Quote from: lisafx on January 17, 2014, 18:58

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on January 16, 2014, 09:49

I'm wondering if they did something to the search when they changed the presentation page about a week ago. January was looking quite normal until then.

I think you may be right.  Normal for January until yesterday, but miserable yesterday and today.

I hope gbalex is wrong and Shutterstock aren't following in Fotolia's footsteps and shafting their long-term successful contributors.

My January earnings are currently projected to be similar to last year (according to Yuri's calculator) however the second half of January is always much better than the first.

I don't see any change in the pattern of sales either. Roughly half of my daily sales are from images uploaded in the last 2-3 years (probably about 15% of my portfolio) and the other half from images uploaded in the 6 years before. I've been fairly lazy in uploading new images in the last 2-3 years however I have tried to concentrate on quality rather than volume.

I don't think SS goes in for sweeping changes to the default sort-order, just subtle tweaks. In over 9 years I've certainly never noticed their effect __ totally different to my experience at IS where sales have literally dropped 30-40% overnight as all your best-sellers are condemned to the bottom of the sort-order.

Thanks for posting.  I was wondering what your sales were doing.  Glad they aren't showing the dip mine are. 

I was expecting the usual upswing in second half of January too, which is why it was very surprising to see them fall off a cliff after the 15th. 

All I can say is that Shutterstock does have ups and downs, but they are consistent ups and downs and my sales keep growing. The line is going up, not down. Rob is on 38 cents and I believe when he says he is going for BME it debunks some theories. I am also hoping for BME but I am on 36 level. And if my latest batch of 32 images gets approved I have added close to 200 images over the last 3-4 weeks, bringing my portfolio to 1350.

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on January 16, 2014, 09:49

I'm wondering if they did something to the search when they changed the presentation page about a week ago. January was looking quite normal until then.

I think you may be right.  Normal for January until yesterday, but miserable yesterday and today.

I hope gbalex is wrong and Shutterstock aren't following in Fotolia's footsteps and shafting their long-term successful contributors.

I would really love to be wrong on this one, but I can not continue to discount the huge drops some long term contributors are experiencing.

These are contributors who have never complained about poor sales and have never seen large drops only gains. We only have to read the threads on SS to see that they are stand up photographers with great ports who do not cry wolf.   The trend seems to be 2007 and below.

It's been a downward trend for a few years for me. On a side note, has anybody gotten paid this month? I just realized is past the 15th and I haven't been paid.

Quote from: cthoman on January 18, 2014, 13:45

It's been a downward trend for a few years for me. On a side note, has anybody gotten paid this month? I just realized is past the 15th and I haven't been paid.

yes, came the 7th

I realize what happened. I had my minimum payout set at $200 from like the beginning of time, and it was the first month I didn't make over $200. I just bumped it down.

I've been at this since '06 - at the .38 level since forever and I'm up 38% over last jan (at the same point in time - 18 days) - I seen nothing but growth at SS, in both DL's and RPD.

I have no doubt that contributors with a larger percentage of older images got hurt more by the search change. I had an image that I shot in 2010 when I first started that had 1,600+ downloads. It was on the top of the search for "child." For almost three years, it generated 5-10 sales a day all by itself. They changed the search and it disappeared into the middle somewhere. So I can imagine that if you had a lot of images that were best sellers in that age range or older, then they lost popularity, which would naturally affect your sales to a large degree. Meanwhile, about two-thirds of my port is less than two years old. While I lost out on a couple of good sellers, the rest are holding up better because they're newer.

In that way, it's true that people on the 38 cent tier would more likely see their sales drop. But it's a secondary effect, not a targeted one. I believe Shutterstock operators in this case when they say their goal is to keep fresher imagery to the front, but I don't think they are bothered if that means they save some money by paying lower rates at the same time.

The real bad news is that it makes it really hard to build a portfolio and sustain sales because sooner or later a larger portion of your port will get old and your popular files will become less popular. I'm not sure how possible it is to keep enough fresh material in your port to maintain sales when you now have to compete with many more new files than ever before.

I'm on the top of the coaster now because of some lucky timing. That's all.

I have no doubt that contributors with a larger percentage of older images got hurt more by the search change. I had an image that I shot in 2010 when I first started that had 1,600+ downloads. It was on the top of the search for "child." For almost three years, it generated 5-10 sales a day all by itself. They changed the search and it disappeared into the middle somewhere. So I can imagine that if you had a lot of images that were best sellers in that age range or older, then they lost popularity, which would naturally affect your sales to a large degree. Meanwhile, about two-thirds of my port is less than two years old. While I lost out on a couple of good sellers, the rest are holding up better because they're newer.

In that way, it's true that people on the 38 cent tier would more likely see their sales drop. But it's a secondary effect, not a targeted one. I believe Shutterstock operators in this case when they say their goal is to keep fresher imagery to the front, but I don't think they are bothered if that means they save some money by paying lower rates at the same time.

The real bad news is that it makes it really hard to build a portfolio and sustain sales because sooner or later a larger portion of your port will get old and your popular files will become less popular. I'm not sure how possible it is to keep enough fresh material in your port to maintain sales when you now have to compete with many more new files than ever before.

I'm on the top of the coaster now because of some lucky timing. That's all.

In stock, traditional and micro, from all I've read, images tend to last about 3-5 years as places, fashions, and trends change. Of course, there are images that are timeless and will sell for much longer, but search algorithms probably put a fair amount of emphasis on image age to keep things fresh, both so their buyers don't just see the same images all the time, and to take into consideration the fact that images will become dated. 

At the same time, the fact that new stuff isn't getting the same bump that it used to is probably helpful to long-term contributors so the files with proven track records don't get buried by new stuff that may never sell.

It's got to be a tough balancing act and I imagine that they tweak the algorithms to increase sales without considering whose files they are. Our commissions are so small, even magnified by thousands of contributors, that I doubt they really worry about whether the .25 newbies' or the .38 top contributors' photos show up at the top of the pile. They are making way more than we are with every license, so saving a few pennies per sale by deliberately giving unproven work by newbies who don't have a track record preference over those who do, really doesn't make sense in the long run. As tough as it is for those of us who've been with them a long time to see our new work move up, I imagine it's even harder for those who are new.

I have to think that part of the algorithm considers how many sales per photo each contributor has. I've only got 199 photos on SS, nearly a third of them added in 2013, but I've been there since 2010, and I get sales every day - and have done for a long time. My port is mostly travel, nature, and some backgrounds and concepts - not traditional big sellers. So I have to think that there's something in the algorithm that is helping my photos get seen out of the 32 million on there. Several of my images show up on the first row for searches, so the fact that I average about 20 sales per photo (adjusted over time) has to be part of the mix, I'd guess. Your analysis, based on a much larger and more successful portfolio, seems to bear that out.

It must be great to have an image that sells so often, but, like having one agency account for 80% of your sales, having one image account for a huge percentage of sales can be scary if that image starts to lose popularity but with all your new content you've clearly hedged your bets.  Though it's tougher now for new images to find their audience, I think the best stuff will still rise to the top, although there are bound to be some good images that get lost in the incredibly huge crowd and never find their way out. 

Enough armchair analysis. Heading into NYC to have some fun - hope everyone is having a great weekend.

Quote from: robhainer on January 18, 2014, 15:50

I have no doubt that contributors with a larger percentage of older images got hurt more by the search change. I had an image that I shot in 2010 when I first started that had 1,600+ downloads. It was on the top of the search for "child." For almost three years, it generated 5-10 sales a day all by itself. They changed the search and it disappeared into the middle somewhere. So I can imagine that if you had a lot of images that were best sellers in that age range or older, then they lost popularity, which would naturally affect your sales to a large degree. Meanwhile, about two-thirds of my port is less than two years old. While I lost out on a couple of good sellers, the rest are holding up better because they're newer.

Oh, for crying out loud. Why do people always blame 'search engine changes' when one of their images ceases to generate the same level of sales? You know it just might have something to do with the 10M new images that are currently being accepted each year.

When I'd been at SS for a month I think they only had about 60 images corresponding to the keywords 'new zealand' of which about 45 were mine. Back then they sold quite nicely. Nowadays ... not so much. I'm absolutely sure it must be due to a 'search engine change'. It cant possibly be anything to do with the additional 33,150 images of 'new zealand' that have arrived since. It has to be SS conspiring against me and the higher royalty rate they have to pay me.

I think it's a combination of both. Of course, the addition of huge masses of new files makes it harder to compete. But Shutterstock also adjusts their search algorithm to keep fresh content in front of buyers and increase sales. When they did their "site maintenance" in mid July sales of my entire portfolio took a steep plunge literally overnight...and they still haven't quite recovered (although my portfolio's larger).

Quote from: robhainer on January 18, 2014, 15:50

I have no doubt that contributors with a larger percentage of older images got hurt more by the search change. I had an image that I shot in 2010 when I first started that had 1,600+ downloads. It was on the top of the search for "child." For almost three years, it generated 5-10 sales a day all by itself. They changed the search and it disappeared into the middle somewhere. So I can imagine that if you had a lot of images that were best sellers in that age range or older, then they lost popularity, which would naturally affect your sales to a large degree. Meanwhile, about two-thirds of my port is less than two years old. While I lost out on a couple of good sellers, the rest are holding up better because they're newer.

Oh, for crying out loud. Why do people always blame 'search engine changes' when one of their images ceases to generate the same level of sales? You know it just might have something to do with the 10M new images that are currently being accepted each year.

You know as well as anyone that the search shift at iS years ago had a huge impact on sales of established files. Sometimes it IS the search. If a change is progressive over months then it is likely to be competition, if it happens suddenly it could well be the search. If it is one file affected then it's harder to say than if an entire portfolio suddenly sells better or worse.

Or it could just be a temporary run of luck.

Quote from: gostwyck on January 18, 2014, 19:55

Quote from: robhainer on January 18, 2014, 15:50

I have no doubt that contributors with a larger percentage of older images got hurt more by the search change. I had an image that I shot in 2010 when I first started that had 1,600+ downloads. It was on the top of the search for "child." For almost three years, it generated 5-10 sales a day all by itself. They changed the search and it disappeared into the middle somewhere. So I can imagine that if you had a lot of images that were best sellers in that age range or older, then they lost popularity, which would naturally affect your sales to a large degree. Meanwhile, about two-thirds of my port is less than two years old. While I lost out on a couple of good sellers, the rest are holding up better because they're newer.

Oh, for crying out loud. Why do people always blame 'search engine changes' when one of their images ceases to generate the same level of sales? You know it just might have something to do with the 10M new images that are currently being accepted each year.

When I'd been at SS for a month I think they only had about 60 images corresponding to the keywords 'new zealand' of which about 45 were mine. Back then they sold quite nicely. Nowadays ... not so much. I'm absolutely sure it must be due to a 'search engine change'. It cant possibly be anything to do with the additional 33,150 images of 'new zealand' that have arrived since. It has to be SS conspiring against me and the higher royalty rate they have to pay me.

When people's best sellers sitting at the top of popular sort disappear to the back of the pack overnight, that's because the search changed. And then you add in millions of new images making it more difficult to sell your new ones, your overall sales will continue to stagnate until you can generate more sales on new images. It's a combination of the two.

I'm not complaining about the change. I like it. If Shutterstock's popular search was based solely on the number of sales, that would suck. You'd have five to 10 year old images sitting on top while new images wouldn't get any traction. There would be no point in continuing to contribute, and Shutterstock wouldn't grow because customers would only see old images. The quality of the library has increased dramatically over the past five years. Those images need to get in front of the buyers.

But I can empathize with people who had been relying on older images to buoy their sales. They are suffering and feeling let down. I want everyone to be successful and make money.

The reality is that many long term contributors are not relying on older images to buoy their sales. They upload large numbers each month to no avail.

One recent short thread on SS http://tinyurl.com/kb3e9f4

Snip

Joined: 15 Jun 2007 Worst January since 2010 for me. And on top of that I have added 300 images over the last 2 and half months. Sales keep going down for me..... It is a bit depressing though - new equipment (5D MkIII) and many hours of work only to see sales go DOWN!

Joined: 12 Jul 2005 I added a LOT of new Images. We all know the time it takes to do this, I wasted a LOT of time and got a backwards return for my investment. Im selling Mostly Very Old stuff due to search. What a waste of time

Joined: 29 Jan 2006 Last month and this month are about 40% less than the year before. I've been uploading new images but they rarely sell so that doesn't help much.

Joined: 29 Jan 2006 It's just crazy how sales could drop that much. My DLs were consistent from Jan-Oct. then they came tumbling down fast in Nov-Current. Is the Apocalypse coming? It makes me want to scream!

Joined: 03 Oct 2007 But there does seem to be a trend towards the people who have been here the longest (often also the people on the highest rate) who are reporting the falling figures and the much newer people reporting the increases. Obviously if you are constantly adding to your portfolio you would expect to see an increase year on year, but that's no longer the case for some of us on SS.

Joined: 20 Jun 2006 I think quite a few people have noticed that. I can only go by what I see here on the forums but so many of us who have been here for a long time are showing definite downward trends. I used to see more downloads at the time I got up early in the morning than I am seeing now at 3 in the afternoon. I have never seen it this bad.

Joined: 08 Mar 2008 Awful slow 2 weeks for me, 50% down if compared to Jan 2013. I do not know what is going on???

Joined: 11 May 2006 For me so far, the slowest month ever.

Joined: 12 Jul 2008 I'm also very disappointing with the actual policy. Everytime they made a change (and of course I'm talking about the searching rules and alghorithm) our downloads fall down. I have a big portfolio and I used to sell several thousands of images on monthly basis... When I see 20 0r 30% down in dls... from a week to another I'm always worried... in the past those kind of changes has never pickup completely.. and good old dls days of 2011 are simply gone!!

Joined: 26 Jan 2007 Very slow month so far. Just checked my sales from January 2012 and 2011 and they were higher than right now. What's up with that?

Joined: 03 Mar 2008 Very, very slow for me. Totally different than last year...

Joined: 07 Aug 2007 very slow week for me too... uncommonly so even for this time of year

....   The trend seems to be 2007 and below.

7 year old images in decline, buyers want to see and need fresh content. Whats weird about that.

Quote from: gostwyck on January 18, 2014, 19:55

Quote from: robhainer on January 18, 2014, 15:50

I have no doubt that contributors with a larger percentage of older images got hurt more by the search change. I had an image that I shot in 2010 when I first started that had 1,600+ downloads. It was on the top of the search for "child." For almost three years, it generated 5-10 sales a day all by itself. They changed the search and it disappeared into the middle somewhere. So I can imagine that if you had a lot of images that were best sellers in that age range or older, then they lost popularity, which would naturally affect your sales to a large degree. Meanwhile, about two-thirds of my port is less than two years old. While I lost out on a couple of good sellers, the rest are holding up better because they're newer.

Oh, for crying out loud. Why do people always blame 'search engine changes' when one of their images ceases to generate the same level of sales? You know it just might have something to do with the 10M new images that are currently being accepted each year.

When I'd been at SS for a month I think they only had about 60 images corresponding to the keywords 'new zealand' of which about 45 were mine. Back then they sold quite nicely. Nowadays ... not so much. I'm absolutely sure it must be due to a 'search engine change'. It cant possibly be anything to do with the additional 33,150 images of 'new zealand' that have arrived since. It has to be SS conspiring against me and the higher royalty rate they have to pay me.

I would hazard to guess that those 33,150 images did not build up over night, so I am sure your drop occurred over a prolonged period of time.  However large drops that do happen over night would most certainly be caused by search changes.

I have personally spoken to 6 large producers who pull very good returns that had huge drops this month; when they have historically never had huge drops in January.  I would say it was most certainly a search change that is affecting those ports.  If you can not see this you are in denial.

I guess that explains my increase in sales come January. Really good month and if the second half is even better, than the search is definitely in favor of me. My sales jumped on 6 January and keep going strong.