Quote from: obj owl on October 17, 2016, 07:15

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.

Quote from: JohnQ123 on October 17, 2016, 03:26

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.

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.

Quote from: Pauws99 on October 18, 2016, 05:09

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.

Quote from: Bauman on October 10, 2016, 05:25

Quote from: KuriousKat on October 10, 2016, 05:14

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.

Quote from: KuriousKat on October 10, 2016, 05:34

Quote from: Bauman on October 10, 2016, 05:25

Quote from: KuriousKat on October 10, 2016, 05:14

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.

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.

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.

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!!!

Quote from: SpaceStockFootage on October 18, 2016, 00:25

Quote from: obj owl on October 17, 2016, 07:15

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?

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.

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.

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.