Author Topic: How are sales going?- Shutterstock (Read 131010 times)

Red Dove · « **Reply #375 on:** January 19, 2014, 07:12 »

One question I would ask of any long term contributor is whether they are shooting the same subjects as they were in 2005?

It may have some bearing I don't know but before I can draw any conclusions (for me personally) I would need to see a real drill-down into detail way beyond time in the business, number of files, number of new files added, current earnings ranking etc. In short, I don't see enough objective data on this forum or elsewhere to feel confident about where the business is headed - beyond my own experiences.

robhainer · « **Reply #376 on:** January 19, 2014, 09:29 »

300 images in two months isn't a lot any more. When I'm working on my port, I'm adding 50-100 a week and that's low production.

It's also hard to judge what's going on when people aren't specific. New files do sell, just not all of them. I don't expect all new images to sell right away. And all of those other new images coming in make it harder.

These long term contributors saw sales decline on their older images when their older images weren't as popular anymore. I don't think see why you're arguing with that. It's like arguing that the earth isn't round.

gbalex · « **Reply #377 on:** January 19, 2014, 12:45 »

Quote from: robhainer on January 19, 2014, 09:29

300 images in two months isn't a lot any more. When I'm working on my port, I'm adding 50-100 a week and that's low production.

It's also hard to judge what's going on when people aren't specific. New files do sell, just not all of them. I don't expect all new images to sell right away. And all of those other new images coming in make it harder.

These long term contributors saw sales decline on their older images when their older images weren't as popular anymore. I don't think see why you're arguing with that. It's like arguing that the earth isn't round.

I am not talking about 300 images, those were just some examples of contributors with good content who are not seeing sales on new images.

Conversely you are seeing returns on new images when you admit that you are indeed a low producer.

cthoman · « **Reply #378 on:** January 19, 2014, 13:05 »

My judge is always how things are going at other agencies in comparison. For me, SS continues to shrink while DT and CanStockPhoto have been fairly stable. Now, I earn about the same each month at all 3.

robhainer · « **Reply #379 on:** January 19, 2014, 13:30 »

Quote from: gbalex on January 19, 2014, 12:45

Quote from: robhainer on January 19, 2014, 09:29
300 images in two months isn't a lot any more. When I'm working on my port, I'm adding 50-100 a week and that's low production.

It's also hard to judge what's going on when people aren't specific. New files do sell, just not all of them. I don't expect all new images to sell right away. And all of those other new images coming in make it harder.

These long term contributors saw sales decline on their older images when their older images weren't as popular anymore. I don't think see why you're arguing with that. It's like arguing that the earth isn't round.

I am not talking about 300 images, those were just some examples of contributors with good content who are not seeing sales on new images.

Conversely you are seeing returns on new images when you admit that you are indeed a low producer.

I guess my content is bad and that's why I'm seeing sales on new images.

Goofy · « **Reply #380 on:** January 19, 2014, 14:09 »

okay, I think we have proven there isn't any sure fire strategy that either proves or disproves why are sales are down-just theories or beliefs...

Shelma1 · « **Reply #381 on:** January 19, 2014, 14:27 »

Something strange I noticed about that chart...I also had a steep plunge in earnings from new content with a couple of zero days in January, the same days as Rob. Anyone else? I hope it's just a reporting glitch.

robhainer · « **Reply #382 on:** January 19, 2014, 14:30 »

That steep plunge on mine is from the last two weeks of December. I didn't upload any images during those weeks and overall sales were less than stellar.

Ron · « **Reply #383 on:** January 19, 2014, 14:33 »

I have the same dip, its christmas and new year.

DC · « **Reply #384 on:** January 19, 2014, 17:56 »

I have that dip as well but it is an error. I was getting sales on images uploaded in December but that part of the chart showed up as 0 sales for new content for those 2 weeks.

wordplanet · « **Reply #385 on:** January 19, 2014, 18:17 »

According to my graph, I had a one-week dip in December with no new image sales, but my December stats show I actually sold at least one new image that I uploaded in November, nearly every day that week, so it seems like it could be a reporting glitch.

Interestingly, I usually have my data set to 3 months, but when I set it to a year, considering images uploaded in the past year as new, it tells a far more encouraging story as to how well my new images are selling. Funny how your definition of "new" can seriously impact the facts that you base your insights on, isn't it?

lisafx · « **Reply #386 on:** January 19, 2014, 19:16 »

Quote from: Ron on January 19, 2014, 06:34

Quote from: wordplanet on January 18, 2014, 16:29
...

In stock, traditional and micro, from all I've read, images tend to last about 3-5 years as places, fashions, and trends change.
... Its been argued there is no fashion in Stock as they all use generic clothing. So I have been told when I said the same thing.

I haven't seen that argued. What I've seen argued, and said myself, is that images are less likely to become obsolete IF you use generic clothing and and hairstyles and stay away from super trendy ones.

There are certainly many cases where people do shoot trendier subjects and concepts and those images do age quickly. I believe I mentioned electronics as a prime example of that...

lisafx · « **Reply #387 on:** January 19, 2014, 19:21 »

Quote from: Red Dove on January 19, 2014, 07:12

One question I would ask of any long term contributor is whether they are shooting the same subjects as they were in 2005?

It may have some bearing I don't know but before I can draw any conclusions (for me personally) I would need to see a real drill-down into detail way beyond time in the business, number of files, number of new files added, current earnings ranking etc. In short, I don't see enough objective data on this forum or elsewhere to feel confident about where the business is headed - beyond my own experiences.

I'm happy to answer that question - I do upload some images in the same subjects as older ones because they are successful subjects, and it's a good idea to continue to be represented in popular concepts.

But I also make an effort to shoot different concepts than I have done before. Partly it keeps me from getting bored, and partly because it makes good business sense. I try to upload some of each in a batch of images to mix things up. Not that it's doing much good lately... $:-\$

I all fairness, there are few unexplored subjects/concepts. But a different take from what's already out there is still worth shooting. Just harder and harder to do...

gbalex · « **Reply #388 on:** January 20, 2014, 10:53 »

Quote from: robhainer on January 19, 2014, 13:30

Quote from: gbalex on January 19, 2014, 12:45
Quote from: robhainer on January 19, 2014, 09:29
300 images in two months isn't a lot any more. When I'm working on my port, I'm adding 50-100 a week and that's low production.

It's also hard to judge what's going on when people aren't specific. New files do sell, just not all of them. I don't expect all new images to sell right away. And all of those other new images coming in make it harder.

These long term contributors saw sales decline on their older images when their older images weren't as popular anymore. I don't think see why you're arguing with that. It's like arguing that the earth isn't round.

I am not talking about 300 images, those were just some examples of contributors with good content who are not seeing sales on new images.

Conversely you are seeing returns on new images when you admit that you are indeed a low producer.

I guess my content is bad and that's why I'm seeing sales on new images.

Really you decided to go there.

There are many photogs who produce fresh & buyer relevant technically perfect content. However if SS does not include that content in upfront searches there is not a snow balls chance in hell that the buyers will ever see those images.

Shelma1 · « **Reply #389 on:** January 20, 2014, 11:46 »

Quote from: wordplanet on January 19, 2014, 18:17

According to my graph, I had a one-week dip in December with no new image sales, but my December stats show I actually sold at least one new image that I uploaded in November, nearly every day that week, so it seems like it could be a reporting glitch.

Interestingly, I usually have my data set to 3 months, but when I set it to a year, considering images uploaded in the past year as new, it tells a far more encouraging story as to how well my new images are selling. Funny how your definition of "new" can seriously impact the facts that you base your insights on, isn't it?

Yes, I definitely sold a bunch of new content during that time period...in fact a batch of new files made up a large percentage of my sales. So I thought it was odd that the chart suddenly dropped down to zero for a bit.

pancaketom · « **Reply #390 on:** January 20, 2014, 13:41 »

While those graphs on SS are interesting, they are not accurate. I have brought this to SS's attention a number of times with specific examples and they brush me off every time saying that the reported sales are accurate (the reports that we get paid off of).

Try making a set of all of your images and compare those sales to your reported total, I also have made sets of images submitted by year and compared them to the sales from the last year at the end of every year - they are not equal.

grey1 · « **Reply #391 on:** January 20, 2014, 14:31 »

First post! just felt I had to post on this one. SS is a public company and as such the management is responsible of getting the best possible profits for their stock holders no matter what, or else it would be an infamita, a mis-management.

Sometimes its hard to see the forest for the trees. Of course if they can escalate profits by promoting lower royalty members they would, or else they would be complete fools. The administration is answerable to stock holders. However in the process you step on some contributors that were there building the company. So what, suppliers of files come and go. All replaceable, no one infallible.
Wait a minute! is there no moral in business? nope its business, profit, profit, profit!!

Of course in a year or two comes the day as always do when the Director of content turns around and say " hey we have only pictures of models, food, hamburgers, pizzas, babies and flowers left to show! most of the others, the specialized content pulled their portfolios and left. All the other main agencies have it but we DO NOT.

I think you have to be naive to the point of utter stupidity, blindfolded and a fruit-cake in search of a brain, NOT to understand that SS, have done exactly this.
You can not blame them! after an IPO, company is public and so on. First thing that happens and for obvious reasons is an 80% change of administration and they DO NOT KNOW! and do not have to know anything about PHOTOGRAPHY. Its honorable positions.

Ron · « **Reply #392 on:** January 20, 2014, 14:50 »

You couldnt be more further from the truth. There is a summary I wrote about a meeting I had with a few people from Shutterstock, including the vice president of communications. It is nothing as you make it out to be.

Travelling-light · « **Reply #393 on:** January 20, 2014, 15:53 »

Quote from: pancaketom on January 20, 2014, 13:41

While those graphs on SS are interesting, they are not accurate. I have brought this to SS's attention a number of times with specific examples and they brush me off every time saying that the reported sales are accurate (the reports that we get paid off of).

Try making a set of all of your images and compare those sales to your reported total, I also have made sets of images submitted by year and compared them to the sales from the last year at the end of every year - they are not equal.

That's a pity. I've made some decisions based on those graphs. Oh well, too late now.

pancaketom · « **Reply #394 on:** January 20, 2014, 16:17 »

Quote from: Travelling-light on January 20, 2014, 15:53

Quote from: pancaketom on January 20, 2014, 13:41
While those graphs on SS are interesting, they are not accurate. I have brought this to SS's attention a number of times with specific examples and they brush me off every time saying that the reported sales are accurate (the reports that we get paid off of).

Try making a set of all of your images and compare those sales to your reported total, I also have made sets of images submitted by year and compared them to the sales from the last year at the end of every year - they are not equal.

That's a pity. I've made some decisions based on those graphs. Oh well, too late now.

Your decisions are probably still valid - they aren't way off, but they aren't exactly correct either and SS didn't seem to care when I pointed it out.

grey1 · « **Reply #395 on:** January 20, 2014, 16:33 »

Quote from: Ron on January 20, 2014, 14:50

You couldnt be more further from the truth. There is a summary I wrote about a meeting I had with a few people from Shutterstock, including the vice president of communications. It is nothing as you make it out to be.

With due respect! so you met the vice president of communications! do you know what that title means? president is the American way of describing a job title. In Europe its called the assistant to the communications manager, often a girl of 25-30 years old. Thats all I am afraid.
Another angle of course is their knowledge of your involvements in the forum and what better way to go, then through you? thats what I meant with seeing the forest for the trees.

I mean no harm you understand, just basic business orientation/strategy.

ShadySue · « **Reply #396 on:** January 20, 2014, 16:35 »

Quote from: grey1 on January 20, 2014, 16:33

Quote from: Ron on January 20, 2014, 14:50
You couldnt be more further from the truth. There is a summary I wrote about a meeting I had with a few people from Shutterstock, including the vice president of communications. It is nothing as you make it out to be.

With due respect! so you met the vice president of communications! do you know what that title means?

Isn't it American for 'Spin doctor'? What RogerMexico used to be at iS.

grey1 · « **Reply #397 on:** January 20, 2014, 17:16 »

Quote from: ShadySue on January 20, 2014, 16:35

Quote from: grey1 on January 20, 2014, 16:33
Quote from: Ron on January 20, 2014, 14:50
You couldnt be more further from the truth. There is a summary I wrote about a meeting I had with a few people from Shutterstock, including the vice president of communications. It is nothing as you make it out to be.

With due respect! so you met the vice president of communications! do you know what that title means?

Isn't it American for 'Spin doctor'? What RogerMexico used to be at iS.

ha.ha. great one! whats Roger doing these days anyway?

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #398 on:** January 20, 2014, 18:00 »

Best week ever last week.

pancaketom · « **Reply #399 on:** January 20, 2014, 18:47 »

Quote from: Sean Locke Photography on January 20, 2014, 18:00

Best week ever last week.

That might be my first and last week to beat you.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: How are sales going?- Shutterstock (Read 131010 times)

Red Dove

robhainer

gbalex

cthoman

robhainer

Goofy

Shelma1

robhainer

Ron

DC

wordplanet

lisafx

lisafx

gbalex

Shelma1

pancaketom

grey1

Ron

Travelling-light

pancaketom

grey1

ShadySue

grey1

Sean Locke Photography

pancaketom

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors