'free fall' but it's a slippery slope.
-
Actually, if it was my company, I wouldn't be that happy with only a 21% sales increase from a 61% asset increase over the period. Translate those figures to contributors, and it won't be long before many of them chose to bail out.
Yes ... and often new items are low low quality images and vectors ...
That does raise the question of where these contributors who 'bail out' would go. Are there other microstock agencies which will be more rewarding for those who might abandon SS?
-
Yearly download per image rate:
2012: 3,26
2013: 3,11
2014: 2,69
2015: 2,06
2016: 1,50 (prediction after 6 months)
So, if you have 1000 items:
In 2012 you collect 3260 download/year (avg)
In 2016 you collect 1500 download/year (avg)
-
Actually, if it was my company, I wouldn't be that happy with only a 21% sales increase from a 61% asset increase over the period. Translate those figures to contributors, and it won't be long before many of them chose to bail out.
Yes ... and often new items are low low quality images and vectors ...
It's not a sustainable business model as it currently stands. The 'biggest' library is no longer the best, and buyers, (and contributors), are shifting focus to other smaller, but well curated libraries.
Shutterstock need to put the breaks on how much they approve and refocus on quality. If they continue as they are, by next year they will need to double the library to see 20% profit, then triple it. Contributors won't continue to upload anything of quality if they are not seeing a return, so they will end up only getting submissions of sub par images.
It's not yet 'free fall' but it's a slippery slope.
I do think you have a point but is there actually any evidence that there is a shift to smaller well curated libraries?
-
Its buyers that drive this not contributors leaving...If I were shutterstock I would be concerned if they were no longer easily finding the content to meet their needs. Any buyers out there with thoughts on this?
-
Actually, if it was my company, I wouldn't be that happy with only a 21% sales increase from a 61% asset increase over the period. Translate those figures to contributors, and it won't be long before many of them chose to bail out.
Yes ... and often new items are low low quality images and vectors ...
That does raise the question of where these contributors who 'bail out' would go. Are there other microstock agencies which will be more rewarding for those who might abandon SS?
There are certainly other sites that are showing significant growth, and are closing in on Shutterstock. It is only a matter of time before the balance of power changes at the top, unless the current pattern is broken.
Shutterstock used to represent 70%+ of my monthly sales - it is now down to less than 50%. My second site used to represent 10% of my monthly sales - it is now up to 30%. That change has been gradual over that last 12-18 months, but if it continues at the same rate, then concentrating efforts on site number 2 makes better business sense than continuing to throw good work at Shutterstock for little or no return.
If I concentrate on uploading to site number 2, and other disillusioned contributors do the same, then the decline at Shutterstock will be faster and the increase at their competitors will be quicker. Shutterstock will continue to ingest almost everything submitted, which will further reduce in quality and variety, and the competitors will grow a library or well curated, quality images. It will very effectively accelerate the shift.
Like I said, 'slippery slope'.
-
Its buyers that drive this not contributors leaving...If I were shutterstock I would be concerned if they were no longer easily finding the content to meet their needs. Any buyers out there with thoughts on this?
I think that's the whole point though. Contributors will only provide the content if makes economical sense. When it makes more sense to concentrate elsewhere then Shutterstock won't easily find the content to meet their needs and buyers will look elsewhere.
Judging by the figures posted earlier, this is already happening - 61% increase to service a 21% earnings increase. That's a huge oversupply to meet buyer demand.
-
So I was working exclusively for the microstock industry. Shutterstock alone was sending me more then enough monthly to pay my bills. Now I see the earnings are like 30, 40 % down comparing to last year, and the new images I uploaded lately, they don't sell at all, and I mean 00000! and their quality is really good, similar or even better to older ones that already sold more than 2000 times.
So I had to get another occupation, I just leave the portfolio there and will see it go to insignificant earnings in record time. :'( it is pointless now to upload there.
So sad...
Quite a strange things. I uploaded only several photos (they are actually screenshots from 4K clips) recently and most of them had downloads soon. Hardly imagine absolute zero new downloads of a big account with stills only. I can understand your sadness but nothing lasts for ever and maybe it's the right time now to look for some completely different occupation. Maybe it would be way more successful for you.
-
Its buyers that drive this not contributors leaving...If I were shutterstock I would be concerned if they were no longer easily finding the content to meet their needs. Any buyers out there with thoughts on this?
I think that's the whole point though. Contributors will only provide the content if makes economical sense. When it makes more sense to concentrate elsewhere then Shutterstock won't easily find the content to meet their needs and buyers will look elsewhere.
Judging by the figures posted earlier, this is already happening - 61% increase to service a 21% earnings increase. That's a huge oversupply to meet buyer demand.
Yes it seems adobe are doing better but essentially they are following the same model I haven't checked but I suspect their image growth numbers are similar. I think the microstock model may be returning to what it was meant to be....somewhere to sell "average" quality images for low prices. When it was turned into a business by volume producers the writing was on the wall.
-
My SS has tanked so far this month. It's a little alarming.
-
Its buyers that drive this not contributors leaving...If I were shutterstock I would be concerned if they were no longer easily finding the content to meet their needs. Any buyers out there with thoughts on this?
I think that's the whole point though. Contributors will only provide the content if makes economical sense. When it makes more sense to concentrate elsewhere then Shutterstock won't easily find the content to meet their needs and buyers will look elsewhere.
Judging by the figures posted earlier, this is already happening - 61% increase to service a 21% earnings increase. That's a huge oversupply to meet buyer demand.
Yes it seems adobe are doing better but essentially they are following the same model I haven't checked but I suspect their image growth numbers are similar. I think the microstock model may be returning to what it was meant to be....somewhere to sell "average" quality images for low prices. When it was turned into a business by volume producers the writing was on the wall.
Fotolia are advertising 35 million+ images. I was doing very well on Shutterstock when they only had 35 million images. In the long term, Fotolia/Adobe may well go the same way as Shutterstock but, in the meantime, I'll take the level of competition and sales that come with a smaller library while it lasts. Perhaps by the time Fotolia reaches 100 million images, Shutterstock will have smartened up their act in an effort to attract us back?
-
I can't see the amount of uploads having much effect on earnings. Not these days anyway. It wouldn't surprise me if they still got the 21% sales increase if nobody had uploaded anything new at all.
I mean, if your looking for a video of a cat eating a horse, then you're not going to buy 68% more cat eating horse videos just because there are 68% more cat eating horse videos than when you visited last year. Your just going to buy the one. And ifntherevare only 100 such videos rather than 168, then you'll probabky be more than hapoy to just go for one ofnthe 100. I'd say the sales increase is mainly just from new customers discovering the site as more people inevitably need more content. Or existing customers just buying new stuff.
Sure, I appreciate that they need to have new stuff uploaded to survive and compete... higher resulutions, reflect new trends, new fashions, not have images full of cars that are ten years old etc etc. But is it likely that there would be nothing suitable at all when people are searching for stuff, if nobody uploaded for six months or a year? And they'd go elsewhere?
I know an increase of content that is more in line with the increase in earnings would be a lot better for contributers, but I just think that more people are uploading more content at a rate that's faster than buyers need.
I think it's pretty clear that stock sites will carry on making more sales every quarter, if only slightly, and contributors will gradually make less and less. Theyll be able to offset the loses for a time by finding a niche, uploading more stuff, better stuff etc... but it will probably come to a point where somethings gotta give. What, I'm not sure... but people will have to leave as it's just not going to be viable. Who knows... places might start increasing their commission. I think if sales were dropping and customer research indicated that lack of content was a major dissatisfaction... then they'd have to. Not now, we're talking in the future when people either remove their portfolios or stop uploading and there's a massive lack of fresh content coming through. Now I think of it, that list to the right is probably going to be about a quarter of the length it is now in about ten years. I'd say 50% of them will just fade a away and the other 25% will get bought out by the others.
I have forseen it. So it will come to pass.
-
I went with Offset almost from the start and having a very good time there with reasonably high sales and I know lots of people seeking to join Offset same as Stocksy I suppose.
They have highly curated collections and many are giving their top content to these and give what they call the left overs to SS and Adobe.Still good but not the best.
I dont think people leave SS as such they leave their portfolios but dont upload.
However in order to feel falling sales negative searches you have to have a decent size portfolio and a reasonably good sales pattern so you have something to compare with. There is never any smoke without fire and there are just too many people experiencing the same changes with SS like it or not.
-
Mmm ... I don't know, but these are my earnings stats 2015 to 2016 today after 9 months and 9 days:
1st 123rf +1,80% (of my total earnings)
2nd Fotolia +0,70%
Last SS -3,28% (down from 62,64% to 59,36%).
-
Shutterstock shifted dramatically with its policies overlapping the announcement and acquisition of Fotolia by Adobe. Within the next year of that, it appeared a few things changed:
1) They started accepting new contributors much more readily
2) They started thinning more "established contributor fat" by reducing the payout on extended sales
3) They started approving media far more aggressively
This all points to two end results:
1) Swelling the portfolio and therefore 'equity' of the company, from an outside perspective
2) Minimizing the damage Adobe's entrance into the market will have on their yearly reports
Which lead to one singular purpose:
1) To get acquired and make lots of money for shareholders
Simply put, they are at the top, and they want to hold onto this position as long as possible until acquisition can take place. This is because the entrance of Adobe (whose market capital dwarfs SS) is a clear and present danger, and there is no actual, real way to battle that in the long term without diversification. And diversification comes with risks, isn't easy, nor guaranteed.
The good news is that the customer demand isn't changing (and is probably increasing), and the overall fall in demand for any one contributor's media is probably driven by the more widespread availability of high end cameras and internet access.
-
I dont think people leave SS as such they leave their portfolios but dont upload.=
That's exactly what I'm doing.
My older images still sell on SS, but newer ones die there. So now, all my newest images are going to Adobe and Dreamstime, where they do sell.
-
Yeah Shutterstock seems to be in a free fall!
I usually don't bother commenting on the negative bs going on here, but.. really?! Shutterstock is not "in free fall". Contributor's individual earnings are under pressure because of the huge competition. Shutterstock itself is doing just fine.
of course I'm talking about my own twelve year statistic and my own individual earnings, and the gap from 2015 to 2016 is way more significant than compared to former years. I'm fully aware that SS is doing just fine but the TO talked about his/her individual earnings so do I and I have to agree that individual earnings are way down.
-
If you donīt hit the market you will die, reversed, if you do hit the market you will gain. All complains about falling sales are worthless and a waste of time. Make better photos, videos or illustrations, thatīs all.
-
September and October went from the best month ever to utterly woeful. I cannot understand what is going on with it. Never ever get footage sales anymore.
-
I haven't uploaded there for a while now, it just doesn't make sense and it's a waste of time. If it wasn't for the payouts I would have forgotten about them.
-
If you donīt hit the market you will die, reversed, if you do hit the market you will gain. All complains about falling sales are worthless and a waste of time. Make better photos, videos or illustrations, thatīs all.
Quality will always help, but if all contributors are not equal and there is a bar stopping you from being more equal than others uploading better content is just pissing in the wind.
-
Everybody is convinced, that he or she is doing a wonderful job. This is O.K. The taste of the people who buy are crucial and not the individual likings of the artist.
In the past I made so stupid nonsense images which sell like hot cakes and I made so wonderful artistic things which never go. Look at the election campaign in the US what people are longing for.... it represents the taste and flavour of the masses. Artists must be like prostitutes, otherwise they wonīt sell.
-
Q1 + Q2 2015
Earnings: 198.000.000 $
Download: 69.300.000 $
Items (June 2015): 57.200.000 $
Q1 + Q2 2016
Earnings: 240.000.000 $ (+21%)
Download: 84.200.000 $ (+21%)
Items (June 2015): 92.000.000 $ (+61%)
Actually, if it was my company, I wouldn't be that happy with only a 21% sales increase from a 61% asset increase over the period. Translate those figures to contributors, and it won't be long before many of them chose to bail out.
100% of those 61% increased assets were free for SS ... I doubt they're too concerned with contributors bailing out ... contributors are a "dime a dozen"
-
I quit shooting microstock well over a year ago, but left my small (300) portfolio with DT, SS and Alamy. Since then my earnings at SS have slowly declined, until a couple of months ago when the decline became more rapid. Meanwhile, DT pays me a little more each month as my best sellers have moved up their tier system. Last month they finally passed SS with the same portfolio. Alamy has stayed about the same, a sale once in a blue moon.
-
Q1 + Q2 2015
Earnings: 198.000.000 $
Download: 69.300.000 $
Items (June 2015): 57.200.000 $
Q1 + Q2 2016
Earnings: 240.000.000 $ (+21%)
Download: 84.200.000 $ (+21%)
Items (June 2015): 92.000.000 $ (+61%)
Actually, if it was my company, I wouldn't be that happy with only a 21% sales increase from a 61% asset increase over the period. Translate those figures to contributors, and it won't be long before many of them chose to bail out.
100% of those 61% increased assets were free for SS ... I doubt they're too concerned with contributors bailing out ... contributors are a "dime a dozen"
Nothing is free - cheap maybe - but not free. They have to pay to moderate and host those images, and I'm guessing for every one they approve, they have to pay for another that doesn't make the grade. The infrastructure that's sagging under the weight of 100 million images doesn't come free either.
Average contributors are a dime a dozen, and they are the ones that will stay. Good ones - not so much.
-
Personally I still produce work but not so much now I've moved on to other forms of income.
A photographer I like very much is Kevin Russ* - he latched on to Instagram early on, developed a style (iphone photography in his case) built up a huge following on Facebook and other social media by offering something different, by standing out from the crowd. In his case driving around the US and living on the road.
Just an example, but I think unless you can produce like a factory, you really have to start using your noggin and look beyond the old business model....
* Forgot to add, Kevin has a port on Stocksy
-
Forget it... Shutterstock is on a highway to the inevitable abyss. The turning point was the entrance in the stock market. It became a corporation that only sees numbers, no matter what. Doesn't matter the quality of work uploaded, doesn't matter the respect to the contributor that worked well to follow SS rules: "Don't upload duplicates or similar images. Upload only the one you think it's the best" - This was in the Contributor Guide Lines once... Not anymore. Today It could be - "upload all your stuff! The more the better!"... 1 Million a week. Insane! And this is only possible with the end of the "7 out of 10" exam. That goes to show how much SS cares for quality these days.
That's why new images don't sell. They get buried under the overwhelming load. Only images that had the chance to get somewhat popular in past years will continue to sell in an ever slower pace. Ultimately, contributors will stop uploading because it's not worth it and buyers will refrain from buying because all they can find is loads of repeated cr*p and the good images are always the same old popular ones. Revenue per image will be lower and lower, and finally, the only happy contributor will be the one glad to see his image of an apple in a banner in some site, living out of the "fantastic exposure" he is having to his work.
This month turns 10 years that I'm in Shutterstock and other microstock agencies. I was quite successful for my standards and needs. I've been a fulltime contributor for the last 8 years and I reached a peak in 2013. Since then it's been all downhill.
So, if you need some graphic design or photo editing to be done, please leave a message.
-
Forget it... Shutterstock is on a highway to the inevitable abyss. The turning point was the entrance in the stock market. It became a corporation that only sees numbers, no matter what. Doesn't matter the quality of work uploaded, doesn't matter the respect to the contributor that worked well to follow SS rules: "Don't upload duplicates or similar images. Upload only the one you think it's the best" - This was in the Contributor Guide Lines once... Not anymore. Today It could be - "upload all your stuff! The more the better!"... 1 Million a week. Insane! And this is only possible with the end of the "7 out of 10" exam. That goes to show how much SS cares for quality these days.
That's why new images don't sell. They get buried under the overwhelming load. Only images that had the chance to get somewhat popular in past years will continue to sell in an ever slower pace. Ultimately, contributors will stop uploading because it's not worth it and buyers will refrain from buying because all they can find is loads of repeated cr*p and the good images are always the same old popular ones. Revenue per image will be lower and lower, and finally, the only happy contributor will be the one glad to see his image of an apple in a banner in some site, living out of the "fantastic exposure" he is having to his work.
This month turns 10 years that I'm in Shutterstock and other microstock agencies. I was quite successful for my standards and needs. I've been a fulltime contributor for the last 8 years and I reached a peak in 2013. Since then it's been all downhill.
So, if you need some graphic design or photo editing to be done, please leave a message.
Says it all.
I'd say the people still on board with SS are the "true believers". They're relentless optimists, positive thinkers. "Just take better photos." God bless you people, the world needs you, seriously. But I'm not one of you - I'm a realist, i.e. what you think of as a pessimist.
-
Yeah Shutterstock seems to be in a free fall!
I usually don't bother commenting on the negative bs going on here, but.. really?! Shutterstock is not "in free fall". Contributor's individual earnings are under pressure because of the huge competition. Shutterstock itself is doing just fine.
even though i condone with the older contributors suffering a shortfall of 50% or worse,
i have to agree with you too as it is not ss in a free fall but the earnings of long-term contributors
. ss is still the woo yay site to many new flood-snappers who go woo yay with earnings
of pennies, and go party after reaching 35 bucks payout.
we cannot deny the fact it is in freefall to many, but it is not affecting ss one bit.
if it did, Jon Oringer would have come in here and ss forum a long time ago to change things
around with the problems. but "what problems???" "what crisis???"
it's only the large earning contributors in crisis, not ss.
-
Forget it... Shutterstock is on a highway to the inevitable abyss. The turning point was the entrance in the stock market. ..
Today It could be - "upload all your stuff! The more the better!"... 1 Million a week. Insane! And this is only possible with the end of the "7 out of 10" exam. That goes to show how much SS cares for quality these days.
Says it all.
I'd say the people still on board with SS are the "true believers". They're relentless optimists, positive thinkers. "Just take better photos." God bless you people, the world needs you, seriously. But I'm not one of you - I'm a realist, i.e. what you think of as a pessimist.
yes, says it all it does. bloating is common in the stock market,
it is also common in real estate where a trouble-riddled landlord fills up a bldg (bloating)
with seemingly full tenancy so the buyer of the bldg thinks it is a great deal,
only to come in to find after the deal is closed that there are tons of repairs left undone
for ages.
this is what ss is doing, bloat... removed the 7/10 and flood the numbers .
it will be istock all over again. so let's jump ship as the captain has already left the bldg
with elvis.
-
Forget it... Shutterstock is on a highway to the inevitable abyss. The turning point was the entrance in the stock market. It became a corporation that only sees numbers, no matter what. Doesn't matter the quality of work uploaded, doesn't matter the respect to the contributor that worked well to follow SS rules: "Don't upload duplicates or similar images. Upload only the one you think it's the best" - This was in the Contributor Guide Lines once... Not anymore. Today It could be - "upload all your stuff! The more the better!"... 1 Million a week. Insane! And this is only possible with the end of the "7 out of 10" exam. That goes to show how much SS cares for quality these days.
That's why new images don't sell. They get buried under the overwhelming load. Only images that had the chance to get somewhat popular in past years will continue to sell in an ever slower pace. Ultimately, contributors will stop uploading because it's not worth it and buyers will refrain from buying because all they can find is loads of repeated cr*p and the good images are always the same old popular ones. Revenue per image will be lower and lower, and finally, the only happy contributor will be the one glad to see his image of an apple in a banner in some site, living out of the "fantastic exposure" he is having to his work.
This month turns 10 years that I'm in Shutterstock and other microstock agencies. I was quite successful for my standards and needs. I've been a fulltime contributor for the last 8 years and I reached a peak in 2013. Since then it's been all downhill.
So, if you need some graphic design or photo editing to be done, please leave a message.
Says it all.
I'd say the people still on board with SS are the "true believers". They're relentless optimists, positive thinkers. "Just take better photos." God bless you people, the world needs you, seriously. But I'm not one of you - I'm a realist, i.e. what you think of as a pessimist.
Agree!! says it all. Oh well I have managed close to 600.000 downloads so I can hardly complain but I admit its getting very hard if not impossible to keep going. Oringer?? he isnt even there not aware of anything and even so whats he going to do.
As said before SS keeps them coming the more files the better the more members the better. Buyers? theyre not needed. Just creating more supply then demand.
-
Everything you guys mentioned is very true. I have been doing stock since 2008.
But where do we go now? I feel very uneasy knowing that stocksy is my only hope ... What else is there? I wish there was a glimpse of light somewhere but I have decided to stop uploading new images, it does not good at all.
-
I am very lucky. I am in the business since three years. From my point of view everything works fine. Bad for those who have the golden days in mind. I dont know about them. I found my nitch nobody can compete with.
-
"Buyers? theyre not needed. Just creating more supply then demand." I don't understand this point you think if income goes down shareholders won't notice?
-
"Buyers? theyre not needed. Just creating more supply then demand." I don't understand this point you think if income goes down shareholders won't notice?
Exactly. They're not a startup. They need to produce actual revenue.
-
Just a small reminder of what we KNOW about the health or otherwise of Shutterstock
Second Quarter 2016 Highlights:
Revenue increased 19% to $124.4 million
Income from operations increased 8% to $10.5 million
Adjusted EBITDA increased 9% to $22.5 million
Repurchased an additional $16.3 million of stock
Paid downloads increased 21%
Image collection expanded 61% to 92.1 million images and video collection expanded 69% to 4.9 million clips
If collection expands by 61% and revenue by 21% this is clearly bad news for contributors but not for SS.
The next quarters results are due on Nov 4. I for one will be very interested to see these but the doom of SS I think is somewhat delayed. I do think though it can't go on indefinitely with this image growth.
-
Forget it... Shutterstock is on a highway to the inevitable abyss. The turning point was the entrance in the stock market. It became a corporation that only sees numbers, no matter what. Doesn't matter the quality of work uploaded, doesn't matter the respect to the contributor that worked well to follow SS rules: "Don't upload duplicates or similar images. Upload only the one you think it's the best" - This was in the Contributor Guide Lines once... Not anymore. Today It could be - "upload all your stuff! The more the better!"... 1 Million a week. Insane! And this is only possible with the end of the "7 out of 10" exam. That goes to show how much SS cares for quality these days.
That's why new images don't sell. They get buried under the overwhelming load. Only images that had the chance to get somewhat popular in past years will continue to sell in an ever slower pace. Ultimately, contributors will stop uploading because it's not worth it and buyers will refrain from buying because all they can find is loads of repeated cr*p and the good images are always the same old popular ones. Revenue per image will be lower and lower, and finally, the only happy contributor will be the one glad to see his image of an apple in a banner in some site, living out of the "fantastic exposure" he is having to his work.
This month turns 10 years that I'm in Shutterstock and other microstock agencies. I was quite successful for my standards and needs. I've been a fulltime contributor for the last 8 years and I reached a peak in 2013. Since then it's been all downhill.
So, if you need some graphic design or photo editing to be done, please leave a message.
Yes, ultimately contributors will stop uploading when it is not worth their time any more. Fortunately, our AxonGuru.com tool can save you time if you decide to stay on. We automate as much as possible for tagging, categorizing and submission.
It is understandable why SSTK is doing it. They are NOT really selling stock photos. They are selling subscriptions. How many people watch all your cable channels or use all your minutes on your cell phone plan? Yet, you still pay the subscription because you may need a show or two and they are only available via a subscription. So long as the buyer needs more than a few photos a months, they'd think they need a subscription. In order to keep the buyer feeling good, SSTK will add more and more photos just like the cable company keeps on adding new channels and shows to justify the monthly subscription fee. Well, the message seems clear, the buyers want more photos in the database, SSTK just answers it with more photos. That will in turn force everyone to be more productive. AxonGuru tool can be a little helpful in this race.
-
If you donīt hit the market you will die, reversed, if you do hit the market you will gain. All complains about falling sales are worthless and a waste of time. Make better photos, videos or illustrations, thatīs all.
Better ilustrations? I was always on the top 3 Pages on illustrations category. I had one illustration on the top 20 most popular images in the same category. I don't want to sound pretentious but I could work a whole week on an illustration. And it was worth it, in the past. So that's not all.
-
So it stands to reason that if you'd made better illustrations then you would have been on page 2? And if you were on page 2 rather than page 3, then you might be getting the same number of sales now, as somebody who used to be on page 3. I think that was the point... not that anybody's work isn't good enough, just that it needs to be better to offset the drop in sales.
-
I dont think people leave SS as such they leave their portfolios but dont upload.=
That's exactly what I'm doing.
My older images still sell on SS, but newer ones die there. So now, all my newest images are going to Adobe and Dreamstime, where they do sell.
If you don't upload them they will never sell. Perfect plan. Then you can say, sales are down on SS, because you don't give them new files?
-
I could be wrong, but going on the stats... I guess you could say that if the amount of content in your portfolio has increased by 61% in the last 12 months, then you can expect a 21% increase in sales. On average.
I'm sure someone better than me at 'the math' can figure out what kind of increase/drop you can expect if you've had less than a 61% increase. And it's pretty clear that if you've not uploaded anything over the year, then you're going to have a bit of a drop in sales.
I could be wrong, maths was never my forte.
-
I dont think people leave SS as such they leave their portfolios but dont upload.=
That's exactly what I'm doing.
My older images still sell on SS, but newer ones die there. So now, all my newest images are going to Adobe and Dreamstime, where they do sell.
If you don't upload them they will never sell. Perfect plan. Then you can say, sales are down on SS, because you don't give them new files?
That's right. If you don't upload new images, perhaps you can at least update the old images with better keywords so that they match the user's current search trend. Think of it as SEO (Search Engine Optimization). If you still have old unsubmitted ones from the past, it is worth giving a try again. AxonGuru can simply the process with auto-tagging that saves your time.
-
I could be wrong, but going on the stats... I guess you could say that if the amount of content in your portfolio has increased by 61% in the last 12 months, then you can expect a 21% increase in sales. On average.
I'm sure someone better than me at 'the math' can figure out what kind of increase/drop you can expect if you've had less than a 61% increase. And it's pretty clear that if you've not uploaded anything over the year, then you're going to have a bit of a drop in sales.
I could be wrong, maths was never my forte.
Yep pretty much correct and for so called newbies its not hard to increase your portfolio from 100 to 161 much tougher to go from 10,000 to 16,100 and 25,921 the following year if it continues! On the positive side for new uploaders some older files at least may become obsolete. So you can either run like a demented hamster on a wheel or improve the quality/marketability of what you submit...or both!
-
I dont think people leave SS as such they leave their portfolios but dont upload.=
That's exactly what I'm doing.
My older images still sell on SS, but newer ones die there. So now, all my newest images are going to Adobe and Dreamstime, where they do sell.
If you don't upload them they will never sell. Perfect plan. Then you can say, sales are down on SS, because you don't give them new files?
That's right. If you don't upload new images, perhaps you can at least update the old images with better keywords so that they match the user's current search trend. Think of it as SEO (Search Engine Optimization). If you still have old unsubmitted ones from the past, it is worth giving a try again. AxonGuru can simply the process with auto-tagging that saves your time.
So instead of having keywords like 'snazzy, groovy and far out'... you could have 'lol, yolo, fam and peng' instead? Ya get me?
On a side note... do you contribute to any threads where AxonGuru doesn't simplify the process?
-
Images I uploaded to SSTK in the last 6 months represent 6% of my portfolio but only 3% of the sales for the period. In previous years, that balance was reversed.
We can all speculate on market conditions and Shutterstock's reasoning for doing what they do but, bottom line, it's no longer viable for me to sit under the table and wait for them to drop crumbs my way.
-
What . is this discussion all about? If somebody does not like peanuts any longer, he or she should just stop eating them. Thats all. Why do spend all this time to explain the hundred reasons for???
What is Shutterstock all about? God Father for microstockers?
-
What . is this discussion all about? If somebody does not like peanuts any longer, he or she should just stop eating them. Thats all. Why do spend all this time to explain the hundred reasons for???
What is Shutterstock all about? God Father for microstockers?
It's more along the lines of "I like peanuts, but someone suddenly changed the taste and now they taste awful".
-
I dont get the point for saying goodbye here,
After the fotolia acquisition by adobe, it seems shutterstock has also started many marketing campaigns.
I see shutterstock advertisements everywhere now. Right now sales in shutterstock is not super bad, I hope there marketing strategies will slowly bring them on track.
-
I'm sure most people have good reason to complain about SS but I'm also wary of a few that have very small portfolios or have only uploaded what SS already has in vast quantities and have then spent years complaining about low earnings. Why they waste their time doing that baffles me. I have great sympathy for people that worked really hard at this but there's some in this thread that expected a lot more than was ever realistic.
-
What . is this discussion all about? If somebody does not like peanuts any longer, he or she should just stop eating them. Thats all. Why do spend all this time to explain the hundred reasons for???
What is Shutterstock all about? God Father for microstockers?
It's more along the lines of "I like peanuts, but someone suddenly changed the taste and now they taste awful".
Its more like farmers saying wow people love peanuts and we make a great profit...lets grow more peanuts its no surprise then when the price of peanuts go down. The farmer either produces better peanuts than anyone else or produces them so efficiently he can still make a profit...or grows something different.
-
I dont get the point for saying goodbye here,
After the fotolia acquisition by adobe, it seems shutterstock has also started many marketing campaigns.
I see shutterstock advertisements everywhere now. Right now sales in shutterstock is not super bad, I hope there marketing strategies will slowly bring them on track.
I even see adverts for Shutterstock on Shutterstock! Just showed up as a banner a month or so ago... not sure if that's happened to anyone else? Could be some kind of malware I guess.
-
I dont get the point for saying goodbye here,
After the fotolia acquisition by adobe, it seems shutterstock has also started many marketing campaigns.
I see shutterstock advertisements everywhere now. Right now sales in shutterstock is not super bad, I hope there marketing strategies will slowly bring them on track.
I even see adverts for Shutterstock on Shutterstock! Just showed up as a banner a month or so ago... not sure if that's happened to anyone else? Could be some kind of malware I guess.
Shutterstock advertisements are true, but seeing shutterstock ads on their website is done by a malware or a virus, try cleaning your browser and scan your pc ... I also say do not reply to this forum or else you will inject it here too.
-
So I was working exclusively for the microstock industry. Shutterstock alone was sending me more then enough monthly to pay my bills. Now I see the earnings are like 30, 40 % down comparing to last year, and the new images I uploaded lately, they don't sell at all, and I mean 00000! and their quality is really good, similar or even better to older ones that already sold more than 2000 times.
So I had to get another occupation, I just leave the portfolio there and will see it go to insignificant earnings in record time. :'( it is pointless now to upload there.
So sad...
Same here brother! 0 sales on new images!
-
My experience this month is an unprecedented free fall in sales. Anyone else?
-
My experience this month is an unprecedented free fall in sales. Anyone else?
Yes, but just sales of new files are falling for me; old files are doing fine
-
My experience this month is an unprecedented free fall in sales. Anyone else?
This month OK last month excellent the one before disaster. Finding SS very variable these days
-
I could be wrong, but going on the stats... I guess you could say that if the amount of content in your portfolio has increased by 61% in the last 12 months, then you can expect a 21% increase in sales. On average.
I'm sure someone better than me at 'the math' can figure out what kind of increase/drop you can expect if you've had less than a 61% increase. And it's pretty clear that if you've not uploaded anything over the year, then you're going to have a bit of a drop in sales.
I could be wrong, maths was never my forte.
My portfolio increased by ~45% in the last 12 months, and my sales fell by ~23%.
But that's just me. :)
-
Shutterstock has a problem with spammers, that's in the open, but I had no idea how big the problem was.
Check the "best match" result for "arrow icon": https://www.shutterstock.com/search?searchterm=arrow+icon&search_source=base_search_form&language=en&page=1&sort=relevance&image_type=all&safe=true (https://www.shutterstock.com/search?searchterm=arrow+icon&search_source=base_search_form&language=en&page=1&sort=relevance&image_type=all&safe=true)
Check the metadata of all the results.
Nothing new sells because spammers make it impossible for your images to be seen. But they grow the library for shutterstock, and that's what's important for them. They can show that number to the shareholders. If you make more or less, they don't care. :)
-
"Buyers? theyre not needed. Just creating more supply then demand." I don't understand this point you think if income goes down shareholders won't notice?
pauws, your other comment sort of answers your first...
Its more like farmers saying wow people love peanuts and we make a great profit...lets grow more peanuts its no surprise then when the price of peanuts go down.
having more supply than demand enables ss to continue earning while contributors continue to see less earning per dl. not the economist major, but i think that's how prices go down.
also, the other commentor saying make better images do not hold water ...
as looking at the oversupply of apples , tomato,... on white, it is not only still increasing in number
but the earnings of old tomato, apple,.. on white is what is paying me my peanuts these days...
not my amazing super-duper creation .
microstock is not stocksy where perharps art is appreciated and might make good money (although i have not spoken to anyone telling me they make money yet in stocksy other than sean and a handful)..
still, my point is we have to realise ss is not for those high end cost in-efficient production,
it 's for zero cost boring produce on white.
in that sense, we can pat ourselves on our back and say, "oh well, at least i still make
payout (35 bucks) with my regular sales of my top selling produce on white
which i uploaded 200 years ago..."
sad consolation, but the reality is ss is not interested in great shots,...
or great contributors..
or else why replace the 7/10 admission criterion???
it's still the numbers game,... except it's no longer feed the beast that works..
but it still works ...
for ss.
-
Shutterstock has a problem with spammers, that's in the open, but I had no idea how big the problem was.
Check the "best match" result for "arrow icon": https://www.shutterstock.com/search?searchterm=arrow+icon&search_source=base_search_form&language=en&page=1&sort=relevance&image_type=all&safe=true (https://www.shutterstock.com/search?searchterm=arrow+icon&search_source=base_search_form&language=en&page=1&sort=relevance&image_type=all&safe=true)
Check the metadata of all the results.
Nothing new sells because spammers make it impossible for your images to be seen. But they grow the library for shutterstock, and that's what's important for them. They can show that number to the shareholders. If you make more or less, they don't care. :)
I guess that blows the theory about needing super clever keywording strategies to get to the top. I'm surprised repeat keywords are allowed let alone seeming to add weight to the relevance
-
I have been a shutterstock contributor sinde 2006.
I was not very good but I was challenged and did my best, so I managed to excell in a nische, but not generally.
but there was supercompetition, meaning ever more images of better quality.
I tried to compete. It lasted a couple of years.
My nische still sold, following the market.
but I was not able to expand or grow my downloads, despite whatever I came up with, more nische nische stuff or more general things.
Nothing worked. Not new files, not better files, so I gave up and left it to die in silence. It was hopeless and I lost motivation.
So now it has died. It took more time than I expected for my shutterstock income to dry out....
5 years or something. My good earners lasted long, they went through a down load frenzy when they were new, back in the days when new content sold, and they kept giving me downloads.
Until recently, now they are fading. My income has been on a steady decline since a couple of years ago. Thats natural, when you dont upload anything new. But why should I upload new stuff that never sells, to just keep my sellers in shape. its not worth it, and it is a long time since I have found other sources of income, and stockphotograpy is not at all inspiering anymore.
-
double post
[/quote]
-
I dont think people leave SS as such they leave their portfolios but dont upload.=
That's exactly what I'm doing.
My older images still sell on SS, but newer ones die there. So now, all my newest images are going to Adobe and Dreamstime, where they do sell.
If you don't upload them they will never sell. Perfect plan. Then you can say, sales are down on SS, because you don't give them new files?
That's right. If you don't upload new images, perhaps you can at least update the old images with better keywords so that they match the user's current search trend. Think of it as SEO (Search Engine Optimization). If you still have old unsubmitted ones from the past, it is worth giving a try again. AxonGuru can simply the process with auto-tagging that saves your time.
So instead of having keywords like 'snazzy, groovy and far out'... you could have 'lol, yolo, fam and peng' instead? Ya get me?
On a side note... do you contribute to any threads where AxonGuru doesn't simplify the process?
If the buyer searchs by "'lol, yolo, fam and peng'" and the buyer downloads these resulting photos, then the contributors who do not follow the trend change will lose out the sale. Contributors are in the microstock business to make money not to argue with the market that which keyword describe the image better. Our keyword generating tool is based on image analysis and real keywords from quality stock photos. The 7 keywords required by SSTK does not usually cover all features and meanings of the images content. Otherwise, there won't be a saying "a picture is worth a thousand words." We produce 30 keywords per photo that captures many aspects of the photo that user often times ignores or can't think of on the spot. It is much easier to kick out a few incorrect keywords than to think of and type out 30 keywords.
I am most knowledgeable in the cloud, deep learning, image analysis area. AxonGuru currently supports Shutterstock, Dreamstime and Fotolia submission without using ftp. Therefore, it is no surprise that I post more in these threads where AxonGuru can actually help. If your photos are already on Google Drive, Dropbox, Smugmug, Amazon CloudDrive, the integration could not be easier.
-
I wonder if maybe opening up a new thread, introducing your product and talking about the benefits, and having all questions related to your specific product in one thread, would be more beneficial for anyone looking to use your product. Otherwise, you are just posting your marketing spiel on a bunch of different threads where it will eventually get lost and not be of benefit to anyone, including you. Just an idea.
-
Forgive my skepticism but how do you explain this?
Shutterstock has a problem with spammers, that's in the open, but I had no idea how big the problem was.
Check the "best match" result for "arrow icon": https://www.shutterstock.com/search?searchterm=arrow+icon&search_source=base_search_form&language=en&page=1&sort=relevance&image_type=all&safe=true (https://www.shutterstock.com/search?searchterm=arrow+icon&search_source=base_search_form&language=en&page=1&sort=relevance&image_type=all&safe=true)
or even this? https://www.shutterstock.com/search?searchterm=tomato&search_source=base_search_form&language=en&page=1&sort=relevance&image_type=all&safe=true (https://www.shutterstock.com/search?searchterm=tomato&search_source=base_search_form&language=en&page=1&sort=relevance&image_type=all&safe=true) I see no magic "super words"
-
I wonder if maybe opening up a new thread, introducing your product and talking about the benefits, and having all questions related to your specific product in one thread, would be more beneficial for anyone looking to use your product. Otherwise, you are just posting your marketing spiel on a bunch of different threads where it will eventually get lost and not be of benefit to anyone, including you. Just an idea.
Thanks for the excellent suggestion. We did have a thread announcing the product earlier:
Hi Guys, we have created a new site to streamline your stock photo submissions. It will save you 2-5 minutes per image! Just host your photos on one of the leading photo hosting sites (Google Photos, Amazon CloudDrive, Dropbox, Smugmug etc.), and we will do all the heavy lifting. We will recommend the marketable photos, tag them automatically and pre-fill categories automatically. We even let you compare your photo to similar ones already on the marketplace. All you have to do is review and submit. There is no FTP or sharing passwords. It is using the latest AI and cloud technology. It is free for basic plan with unlimited low priority processing right now. [url]http://axonguru.com[/url] ([url]http://axonguru.com[/url])
We are also looking for testers and reviewers. Drop me a line if you are interested.
I will add new questions and answers to the main thread. I am also a contributor on Shutterstock. We built the software based on our personal experiences as contributors. Thanks.
-
I dont think people leave SS as such they leave their portfolios but dont upload.=
That's exactly what I'm doing.
My older images still sell on SS, but newer ones die there. So now, all my newest images are going to Adobe and Dreamstime, where they do sell.
If you don't upload them they will never sell. Perfect plan. Then you can say, sales are down on SS, because you don't give them new files?
Frankly, new images sell elsewhere but not on SS. I've made quite a few of my newest exclusive on Adobe/FT, which gives me higher royalties per credit DL, which occur a lot more than equivalent sales on SS.
You can do whatever works for you, and I'll do what works for me. At present, this strategy makes sense to me. If that changes, I can always upload again to SS.
-
Frankly, new images sell elsewhere but not on SS. I've made quite a few of my newest exclusive on Adobe/FT, which gives me higher royalties per credit DL, which occur a lot more than equivalent sales on SS.
You can do whatever works for you, and I'll do what works for me. At present, this strategy makes sense to me. If that changes, I can always upload again to SS.
I have a terrible suspect about this (New images not selling on SS): since they started accepting everything without a proper review they are ashamed to show the new images to buyers; they just need more and more images to have the largest collection in the universe, provide those images stay hidden from buyers.
-
Frankly, new images sell elsewhere but not on SS. I've made quite a few of my newest exclusive on Adobe/FT, which gives me higher royalties per credit DL, which occur a lot more than equivalent sales on SS.
You can do whatever works for you, and I'll do what works for me. At present, this strategy makes sense to me. If that changes, I can always upload again to SS.
I have a terrible suspect about this (New images not selling on SS): since they started accepting everything without a proper review they are ashamed to show the new images to buyers; they just need more and more images to have the largest collection in the universe, provide those images stay hidden from buyers.
I thought newbies had a grace period one conspiracy at a time please
-
Frankly, new images sell elsewhere but not on SS. I've made quite a few of my newest exclusive on Adobe/FT, which gives me higher royalties per credit DL, which occur a lot more than equivalent sales on SS.
You can do whatever works for you, and I'll do what works for me. At present, this strategy makes sense to me. If that changes, I can always upload again to SS.
I have a terrible suspect about this (New images not selling on SS): since they started accepting everything without a proper review they are ashamed to show the new images to buyers; they just need more and more images to have the largest collection in the universe, provide those images stay hidden from buyers.
Conspiracies are present in every single business. Look and banking, stock-broking trading in shares futures and options. Everyday little conspiracies are harmless. Serious conspiraicis are type Enron GM and Saab and so on.
Its not even called conspiracies anymore its reffered to as business as usual.
Of course the micro stock industry is the only business on the planet totally free from any conspiracies ::)
No I don't think they are ashamed of new content or in that case they would probably be ashamed of 50% of all content. ;D
-
http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-492377512/stock-vector-arrow-arrow-arrow-arrow-arrow-arrow-arrow-arrow-arrow-arrow-arrow-arrow-arrow-arrow-arrow-arrow-arrow-arrow-arrow-arrow-arrow-arrow-arrow-arrow-arrow-arrow-arrow.html? (http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-492377512/stock-vector-arrow-arrow-arrow-arrow-arrow-arrow-arrow-arrow-arrow-arrow-arrow-arrow-arrow-arrow-arrow-arrow-arrow-arrow-arrow-arrow-arrow-arrow-arrow-arrow-arrow-arrow-arrow.html?)
Love it, check out the url as well as the portfolio with hundreds of duplicates!
I honestly think this isn't a problem as far as SS is concerned. They just want to have a big number for the next shareholders meeting.
I am not sure if they will start thinking more long term while they still have any customers left.
-
[url]http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-492377512/stock-vector-arrow-arrow-arrow-arrow-arrow-arrow-arrow-arrow-arrow-arrow-arrow-arrow-arrow-arrow-arrow-arrow-arrow-arrow-arrow-arrow-arrow-arrow-arrow-arrow-arrow-arrow-arrow.html?[/url] ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-492377512/stock-vector-arrow-arrow-arrow-arrow-arrow-arrow-arrow-arrow-arrow-arrow-arrow-arrow-arrow-arrow-arrow-arrow-arrow-arrow-arrow-arrow-arrow-arrow-arrow-arrow-arrow-arrow-arrow.html?[/url])
Love it, check out the url as well as the portfolio with hundreds of duplicates!
I honestly think this isn't a problem as far as SS is concerned. They just want to have a big number for the next shareholders meeting.
I am not sure if they will start thinking more long term while they still have any customers left.
That's a catchy title! I like how it's still not top of the list when you search for 'arrow' though!
-
[url]http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-492377512/stock-vector-arrow-arrow-arrow-arrow-arrow-arrow-arrow-arrow-arrow-arrow-arrow-arrow-arrow-arrow-arrow-arrow-arrow-arrow-arrow-arrow-arrow-arrow-arrow-arrow-arrow-arrow-arrow.html?[/url] ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-492377512/stock-vector-arrow-arrow-arrow-arrow-arrow-arrow-arrow-arrow-arrow-arrow-arrow-arrow-arrow-arrow-arrow-arrow-arrow-arrow-arrow-arrow-arrow-arrow-arrow-arrow-arrow-arrow-arrow.html?[/url])
Love it, check out the url as well as the portfolio with hundreds of duplicates!
I honestly think this isn't a problem as far as SS is concerned. They just want to have a big number for the next shareholders meeting.
I am not sure if they will start thinking more long term while they still have any customers left.
unbelievable
ofcourse, it is number 1 on best match search.
I cant believe shutterstock is allowing those things to happen on their site.
-
[url]http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-492377512/stock-vector-arrow-arrow-arrow-arrow-arrow-arrow-arrow-arrow-arrow-arrow-arrow-arrow-arrow-arrow-arrow-arrow-arrow-arrow-arrow-arrow-arrow-arrow-arrow-arrow-arrow-arrow-arrow.html?[/url] ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-492377512/stock-vector-arrow-arrow-arrow-arrow-arrow-arrow-arrow-arrow-arrow-arrow-arrow-arrow-arrow-arrow-arrow-arrow-arrow-arrow-arrow-arrow-arrow-arrow-arrow-arrow-arrow-arrow-arrow.html?[/url])
Love it, check out the url as well as the portfolio with hundreds of duplicates!
I honestly think this isn't a problem as far as SS is concerned. They just want to have a big number for the next shareholders meeting.
I am not sure if they will start thinking more long term while they still have any customers left.
That's a catchy title! I like how it's still not top of the list when you search for 'arrow' though!
It is, when you switch to "Best match" view.
-
That's how I found it, it's top of the search linked to earlier in this thread
-
If you donīt hit the market you will die, reversed, if you do hit the market you will gain. All complains about falling sales are worthless and a waste of time. Make better photos, videos or illustrations, thatīs all.
Yeah - well, I guess there is an upper limit on how good the quality can be produced on a reasonable budget (time and costs)... At some point, it levels off and the the buyer needs a university degree in graphic design or visual art to tell the difference. It's a bit like good red wine... The artist may decide to spend twice as much on the wine (creating the photo), but the quality increase is maybe only 5% and the guest (buyer) can't really tell the difference. Just like wine tasters, you need a lot of training to tell the good from the really good.
-
...
Our keyword generating tool is based on image analysis and real keywords from quality stock photos. The 7 keywords required by SSTK does not usually cover all features and meanings of the images content. Otherwise, there won't be a saying "a picture is worth a thousand words." We produce 30 keywords per photo that captures many aspects of the photo that user often times ignores or can't think of on the spot. It is much easier to kick out a few incorrect keywords than to think of and type out 30 keywords.
....
highly unlikely -- one only needs to edit iptc once, then all submissions are easier; and cut n paste even eliminates retyping similar lists; and even the best algorithm will still likely require additional editing to add missed but important keywords
instead, your process will require re-editing just about EVERY image to eliminate poor or spammy keywords
also, how do you handle categories across all the agencies? do you keep separate categories in the image iptc for each agency?
-
...
Our keyword generating tool is based on image analysis and real keywords from quality stock photos. The 7 keywords required by SSTK does not usually cover all features and meanings of the images content. Otherwise, there won't be a saying "a picture is worth a thousand words." We produce 30 keywords per photo that captures many aspects of the photo that user often times ignores or can't think of on the spot. It is much easier to kick out a few incorrect keywords than to think of and type out 30 keywords.
....
highly unlikely -- one only needs to edit iptc once, then all submissions are easier; and cut n paste even eliminates retyping similar lists; and even the best algorithm will still likely require additional editing to add missed but important keywords
instead, your process will require re-editing just about EVERY image to eliminate poor or spammy keywords
also, how do you handle categories across all the agencies? do you keep separate categories in the image iptc for each agency?
I do agree with you that the AI tools are not perfect. We did not create it or market it to replace human keywording entirely. To clarify, our tool currently does read the keywords from the IPTC metadata from your photos. We also add machine generated ones to your existing keywords, i.e. union. It would be easy to add a feature to let the user to decide whether to include the system generated keywords or not. Please feel free to use our Support => Feedback form (after login) to file a feature request. We will be happy to implement it for you. Our current tool was initially designed for photos that have no manual keywords at all. The tool will certainly save time for the initial batch of keywords.
As you pointed out, each microstock agency has different categories. We map your photos automatically to each of the categories separately. We store the categories in the database. Then automatically fill in the categories on agencies' final submission site (Chrome browser required). If you use any ftp tools to upload files to ShutterStock, you will still need to manually pick the categories on ShutterStock's contributor's site to finalize the submission. We eliminate the need of that. To the best of our knowledge, there is no other tools can do this category auto fill trick right now.
BTW, you can't save categories in the IPTC header. It is not supported by IPTC. Even if it does support, one would have to generate separate copies of photo for each agency. Our approach does not do that.
Thanks for your comment, I hope I have addressed you concerns. Please feel free to email [email protected].
-
Frankly, new images sell elsewhere but not on SS. I've made quite a few of my newest exclusive on Adobe/FT, which gives me higher royalties per credit DL, which occur a lot more than equivalent sales on SS.
You can do whatever works for you, and I'll do what works for me. At present, this strategy makes sense to me. If that changes, I can always upload again to SS.
I have a terrible suspect about this (New images not selling on SS): since they started accepting everything without a proper review they are ashamed to show the new images to buyers; they just need more and more images to have the largest collection in the universe, provide those images stay hidden from buyers.
Well, my recently uploaded photo had a sale on the day it was uploaded. It was approved in 26 minutes... (http://image.shutterstock.com/display_pic_with_logo/2963080/490855789/stock-photo-dramatic-view-of-hot-geyser-meets-the-crystal-clear-lake-in-the-west-thumb-area-of-yellowstone-490855789.jpg)
-
Nice image exactly the kind of stuff we are told doesn't sell ;D
-
If you donīt hit the market you will die, reversed, if you do hit the market you will gain. All complains about falling sales are worthless and a waste of time. Make better photos, videos or illustrations, thatīs all.
Yeah - well, I guess there is an upper limit on how good the quality can be produced on a reasonable budget (time and costs)... At some point, it levels off and the the buyer needs a university degree in graphic design or visual art to tell the difference. It's a bit like good red wine... The artist may decide to spend twice as much on the wine (creating the photo), but the quality increase is maybe only 5% and the guest (buyer) can't really tell the difference. Just like wine tasters, you need a lot of training to tell the good from the really good.
I think better is more about more marketable rather than "quality" most stock photography is pretty disposable not meant for hanging on the wall and admiring.
-
Better more marketable quality content hitting the market is all just a dream if you are excluded from that market or a good proportion of it in the case of Shutterstock, as the original post says it is pointless now to upload there.
-
Right in this moment in time SS seems completely dead in the water.
-
I have a terrible suspect about this (New images not selling on SS): since they started accepting everything without a proper review they are ashamed to show the new images to buyers; they just need more and more images to have the largest collection in the universe, provide those images stay hidden from buyers.
That's not even crazy. And it gets even stranger: there's no way this sort of junk got through any legitimate review process. It's being let in through a back door, somehow.
-
I think what we are seeing here is the so-called long tail: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_tail
We have filled the first part (top selling) items long ago. SS realized that the only way to gain growth is to have material in the "tail". Hence, they now let in anyone who can press a shutter button. The requires an automated review process that can accept images in the not-so-well covered niches that have some potential for sale. We have recently seen this process in play as several have reported about lightning fast reviews at SS (15 secs). In other words, lightning fast review indicates a potential niche...
At the moment 21% sales increase from 60% asset increase is still probably very good for them. The tipping point is when the marketing, administration and cost of storing the image outweighs the sales income. They have probably calculated this and it could be as low as 5% sales increase from 100% asset increase.
For us, the question is of course when will it no longer pay off to shoot. There is no straight answer, but the days where we could invest several hours and a bit of money in a shot is definitely over.
-
[url]http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-492377512/stock-vector-arrow-arrow-arrow-arrow-arrow-arrow-arrow-arrow-arrow-arrow-arrow-arrow-arrow-arrow-arrow-arrow-arrow-arrow-arrow-arrow-arrow-arrow-arrow-arrow-arrow-arrow-arrow.html?[/url] ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-492377512/stock-vector-arrow-arrow-arrow-arrow-arrow-arrow-arrow-arrow-arrow-arrow-arrow-arrow-arrow-arrow-arrow-arrow-arrow-arrow-arrow-arrow-arrow-arrow-arrow-arrow-arrow-arrow-arrow.html?[/url])
Love it, check out the url as well as the portfolio with hundreds of duplicates!
I honestly think this isn't a problem as far as SS is concerned. They just want to have a big number for the next shareholders meeting.
I am not sure if they will start thinking more long term while they still have any customers left.
And I thought he was pure gold. ;) https://www.shutterstock.com/g/Anatoli+Priboutko (https://www.shutterstock.com/g/Anatoli+Priboutko)
-
Shutterstock has a problem with spammers, that's in the open, but I had no idea how big the problem was.
Check the "best match" result for "arrow icon": https://www.shutterstock.com/search?searchterm=arrow+icon&search_source=base_search_form&language=en&page=1&sort=relevance&image_type=all&safe=true (https://www.shutterstock.com/search?searchterm=arrow+icon&search_source=base_search_form&language=en&page=1&sort=relevance&image_type=all&safe=true)
Check the metadata of all the results.
Nothing new sells because spammers make it impossible for your images to be seen. But they grow the library for shutterstock, and that's what's important for them. They can show that number to the shareholders. If you make more or less, they don't care. :)
I guess that blows the theory about needing super clever keywording strategies to get to the top. I'm surprised repeat keywords are allowed let alone seeming to add weight to the relevance
The keywords are all different (albeit very slightly) because the SS keyword filter automatically removes duplicates. Clearly, this is not the case for the description where 'arrow.' repeated 40 times is 'allowed'. And the description seems to have more weighting in the search algo than we have perhaps been led to believe.
-
Thanks for the clarification. I always thought the description didn't count for much but I spose the algorithm is changing all the time
-
Right in this moment in time SS seems completely dead in the water.
true
-
Right in this moment in time SS seems completely dead in the water.
true
From your perspective maybe but for a lot of people its still #1 declining maybe but not "dead"
-
Right in this moment in time SS seems completely dead in the water.
true
From your perspective maybe but for a lot of people its still #1 declining maybe but not "dead"
FT and IS will very soon be equal to SS - and after some time - SS will fall behind - it is still no.1 for me too - but - it will not last -
-
IS really? not sure anyone is seeing much growth there apart from you maybe? Where can I get one of these amazing crystal balls many of you seem to have?
-
IS will go a little bit up - and SS will go a lot more down - SS plays with search all the time - and now it gets worse and worse... SS lost common sense
-
It's a known fact that SS plays with the search all the time. As a result they lose common sense quite often, but luckily they usually regain sense after a while.
The only sensible thing to do in such cases - such as now when new photos are not selling at all, at least in my experience - is to stop uploading for a while. Not in protest, not to boycott but just waiting for their search to return to a more balanced form.
More a see you later than goodbye Shutterstock.
-
Right in this moment in time SS seems completely dead in the water.
true
From your perspective maybe but for a lot of people its still #1 declining maybe but not "dead"
FT and IS will very soon be equal to SS - and after some time - SS will fall behind - it is still no.1 for me too - but - it will not last -
October 15 2016
Shutterstock 80.7
Fotolia 34.6
iStock 27.3
Want to bet $1000 that in one year FT won't be 50% of SS and IS won't be 33% of SS?
Some people complain that uploading new doesn't make an increase in money on SS. Same people I want to know how you are growing on FT and IS for the same number of uploads. Increase, decrease or same? Time to treat all the same, not just pick on SS for disappointing increase, when the rest make no increase on same photos.
Profits do not grow by collection size. We all know that for years and years. Competition grows more then we can feed the beast. Income will go down, based on RPI. Fact of life. Don't act surprised when you knew this all along.
-
Always amazes me that considerably less than 0.1% of a site's contributor base, complain about a drop in sales in a forum, and they all see it as a worrying trend or the beginning of the end.
Then the inevitable response is 'well where are all the people having great or steady sales?' Well the main reason is probably that they're not actively seeking out threads about bad sales. Also, they're probably too busy sipping cocktails on the beach and buying swan-skin jackets and drinking bottles of vintage champagne with all their bundles of cash. Or something like that.
I had my BME at SS last month, just so you know. It was about 50% more than August.... so by my calculations, SS is experiencing a 50% increase on sales month on month. Those are the stats... they don't lie!
I'm not sure about here, but I know other forums where such threads have been going on for the last seven years. If everyone is to be believed, then the entire stock industry would have been dead and buried a long time ago.
And what are all these people going to do when they have their BME next month? Are they going to rush back here to report in? Probably not... as somebody who is doing well is less likely to be concerned about a thread on people not doing so well.
Unless their reports are fabrications, Shutterstock is making more and more money year on year. It just happens that not every contributor is making more and more money year on year. These things happen.
But how do you explain a 50% drop over a period of a couple of months? That's just variation. A drop of 50% from one day to the next isn't rare, these things happen, especially on a weekend. The same drop over a week, a month, two... it gets rarer and indicates more of a trend as time goes on, but it's still an exception rather than the norm. There will probably be somebody out there that was getting $1000 a month until June and then they've got $100 a month since. That's going to be very rare... but seeing as we make up less than 0.1% of the total, that could happen to all of us and it would still be an outlier rather than a tend or a worrying pattern.
Anyway, that's the way I see it.
Although I do agree with the whole content saturation, more providers, less slice of the cake etc thing.
-
Probably the only stats we can rely on in the industry are the SS reports....unless you think the Directors are prepared to risk going to jail! Its the same pattern every month after 3-4 days someone complains its a disastrous month and everyone else having a slow start jumps in. I don't doubt that there is a slow decline caused by an imbalance of supply and demand that is clear from the figures. I also think that SS is not being managed as well as it was with bugs in its software becoming more apparent but the idea that its "dead" "doomed" etc etc is a gross exaggeration.
-
Always amazes me that considerably less than 0.1% of a site's contributor base, complain about a drop in sales in a forum, and they all see it as a worrying trend or the beginning of the end.
Then the inevitable response is 'well where are all the people having great or steady sales?' Well the main reason is probably that they're not actively seeking out threads about bad sales. Also, they're probably too busy sipping cocktails on the beach and buying swan-skin jackets and drinking bottles of vintage champagne with all their bundles of cash. Or something like that.
I had my BME at SS last month, just so you know. It was about 50% more than August.... so by my calculations, SS is experiencing a 50% increase on sales month on month. Those are the stats... they don't lie!
I'm not sure about here, but I know other forums where such threads have been going on for the last seven years. If everyone is to be believed, then the entire stock industry would have been dead and buried a long time ago.
And what are all these people going to do when they have their BME next month? Are they going to rush back here to report in? Probably not... as somebody who is doing well is less likely to be concerned about a thread on people not doing so well.
Unless their reports are fabrications, Shutterstock is making more and more money year on year. It just happens that not every contributor is making more and more money year on year. These things happen.
But how do you explain a 50% drop over a period of a couple of months? That's just variation. A drop of 50% from one day to the next isn't rare, these things happen, especially on a weekend. The same drop over a week, a month, two... it gets rarer and indicates more of a trend as time goes on, but it's still an exception rather than the norm. There will probably be somebody out there that was getting $1000 a month until June and then they've got $100 a month since. That's going to be very rare... but seeing as we make up less than 0.1% of the total, that could happen to all of us and it would still be an outlier rather than a tend or a worrying pattern.
Anyway, that's the way I see it.
Although I do agree with the whole content saturation, more providers, less slice of the cake etc thing.
It's possible for SS to be doing well while individual contributors do less well.
It's possible for SS to see an increase in sales while contributors see a decrease.
It's possible for monthly variations to exist while overall sales decline. Sure, my October is better than my September...that doesn't mean it's better than October 2015.
It's possible for SS to favor new contributors in the most popular search, for a variety of perfectly logical reasons.
It's possible for spammers to better their positions in the search, to the detriment of non-spammers.
It's possible that people with good sales will post in bad sales threads (you're here, right?)
It's possible that these are not conspiracy theories, but patterns long term contributors notice over time.
-
It's possible for SS to be doing well while individual contributors do less well.
+ true
It's possible for SS to see an increase in sales while contributors see a decrease.
+ true
It's possible for monthly variations to exist while overall sales decline. Sure, my October is better than my September...that doesn't mean it's better than October 2015.
+ true
It's possible for SS to favor new contributors in the most popular search, for a variety of perfectly logical reasons.
+ true and they do
It's possible for spammers to better their positions in the search, to the detriment of non-spammers.
+ true but it doesn't mean they get more sale from that
It's possible that people with good sales will post in bad sales threads (you're here, right?)
+ true it's possible but makes no sense
It's possible that these are not conspiracy theories, but patterns long term contributors notice over time.
+ true but the conclusions don't match the facts
Noticing something, truths or fact and coming up with some conspiracy are not the same thing.
It's possible and true that my income keeps going up on SS and other sites, while some other people it's going down. Might be they are uploading more and making less or less RPI. There's no direct equation with number of photos and income, which people assume there should be.
Conclusions and conspiracy from possibles like you write are possible but just because it's possible or fact, doesn't make the conclusion fact. Flawed logic, biased emotion, anger over income or imagined what should possibly be, makes for false conclusions.
Facts are just facts. We work harder and make less. We upload more and make less. It's possible that there is a diminishing return and competition has diluted any hope of continued gains. But people don't want the truth? So they make up conspiracy theories and reasons why something else like agency and unfairness controlls the truth. I think it's called denial.
-
Always amazes me that considerably less than 0.1% of a site's contributor base, complain about a drop in sales in a forum, and they all see it as a worrying trend or the beginning of the end.
Then the inevitable response is 'well where are all the people having great or steady sales?' Well the main reason is probably that they're not actively seeking out threads about bad sales. Also, they're probably too busy sipping cocktails on the beach and buying swan-skin jackets and drinking bottles of vintage champagne with all their bundles of cash. Or something like that.
I had my BME at SS last month, just so you know. It was about 50% more than August.... so by my calculations, SS is experiencing a 50% increase on sales month on month. Those are the stats... they don't lie!
I'm not sure about here, but I know other forums where such threads have been going on for the last seven years. If everyone is to be believed, then the entire stock industry would have been dead and buried a long time ago.
And what are all these people going to do when they have their BME next month? Are they going to rush back here to report in? Probably not... as somebody who is doing well is less likely to be concerned about a thread on people not doing so well.
Unless their reports are fabrications, Shutterstock is making more and more money year on year. It just happens that not every contributor is making more and more money year on year. These things happen.
But how do you explain a 50% drop over a period of a couple of months? That's just variation. A drop of 50% from one day to the next isn't rare, these things happen, especially on a weekend. The same drop over a week, a month, two... it gets rarer and indicates more of a trend as time goes on, but it's still an exception rather than the norm. There will probably be somebody out there that was getting $1000 a month until June and then they've got $100 a month since. That's going to be very rare... but seeing as we make up less than 0.1% of the total, that could happen to all of us and it would still be an outlier rather than a tend or a worrying pattern.
Anyway, that's the way I see it.
Although I do agree with the whole content saturation, more providers, less slice of the cake etc thing.
It's possible for SS to be doing well while individual contributors do less well.
It's possible for SS to see an increase in sales while contributors see a decrease.
It's possible for monthly variations to exist while overall sales decline. Sure, my October is better than my September...that doesn't mean it's better than October 2015.
It's possible for SS to favor new contributors in the most popular search, for a variety of perfectly logical reasons.
It's possible for spammers to better their positions in the search, to the detriment of non-spammers.
It's possible that people with good sales will post in bad sales threads (you're here, right?)
It's possible that these are not conspiracy theories, but patterns long term contributors notice over time.
You seem to have missed the point. Hardly any of my observations contradict the points you've raised. I'm not saying that the people who are having falling sales are lying, I'm saying that it doesn't automatically mean that Shutterstock is on the way out.
-
Does this discussion make any sense?
Do you expect any positive result?
Will SS make any changes?
Do you feel better after your comments?
Do you realy know what SS is all about?
Would it make sense to stop this dispute for ever?
-
Does this discussion make any sense?
some sense
Do you expect any positive result?
not much
Will SS make any changes?
possibly; they won't change policies, but may silently fix glitches if they are reading
Do you feel better after your comments?
about the same as before
Do you realy know what SS is all about?
after a few years with them I have some ideas
Would it make sense to stop this dispute for ever?
maybe
PS: these questions may basically apply to EVERY topic here
-
Does this discussion make any sense?
Do you expect any positive result?
Will SS make any changes?
Do you feel better after your comments?
Do you realy know what SS is all about?
Would it make sense to stop this dispute for ever?
I take it you're being the devil's advocate here given that you are following and contributing to this thread, but I'll take the bait anyway.
Yes, this discussion does make sense. As the OP has come to the conclusion uploading new content no longer makes sense it gives us pause for thought and to question if our situation is similar to theirs. It's always good to reevaluate business activities continuously and the OP's conclusion will be a key point to take into consideration.
A positive result for sure, as even keeping the status quo in my relationship with Shutterstock is best done with my eyes wide open to any new developments and feedback from the forum is often useful to take in and ruminate over.
SS is always making changes, it is not about having input into those changes, but understanding how those changes affect us and the changes we make. I've seen the figures, Shutterstock continuously improves it's turnover and profits quarter after quarter, year after year and despite increased competition their direction of travel appears set for now. Contributors on the other hand are in more dodgy waters and I expect to see differing opinions on how to proceed from here.
Feeling better for my comments is not the purpose, this is not therapy and I'm not here to get my ego stroked. I may feel more comfortable with my comments and decisions if a consensus develops, or I might set my path again the stream of opinion and enjoy the challenge of putting across my perspective, but feeling better or worse is not a relevant consideration to me.
Yes, SS is all about selling images to me and when they make changes that reduces my sales, like the OP I too have to reevaluate them and make a decision on whether or not to continue uploading or not.
What dispute? Is Shutterstock dead? Obviously not, but as a contributor is it productive to continue uploading when new content does not sell, that will always be disputed depending on your perspective and a question that should be evaluated continuously and this thread may provide useful information in that regard if it's not side tracked by philosophical questions.
My position, well it's not the same as the OP's, I work outside the industry. Non the less, income from my earnings has, when times were hard, fed my cat and if any money was left over fed me as well. Since then, over the last two years my income from Shutterstock has halved and uploading has decreased. The stats tell me one eighth of my earnings for the past two years has come from new content despite few uploads in the last twelve months, so uploading new content may well be on the cards for me, even though closer scrutiny shows only the occasional new image takes off and contributes, most do not sell. They sell elsewhere so it's no hardship for me to keep Shutterstock going. The drop in earnings I put down to increased competition, dilution call it what you will.
As for contributors in the OP's position, well you're buggered because they are not only squeezed by open competition like me, but also from the closed competition at the top. With the Enterprise Team working for the top earners on the Premier Select group those outside that barrier will have noticed a considerable drop in income commensurate to the growth within Shutterstock of the Enterprise Team who will be creaming off all the best customers for the chosen few.
-
Hello Guys,
I contribute to the stock industry since 2005.
I have seen dozens and dozens of these posts always predicting the apocalypse on the stock industry.
[..insults removed..]
In 2005 you uploaded any (ANY!!) photo and it would sell because there wasn't competition.
Nowadays competition is fierce. You must have great and innovative content or else you'll die.
From 2010 until now I always had better years. This year is 10% better when compared to 2015.
-
.
-
Hello Guys,
I contribute to the stock industry since 2005.
I have seen dozens and dozens of these posts always predicting the apocalypse on the stock industry.
Please let me say something to you. Most of the people here doesn't have link to their portfolios, but judging from the ones I could see... your content is s**t.
In 2005 you uploaded any (ANY!!) photo and it would sell because there wasn't competition.
Nowadays competition is fierce. You must have great and innovative content or else you'll die.
From 2010 until now I always had better years. This year is 10% better when compared to 2015.
Some of my $hit from 2005 still sells well, though. :)
Overprocessed, overfiltered is the hip new look and larger design firms may love that, but remember, there are smaller companies who use plain old photography as well.
I do agree that the competition is fierce, though, and no, i dont see the stock industry going away...not until the world stops reading publications, both printed and online.
-
Always amazes me that considerably less than 0.1% of a site's contributor base, complain about a drop in sales in a forum, and they all see it as a worrying trend or the beginning of the end.
...........
Although I do agree with the whole content saturation, more providers, less slice of the cake etc thing.
Agree fully.
The destruction of the stock industry, the music business and the film industry has been here for 15 years now according to forums... And a new conspiracy is formed against the individual contributor every week.
I think we can agree on this though:
Competition is higher (more as well as better (and worse)).
The need for content is higher than ever.
You have to be better, more unique, and work harder than 10 years ago.
People with a positive outlook will always succeed in the long run. Instead of thinking "wow, this site really has something personal against me and is punishing me in the search", the person thinking "wow, these new guys are really good, I need to really up my game to stay on top, even if I was #1 before" will not give up and continue to improve.
-
If you dont increase your income year by year and you still continue to upload you must be a fool and better look for another job and stop crying. Thatīs all about business. Everything else is just a hobby.
-
If you dont increase your income year by year and you still continue to upload you must be a fool and better look for another job and stop crying. Thatīs all about business. Everything else is just a hobby.
So if an actor made $10 million per movie in 1996 and can now only get $1 million, should she/he roll over, give up and get a job at Netflix, if acting is what they love to do?
If every business quit the year they were making less money than the previous there wouldn't be many businesses left in this world...
-
Get over it, move on does not add to our knowledge or understanding. Some people seem to want to put a full stop to a thread that appears to have no relevance to them, why?
-
Hello Guys,
I contribute to the stock industry since 2005.
I have seen dozens and dozens of these posts always predicting the apocalypse on the stock industry.
Please let me say something to you. Most of the people here doesn't have link to their portfolios, but judging from the ones I could see... your content is s**t.
In 2005 you uploaded any (ANY!!) photo and it would sell because there wasn't competition.
Nowadays competition is fierce. You must have great and innovative content or else you'll die.
From 2010 until now I always had better years. This year is 10% better when compared to 2015.
You've (supposedly) made one post, and your one and only post is to pop in and tell other people their content is sh!t?
-
The will to believe is strong.
-
Hello Guys,
I contribute to the stock industry since 2005.
I have seen dozens and dozens of these posts always predicting the apocalypse on the stock industry.
Please let me say something to you. Most of the people here doesn't have link to their portfolios, but judging from the ones I could see... your content is s**t.
In 2005 you uploaded any (ANY!!) photo and it would sell because there wasn't competition.
Nowadays competition is fierce. You must have great and innovative content or else you'll die.
From 2010 until now I always had better years. This year is 10% better when compared to 2015.
You've (supposedly) made one post, and your one and only post is to pop in and tell other people their content is sh!t?
it is because he s IQ is :one, two, three...
-
Get over it, move on does not add to our knowledge or understanding. Some people seem to want to put a full stop to a thread that appears to have no relevance to them, why?
They're just trying to make sure the people who think it has relevance to them, understand that it might not actually have all that much relevance to them.
-
Hello Guys,
I contribute to the stock industry since 2005.
I have seen dozens and dozens of these posts always predicting the apocalypse on the stock industry.
[..insults removed..]
In 2005 you uploaded any (ANY!!) photo and it would sell because there wasn't competition.
Nowadays competition is fierce. You must have great and innovative content or else you'll die.
From 2010 until now I always had better years. This year is 10% better when compared to 2015.
In ideal case. In reality SS restricts majority of contributors to some type of content and type of post processing. Something different will not go through. But i know that many of us don't want to be specialized and sit in a niche defined by ss reviewers.
-
Get over it, move on does not add to our knowledge or understanding. Some people seem to want to put a full stop to a thread that appears to have no relevance to them, why?
They're just trying to make sure the people who think it has relevance to them, understand that it might not actually have all that much relevance to them.
That sounds patronising to the point of being insulting, not only are our images crap, but we are that stupid we need to be told to upload quality, find a niche and, be positive and stop discussing this subject. I don't think the thread is relevant to video, not yet anyway, but if you have any personal experience as to why new images don't sell I really would like to here it.
-
I don't have any experience of new images not selling cos some of mine do...but you don't want to hear that
-
Hello Guys,
I contribute to the stock industry since 2005.
I have seen dozens and dozens of these posts always predicting the apocalypse on the stock industry.
[..insults removed..]
In 2005 you uploaded any (ANY!!) photo and it would sell because there wasn't competition.
Nowadays competition is fierce. You must have great and innovative content or else you'll die.
From 2010 until now I always had better years. This year is 10% better when compared to 2015.
In ideal case. In reality SS restricts majority of contributors to some type of content and type of post processing. Something different will not go through. But i know that many of us don't want to be specialized and sit in a niche defined by ss reviewers.
I thought they were letting ANYTHING through? I guess if SS want to maintain a "house style " its their call...they are not a state monopoly.
-
but if you have any personal experience as to why new images don't sell I really would like to here it.
Can't help you there either. My newest images started selling within 5 days both on Shutterstock and Fotolia. Not incredible numbers, but about the same as the rest of my somewhat useful images.
Pond5 on the other hand, in my experience, take a long time to start selling new material, and they have for the past 4 years, but once you've made a few sales and more people can find you, you can really sell a lot.
-
I don't have any experience of new images not selling cos some of mine do...but you don't want to hear that
It's not that I don't want to hear that, but it may push the discussion forward if you can expand on your experience or selling new images, otherwise your contribution is less than useful. Maybe you should refresh your familiarity with the original post and see if it's relevant to you.
-
I don't question that contributors who have been around for a long time don't sell new images like they used to.
But I don't think that means Shutterstock don't want to sell new images, or that new images don't sell, it just means that the influx of new material is so much higher today that it's easy to get lost.
10 years ago anything new could sell since it was visible in the "New" search for a longer period of time, and the competition was lower.
-
I don't have any experience of new images not selling cos some of mine do...but you don't want to hear that
It's not that I don't want to hear that, but it may push the discussion forward if you can expand on your experience or selling new images, otherwise your contribution is less than useful. Maybe you should refresh your familiarity with the original post and see if it's relevant to you.
and this from someone calling someone verging on patronising? Actually this thread is way past its sell by date. People have made their minds up in one camp or the other. The point just because some people say new images are not selling it doesn't make it true universally.
-
Q1 + Q2 2015
Earnings: 198.000.000 $
Download: 69.300.000 $
Items (June 2015): 57.200.000 $
Q1 + Q2 2016
Earnings: 240.000.000 $ (+21%)
Download: 84.200.000 $ (+21%)
Items (June 2015): 92.000.000 $ (+61%)
Actually, if it was my company, I wouldn't be that happy with only a 21% sales increase from a 61% asset increase over the period. Translate those figures to contributors, and it won't be long before many of them chose to bail out.
Non-selling (or almost non-selling) contributors bailing out is either meaningless to SS, or a benefit - somewhat less expenses is they delete their stuff. Also those "assets" are digital files. I highly doubt the increase of digital assets in this case raises expenses notably. It's most likely insignificant.
-
Actually, if it was my company, I wouldn't be that happy with only a 21% sales increase from a 61% asset increase over the period. Translate those figures to contributors, and it won't be long before many of them chose to bail out.
Yes ... and often new items are low low quality images and vectors ...
It's not a sustainable business model as it currently stands. The 'biggest' library is no longer the best, and buyers, (and contributors), are shifting focus to other smaller, but well curated libraries.
Shutterstock need to put the breaks on how much they approve and refocus on quality. If they continue as they are, by next year they will need to double the library to see 20% profit, then triple it. Contributors won't continue to upload anything of quality if they are not seeing a return, so they will end up only getting submissions of sub par images.
It's not yet 'free fall' but it's a slippery slope.
This whole post is so severely illogical it made me cringe. SS profit % directly connected to their customer base increase / decrease, and customer's spending, not how rapidly they increase their portfolio. The best sellers bringing in 20-50-100 times more money than the average pic, are almost always older files that have been in the system for years now, and they often just keep getting more sales, as they get better relevancy rankings from the sales... so SS actually has little need for new content. The reason they like to increase their stock so much is that the "huge" number is marketing ploy imho. They aim to boast having the largest stock on the planet I guess - and they are right, it is an attractive marketing statement. Imagine hearing that there is a store that has the most good, ever, anywhere.
-
So I was working exclusively for the microstock industry. Shutterstock alone was sending me more then enough monthly to pay my bills. Now I see the earnings are like 30, 40 % down comparing to last year, and the new images I uploaded lately, they don't sell at all, and I mean 00000! and their quality is really good, similar or even better to older ones that already sold more than 2000 times.
So I had to get another occupation, I just leave the portfolio there and will see it go to insignificant earnings in record time. :'( it is pointless now to upload there.
So sad...
You mean it's pointless for you. My sales f.e. and $$ is increasing despite uploading a lot less recently, and my new files are selling too.
-
Actually, if it was my company, I wouldn't be that happy with only a 21% sales increase from a 61% asset increase over the period. Translate those figures to contributors, and it won't be long before many of them chose to bail out.
Yes ... and often new items are low low quality images and vectors ...
It's not a sustainable business model as it currently stands. The 'biggest' library is no longer the best, and buyers, (and contributors), are shifting focus to other smaller, but well curated libraries.
Shutterstock need to put the breaks on how much they approve and refocus on quality. If they continue as they are, by next year they will need to double the library to see 20% profit, then triple it. Contributors won't continue to upload anything of quality if they are not seeing a return, so they will end up only getting submissions of sub par images.
It's not yet 'free fall' but it's a slippery slope.
This whole post is so severely illogical it made me cringe. SS profit % directly connected to their customer base increase / decrease, and customer's spending, not how rapidly they increase their portfolio. The best sellers bringing in 20-50-100 times more money than the average pic, are almost always older files that have been in the system for years now, and they often just keep getting more sales, as they get better relevancy rankings from the sales... so SS actually has little need for new content. The reason they like to increase their stock so much is that the "huge" number is marketing ploy imho. They aim to boast having the largest stock on the planet I guess - and they are right, it is an attractive marketing statement. Imagine hearing that there is a store that has the most good, ever, anywhere.
Spot on! 1000 new files to them is like a drop in the Pacific. Totally insignificant. As a marketing statement its Ok but it can also be a daunting prospect for a buyer searching.
-
[/quote]
Spot on! 1000 new files to them is like a drop in the Pacific. Totally insignificant. As a marketing statement its Ok but it can also be a daunting prospect for a buyer searching.
[/quote] Yep if I were SS i would be most focused on ensuring the search engine/algorithm ensured a good experience for buyers they are king in the current market. The balloning number of images must make this hard
-
This whole post is so severely illogical it made me cringe. SS profit % directly connected to their customer base increase / decrease, and customer's spending, not how rapidly they increase their portfolio. The best sellers bringing in 20-50-100 times more money than the average pic, are almost always older files that have been in the system for years now, and they often just keep getting more sales, as they get better relevancy rankings from the sales... so SS actually has little need for new content. The reason they like to increase their stock so much is that the "huge" number is marketing ploy imho. They aim to boast having the largest stock on the planet I guess - and they are right, it is an attractive marketing statement. Imagine hearing that there is a store that has the most good, ever, anywhere.
Not true in my experience. This year alone I have about ~10 new images on page one on single word search results. Most within weeks and many more on page 1 for double search words. Some are climbing slower than they used to be but it's not impossible to get new content on page one. The reason these old files are still on page one is because there is no better alternatives. Once there are they will move down. And the images I get on page one are in saturated markets like food, business, car etc. I think if people here would PLAN a shoot and put more time in one single image instead of shooting just random things and whatever comes along you would see more sales. And NO I DON'T have an expensive studio and models and just do this in free time and weekends. One single studio flash, good location and a model or subject plus good Photoshop knowledge is all you need to make pro looking images.
-
I think, you just have to have the right image at the right place at the right time. For example, I uploaded 2 almost identical photos of Hare, the only difference was position of it's ears. The one, that I uploaded more than two years ago didn't sell more than 15 times. The one, that I uploaded this January sold more then 80 times so far, actualy it's the first image on page 1, if you search for "hare".....
-
Shutterstock is not working now here so I can't see the hare images there only on FT. But my guess is that on the better selling image the ears are more open with space in between and the profile is better and on the other the ears are closed and because of that the profile is not as good? Or the ears just look much better on them? If I would shoot an image of a hare I would want it to look as if I could trace it and make a good clip art image from it and even then it should be very recognizable as a hare so it would even look great as a logo. Position is everything so a small difference can make a huge impact. BUT again. I did not see the images yet so just a wild guess... i just don't believe in right time right place with stock. Good images sell. Thats it nothing else.
-
Here you go:
https://eu.fotolia.com/id/63728814 - Uploaded more than 2 years ago, sold ~ 15 times
https://eu.fotolia.com/id/100230347 - Uploaded this January, sold more than 80 times
-
Well...in my opinion as a buyer (I am in graphic design and buy images every week) I would 100% go for your bestseller. The ears look great on it and on the other image the ears look like 2 leaves of grass. So no mystery there. The other image is much better since the profile of the hare is much, much better! If you would trace the hare and only see the clip art black profile image you would think the ears are wrong. So this has nothing to do with uploading at the right time and luck. It's just better.
PS: 446690413 < WOW! Amazing shot. Love it!!!
-
Some of my new images sell but not in anywhere near the amounts they used to. Looks like the only option is to upload images that are better than they already have or are of subjects that have little competition but still interest buyers. Neither of those options is easy and I have found it hard to motivate myself to upload new images. I can survive on my earnings from old images but if that continues to decline, I'm sure I will have to get back in to uploading new images. However hard I try to find something as good as stock photography to make money from, there's nothing quite like it for me.
-
Get over it, move on does not add to our knowledge or understanding. Some people seem to want to put a full stop to a thread that appears to have no relevance to them, why?
They're just trying to make sure the people who think it has relevance to them, understand that it might not actually have all that much relevance to them.
That sounds patronising to the point of being insulting, not only are our images crap, but we are that stupid we need to be told to upload quality, find a niche and, be positive and stop discussing this subject. I don't think the thread is relevant to video, not yet anyway, but if you have any personal experience as to why new images don't sell I really would like to here it.
Well at the risk of sounding more patronising... if you had a friend who bought stocks in a company, and that lost him money, and he said that stocks are for losers and there's no point of investing in any companies ever. .. what would you say to him?
-
Looks like the only option is to upload images that are better than they already have or are of subjects that have little competition but still interest buyers. Neither of those options is easy...
One could be led to believe this is true with anything and everything you set out to do...
-
i just don't believe in right time right place with stock. Good images sell. Thats it nothing else.
Given enough time and no over-saturation, sure, but in today's world with so much content it's impossible to view it all I believe this to be closer to the truth, in most cases. In order of importance for generating sales:
1. Search position.
2. Quality of product.
3. Price.
If a buyer is very sensitive to price, it would look like this:
1. Search position.
2. Price.
3. Quality of product.
-
i just don't believe in right time right place with stock. Good images sell. Thats it nothing else.
Given enough time and no over-saturation, sure, but in today's world with so much content it's impossible to view it all I believe this to be closer to the truth, in most cases. In order of importance for generating sales:
1. Search position.
2. Quality of product.
3. Price.
If a buyer is very sensitive to price, it would look like this:
1. Search position.
2. Price.
3. Quality of product.
Yes. Any image, no matter how good, has to be SEEN to be sold.
-
Is SS dead or is their reporting faulty? I've had 30 months of relatively steady sales average around the $1000 per month. This month is failing badly and looking at historical stats it doesn't make sense.
-
Is SS dead or is their reporting faulty? I've had 30 months of relatively steady sales average around the $1000 per month. This month is failing badly and looking at historical stats it doesn't make sense.
I have very similar experience. This week especially low sales. (yesterday was a bit better but first 3 days were almost like weekends)
Probably search shifting or something... dont like that feeling of uncertainty with their search engine.
And still nothing with spamming titles.
-
If I would shoot an image of a hare I would want it to look as if I could trace it and make a good clip art image from it and even then it should be very recognizable as a hare so it would even look great as a logo. Position is everything so a small difference can make a huge impact. BUT again. I did not see the images yet so just a wild guess... i just don't believe in right time right place with stock. Good images sell. Thats it nothing else.
You wanting to shoot an image you could use as a logo is irrelevant, as stock agencies don't allow usage as logo.
As this thread is specifically re SS, this is from their Licence Agreement:
c. RESTRICTIONS ON USE OF VISUAL CONTENT
YOU MAY NOT:
...
vii Use any Visual Content (in whole or in part) as a trademark, service mark, logo, or other indication of origin, or as part thereof.
Maybe you knew that already, but your post might confuse newbies into thinking that they could use a micro image as a logo.
-
That's weird, there's a lot of vectors in database, like a logo? Why would then someone create vector-logo if those are not allowed to be used as logo?
-
Not everyone reads the terms and conditions. Sellers as well as buyers.
It's obvious why you can't use an RF image as a logo - in theory you could find several companies, possibly even directly competing, with very similar logos.
-
If I would shoot an image of a hare I would want it to look as if I could trace it and make a good clip art image from it and even then it should be very recognizable as a hare so it would even look great as a logo. Position is everything so a small difference can make a huge impact. BUT again. I did not see the images yet so just a wild guess... i just don't believe in right time right place with stock. Good images sell. Thats it nothing else.
You wanting to shoot an image you could use as a logo is irrelevant, as stock agencies don't allow usage as logo.
As this thread is specifically re SS, this is from their Licence Agreement:
c. RESTRICTIONS ON USE OF VISUAL CONTENT
YOU MAY NOT:
...
vii Use any Visual Content (in whole or in part) as a trademark, service mark, logo, or other indication of origin, or as part thereof.
Maybe you knew that already, but your post might confuse newbies into thinking that they could use a micro image as a logo.
I think you missed the point of my explanation. It has nothing to do with logo's or trademarks or what the end user uses it for.
-
If I would shoot an image of a hare I would want it to look as if I could trace it and make a good clip art image from it and even then it should be very recognizable as a hare so it would even look great as a logo. Position is everything so a small difference can make a huge impact. BUT again. I did not see the images yet so just a wild guess... i just don't believe in right time right place with stock. Good images sell. Thats it nothing else.
You wanting to shoot an image you could use as a logo is irrelevant, as stock agencies don't allow usage as logo.
As this thread is specifically re SS, this is from their Licence Agreement:
c. RESTRICTIONS ON USE OF VISUAL CONTENT
YOU MAY NOT:
...
vii Use any Visual Content (in whole or in part) as a trademark, service mark, logo, or other indication of origin, or as part thereof.
Maybe you knew that already, but your post might confuse newbies into thinking that they could use a micro image as a logo.
I think you missed the point of my explanation. It has nothing to do with logo's or trademarks or what the end user uses it for.
Not at all.
I just wanted it to be clear that SS and (most/all?) other RF files can't be used for logos.
-
It is interesting topic. When You go to restaurant you want to choose from 20 dishes not from 250 dishes. Because you are hungry. But shutterstock is not restaurant. Probably "popular" section will always earn the Money. And random section, or new section will earn Money occassionaly.
-
FWIW - using stock photos and vectors, I have found it difficult to find content I want to use at any of the sites.
So much poorly keyworded content is a big issue both with vectors and photos. And the fact that keywording has little way of addressing the style of an image. It gives a real advantage to sites with much less content such as Stocksy. And the free sites such as Unsplash. Even Stocksy is often poorly keyworded - ironically sometimes too few keywords / synonyms.
It's very difficult to find vectors at many of the sites now because of the proliferation of sets representing all of the same elements and therefore keywords. But no standard way of addressing the actual style of the image (eg the thickness of the lines, flatness, simplicity etc). I don't know how other people search but if I want a vector of a thing to use as an icon on a site then I am typically looking for just that thing, as a ready to use svg. And then, potentially, only a few other elements in the same style as ready to use svgs.
-
shaig i think you message is a spam ;)
-
So I was working exclusively for the microstock industry. Shutterstock alone was sending me more then enough monthly to pay my bills. Now I see the earnings are like 30, 40 % down comparing to last year, and the new images I uploaded lately, they don't sell at all, and I mean 00000! and their quality is really good, similar or even better to older ones that already sold more than 2000 times.
So I had to get another occupation, I just leave the portfolio there and will see it go to insignificant earnings in record time. :'( it is pointless now to upload there.
So sad...
Bye Felicia
-
Well being a public company definitely won't be in the best interests of contributors long term, but that being said, I applied with SS tonight and will be adding to the over supply of images. Figured I may as well get my share of the pie while it lasts.
-
In reality SS restricts majority of contributors to some type of content and type of post processing. Something different will not go through. But i know that many of us don't want to be specialized and sit in a niche defined by ss reviewers.
That's a new claim, isn't it? I've not noticed that which might mean my content and processing is limited or it might mean that the claim isn't right.
It is possible that you might be good at certain subjects and processing techniques and less good at those you are not so familiar with. Getting rejections based on quality could then lead you to the mistaken conclusion that you've been allocated a niche and aren't allowed out of it, so instead of developing your skill at new techniques you submit what you think they will accept and reinforce your belief they won't accept anything else.
I just offer that as an idea.
-
It's obvious why you can't use an RF image as a logo - in theory you could find several companies, possibly even directly competing, with very similar logos.
What's more, they are likely to try to register the logo as a trademark, meaning nobody else can use it. Therefore, anybody who downloaded it earlier could find themselves facing legal action if they continue to use it so it would not be possible to continue selling licenses for it after the first download, just in case it became registered.
-
In reality SS restricts majority of contributors to some type of content and type of post processing. Something different will not go through. But i know that many of us don't want to be specialized and sit in a niche defined by ss reviewers.
That's a new claim, isn't it? I've not noticed that which might mean my content and processing is limited or it might mean that the claim isn't right.
It is possible that you might be good at certain subjects and processing techniques and less good at those you are not so familiar with. Getting rejections based on quality could then lead you to the mistaken conclusion that you've been allocated a niche and aren't allowed out of it, so instead of developing your skill at new techniques you submit what you think they will accept and reinforce your belief they won't accept anything else.
I just offer that as an idea.
I would not follow this advise. In my current situation i do different images and heritage pression from years with ss only has a negative effect. I do the opposite - less saturation, more freedom in subjects, layouts and processing etc. Work with clients become more interesting exactly when i decided to not spend my time for micros. I studied a lot of new things and i saw happy eyes of clients.
With ss i had several cases when restriction was obvious: several years they didn't accept any editorial from me, but i supplied to other places a lot. And suddenly after mentioning of this at ss forum, they started to accept editorials. Any "less nuclear" or "acid" colors were rejected as poor lightning(this started in 2012-2013). I was tired to do different post processing for the same images for different destinations and choosed my current environment. I am not often here now, just saw your citation by accident :-)
-
That's weird, there's a lot of vectors in database, like a logo? Why would then someone create vector-logo if those are not allowed to be used as logo?
Here's what I wrote in another thread:
Don't forget that people need lots of "logos" that aren't actually logos.
If I shoot an ad or tv program with people walking down the street every shop sign is going to need a logo, but not an actual logo. Whenever there's a fake company in a TV series they need a stock logo to fill in where a real logo would be. I have seen my work pop up in just this sort of thing.
Just though of something else. My kids bought some clothes from the supermarket today again featuring logo-esque motifs. You see them all the time in kids clothing isles, fake sports teams, fake scout troops, fake fire departments, armies and whatever else you can think of. Once you get onto the toy isle toy cars have fake sanitation company logos on them, fake construction company logos, can't stop thinking of examples now!
-
Please let me say something to you. Most of the people here doesn't have link to their portfolios, but judging from the ones I could see... your content is s**t.
Could you post a link to yours? I would love to learn from you on how to improve.
-
That's weird, there's a lot of vectors in database, like a logo? Why would then someone create vector-logo if those are not allowed to be used as logo?
This is not weird.
You are correct that with your point that why would someone create vector logo when they are not allowed to use it. But actually they are.
Around a year back one of my client told about a scene which happened with shutterstock. The scene happened to be like this, the client wanted to use any design as a logo so he contacted the shutterstock team for the license clarification. In which the team replies that yes he can use it as a logo but in that case he need to do a buy-out purchase and the design will be removed from all the microstock channels and will sold to you with all the complete rights.
Now the price for that license was ranging from 5k-10k (I don't remember exactly) and a good percentage was to be given to the contributor.
-
Q1 + Q2 2015
Earnings: 198.000.000 $
Download: 69.300.000
Items (June 2015): 57.200.000
Q1 + Q2 2016
Earnings: 240.000.000 $ (+21%)
Download: 84.200.000 (+21%)
Items (June 2015): 92.000.000 (+61%)
- Shutterstock Earning increase 21% in a year,
- Almost all contributors complaining about earning decrease,
- Where do you think the "increased earnings" are?
-
Q1 + Q2 2015
Earnings: 198.000.000 $
Download: 69.300.000
Items (June 2015): 57.200.000
Q1 + Q2 2016
Earnings: 240.000.000 $ (+21%)
Download: 84.200.000 (+21%)
Items (June 2015): 92.000.000 (+61%)
- Shutterstock Earning increase 21% in a year,
- Almost all contributors complaining about earning decrease,
- Where do you think the "increased earnings" are?
That's an easy one. They have a lot more contributors. The pie gets bigger but most of us get a smaller slice. They can also raise prices and pay us the same or less.
-
Well that was quick... I submitted only 3 photos instead of 10 to SS since you only need one, and they approved all three, so I guess I will start uploading some more soon. My niece moved in with us for the next 5 years while she attends college and suggested that she'd like to do some stock modeling to make a little extra spending money so I am just trying to get enough income to be able to help her out......
-
sharpshot! I am not so sure anymore most of the complainers seem to be very established contributors that like myself have been with them almost from the very start. Contributors with large portfolios of 10000 files and more.
An increase of members and files followed by a soft drop of earnings would make sense but most of these people are complaining about sudden 50% drops and complete stand-stills for hours and long cut off periods.
Many of these people are long time members they know the ropes from experience and can hardly be imagining this.
Myself well I am absolutely sure that somewhere along the line bot SS and Adobe are trying to sort of keep all happy and spreading it out a bit a sort of " fair" for all if you know what I mean and in doing that many members will be " robbed" of potential earnings.
Mght be wrong of course its all a guessing game but its all turning into a very unstable and unsecure agency. :)
-
One persons "fair" is another's "robbed" I'm not sure either really mean much in this business. If a buyer is equally happy with a newer persons file then that's just business isn't it?
-
One persons "fair" is another's "robbed" I'm not sure either really mean much in this business. If a buyer is equally happy with a newer persons file then that's just business isn't it?
Monkey business! haha! ;D
-
sharpshot! I am not so sure anymore most of the complainers seem to be very established contributors that like myself have been with them almost from the very start. Contributors with large portfolios of 10000 files and more.
An increase of members and files followed by a soft drop of earnings would make sense but most of these people are complaining about sudden 50% drops and complete stand-stills for hours and long cut off periods.
Many of these people are long time members they know the ropes from experience and can hardly be imagining this.
Myself well I am absolutely sure that somewhere along the line bot SS and Adobe are trying to sort of keep all happy and spreading it out a bit a sort of " fair" for all if you know what I mean and in doing that many members will be " robbed" of potential earnings.
Mght be wrong of course its all a guessing game but its all turning into a very unstable and unsecure agency. :)
I did not believe this before. Just sudden drop in downloads over night. BUT... it happend to me now to. Only difference is that I understand that SS should mix things up now and then to give buyers a good experience en not show the same images over and over again. I'm also a buyer. No need for me to go complaining here and blame the industrie. Business is business. And yes. I depend on this income very much so it's not that I don't care. I need this income to pay my bills.
Before 21st of November I had 200-250 downloads on weekdays. But then suddenly I don't get over 155 on weekdays. I have 1600 files. So I have a drop of +100 downloads a day. Weird thing is that I still manage to get $100+ days on SS but I think that is just luck until now. New files start selling like they used to so I need about 200 new files to catch up again. So yes... it's true. A drop over night. Another contributor here I talk to in private has the same experience. He has less files than me and even more downloads and also dropped 100+ since 21st. But like me it motivated him to make more images and just deal with it. And hopefully sales will clime back up again even without new files.
-
sharpshot! I am not so sure anymore most of the complainers seem to be very established contributors that like myself have been with them almost from the very start. Contributors with large portfolios of 10000 files and more.
An increase of members and files followed by a soft drop of earnings would make sense but most of these people are complaining about sudden 50% drops and complete stand-stills for hours and long cut off periods.
Many of these people are long time members they know the ropes from experience and can hardly be imagining this.
Myself well I am absolutely sure that somewhere along the line bot SS and Adobe are trying to sort of keep all happy and spreading it out a bit a sort of " fair" for all if you know what I mean and in doing that many members will be " robbed" of potential earnings.
Mght be wrong of course its all a guessing game but its all turning into a very unstable and unsecure agency. :)
I did not believe this before. Just sudden drop in downloads over night. BUT... it happend to me now to. Only difference is that I understand that SS should mix things up now and then to give buyers a good experience en not show the same images over and over again. I'm also a buyer. No need for me to go complaining here and blame the industrie. Business is business. And yes. I depend on this income very much so it's not that I don't care. I need this income to pay my bills.
Before 21st of November I had 200-250 downloads on weekdays. But then suddenly I don't get over 155 on weekdays. I have 1600 files. So I have a drop of +100 downloads a day. Weird thing is that I still manage to get $100+ days on SS but I think that is just luck until now. New files start selling like they used to so I need about 200 new files to catch up again. So yes... it's true. A drop over night. Another contributor here I talk to in private has the same experience. He has less files than me and even more downloads and also dropped 100+ since 21st. But like me it motivated him to make more images and just deal with it. And hopefully sales will clime back up again even without new files.
Indeed! I used to have around 500-700 dls per day ELs single-sales almost every day! could easily survive on my SS income and I live in an expensive country. Its still a good earner but my God! its dropped badly.
-
the team replies that yes he can use it as a logo but in that case he need to do a buy-out purchase and the design will be removed from all the microstock channels and will sold to you with all the complete rights.
Now the price for that license was ranging from 5k-10k (I don't remember exactly) and a good percentage was to be given to the contributor.
That won't work unless the design has never, ever been sold elsewhere. You can't negate the right other people who have bought the image have to continue using it forever in accordance with the terms of their license. That might very well lead to a direct conflict between the new "owner' of the image, who wants it exclusively, and others who own the right to use it regardless. Definitely not worth 5-10k to have such limited ownership and to buy a potential problem.
-
the team replies that yes he can use it as a logo but in that case he need to do a buy-out purchase and the design will be removed from all the microstock channels and will sold to you with all the complete rights.
Now the price for that license was ranging from 5k-10k (I don't remember exactly) and a good percentage was to be given to the contributor.
That won't work unless the design has never, ever been sold elsewhere. You can't negate the right other people who have bought the image have to continue using it forever in accordance with the terms of their license. That might very well lead to a direct conflict between the new "owner' of the image, who wants it exclusively, and others who own the right to use it regardless. Definitely not worth 5-10k to have such limited ownership and to buy a potential problem.
Yes, this was the first question which came to my mind, but the client said its true (who knows)
One cannot simply use it as a trademark, but remember there was a istock-twitter deal for new twitter logo which was purchased at a penny cost.
-
sharpshot! I am not so sure anymore most of the complainers seem to be very established contributors that like myself have been with them almost from the very start. Contributors with large portfolios of 10000 files and more.
An increase of members and files followed by a soft drop of earnings would make sense but most of these people are complaining about sudden 50% drops and complete stand-stills for hours and long cut off periods.
Many of these people are long time members they know the ropes from experience and can hardly be imagining this.
Myself well I am absolutely sure that somewhere along the line bot SS and Adobe are trying to sort of keep all happy and spreading it out a bit a sort of " fair" for all if you know what I mean and in doing that many members will be " robbed" of potential earnings.
Mght be wrong of course its all a guessing game but its all turning into a very unstable and unsecure agency. :)
I did not believe this before. Just sudden drop in downloads over night. BUT... it happend to me now to. Only difference is that I understand that SS should mix things up now and then to give buyers a good experience en not show the same images over and over again. I'm also a buyer. No need for me to go complaining here and blame the industrie. Business is business. And yes. I depend on this income very much so it's not that I don't care. I need this income to pay my bills.
Before 21st of November I had 200-250 downloads on weekdays. But then suddenly I don't get over 155 on weekdays. I have 1600 files. So I have a drop of +100 downloads a day. Weird thing is that I still manage to get $100+ days on SS but I think that is just luck until now. New files start selling like they used to so I need about 200 new files to catch up again. So yes... it's true. A drop over night. Another contributor here I talk to in private has the same experience. He has less files than me and even more downloads and also dropped 100+ since 21st. But like me it motivated him to make more images and just deal with it. And hopefully sales will clime back up again even without new files.
Indeed! I used to have around 500-700 dls per day ELs single-sales almost every day! could easily survive on my SS income and I live in an expensive country. Its still a good earner but my God! its dropped badly.
Are you talking about the same period? Last November 21st? I wonder if it is just me and another person I know. We both have it since the 21st.
-
sharpshot! I am not so sure anymore most of the complainers seem to be very established contributors that like myself have been with them almost from the very start. Contributors with large portfolios of 10000 files and more.
An increase of members and files followed by a soft drop of earnings would make sense but most of these people are complaining about sudden 50% drops and complete stand-stills for hours and long cut off periods.
Many of these people are long time members they know the ropes from experience and can hardly be imagining this.
Myself well I am absolutely sure that somewhere along the line bot SS and Adobe are trying to sort of keep all happy and spreading it out a bit a sort of " fair" for all if you know what I mean and in doing that many members will be " robbed" of potential earnings.
Mght be wrong of course its all a guessing game but its all turning into a very unstable and unsecure agency. :)
I did not believe this before. Just sudden drop in downloads over night. BUT... it happend to me now to. Only difference is that I understand that SS should mix things up now and then to give buyers a good experience en not show the same images over and over again. I'm also a buyer. No need for me to go complaining here and blame the industrie. Business is business. And yes. I depend on this income very much so it's not that I don't care. I need this income to pay my bills.
Before 21st of November I had 200-250 downloads on weekdays. But then suddenly I don't get over 155 on weekdays. I have 1600 files. So I have a drop of +100 downloads a day. Weird thing is that I still manage to get $100+ days on SS but I think that is just luck until now. New files start selling like they used to so I need about 200 new files to catch up again. So yes... it's true. A drop over night. Another contributor here I talk to in private has the same experience. He has less files than me and even more downloads and also dropped 100+ since 21st. But like me it motivated him to make more images and just deal with it. And hopefully sales will clime back up again even without new files.
Indeed! I used to have around 500-700 dls per day ELs single-sales almost every day! could easily survive on my SS income and I live in an expensive country. Its still a good earner but my God! its dropped badly.
Are you talking about the same period? Last November 21st? I wonder if it is just me and another person I know. We both have it since the 21st.
Yes almost exactly the same period and thats also the period when something did change or occur according to many a voice.
-
So I was working exclusively for the microstock industry. Shutterstock alone was sending me more then enough monthly to pay my bills. Now I see the earnings are like 30, 40 % down comparing to last year, and the new images I uploaded lately, they don't sell at all, and I mean 00000! and their quality is really good, similar or even better to older ones that already sold more than 2000 times.
So I had to get another occupation, I just leave the portfolio there and will see it go to insignificant earnings in record time. :'( it is pointless now to upload there.
So sad...
the more I work the more I earn, lately. And the better I work.
This is my only contribute in this discussion ... hope that helps.
-
40% drop since november 21.
-
[...]
the more I work the more I earn, lately. And the better I work.
[...]
May I ask you what commission tier are you in at Shutterstock?
-
sharpshot! I am not so sure anymore most of the complainers seem to be very established contributors that like myself have been with them almost from the very start. Contributors with large portfolios of 10000 files and more.
An increase of members and files followed by a soft drop of earnings would make sense but most of these people are complaining about sudden 50% drops and complete stand-stills for hours and long cut off periods.
Many of these people are long time members they know the ropes from experience and can hardly be imagining this.
Myself well I am absolutely sure that somewhere along the line bot SS and Adobe are trying to sort of keep all happy and spreading it out a bit a sort of " fair" for all if you know what I mean and in doing that many members will be " robbed" of potential earnings.
Mght be wrong of course its all a guessing game but its all turning into a very unstable and unsecure agency. :)
I did not believe this before. Just sudden drop in downloads over night. BUT... it happend to me now to. Only difference is that I understand that SS should mix things up now and then to give buyers a good experience en not show the same images over and over again. I'm also a buyer. No need for me to go complaining here and blame the industrie. Business is business. And yes. I depend on this income very much so it's not that I don't care. I need this income to pay my bills.
Before 21st of November I had 200-250 downloads on weekdays. But then suddenly I don't get over 155 on weekdays. I have 1600 files. So I have a drop of +100 downloads a day. Weird thing is that I still manage to get $100+ days on SS but I think that is just luck until now. New files start selling like they used to so I need about 200 new files to catch up again. So yes... it's true. A drop over night. Another contributor here I talk to in private has the same experience. He has less files than me and even more downloads and also dropped 100+ since 21st. But like me it motivated him to make more images and just deal with it. And hopefully sales will clime back up again even without new files.
http://www.calendar-12.com/holidays/thanksgiving/2016 (http://www.calendar-12.com/holidays/thanksgiving/2016)
Thursday, November 24 is Thanksgiving, the week will always be slower then average.
But you can blame some share plot, SS changing something, a bot or conspiracy. It's just a big holiday week, with vacations, travel, many businesses shut down for whole week, other close on Wed. Of course there's going to be a drop!
(https://i0.wp.com/www.trinityonline.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Calendar-Thanksgiving-WEB-600x464.jpg)
-
Yadayada: I understand your point. At first I thought the same. And believe me I am ANTI conspiracy and still don't blame the industry and SS. I love Shutterstock and still do. :) But if I look at the same period from last 3 years there was no drop. And a 100+ downloads drop a day is not normal for weeks going on. At this point it's getting better and now I am still down about 50-60 downloads a day but this is because new images sell fantastic and keep selling. So I actually see this as something positive since it made me work harder again on stock and it might give me a better return in the end. :)
I think they mixed things up to give buyers a better experience. But I am 100% sure this has nothing to do with Thanksgiving also since not everyone is experiencing the same. It's just individuals. I DON'T believe SS is trying to earn more from low tier contributors by pushing them up. I DON'T think they are keeping sales for themselves! Please don't put me in the complainers and conspiracy box! ;)
-
sharpshot! I am not so sure anymore most of the complainers seem to be very established contributors that like myself have been with them almost from the very start. Contributors with large portfolios of 10000 files and more.
An increase of members and files followed by a soft drop of earnings would make sense but most of these people are complaining about sudden 50% drops and complete stand-stills for hours and long cut off periods.
Many of these people are long time members they know the ropes from experience and can hardly be imagining this.
Myself well I am absolutely sure that somewhere along the line bot SS and Adobe are trying to sort of keep all happy and spreading it out a bit a sort of " fair" for all if you know what I mean and in doing that many members will be " robbed" of potential earnings.
Mght be wrong of course its all a guessing game but its all turning into a very unstable and unsecure agency. :)
I did not believe this before. Just sudden drop in downloads over night. BUT... it happend to me now to. Only difference is that I understand that SS should mix things up now and then to give buyers a good experience en not show the same images over and over again. I'm also a buyer. No need for me to go complaining here and blame the industrie. Business is business. And yes. I depend on this income very much so it's not that I don't care. I need this income to pay my bills.
Before 21st of November I had 200-250 downloads on weekdays. But then suddenly I don't get over 155 on weekdays. I have 1600 files. So I have a drop of +100 downloads a day. Weird thing is that I still manage to get $100+ days on SS but I think that is just luck until now. New files start selling like they used to so I need about 200 new files to catch up again. So yes... it's true. A drop over night. Another contributor here I talk to in private has the same experience. He has less files than me and even more downloads and also dropped 100+ since 21st. But like me it motivated him to make more images and just deal with it. And hopefully sales will clime back up again even without new files.
Indeed! I used to have around 500-700 dls per day ELs single-sales almost every day! could easily survive on my SS income and I live in an expensive country. Its still a good earner but my God! its dropped badly.
Are you talking about the same period? Last November 21st? I wonder if it is just me and another person I know. We both have it since the 21st.
Yes almost exactly the same period and thats also the period when something did change or occur according to many a voice.
Same pattern here. I saw an overnight drop at the end of June and another overnight drop from 21st November. At first I attributed it to the Thanksgiving holiday but it hasn't picked back up yet, so I'm guessing it's a something else.
-
Q1 + Q2 2015
Earnings: 198.000.000 $
Download: 69.300.000
Items (June 2015): 57.200.000
Q1 + Q2 2016
Earnings: 240.000.000 $ (+21%)
Download: 84.200.000 (+21%)
Items (June 2015): 92.000.000 (+61%)
- Shutterstock Earning increase 21% in a year,
- Almost all contributors complaining about earning decrease,
- Where do you think the "increased earnings" are?
What sharpshot said, but just to go into a bit more detail... the 2015 figures result in averge earnings of $3.40 per item. The 2016 figures result in averge earnings of $2.60 per item. Small increase in total sales, but large increase in total files.
So that's a 15% drop on the average earnings, and it's not outside the realms of possibility that a similar kind of drop will happen year on year. However, as Shutterstock are making a 21% increase year on year... then for them it's happy days!
-
Q1 + Q2 2015
Earnings: 198.000.000 $
Download: 69.300.000
Items (June 2015): 57.200.000
Q1 + Q2 2016
Earnings: 240.000.000 $ (+21%)
Download: 84.200.000 (+21%)
Items (June 2015): 92.000.000 (+61%)
- Shutterstock Earning increase 21% in a year,
- Almost all contributors complaining about earning decrease,
- Where do you think the "increased earnings" are?
What sharpshot said, but just to go into a bit more detail... the 2015 figures result in averge earnings of $3.40 per item. The 2016 figures result in averge earnings of $2.60 per item. Small increase in total sales, but large increase in total files.
So that's a 15% drop on the average earnings, and it's not outside the realms of possibility that a similar kind of drop will happen year on year. However, as Shutterstock are making a 21% increase year on year... then for them it's happy days!
at the moment I think selling less than 300 pcs a day it's not a job: it's a hobby. So I'm working hard to sell at least this quantity. I'm not at the par, so far. So I keep working good. When I'll reach the par, I'll keep on working the same, or better, way. It's my business, so probably I'll have to invest some money in something special, like high-level models or simply increasing the number of high-level models or excellent locations ...
We all know it's not going to last forever ... but in the meanwhile we have to build something. I know I'm going to learn lots of things in quality standards, customers need, and so on. What I build is for me. Do you remember for how many years the vast majority of people around you used Microsoft Word 97 cliparts for their everyday graphics? It's twenty year they keep using them.
And I fear they'll do the same with some "thumbs up" files by Arcurs. If they're good they'll work forever. At least until hairstyle won't change as much as it did in the eighties :D
-
Consider Arcurs account on iStock: it's not him uploading, hardly ever. But the total number of high-quality files with standard content increases. His account alone covers quality and quantity. There are lots of other authors with high quality and numbers.
We have to do well to compete, not only work and complain. AND we can go back to local market but ... uh... there are millions of iphones and people unable to see differences from your works to other works.
It's no more a market for the average photographer. Vector artists are growing: but for creativity there is lots of space! :)
And footage is required more and more.
Even music!
-
Yadayada: I understand your point. At first I thought the same. And believe me I am ANTI conspiracy and still don't blame the industry and SS. I love Shutterstock and still do. :) But if I look at the same period from last 3 years there was no drop. And a 100+ downloads drop a day is not normal for weeks going on. At this point it's getting better and now I am still down about 50-60 downloads a day but this is because new images sell fantastic and keep selling. So I actually see this as something positive since it made me work harder again on stock and it might give me a better return in the end. :)
I think they mixed things up to give buyers a better experience. But I am 100% sure this has nothing to do with Thanksgiving also since not everyone is experiencing the same. It's just individuals. I DON'T believe SS is trying to earn more from low tier contributors by pushing them up. I DON'T think they are keeping sales for themselves! Please don't put me in the complainers and conspiracy box! ;)
[complainer box] ;D There's no business reason to promote photos that aren't as good as others, even if it's low paying. Mixing search for buyers is a good thing, we all get more exposure, instead of some old photos stuck on top based on sales. 50 a day is good work, nice going.
We can't predict these slow sales or fast sales. When somebody says others have noticed search change, it's just trying to defend suspicion based on heresay. I can write many people are seeing higher sales and better search, and some of us will see that is true.
People will see what they want to see and no amount of evidence will change their mind. This is how superstition and myth works. My search place that I look at is the same. I'm still on top of the ones I watched.
Best days November 2015 3,10,30 for me. Week of Thanksgiving was worst. 6,11,12,24 in 2015. 17,27 in 2014. 5,6,11 in 2013.This proves nothing except change. Total, grew every year, 2015 is one less sale then 2014, 2016 almost double earnings of 2015 and 30 more sales.
Proves nothing because my pictures are not anybody else pictures. I have Christmas and holiday food photos. That's not what sells most, but what I'd think should. Competition for best sellers and popular subjects keeps going up. Niche subjects keep selling best for me. I stopped shooting best selling and over uploaded subjects three years ago.
I blame most of the industry for lowering percentage which is lower pay. SS hasn't changed like others, lowered EL but raised OD and Other. Adobe has increased. These two are the ones to make the most money.
2017 predictions, Adobe will go past iStock and never look back. The same people who come here to complain all day every day, will keep complaining no matter what we gain or make more from SS or Adobe.
I don't see Microstock industry for us as looking up, but I see 4 or 5 agencies that will make me more in 2017. I'll work for those and ignore the rest.
-
Not 50 downloads a day. I am DOWN 50 - 60 downloads. My best day this week was 164. :( I always have 3-4 weeks of 200 - 240. Monday and Friday are always low. The other person I mentioned just send me a message that today his sales are back to normal so I hope mine will go back to normal also. Just hoping. :)
-
Not 50 downloads a day. I am DOWN 50 - 60 downloads. My best day this week was 164. :( I always have 3-4 weeks of 200 - 240. Monday and Friday are always low. The other person I mentioned just send me a message that today his sales are back to normal so I hope mine will go back to normal also. Just hoping. :)
Oh my bad, down 50 a day is bad. Hope they come back soon.
-
I am also down +/- 50 downloads per day since November 21. Day usually start good first 8 hours, but after that, next 16 hours, sales stops. Almost no buyers from North America.
-
Not 50 downloads a day. I am DOWN 50 - 60 downloads. My best day this week was 164. :( I always have 3-4 weeks of 200 - 240. Monday and Friday are always low. The other person I mentioned just send me a message that today his sales are back to normal so I hope mine will go back to normal also. Just hoping. :)
what kind of images you have and number?
-
Look upon it this way. Its a business and if you had a shop, tele-sales! with 20 employees on the phone. Lets say 10 employees was on a 25% commission and the other 10 on 15% commission.
Which 10 employees do you prefer to sell the most? so that you in the end of the day earn as much as possible and saving having to pay out too much commission?
So when high end contributors are wrecking their brains out wondering where all the sales are landing. Well......... :)
-
Even music!
Haha, "Even music"?
Music runs circles around image sales (in $$$) I assure you. ;D
Anything that takes time and skill will be worth much more. Great studio photography takes great skill and time, but it definitely is possible to get lucky with images if you happen to own a camera. This is not the case with advanced footage (like well-done hyper lapses for example) and music. There aren't any "lucky" people posting that kind of material. You HAVE to put the time and the skill in, and if you do, you don't have that much competition.
-
Look upon it this way. Its a business and if you had a shop, tele-sales! with 20 employees on the phone. Lets say 10 employees was on a 25% commission and the other 10 on 15% commission.
Which 10 employees do you prefer to sell the most? so that you in the end of the day earn as much as possible and saving having to pay out too much commission?
So when high end contributors are wrecking their brains out wondering where all the sales are landing. Well......... :)
Close but somebody making 15% selling 18" Emerson TVs, will not make more commissions then someone selling expensive 52" Sony flat screen at 25%. Customers buy what they want and need, not what agency shoves in their face. Your argument assumes that buyers are stupid and will buy junk photos instead of better work.
You assume that being in front of search means more sales, because buyers have no brains and buy what they see first.
You have no proof that new or lower percent people are pushed to the front, except people like you making this claim. No Proof or fact of your claim. It's all rumors and hypothetical BS.
-
the team replies that yes he can use it as a logo but in that case he need to do a buy-out purchase and the design will be removed from all the microstock channels and will sold to you with all the complete rights.
Now the price for that license was ranging from 5k-10k (I don't remember exactly) and a good percentage was to be given to the contributor.
That won't work unless the design has never, ever been sold elsewhere. You can't negate the right other people who have bought the image have to continue using it forever in accordance with the terms of their license. That might very well lead to a direct conflict between the new "owner' of the image, who wants it exclusively, and others who own the right to use it regardless. Definitely not worth 5-10k to have such limited ownership and to buy a potential problem.
didn't (or still does?) do it DT that way? I seem to remember I had 2 or 3 requests from DT for 'Sell Rights' a few years ago. I always turned it down, too many colour and geometric variations (vector bgs) to take down (and which ones are not variations anymore?), but always wondered as well why someone would be interested to buy exclusive rights of an image that has already sold a few hundred times... obviously you can't the sold licenses back?!
-
....
People will see what they want to see and no amount of evidence will change their mind. This is how superstition and myth works. My search place that I look at is the same. I'm still on top of the ones I watched.
....
I want to see more and higher $ sales. That isn't what I am seeing.
I haven't looked at this search, but search changes do happen and they can be devastating (or good) for any one seller, although I think when they are good your sales ramp up and when they are bad it is like shutting the tap off so much more noticeable.
-
I want to "see" higher sales. Why isn't the superstition/myth working ...
-
Look upon it this way. Its a business and if you had a shop, tele-sales! with 20 employees on the phone. Lets say 10 employees was on a 25% commission and the other 10 on 15% commission.
Which 10 employees do you prefer to sell the most? so that you in the end of the day earn as much as possible and saving having to pay out too much commission?
So when high end contributors are wrecking their brains out wondering where all the sales are landing. Well......... :)
Close but somebody making 15% selling 18" Emerson TVs, will not make more commissions then someone selling expensive 52" Sony flat screen at 25%. Customers buy what they want and need, not what agency shoves in their face. Your argument assumes that buyers are stupid and will buy junk photos instead of better work.
You assume that being in front of search means more sales, because buyers have no brains and buy what they see first.
You have no proof that new or lower percent people are pushed to the front, except people like you making this claim. No Proof or fact of your claim. It's all rumors and hypothetical BS.
Dont be so negative! always look on the bright side of life!
-
Anything that takes time and skill will be worth much more. Great studio photography takes great skill and time, but it definitely is possible to get lucky with images if you happen to own a camera. This is not the case with advanced footage (like well-done hyper lapses for example) and music. There aren't any "lucky" people posting that kind of material. You HAVE to put the time and the skill in, and if you do, you don't have that much competition.
I'm creating 4k hyperlapses which are a bitch to make (long and tedious to shoot, long (color and tone) processing, stabilization, etc.)
It takes quite a while to create them, and they sell so rarely that it's not even worth it to create them from a financial perspective. I'll continue doing them (because I like that), but I always know that I'm on a loss, and that it'd be wasting my time if I weren't enjoying it.
-
Anything that takes time and skill will be worth much more. Great studio photography takes great skill and time, but it definitely is possible to get lucky with images if you happen to own a camera. This is not the case with advanced footage (like well-done hyper lapses for example) and music. There aren't any "lucky" people posting that kind of material. You HAVE to put the time and the skill in, and if you do, you don't have that much competition.
It takes quite a while to create them, and they sell so rarely that it's not even worth it to create them from a financial perspective.
Tell him hyperlapses are not even worth to create them from a financial perspective :)
http://www.shutterstock.com/ru/video/gallery/Kirill-Neiezhmakov-1144685/ (http://www.shutterstock.com/ru/video/gallery/Kirill-Neiezhmakov-1144685/)
-
There's no need to be smug :) I'm sharing my experience with hyperlapsing.
I know Kiril and the other guys who are the best in the game regarding hyperlapses. My skill level isn't so high, but it also isn't far behind. And from my experience, it's not worth it from a financial perspective. Then again, I'm not traveling to Dubai, Shanghai and other cities where there is a maybe a higher need for these types of videos.