MicrostockGroup
Agency Based Discussion => Shutterstock.com => Topic started by: JetCityImage on August 23, 2018, 17:13
-
The number of downloads has S-L-O-W-L-Y gone back up but the Single & Other and On Demand have been very sluggish.
-
Nope. Still down 300 a month from a few months ago against my 800 a month average.
-
Shutter will never be normal again...
-
SS was zero for two days for me, which is quite unusual. However, I then had double the normal daily sales for the next couple days. Looked to me like there was just a glitch in reporting to us, but once the glitch was resolved, the backlog of sales all got reported at once.
It was just a short and small glitch. Nothing to get concerned over. At the end of the month, let alone end of year, I won't even remember a couple days of puzzling silence.
-
It's been an absolute disaster for me this month, down more than 50% on any month in the last few years (and down something like 95% on my best-ever months.)
-
This month is performing badly. :(
-
I was on the road to having a good month, but from this week sales have fallen from the cliff. Looks like it will be below average.
-
It's been an absolute disaster for me this month, down more than 50% on any month in the last few years (and down something like 95% on my best-ever months.)
Just about sums up my month too. Terrible month on SS so far.
-
About 30% less than usual... Very strange....
Edit: 70% .......
-
With SS it's hard to tell what normal is anymore.
-
Same. Around 40% drop from the usual. August has been the worst month in the last 4 years. If many are experiencing this, then who's to blame?
-
It's been an absolute disaster for me this month, down more than 50% on any month in the last few years (and down something like 95% on my best-ever months.)
Just about sums up my month too. Terrible month on SS so far.
Same here.
It seems to have stabilized at this low turnover. A new Search Algorithm that really sucks.
-
Shutter will never be normal again...
Can't help but agree.
One good thing . . . The few that sell are there to remind me what I was shooting 12 years ago!
-
I will finish this month at the level I was at in 2011 - down over $1000 a month on the heady days of 2013-16.
I guess the last seven years of hard work and uploading has been a total waste where Shutterstock is concerned.
-
The new stable "normal" is roughly what i earned in 2014 with a portfolio 15% of the size.
As others have said, the map is like a nostalgia trip - reminding me of images i took years ago and forgot existed.
I had 2 from my application 10 images sell this week that had never sold before!
-
Very slow.
-
About 60% off what it used to be a couple years ago
-
The number of downloads has S-L-O-W-L-Y gone back up but the Single & Other and On Demand have been very sluggish.
number of download increase but total earning is little down compared to last year. the big problem is not the download, i'm 30% up compared to last year, the problem i the 0 enhanced, the small sod and on demand compared to last year. sub were always 40% of the total now account for 70%.
-
Pretty much identical trend here.
My download numbers are steadily and increasing slowly. But the RPD is dropping because more and more of them are going to subs and lower prices images.
Looking at my graphs my royalty per dowload has dropped over 50% in the last 2.5 years.
-
It's been an absolute disaster for me this month, down more than 50% on any month in the last few years (and down something like 95% on my best-ever months.)
Identical.The fat Lady is singing for the vast majority.
-
It's been an absolute disaster for me this month, down more than 50% on any month in the last few years (and down something like 95% on my best-ever months.)
Identical.The fat Lady is singing for the vast majority.
I am currently 50% down ($400 less than normal for scale) and I had my first zero download day (on a Saturday) in 10 + years. This drop is significant and it is month #4 I've been in this range. Four months ago I dropped from $800 a month to $600 a month. June/July I went from $600 to $500 and this month (August) I will be at $400 unless I get some really big, juicy sales this coming week. But I have accepted that the industry for many is on life support. Beer money now and maybe an occasional lens or strobe after a few months of saving.
-
So, have the buyers migrated to Adobe or is it 'just' supply outstripping demand, or ... ?
-
Adobe is growing for me month on month but is still only about 50% SS income.
That said its been a steady rising trend for a while so is catching up as SS levels off.
-
So, have the buyers migrated to Adobe or is it 'just' supply outstripping demand, or ... ?
Looking at the stats that are audited and published there is no evidence I can see that sales overall at SS are falling. So they may be distributed amongst contributors differently. Whether this is "fair" or due to some kind of deliberate tactic will of course be debated continuously.
-
AS overtook SS a few months ago and the gap is getting larger every month. SS is dead for me and hardly worth uploading anymore. Sad.
-
My losses are important.
My sales decreased by 40%
-
70% down so far
-
What is normal and for whom?
Before 2012 normal? From 2012 to 2016 normal, or now with 100 million new images added as competition?
Nothing will ever return to the way it was, so normal is what we have now, and in a couple years "normal" will be something different again. Change is normal... :)
-
You can think of SS as like a nightclub or expensive bar.
Previously there was a dress code and vetted to get in. Once in you had to meet a minimum standard to stay a useful part.
Now they've axed the door security and the dress code, let everyone in and once in you can do whatever you like as there are no standards.
Net result, millions of new low quality images from new contributors who'd never previously have qualified.
-
You can think of SS as like a nightclub or expensive bar.
Previously there was a dress code and vetted to get in. Once in you had to meet a minimum standard to stay a useful part.
Now they've axed the door security and the dress code, let everyone in and once in you can do whatever you like as there are no standards.
Net result, millions of new low quality images from new contributors who'd never previously have qualified.
Wonderful analogy :) Add that they also cut the bartenders wages and lowered drink prices, have a DJ instead of live bands? ;)
-
this would be a laugh if August would be identical in income to July/June/May. Three times in a row is suspicious, but four times in a row? I mean identical, with a $1+-
-
Same old, same old.
-
Actually a BME for me on SS.
But then I only do video there.
-
Waaayyyy down...
Subs, subs and only subs.....
Can't even afford to pay the fat lady to sing.....
:(
-
Subs, subs and only subs.....
Same here. Might as well be called Subberstock!
-
Some amazing Spamfolios here:-
https://www.shutterstock.com/g/agiampiccolo?page=1&sort=newest&search_source=base_gallery&language=en (https://www.shutterstock.com/g/agiampiccolo?page=1&sort=newest&search_source=base_gallery&language=en)
Appears to be 40,000 images of the same thing with only slight changes and mono/colour for each one.
I guess SS dont do rejections for similar any more!
-
Some amazing Spamfolios here:-
Appears to be 40,000 images of the same thing with only slight changes and mono/colour for each one.
I guess SS doesn't do rejections for similar any more!
That one is indeed mind-blowing. I HAVE had rejects for too many similar, when I submitted 5 shots of a cheetah in Namibia and they decided the pose was not sufficiently different.
I wonder how long this guy has had those images up, and how he got them there? Perhaps a few a day, so they don't all flood the same reviewer and are thus not noticed. Even then, 45,000+???
And more to the point, I wonder what his sales are from this...?
-
If you go back through the pages (yes, i WAS that bored).
He's got the same shots with the same view dated 2017 and 2018 (yet the same people in same clothing...)
I dont think SS care any more. I've had 1 similar rejection lately and thats because i accidentally uploaded the same file twice due to FTP delays.
The problem i see with that is if someone else uploads a handful of GOOD "Sicily marina" or whatever photos they'll never get found as the 30 pages of near identical images from this will prevent it.
-
Normal is the day before the IPO. 2012.Sorry, But I hope AS takes over the top spot. I have respect for them and I feel they care about us.....Last 3 Months their beating SS by about 22%
-
If you go back through the pages (yes, i WAS that bored).
He's got the same shots with the same view dated 2017 and 2018 (yet the same people in same clothing...)
Which is interesting in that some people complain about nit picking model releases...one conspiracy I do buy into is that some people's submissions are "waved through" whether its to reduce costs or something more cunning/dodgy I don't know.
-
So very sad to see a portfolio like that. I've passed the "angry" phase. I'm just numb over what SS has done to the company.
I think I may just stick with Adobe for a while. My new work is appreciated (and downloaded) there. There is no motivation to upload to SS anymore for me. Just a complete waste of time.
-
I also wonder if they are tinkering with geographical searches again. Either that or the US has completely stopped buying......
-
Some amazing Spamfolios here:-
https://www.shutterstock.com/g/agiampiccolo?page=1&sort=newest&search_source=base_gallery&language=en (https://www.shutterstock.com/g/agiampiccolo?page=1&sort=newest&search_source=base_gallery&language=en)
Appears to be 40,000 images of the same thing with only slight changes and mono/colour for each one.
I guess SS dont do rejections for similar any more!
This is beyond garbage, even worse than the Yoghurt man and Icon Warriors combined.
-
Some amazing Spamfolios here:-
https://www.shutterstock.com/g/agiampiccolo?page=1&sort=newest&search_source=base_gallery&language=en (https://www.shutterstock.com/g/agiampiccolo?page=1&sort=newest&search_source=base_gallery&language=en)
Appears to be 40,000 images of the same thing with only slight changes and mono/colour for each one.
I guess SS dont do rejections for similar any more!
You should open a ticket on shutterstock and ask for explanations about it, we all should do it.
-
So, have the buyers migrated to Adobe or is it 'just' supply outstripping demand, or ... ?
My impression is that there was some search change. The drop started suddenly this month, and may have finished on the 27th - seem to have had a few days of normal sales. Looks like August will finish at about 50% of a regular month.
-
Returned? For me, it is "normal" since many years.
-
I take a break for microstock about june/july 2016 when i reach my maximum performance, i started to upload again in january 2017 and then nothing was like before.
-
Shutter who?
-
So, have the buyers migrated to Adobe or is it 'just' supply outstripping demand, or ... ?
My impression is that there was some search change. The drop started suddenly this month, and may have finished on the 27th - seem to have had a few days of normal sales. Looks like August will finish at about 50% of a regular month.
Whoa, this is exactly what happened to me. For the 27th-29th sales were getting better. But then it dropped again on the 30th. I'm guessing due to another technichal issue that happened late on the 29th.
-
So very sad to see a portfolio like that. I've passed the "angry" phase. I'm just numb over what SS has done to the company.
I think I may just stick with Adobe for a while. My new work is appreciated (and downloaded) there. There is no motivation to upload to SS anymore for me. Just a complete waste of time.
When I saw that I went ballistic and sent a Link to ALEX... Not one word in response.None, Zero. simply amazing. I demanded to Know how this crap happens. zero.And I am seeing More and More Horrible Pictures getting accepted especially Crooked Horizons which personally drives me insane.
-
Normal is the day before the IPO. 2012.Sorry, But I hope AS takes over the top spot. I have respect for them and I feel they care about us.....Last 3 Months their beating SS by about 22%
Hi Lauren!
SS= BIG internal problems!
-
Have been on SS for about six months. Slow start then sales increased exponentially. Best week ever with multiple sales most days then absolutely nothing for a week.
-
I'd argue "multiple sales a day" is probably such a small number on SS as to be statistically insignificant.
Unless its 10s of sales a day or more i dont think you can extract any data from the noise.
-
The good news is that they turned off the cap on my account this month!
Steve
-
The good news is that they turned off the cap on my account this month!
Steve
Not so much caps as pointy witches hats :o
-
Looks like an average "day of week" thing with lowest on Saturday (the global weekend), not a lot sunday and back to work Monday peak.
(http://www.whitcombe.org.uk/files/ss-trend/dl-per-day.PNG)
Thats my DL per day of week for 2018.
-
No! Shutterstock has been falling for a long long time. At first it was working harder just to not have a decline. Then working even harder to have it not decline as fast. I make less than half as much as I did 5 years ago but have a portfolio twice the size.
It's a losing game.
-
No, about 1/3 to 1/2 of the income since last year...very bad.
Happy that more people have recon the problems...I said it a year ago but just been taunted...here we are now...very unsaticfing.
Skickat från min iPhone med Tapatalk
-
Yep turned the cap off early yesterday morning and replaced it with a hat! one of these Sherlock-Holmes hats, tailormade from Saville-Row! I'm very pleased about that!
-
I will finish this month at the level I was at in 2011 - down over $1000 a month on the heady days of 2013-16.
I guess the last seven years of hard work and uploading has been a total waste where Shutterstock is concerned.
Pre 2012 was all good for everyone. Many Huge days.
-
No! Shutterstock has been falling for a long long time. At first it was working harder just to not have a decline. Then working even harder to have it not decline as fast. I make less than half as much as I did 5 years ago but have a portfolio twice the size.
It's a losing game.
Correct mark. But...were you here before the IPO. the next day us old timers felt a shudder
-
Still very, very low for me. About 30% of last year.
-
Crap. Utter crap. Crappy site taking on millions of unscreened snaps of poor quality. Shambles. Controlled, capped sales. Rubbish.
-
Shutter will never be normal again...
Can't help but agree.
One good thing . . . The few that sell are there to remind me what I was shooting 12 years ago!
Best Post in a long time. Im selling stuff I haven't seen in Like forever.
-
seems like its not a good month SS for me :(
-
Crap. Utter crap. Crappy site taking on millions of unscreened snaps of poor quality. Shambles. Controlled, capped sales. Rubbish.
I agree! utter rubbish! question is if its worthwhile hanging on at SS, RM/RF agencies are very reluctant in taking on RF-ports that once have been with SS, even if its new content as RF and thats of course since SS is the micro leader ( or supposed to be anyway).
I dont know??... Micro-stock is far from my main photography income but still, future is bleak since as you say they just accept any old rubbish into the agency, there just isnt any stop there is it? just piling it in by the thousands every single day.
-
RIP to microstock photography I say reluctantly. The millennials expect everything free on a plate.
-
RIP to microstock photography I say reluctantly. The millennials expect everything free on a plate.
Yeah and add to that this new Admin at SS is made up of bean-counters and cretins! haha! fat chance! ::)
-
I've already sold more photos on the SS in every aspect, subscrition, on demand and single $ other. What has saved me are video sales.
So I can say, that for me, everything is ok after all.
But it is clear that the quality of the portfolio in general has fallen a lot on the site and the competition is great.
I think, currently what I get is already good. The trend is to worsen sales gradually.
Making big investments, whether in photography or videos, to expose your portfolio on the microstock today can be very frustrating for some.
-
It just gets worse and worse and worse every week.
-
It just gets worse and worse and worse every week.
You better be careful being too doom and gloom otherwise you'll get the SS Barry wannabe clique ripping the sh-it out of you ::)
-
Subs, subs and only subs.....
Same here. Might as well be called Subberstock!
Hmmm I smell doom and gloom; perhaps you should work harder or smarter.... ;D
or perhaps harsmarter.... ::)
-
Terrible month for my videos!! Worst than I could ever expect... Very depressing :-[
-
Very good month
-
Down 60% this month
-
Bad month here..
-
Expecting a 40% drop from last years' September.
-
Terrible, abysmal etc etc etc. Ss is run by Muppets.
Better work harsmarter like the expert in the forums. Who is Barry btw ?
-
Terrible, abysmal etc etc etc. Ss is run by Muppets.
Better work harsmarter like the expert in the forums. Who is Barry btw ?
Barry Blackburn ~ he gained some notoriety for constantly baiting Laurin Rinder at every opportunity. He hasn't been on the forum since 2016.
Seems the SS clique have started a thread bawling for him to come back; in between bragging themselves up and slating other contributors whilst thinking it funny.
-
Terrible, abysmal etc etc etc. Ss is run by Muppets.
Better work harsmarter like the expert in the forums. Who is Barry btw ?
I dont know if true or not so dont quote me on it! but I personally know somebody who worked there since the very start ( not now though) well something drastic must have happened because they have got rid of all people associated with oringer?? and replaced them with a cheap younger Admin team not even getting half the wages as the prior! hence no experience what so ever!...true or not?
This could explain a lot! some years back Getty had Internal politics problems and for a couple of years nothing worked as it should everything went downhill. They finally got new staff admin etc and slowly things got back to normal, only seems the damage was done they lost some really famous photographers and buyers. I dont think many here remember that since it was around 2010.
Trouble is once this starts within a corp it might hold for a year or two but sooner or later the downhill starts it might not have an effect on sales in the beginning its enough with bad investments etc, etc!
Look at IStock some years back it was enough that loads of members complained giving a terrible picture in public forums and the word went around! and Istock nearly crashed!
-
Terrible, abysmal etc etc etc. Ss is run by Muppets.
Better work harsmarter like the expert in the forums. Who is Barry btw ?
I dont know if true or not so dont quote me on it! but I personally know somebody who worked there since the very start ( not now though) well something drastic must have happened because they have got rid of all people associated with oringer?? and replaced them with a cheap younger Admin team not even getting half the wages as the prior! hence no experience what so ever!...true or not?
This could explain a lot! some years back Getty had Internal politics problems and for a couple of years nothing worked as it should everything went downhill. They finally got new staff admin etc and slowly things got back to normal, only seems the damage was done they lost some really famous photographers and buyers. I dont think many here remember that since it was around 2010.
Trouble is once this starts within a corp it might hold for a year or two but sooner or later the downhill starts it might not have an effect on sales in the beginning its enough with bad investments etc, etc!
Look at IStock some years back it was enough that loads of members complained giving a terrible picture in public forums and the word went around! and Istock nearly crashed!
And looking at the work, nothing special to brag about in my opinion.
-
last 10 days appalling..the worst in year...seem as my download has stopped just to make the 2018 the same as 2017, something in june i couldn't believe cause i have nearly doubled the same period in 2017.luckily fotolia and esp grows strongly each month.
-
Its worst monday at SS, this month is performing very bad.
-
i add that review time are literally quintuplicate from a bunch of hour in the past months to 5 6 days....they are imploding..i suspect the following revenue per contributor, this doesn't mean ss is losing money, probably is bringing many to upload like crazy hoping to improve sales. at what point many will realize that uploading is totally useless, apart if you have ne and astounding work?
-
Such a joke now. I thought it was starting to pick up but it seems now and again SS keeps slamming itself to the floor.
-
Uploading....uploading...uploading....uploading....less sales.....less sales....less sales....less sales....
C R A P
-
Its worst monday at SS, this month is performing very bad.
So the day was saved with 3 fig SOD sale. :)
-
bad September here :(
-
Whoever messed up the SS site wants horsewhipping. More chance of getting wool off a tortoise than any income at the moment. DEPRESSINGLY BAD!!!!!
-
I was hoping for an upswing after summer months but sadly, September is worse than August for me. Im selling some very old images, from the ancient times 6 or 7 years ago when I started... Maybe some search change again, I dont know. But it is depressing :-\
-
I was hoping for an upswing after summer months but sadly, September is worse than August for me. Im selling some very old images, from the ancient times 6 or 7 years ago when I started... Maybe some search change again, I dont know. But it is depressing :-\
o course they did something..since 15 nosediving after a very good first 15 days of septeber...it's not possible that from 14 to 16 the sales pattern changes so dramatically. they manipulate sales and those who don't believe better lives on the moon.
-
Crap. Utter crap. Crappy site taking on millions of unscreened snaps of poor quality. Shambles. Controlled, capped sales. Rubbish.
That's why it took you a year to get 7 accepted on SS they had standards back then.
-
Returned to the new normal...very bad month so far, only subs and volume down.
It’s been this way since last june.
Reviews are longer, i wonder why.
However, istock and adobe are stronger each month, with constant growth correlated to reguler upload.
Good surprises on alamy, with several big sales( up to 200$ net income for one picture).
Other agencies...peanuts.
-
SS truly awful. Others just ok but given SS is the biggie.....
:(
-
On course for my worst month of the year at SS.
Download numbers down, 99% of sales are subs.
Complete garbage.
-
Whenever, I read a topic like "How was your month" we get the following replies:
1. Newbie states - "Best Month Ever" - yeah, you have like 100 images or less in your portfolio and if your sales go from 10 to 14 you have a whooping 40% increase. Yeah!
2. Veteran states - "Worse Month Ever" - They have over thousands of images in their inventory and just keeping their sales on par is a major challenge with all the newbies flooding the market.
So in the end, what is really the true value of a post like 'How was your month'? :(
-
Whenever, I read a topic like "How was your month" we get the following replies:
1. Newbie states - "Best Month Ever" - yeah, you have like 100 images or less in your portfolio and if your sales go from 10 to 14 you have a whooping 40% increase. Yeah!
2. Veteran states - "Worse Month Ever" - They have over thousands of images in their inventory and just keeping their sales on par is a major challenge with all the newbies flooding the market.
So in the end, what is really the true value of a post like 'How was your month'? :(
It fills the time between, bots doing reviews, caps, search changes, blackouts by location, stockholders run the company now, and other reasons why everything sucks? On the other side, review standards are lower than ever, duplicates and keyword spam are ignored, and the site is just a giant nearly unregulated morass.
You know my answer. 220 million images, dilution of sales. Doesn't matter if 100 million are total trash, I don't submit that and they are competition, just that the real competition is always adding new and better images. Sales down for individuals is not a mystery or unusual economics question. Individual COMPETITION.
For the agency they don't care, as long as their sales are steady and they make their 78% on our work.
My month is normal, flat and average. Been that way for about five years now.
-
Terrible, abysmal etc etc etc. Ss is run by Muppets.
Better work harsmarter like the expert in the forums. Who is Barry btw ?
I dont know if true or not so dont quote me on it! but I personally know somebody who worked there since the very start ( not now though) well something drastic must have happened because they have got rid of all people associated with oringer?? and replaced them with a cheap younger Admin team not even getting half the wages as the prior! hence no experience what so ever!...true or not?
This could explain a lot! some years back Getty had Internal politics problems and for a couple of years nothing worked as it should everything went downhill. They finally got new staff admin etc and slowly things got back to normal, only seems the damage was done they lost some really famous photographers and buyers. I dont think many here remember that since it was around 2010.
Trouble is once this starts within a corp it might hold for a year or two but sooner or later the downhill starts it might not have an effect on sales in the beginning its enough with bad investments etc, etc!
Look at IStock some years back it was enough that loads of members complained giving a terrible picture in public forums and the word went around! and Istock nearly crashed!
Nearly?
-
Whenever, I read a topic like "How was your month" we get the following replies:
1. Newbie states - "Best Month Ever" - yeah, you have like 100 images or less in your portfolio and if your sales go from 10 to 14 you have a whooping 40% increase. Yeah!
2. Veteran states - "Worse Month Ever" - They have over thousands of images in their inventory and just keeping their sales on par is a major challenge with all the newbies flooding the market.
So in the end, what is really the true value of a post like 'How was your month'? :(
It fills the time between, bots doing reviews, caps, search changes, blackouts by location, stockholders run the company now, and other reasons why everything sucks? On the other side, review standards are lower than ever, duplicates and keyword spam are ignored, and the site is just a giant nearly unregulated morass.
You know my answer. 220 million images, dilution of sales. Doesn't matter if 100 million are total trash, I don't submit that and they are competition, just that the real competition is always adding new and better images. Sales down for individuals is not a mystery or unusual economics question. Individual COMPETITION.
For the agency they don't care, as long as their sales are steady and they make their 78% on our work.
My month is normal, flat and average. Been that way for about five years now.
+1
-
Still utterly tragic. Ss have fallen well below fotolia now.
-
My month is normal, flat and average. Been that way for about five years now.
Same, had a good start, better than normal even, but because of that my last week is waay down, so that I end up with the same amount as always. So utterly predictable.
-
Because our exposure is controlled, changing on the 15th of every month without fail.
-
Because our exposure is controlled, changing on the 15th of every month without fail.
I don't know about that and I don't want to use any words that will "trigger" some, but I make the same every month regardless of fluctuations within the month itself. If I don't upload for months, same. If I upload a few hundred, same.
-
Uploading....uploading...uploading....uploading....less sales.....less sales....less sales....less sales....
C R A P
You're working too hard! I've achieved the same result but without the uploading. The new normal is about 60% down - Canva is ahead of SS so far this month, and they are way down from what they used to be.
-
Because our exposure is controlled, changing on the 15th of every month without fail.
I don't know about that and I don't want to use any words that will "trigger" some, but I make the same every month regardless of fluctuations within the month itself. If I don't upload for months, same. If I upload a few hundred, same.
My numbers for July and August (both 31 days) are suspiciously similar with less than $1 difference (about $800 month).
-
Because our exposure is controlled, changing on the 15th of every month without fail.
I don't know about that and I don't want to use any words that will "trigger" some, but I make the same every month regardless of fluctuations within the month itself. If I don't upload for months, same. If I upload a few hundred, same.
My numbers for July and August (both 31 days) are suspiciously similar with less than $1 difference (about $800 month).
I get that all the time but off course as some would say there is no cap!
-
Today I had my first "good" day on SS since July 31 - this is a completely arbitrary definition of a "good" day that I am sure would be a horrible day for some of you. In contrast in Sept 2013 I had 13 days that met this criteria. I don't know what normal is at SS anymore, except it seems to involve a lot less downloads and a lot less $ than I used to get and the occasional 0 download day which didn't happen for a number of years - I am not going to go look at all the data but probably about 2007 - 2014 or later.
-
OK, I'm not an exceptional photog BUT
not many years ago (2? maybe 3?) 30 downloads a day was good and anything under 20 terrible.
Then it became 20 was good and below...well...low was terrible.
Now, I barely scrape double figures, even on weekdays, and those mainly subs.
:(
Looking for a niche....failing to find at this stage.....
-
I can’t complain. September is the best month this year. Downloads keep increasing...
-
The new normal for me - since mid 2017 - is 40% less than before, and pretty stable.
Besides the increased competition, a rarely mentioned thing is Shutterstock did a lot of "improvements", including larger previews, small previews with no watermark, and the Shutterstock Editor.
Why do you think they did? I believe they are helping subscription buyers to try before they download. Less subs downloaded means more profit for Shutterstock and less for us.
-
Because our exposure is controlled, changing on the 15th of every month without fail.
I don't know about that and I don't want to use any words that will "trigger" some, but I make the same every month regardless of fluctuations within the month itself. If I don't upload for months, same. If I upload a few hundred, same.
My numbers for July and August (both 31 days) are suspiciously similar with less than $1 difference (about $800 month).
I get that all the time but off course as some would say there is no cap!
I never believed in the cap, but I must admit that Shutterstock are doing everything they can to try to make me change my mind: at the end of bad months, a string of high priced sales always magically occur to bring things back in line. So - if the cap exists - it works both ways, as a lower and upper limit.
-
I never believed in the cap, but I must admit that Shutterstock are doing everything they can to try to make me change my mind: at the end of bad months, a string of high priced sales always magically occur to bring things back in line. So - if the cap exists - it works both ways, as a lower and upper limit.
Maybe that's what has the opposing view so exercised with the word cap, it may imply that we make a range up until that point, when what is actually happening for some of us is a "static" income, neither up nor down. Oh well.
-
Because our exposure is controlled, changing on the 15th of every month without fail.
Now that you say that, I noticed the divider (thicker) line under the 15th just this month on our earnings summary page. Was that always there?
-
"I never believed in the cap, but I must admit that Shutterstock are doing everything they can to try to make me change my mind: at the end of bad months, a string of high priced sales always magically occur to bring things back in line. So - if the cap exists - it works both ways, as a lower and upper limit."
[/quote][/i]
I wish.....!!! :(
-
I wish.....!!! :(
I wish I could upload more to earn more, like it used to be. Not a minimum wage.
-
Because our exposure is controlled, changing on the 15th of every month without fail.
I don't know about that and I don't want to use any words that will "trigger" some, but I make the same every month regardless of fluctuations within the month itself. If I don't upload for months, same. If I upload a few hundred, same.
My numbers for July and August (both 31 days) are suspiciously similar with less than $1 difference (about $800 month).
I get that all the time but off course as some would say there is no cap!
I never believed in the cap, but I must admit that Shutterstock are doing everything they can to try to make me change my mind: at the end of bad months, a string of high priced sales always magically occur to bring things back in line. So - if the cap exists - it works both ways, as a lower and upper limit.
same here...29 septembe 2 el 3 single and 2 od made a month that was 45% down 2017 to one that is only 10% down even with 30% more download. by the way today monday one sales only at 14...dont' know if they have problem...but again back to the norm...as a good point i know exactly what i will earn any month...i cano t expect any growth but at least some certain revenue
-
Definitely not a cap for me. Just wondering if there is a floor..... :(
-
Definitely not a cap for me. Just wondering if there is a floor..... :(
My question is how do they set the earnings range for each of us and why are they so different from person to person? (yes as Farbled says cap suggests only a limit) And this is just a question because my earnings are flat, but not within a dollar a month as some say, or the same every day.
For me, it's pretty much the top ten sell over and over, nearly daily, but for certain numbers of times a month, then the rest, seem to sell on a as needed basis by subject or buyer needs. How would an earnings range control the specific downloads?
-
Must clarify. I said best sept in a very Long time. then I went in and Looked closer. the sales were the same...Horrible. what made a difference.... a huge difference was selling footage. I haven't sold footage Like forever and haven't submitted any in a very Long time. so I never really looked. Half was footage. I'll take it but strange... all of a sudden, Out of the blue.Wonder why.
-
Definitely not a cap for me. Just wondering if there is a floor..... :(
My question is how do they set the earnings range for each of us and why are they so different from person to person? (yes as Farbled says cap suggests only a limit) And this is just a question because my earnings are flat, but not within a dollar a month as some say, or the same every day.
For me, it's pretty much the top ten sell over and over, nearly daily, but for certain numbers of times a month, then the rest, seem to sell on a as needed basis by subject or buyer needs. How would an earnings range control the specific downloads?
Good questions for someone who works there. As it is, I only have my end result and no way to find out. I wouldn't even try speculating how its possible or what statistical anomaly is affecting me and a few others.
-
Much of what many contributors have stated with this topic applies to me as well. September was the lowest September in the 6 years I've been contributing to my #1 agency and the past 4 months have been dismal. My number of sales continue to increase but my payout falls well short of other years. For me, personally, its all due to clip sales. I've been a regular contributor - all HD - and I get the feeling buyers are moving on to 4K technology. Hence the dwindling sales and revenue.
-
Definitely not a cap for me. Just wondering if there is a floor..... :(
There might be a basement :(
-
I'm in a sinkhole. Absolute garbage. R.I.P SS.
-
strangely superb start of month in ss........in part balanced by superslow start of is/as
-
Well its controlled, manipulated despite how good or how many images uploaded. No day allowed to earn more than $1.44. It's an absolute sham.
-
Definitely not a cap for me. Just wondering if there is a floor..... :(
My question is how do they set the earnings range for each of us and why are they so different from person to person? (yes as Farbled says cap suggests only a limit) And this is just a question because my earnings are flat, but not within a dollar a month as some say, or the same every day.
For me, it's pretty much the top ten sell over and over, nearly daily, but for certain numbers of times a month, then the rest, seem to sell on a as needed basis by subject or buyer needs. How would an earnings range control the specific downloads?
Good questions for someone who works there. As it is, I only have my end result and no way to find out. I wouldn't even try speculating how its possible or what statistical anomaly is affecting me and a few others.
Well I want them to update my quota to a higher number! ;D
As you know, I don't doubt what you see and someone else saw their earnings drop in half suddenly one January, I think it was 2016, and those numbers haven't returned.
My sales fluctuate up or down from whatever normal might be, I'll just use my average month, the seasonal I can understand. But I don't have the same as some people report, same day after day or nearly identical totals month by month. I have better than average months and average months. The lower, below average are usually during the seasonal times. Nothing that I would call unexpected.
I don't track day by day, because they are so variable. Yes I look and I see during the month and no change, Saturday is my worst day. Has been for years.
Sept. this year was the worst since 2014. Oct. is ahead of the past four years. My downloads and income is quite variable.
-
Again, the exact amount of sales and revenue again. Patheticly predictable and restricting. I loath what SS has become.
-
At September 2018 - 600 downloads per mounts , 2017 - over 700, 2016- over 1200, 2015 - over 1200, 2014 - over 1700, 2013 - over 2100.
Yes, it's stable. :-(
Hardly to have some sales in US.
-
Well, the third week of September was great for me, but my cap must be high enough that it didn't impact the fourth week...
Steve
-
No! There are ups and downs with some good days that seem encouraging, but overall my earnings each month are less that half of what they were for the same month in 2016... despite adding over 5000 good images to my portfolio during that time. Overall my portfolio is earning less than it did in 2010 and is almost back to 2007 levels.
Every action I have seen on the part of Shutterstock only makes this problem worse. Things such as cutting our extended license fees, cutting video rates to as low as $1.50, aggressively recruiting inexperienced photographers in volume (I just read another public relations article put out by SS on how you can become a millionaire shooting for them) and burying good professional work under crap.
They are also irritating buyers. I saw a complaint forum that had hundreds of complaints against SS in how their accounts were being handled. Working the their Empire State Building offices seems no picnic either. On Glassdoor SS employees don't have very kind things to say.
SS seems to respond to every problem they have by doing more of what created them in the first place,
-
Terrible, abysmal etc etc etc. Ss is run by Muppets.
Better work harsmarter like the expert in the forums. Who is Barry btw ?
I dont know if true or not so dont quote me on it! but I personally know somebody who worked there since the very start ( not now though) well something drastic must have happened because they have got rid of all people associated with oringer?? and replaced them with a cheap younger Admin team not even getting half the wages as the prior! hence no experience what so ever!...true or not?
This could explain a lot! some years back Getty had Internal politics problems and for a couple of years nothing worked as it should everything went downhill. They finally got new staff admin etc and slowly things got back to normal, only seems the damage was done they lost some really famous photographers and buyers. I dont think many here remember that since it was around 2010.
Trouble is once this starts within a corp it might hold for a year or two but sooner or later the downhill starts it might not have an effect on sales in the beginning its enough with bad investments etc, etc!
Look at IStock some years back it was enough that loads of members complained giving a terrible picture in public forums and the word went around! and Istock nearly crashed!
And looking at the work, nothing special to brag about in my opinion.
This could explain some things, such as a review on Glassdoor I saw on what it was like to work in the corp offices. It is common for a company that has gone public to have a power play brought on by the stockholders and push the management that built the company out to squeeze higher profits, usually to the demise of the company. Ii was never thrilled with Shutterstock's business methods, but it has grown steadily worse since they went public and particularly in the last couple years.
-
Still utterly tragic. A huge over a cliff fall off since April that never recover3d, only October is MUCH WORSE than September so far.
And still the doors are wide open for inexperienced amateur tripe to flood the place, and they have the audacity to whine in the forums asking why their 20 images haven’t sold
DEPRESSING.
-
And still the doors are wide open for inexperienced amateur tripe to flood the place, and they have the audacity to whine in the forums asking why their 20 images haven’t sold
Is 20 images "flooding the place"?
If they ask for advice when they only have 20 images, and if they take the advice, they could go on to do well. We all had to start somewhere. (That's a general observation, not specific to SS)
-
And still the doors are wide open for inexperienced amateur tripe to flood the place, and they have the audacity to whine in the forums asking why their 20 images haven’t sold
Is 20 images "flooding the place"?
If they ask for advice when they only have 20 images, and if they take the advice, they could go on to do well. We all had to start somewhere. (That's a general observation, not specific to SS)
Of course, we all did BUT my problem is with SS suddenly lowering the bar. It’s like letting peo0le enter university that didn’t pass their exams. And add all those small ports together and we have millions of images. A few years ago they had standards and it took me about 3 or 4 attempts to get n with my best images.
-
And still the doors are wide open for inexperienced amateur tripe to flood the place, and they have the audacity to whine in the forums asking why their 20 images haven’t sold
Is 20 images "flooding the place"?
If they ask for advice when they only have 20 images, and if they take the advice, they could go on to do well. We all had to start somewhere. (That's a general observation, not specific to SS)
Of course, we all did BUT my problem is with SS suddenly lowering the bar. It’s like letting peo0le enter university that didn’t pass their exams. And add all those small ports together and we have millions of images. A few years ago they had standards and it took me about 3 or 4 attempts to get n with my best images.
Seems like many damaging things iS do, SS want to copy. And to some extent, vice versa.
-
And still the doors are wide open for inexperienced amateur tripe to flood the place, and they have the audacity to whine in the forums asking why their 20 images haven’t sold
Is 20 images "flooding the place"?
If they ask for advice when they only have 20 images, and if they take the advice, they could go on to do well. We all had to start somewhere. (That's a general observation, not specific to SS)
Of course, we all did BUT my problem is with SS suddenly lowering the bar. It’s like letting peo0le enter university that didn’t pass their exams. And add all those small ports together and we have millions of images. A few years ago they had standards and it took me about 3 or 4 attempts to get n with my best images.
Yes, this is my problem too with SS. They have no regard for quality anymore. Just a garbage pile with a few good gems to find in the rubble. Much of the new content is embarrassing to the company in my opinion (or just spam images).
-
Yep, they have screwed up my income there in the last 5 months to almost a flatline. An absolute bunch of neandrathols in shirts with no clue about photography.
-
"bunch of neandrathols in shits"
Was that a Freudian slip :D
I guess you meant "Neanderthals in suits" but I prefer your version better ;D
-
Yes it was a typo. I’m angry and getting more bitter but not quite at that level of stooping just yet.
-
Noticed a pattern when reading about htis os SS forums, ppl who are happy with the changes seems to have very amateurish of not downright questionable content, ppl who's DLs are down seem to have very professional ports.
-
Noticed a pattern when reading about htis os SS forums, ppl who are happy with the changes seems to have very amateurish of not downright questionable content, ppl who's DLs are down seem to have very professional ports.
Seems buyers might not agree.........I'm not sure anyone is actually happy with the way SS have gone recently they just don't take it as if SS have some personal vendetta against them and are deliberately trashing their own profits just to spite them.
-
Noticed a pattern when reading about htis os SS forums, ppl who are happy with the changes seems to have very amateurish of not downright questionable content, ppl who's DLs are down seem to have very professional ports.
I gave up on the SS forum long ago it was taken over by fools demanding to know why their two or three photo portfolios weren't making huge sales even though they were the usual rubbish
-
The way they are accepting spam and crap, I don't think it will return to normal
-
Lets concentrate on Adobe instead, lets give them the cream of our crop!......SS is screwing many of us BIG-Time and in every single way. All revenue is going into specific pockets and the rest of us are expendible. Well lets look upon this cheapo site as expendible and anyone doubting this is a complete cretin!
-
Noticed a pattern when reading about htis os SS forums, ppl who are happy with the changes seems to have very amateurish of not downright questionable content, ppl who's DLs are down seem to have very professional ports.
I gave up on the SS forum long ago it was taken over by fools demanding to know why their two or three photo portfolios weren't making huge sales even though they were the usual rubbish
That might be the one of the reason why this is all happening. I can imagine they bombarded SS with emails and whatever by tens of thousands, and the staff decided to heavily skew the searches for a while to try promoting previously bad sellers.
-
Noticed a pattern when reading about htis os SS forums, ppl who are happy with the changes seems to have very amateurish of not downright questionable content, ppl who's DLs are down seem to have very professional ports.
Seems buyers might not agree.........I'm not sure anyone is actually happy with the way SS have gone recently they just don't take it as if SS have some personal vendetta against them and are deliberately trashing their own profits just to spite them.
Maybe, but imho there are 2 things more pro contributors often forget:
- Many if not most of the buyers aren't very refined taste ppl. Few of my super best sellers are downright lame if not some of my worst shots. Whenever they pop up for me on the net somewhere, I still can't get what . they like about them.
- In such a huge system with so many merchandise and customers, you can sneakily 'force' things on ppl quite effectively without them noticing for a long time, like google skewing search results either for marketing or political reasons.
-
- In such a huge system with so many merchandise and customers, you can sneakily 'force' things on ppl quite effectively without them noticing for a long time, like google skewing search results either for marketing or political reasons.
There are only a hundred places in the first 100 search results and if your file doesn't find its way into one of those then its chances of a sale are slim. It's not really about forcing things on people, just that the search algorithm has to find a way of ordering files and if there are 10,000 returns in a search then the chance of any file making it into the top 1% to get seen are slim. If age is factored in, old files are going to struggle to maintain position.
-
Noticed a pattern when reading about htis os SS forums, ppl who are happy with the changes seems to have very amateurish of not downright questionable content, ppl who's DLs are down seem to have very professional ports.
Seems buyers might not agree.........I'm not sure anyone is actually happy with the way SS have gone recently they just don't take it as if SS have some personal vendetta against them and are deliberately trashing their own profits just to spite them.
Maybe, but imho there are 2 things more pro contributors often forget:
- Many if not most of the buyers aren't very refined taste ppl. Few of my super best sellers are downright lame if not some of my worst shots. Whenever they pop up for me on the net somewhere, I still can't get what . they like about them.
- In such a huge system with so many merchandise and customers, you can sneakily 'force' things on ppl quite effectively without them noticing for a long time, like google skewing search results either for marketing or political reasons.
I think often people mistake buyers requirements which is "fit for purpose" with some perceived requirement for technically and artistically brilliant photographs. If two pictures are equally fit for purpose whose to say which one should be ranked higher? The market decides quality not fellow professionals.
-
Noticed a pattern when reading about htis os SS forums, ppl who are happy with the changes seems to have very amateurish of not downright questionable content, ppl who's DLs are down seem to have very professional ports.
Seems buyers might not agree.........I'm not sure anyone is actually happy with the way SS have gone recently they just don't take it as if SS have some personal vendetta against them and are deliberately trashing their own profits just to spite them.
Maybe, but imho there are 2 things more pro contributors often forget:
- Many if not most of the buyers aren't very refined taste ppl. Few of my super best sellers are downright lame if not some of my worst shots. Whenever they pop up for me on the net somewhere, I still can't get what . they like about them.
- In such a huge system with so many merchandise and customers, you can sneakily 'force' things on ppl quite effectively without them noticing for a long time, like google skewing search results either for marketing or political reasons.
I think often people mistake buyers requirements which is "fit for purpose" with some perceived requirement for technically and artistically brilliant photographs. If two pictures are equally fit for purpose whose to say which one should be ranked higher? The market decides quality not fellow professionals.
No, this is visual arts, even if not high art, qualified people decide what is quality not the plebs. They may prefer to buy whatever they want, but they have no say in what beauty or aesthetic is... or more accurately they simply can't tell at all which is proven every single day as they just find amazing whatever they are told to, otherwise there wouldn't be a fashion rotation in just about everything. Also I have the aesthetic-attractive shots where I already say saving them 'this will be a seller' and they almost always are sellers. So actual real aesthetic does count even here, it is the more reliable part of the system.
-
- In such a huge system with so many merchandise and customers, you can sneakily 'force' things on ppl quite effectively without them noticing for a long time, like google skewing search results either for marketing or political reasons.
There are only a hundred places in the first 100 search results and if your file doesn't find its way into one of those then its chances of a sale are slim. It's not really about forcing things on people, just that the search algorithm has to find a way of ordering files and if there are 10,000 returns in a search then the chance of any file making it into the top 1% to get seen are slim. If age is factored in, old files are going to struggle to maintain position.
I was on the other side opf this system as 'buyer' for many years (art director/graphic artist) and I wouldn't say it's actually that severely bad, we usually went through quite a few pages (at least 10+), but there is a tight limit for sure. Imho if you can manipulate the search and put things you want in those first dozen pages, you are kinda forcing them on ppl. The reason is that most workplaces, businesses have subscriptions and some loyalty to sites, and you have limited time. So going to other sites is not an option, and you simply have no time for more than, let's say, 15 pages. You are watching the clock and you have to pick one from those.
-
Noticed a pattern when reading about htis os SS forums, ppl who are happy with the changes seems to have very amateurish of not downright questionable content, ppl who's DLs are down seem to have very professional ports.
Seems buyers might not agree.........I'm not sure anyone is actually happy with the way SS have gone recently they just don't take it as if SS have some personal vendetta against them and are deliberately trashing their own profits just to spite them.
Maybe, but imho there are 2 things more pro contributors often forget:
- Many if not most of the buyers aren't very refined taste ppl. Few of my super best sellers are downright lame if not some of my worst shots. Whenever they pop up for me on the net somewhere, I still can't get what . they like about them.
- In such a huge system with so many merchandise and customers, you can sneakily 'force' things on ppl quite effectively without them noticing for a long time, like google skewing search results either for marketing or political reasons.
I think often people mistake buyers requirements which is "fit for purpose" with some perceived requirement for technically and artistically brilliant photographs. If two pictures are equally fit for purpose whose to say which one should be ranked higher? The market decides quality not fellow professionals.
No, this is visual arts, even if not high art, qualified people decide what is quality not the plebs. They may prefer to buy whatever they want, but they have no say in what beauty or aesthetic is... or more accurately they simply can't tell at all which is proven every single day as they just find amazing whatever they are told to, otherwise there wouldn't be a fashion rotation in just about everything. Also I have the aesthetic-attractive shots where I already say saving them 'this will be a seller' and they almost always are sellers. So actual real aesthetic does count even here, it is the more reliable part of the system.
You clearly don't understand what "quality" means in commercial/business terms. You make my point for me. Quality means "fit for purpose".
"ISO 8402-1986 standard defines quality as "the totality of features and characteristics of a product or service that bears its ability to satisfy stated or implied needs."
-
No, this is visual arts, even if not high art, qualified people decide what is quality not the plebs. They may prefer to buy whatever they want, but they have no say in what beauty or aesthetic is... or more accurately they simply can't tell at all which is proven every single day as they just find amazing whatever they are told to, otherwise there wouldn't be a fashion rotation in just about everything. Also I have the aesthetic-attractive shots where I already say saving them 'this will be a seller' and they almost always are sellers. So actual real aesthetic does count even here, it is the more reliable part of the system.
Not exactly.
The definition of art is very liberal, these days. "Beauty is the eye of the beholder" is expressing exactly that.
The plebs (read customer) is King is another one.
Experts are analyzing what plebs want and they give them exactly that. Plebs are often those defining fashionable trends.
This is why Instagram filters (a blasphemy for traditional photographers) became mainstream, why advertisers embraced this style and why SS relaxed their rejection standards. Plebs don't care about pixel peeping quality, history of art and associated aesthetics.
They like what they see everyday on their social media feed. That became today's fashion and today's beauty, like it or not!
If you don't get that you are in the wrong business, my friend.
-
First 5 pages are the important in a search! then the buyer will move on. SS is forcing people, telling them what to buy and pushing sub packages that way!...its completely destroyed as a money spinner for contributors.
-
First 5 pages are the important in a search! then the buyer will move on. SS is forcing people, telling them what to buy and pushing sub packages that way!...its completely destroyed as a money spinner for contributors.
When I used to buy for various companies, if my search didn't turn up what I needed I changed the search, not choose some sub standard picture.
I think so many forget that people who license images are as diverse a group as those who make them. I think it is virtually impossible to quantify what most buyers do without access to metrics from the agencies.
-
First 5 pages are the important in a search! then the buyer will move on. SS is forcing people, telling them what to buy and pushing sub packages that way!...its completely destroyed as a money spinner for contributors.
When I used to buy for various companies, if my search didn't turn up what I needed I changed the search, not choose some sub standard picture.
I think so many forget that people who license images are as diverse a group as those who make them. I think it is virtually impossible to quantify what most buyers do without access to metrics from the agencies.
Fine! but we are not talking sub-standard agencies anymore. Everyone of these sites have got the same identical portfolios. Members are loading up the same stuff to everyone of them, haha! this is one of the reasons why we are in this mess!..there are members who have joined 20 agencies and uploaded identical files to everyone! thats micro-agencies for you......now given the fact that SS with their hundreds of million files and their constant changing search, well see how far you get??
-
Fine! but we are not talking sub-standard agencies anymore. Everyone of these sites have got the same identical portfolios. Members are loading up the same stuff to everyone of them, haha! this is one of the reasons why we are in this mess!..there are members who have joined 20 agencies and uploaded identical files to everyone! thats micro-agencies for you......now given the fact that SS with their hundreds of million files and their constant changing search, well see how far you get??
Well, maybe so. But every search is different for each agency. So again, every buyer is different, and having been a contractor for many places that have accounts, I can also say that in my experience, I have never seen a company have less than 2 accounts with different agencies.
In my opinion, and I have said this for years, the problem with micro was there was little to no quality control, in BOTH directions. Micro could have been a stepping stone to macro for those who could learn to produce quality images. Instead, the macro crowd jumped on the bandwagon early and uploaded awesome photos to compete with "apple on white" because it was so immediately lucrative. They killed the quality barrier and made good images almost worthless in only a few years. Sure, lots of other factors involved, but this was a big one in my mind.
The agencies helped the ball to speed down the hill by not pricing differently for better images. They could have easily in the beginning. Dollar or free bins, and then medium quality, then offset and stocksy quality stuff, and so on, all in one portal. But they didn't. So now the market is completely saturated by crap and gold and the long time micro guys now sound exactly like the macro guys when MS started (remember those rants? Exactly the same as now). We could have had a ladder to grow our work, our talents, and our income by advancing up the quality stream. Instead, we all chase the same (decreasing) pennies.
So now, SS is public. Their duty is solely to shareholders, some of whom I am absolutely sure have no idea what it is we even do. And as public companies are usually doing, they look for short term profit over sustainability to keep their shares up. Expect nothing but worse and worse news because when innovation starts to go, cutting costs is the only means they have to show an increasing profit. We are only a cost to them.
I think I fell off topic. Sorry!
-
Fine! but we are not talking sub-standard agencies anymore. Everyone of these sites have got the same identical portfolios. Members are loading up the same stuff to everyone of them, haha! this is one of the reasons why we are in this mess!..there are members who have joined 20 agencies and uploaded identical files to everyone! thats micro-agencies for you......now given the fact that SS with their hundreds of million files and their constant changing search, well see how far you get??
Well, maybe so. But every search is different for each agency. So again, every buyer is different, and having been a contractor for many places that have accounts, I can also say that in my experience, I have never seen a company have less than 2 accounts with different agencies.
In my opinion, and I have said this for years, the problem with micro was there was little to no quality control, in BOTH directions. Micro could have been a stepping stone to macro for those who could learn to produce quality images. Instead, the macro crowd jumped on the bandwagon early and uploaded awesome photos to compete with "apple on white" because it was so immediately lucrative. They killed the quality barrier and made good images almost worthless in only a few years. Sure, lots of other factors involved, but this was a big one in my mind.
The agencies helped the ball to speed down the hill by not pricing differently for better images. They could have easily in the beginning. Dollar or free bins, and then medium quality, then offset and stocksy quality stuff, and so on, all in one portal. But they didn't. So now the market is completely saturated by crap and gold and the long time micro guys now sound exactly like the macro guys when MS started (remember those rants? Exactly the same as now). We could have had a ladder to grow our work, our talents, and our income by advancing up the quality stream. Instead, we all chase the same (decreasing) pennies.
So now, SS is public. Their duty is solely to shareholders, some of whom I am absolutely sure have no idea what it is we even do. And as public companies are usually doing, they look for short term profit over sustainability to keep their shares up. Expect nothing but worse and worse news because when innovation starts to go, cutting costs is the only means they have to show an increasing profit. We are only a cost to them.
I think I fell off topic. Sorry!
I agree with you 100%! quality has completely flown out the window, there just isnt any. SS lowered the bar and made it so easy to gain entry thet every weekend snapper is applying.
I had a buyer last week looking for some of my shots, he sent me a PM saying he was lost couldnt find anything, I directed him to one of my trad-agencies and he paid a bit more for EL's but so what.
Yes youre right its only going to get worse! short term profit thinking, screwing up the searches in hope for more revenue, dumping the western world and nursing the eastern countries and not giving a f&%k about contributors only leads to disaster. :)
-
till 8th october serb month...matched last year october...then nothing...seems like i m erased by search engine...file from 9 years unsold sells while nothing else sell...i already one...i predicted my month income at the beginning of month and I'm sure i will be correct...now ten days of nothing then a sudden boost just to match my level of sales...at least we have a fixed income :)...
-
(...in business terms) Quality means "fit for purpose".
"ISO 8402-1986 standard defines quality as "the totality of features and characteristics of a product or service that bears its ability to satisfy stated or implied needs."
Art: Art is a diverse range of human activities in creating, which express the author's imaginative or technical skill, intended to be appreciated for their beauty or emotional power.
Microstock is not really about art, it's about the business of making useful images that buyers want and need to express or convey a message. Something very creative or artistic might never get one download on stock sites because the images need to be about their message.
True however a more artistic version of an image, might get more downloads and make more than a strictly boring factual image. Still the objective here is not about creative ART but the message and the concept.
-
Looking at this month's sales it looked like the new normal - ie <50% of 2012 ish sales up until the 5th, then it dropped to a newer lower normal? I hope not.
Every once in a while I go back a few years there and look at sales in a month - what a change and not for the better since then.
-
First 10 days in Oct ok. Not great but ok overall, very variable but on average ok. One day 26 DLs and haven't seen anything like that for YEARS when it used to be the norm!
Then bang, back to disaster. Weekdays often 5-10 DLs.
:(
-
Same here yesterday quite reasonable today bang! 3 subs and it happens regular as clockwork now every week since September :(
-
Last sort of 3 days have been reasonably OK! probably a flash in the pan??
-
When does something people have been complaining about for years become "normal"?
-
When does something people have been complaining about for years become "normal"?
When they see that sales are not the same all the days months and overall many incomes have been down for 5 years. No more growing like it was that's normal.
-
Noticed a pattern when reading about htis os SS forums, ppl who are happy with the changes seems to have very amateurish of not downright questionable content, ppl who's DLs are down seem to have very professional ports.
Seems buyers might not agree.........I'm not sure anyone is actually happy with the way SS have gone recently they just don't take it as if SS have some personal vendetta against them and are deliberately trashing their own profits just to spite them.
- Many if not most of the buyers aren't very refined taste ppl. Few of my super best sellers are downright lame if not some of my worst shots. Whenever they pop up for me on the net somewhere, I still can't get what . they like about them.
- In such a huge system with so many merchandise and customers, you can sneakily 'force' things on ppl quite effectively without them noticing for a long time, like google skewing search results either for marketing or political reasons.
I think often people mistake buyers requirements which is "fit for purpose" with some perceived requirement for technically and artistically brilliant photographs. If two pictures are equally fit for purpose whose to say which one should be ranked higher? The market decides quality not fellow professionals.
No, this is visual arts, even if not high art, qualified people decide what is quality not the plebs. They may prefer to buy whatever they want, but they have no say in what beauty or aesthetic is... or more accurately they simply can't tell at all which is proven every single day as they just find amazing whatever they are told to, otherwise there wouldn't be a fashion rotation in just about everything. Also I have the aesthetic-attractive shots where I already say saving them 'this will be a seller' and they almost always are sellers. So actual real aesthetic does count even here, it is the more reliable part of the system.
You clearly don't understand what "quality" means in commercial/business terms. You make my point for me. Quality means "fit for purpose".
"ISO 8402-1986 standard defines quality as "the totality of features and characteristics of a product or service that bears its ability to satisfy stated or implied needs."
ISO? Yo you have an ISO-like exact standard for what is good stock photo completely away form that it should be aesthetically pleasing? These are pictures not CNC heads. This must be one of the stupidest things I ever read here. :D
-
(...in business terms) Quality means "fit for purpose".
"ISO 8402-1986 standard defines quality as "the totality of features and characteristics of a product or service that bears its ability to satisfy stated or implied needs."
Art: Art is a diverse range of human activities in creating, which express the author's imaginative or technical skill, intended to be appreciated for their beauty or emotional power.
Microstock is not really about art, it's about the business of making useful images that buyers want and need to express or convey a message. Something very creative or artistic might never get one download on stock sites because the images need to be about their message.
True however a more artistic version of an image, might get more downloads and make more than a strictly boring factual image. Still the objective here is not about creative ART but the message and the concept.
Unless it's scientific or forensic, a non-high art picture's only real purpose is to be attractive/aesthetically attractive. Since these pics mostly go into uses that either ad or ad-like, with some ultra-rare exceptions, that is their sole purpose.
-
no
-
(...in business terms) Quality means "fit for purpose".
"ISO 8402-1986 standard defines quality as "the totality of features and characteristics of a product or service that bears its ability to satisfy stated or implied needs."
Art: Art is a diverse range of human activities in creating, which express the author's imaginative or technical skill, intended to be appreciated for their beauty or emotional power.
Microstock is not really about art, it's about the business of making useful images that buyers want and need to express or convey a message. Something very creative or artistic might never get one download on stock sites because the images need to be about their message.
True however a more artistic version of an image, might get more downloads and make more than a strictly boring factual image. Still the objective here is not about creative ART but the message and the concept.
Unless it's scientific or forensic, a non-high art picture's only real purpose is to be attractive/aesthetically attractive. Since these pics mostly go into uses that either ad or ad-like, with some ultra-rare exceptions, that is their sole purpose.
You don't think perhaps the purpose is to help sell more of the product being advertised? I know you don't like business terminology but being aesthetically pleasing is a "feature" like being in landscape, depicting the product, providing copyspace, conveying a mood and countless other things in the buyers mind.
-
Fine! but we are not talking sub-standard agencies anymore. Everyone of these sites have got the same identical portfolios. Members are loading up the same stuff to everyone of them, haha! this is one of the reasons why we are in this mess!..there are members who have joined 20 agencies and uploaded identical files to everyone! thats micro-agencies for you......now given the fact that SS with their hundreds of million files and their constant changing search, well see how far you get??
Well, maybe so. But every search is different for each agency. So again, every buyer is different, and having been a contractor for many places that have accounts, I can also say that in my experience, I have never seen a company have less than 2 accounts with different agencies.
In my opinion, and I have said this for years, the problem with micro was there was little to no quality control, in BOTH directions. Micro could have been a stepping stone to macro for those who could learn to produce quality images. Instead, the macro crowd jumped on the bandwagon early and uploaded awesome photos to compete with "apple on white" because it was so immediately lucrative. They killed the quality barrier and made good images almost worthless in only a few years. Sure, lots of other factors involved, but this was a big one in my mind.
The agencies helped the ball to speed down the hill by not pricing differently for better images. They could have easily in the beginning. Dollar or free bins, and then medium quality, then offset and stocksy quality stuff, and so on, all in one portal. But they didn't. So now the market is completely saturated by crap and gold and the long time micro guys now sound exactly like the macro guys when MS started (remember those rants? Exactly the same as now). We could have had a ladder to grow our work, our talents, and our income by advancing up the quality stream. Instead, we all chase the same (decreasing) pennies.
So now, SS is public. Their duty is solely to shareholders, some of whom I am absolutely sure have no idea what it is we even do. And as public companies are usually doing, they look for short term profit over sustainability to keep their shares up. Expect nothing but worse and worse news because when innovation starts to go, cutting costs is the only means they have to show an increasing profit. We are only a cost to them.
I think I fell off topic. Sorry!
I agree with you 100%! quality has completely flown out the window, there just isnt any. SS lowered the bar and made it so easy to gain entry thet every weekend snapper is applying.
I had a buyer last week looking for some of my shots, he sent me a PM saying he was lost couldnt find anything, I directed him to one of my trad-agencies and he paid a bit more for EL's but so what.
Yes youre right its only going to get worse! short term profit thinking, screwing up the searches in hope for more revenue, dumping the western world and nursing the eastern countries and not giving a f&%k about contributors only leads to disaster. :)
Correct.