pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: How are sales going?- Shutterstock  (Read 129682 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

dpimborough

« Reply #675 on: September 05, 2014, 04:17 »
+1
Well August was bad but September is excellent so far.

 :D


« Reply #676 on: September 05, 2014, 12:06 »
+2
Hello,

To learn more about our search methods and philosophies, please see this thread (scroll down) and this thread.

To clear up some of the rumors:

  • We don't cap earnings. 
  • The "top image" reports need fixing as we update areas of the site; there was nothing intentionally turned off. This issue is in the backlog and something that gets considered relative to other development priorities.   
  • Our algorithms are targeted and optimized towards delivering the best individual images and videos to customers based on how they respond (i.e., do they download and purchase more); portfolios aren't promoted or penalized. 

Portfolio size is really just one factor of many in terms of having successful earnings.  Certain image categories are much more covered (or competitive) than others, so portfolio diversity; keyword quality and amount; upload timing; supplying fresh content (customers look for it); having something unique about your images in terms of subject matter / quality / keywording, etc. -- they're all factors that can result in one portfolio having more consistent success than another. 

Best,

Scott
VP of Content
Shutterstock


Hi Scott,

Unfortunately none of this or the links you provided explain the sudden and sustained drop in sales, and I mean a significant drop. You have a lot of players here stating the same thing, like a light switch went on, and sales tanked. That's what we are referring to not key wording, or timing, etc. to be honest, I think there was a business decision made, SS knew some key contributors would be hit, and that's it......all for the betterment of "something"

Just asking.

« Reply #677 on: September 05, 2014, 13:14 »
-5
Hi Scott,

Unfortunately none of this or the links you provided explain the sudden and sustained drop in sales, and I mean a significant drop. You have a lot of players here stating the same thing, like a light switch went on, and sales tanked. That's what we are referring to not key wording, or timing, etc. to be honest, I think there was a business decision made, SS knew some key contributors would be hit, and that's it......all for the betterment of "something"

Just asking.

+10

he (Scott Braut)  should be in politics, really  ;)
graduated with Honours in Doublespeak  !!!

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #678 on: September 05, 2014, 13:25 »
+2
It seems to go with the territory of being an agency's mouthpiece.

Uncle Pete

« Reply #679 on: September 05, 2014, 21:01 »
+4
No one wants to address the shut down on these two? (known as rumors without substance)

"We don't cap earnings."

"portfolios aren't promoted or penalized"


"supplying fresh content" is a clue to why older images don't sell like they used to.

Could the words be any simpler to understand and not read between the lines. Or are people just going to ignore the truth in favor of nit picking rumors or outright calling SS liars?

My question would be, can anyone prove they have caps, or turn off ports? I mean data not undocumented personal observations.

Rinderart

« Reply #680 on: September 05, 2014, 23:43 »
0
Do you really think, If he knew the answers to our "Real" questions he would say anything? I think Not. Do I blame him?...No. Being a VP anywhere means politics period. My wife has been senior VP of many HUGE Film Companies that do 10 times the money SS does. She never talked to folks under her about company Issues she was Privy to. And they all sign NDA agreements so. Forget it.

Individual drops in sales for groups of people have  been  extremely documented like never before, More threads have been started than I've ever seen in My 10 years. It ain't gonna happen guys, This is all were gonna get. Like it or leave it. your replacement is already submitting. Maybe thats why Moderators and content division employees/supervisors is a transient Job. I've seen More folks...Some really Good folks have come and gone than I can remember,  The days When you could feel a personal touch...Thats all gone and ya can't bring that back. Pete is correct on many accounts but...so wrong on many more because he doesn't have the history that some have had with huge commercial ports that used to make huge money.

And until you have the history of what came before, you have little credibility going forward. And my friend pete has a specific Niche and he enjoys it more than the money he makes..

Like I said in another thread. These issues are a virus.....A virus that is separating us. It's to late to think we have the power anymore. We lost it around 2008 when we could and should have done something But the Lure of 38 cents or whatever killed it.

I Blame us and no one else.

« Reply #681 on: September 06, 2014, 00:16 »
+3
Hey guys, I'm an Istockphoto exclusive and I just happened to see this thread.  Did you guys have a similar experience like me?    Everything was relatively ok and then June was disappointing, July was good, and then all of a sudden August plunged (worse than June) and it got worse till the end, with the past 2 weeks being some of my worst in years.    August is usually up there with March as my best month of the year, and it was shocking for me to see my worst August since 2011.  If you guys got a similar experience, I'm wondering if its a market issue rather than an agency or individual contributor issue.

« Reply #682 on: September 06, 2014, 01:56 »
+4
Hello,

To learn more about our search methods and philosophies, please see this thread (scroll down) and this thread.

To clear up some of the rumors:

  • We don't cap earnings. 
  • The "top image" reports need fixing as we update areas of the site; there was nothing intentionally turned off. This issue is in the backlog and something that gets considered relative to other development priorities.   
  • Our algorithms are targeted and optimized towards delivering the best individual images and videos to customers based on how they respond (i.e., do they download and purchase more); portfolios aren't promoted or penalized. 

Portfolio size is really just one factor of many in terms of having successful earnings.  Certain image categories are much more covered (or competitive) than others, so portfolio diversity; keyword quality and amount; upload timing; supplying fresh content (customers look for it); having something unique about your images in terms of subject matter / quality / keywording, etc. -- they're all factors that can result in one portfolio having more consistent success than another. 

Best,

Scott
VP of Content
Shutterstock


Let me preface this response by letting you know that I have worked as a data driven site developer and while many of your contributors do not understand the resources or the time it takes to fix minor site bugs, I do.

Shutterstocks success is driven by its contributors and yet shutterstock consistently makes the choice to put our welfare at the bottom of the pile when it comes to the numerous site bugs that pop up. In fact I lost track of how many times we have heard "This issue is in the backlog and something that gets considered relative to other development priorities." Through your actions over the years, we have come to understand that our problems have not been relegated to the bottom of the pile. You have simply chosen to blow us off entirely!

While I am not buying your excuse about the Top 50 Most Popular Images Query tab being broken, because the rest of your tabs in the most popular are still fully functional. http://tinyurl.com/ljbgxcl .  I do know the resources it would take, to restore the Top 50 Weekly image query tab to working order.

The time/manpower/expense required to approve and then allocate the shutterstock resources need to resolve the TOP 50 Weekly "Tab" issue are infinitesimal. The fact that it has been "broken" for more than 2 years speaks volumes. The timing is also telling; as the page tab "broke" shortly before shutterstock announced its Initial Public Offering in Oct 2012 and shutterstock concurrently rolled out it's new "improved" search.

In general Shutterstock's consistent choice to put contributors on the back burner in regard to numerous long standing bugs and site challenges, demonstrates the lack of respect and regard you show toward your contributors over all.

As for the platitudes you are offering in regard to image attributes which drive sales, you seem to discount the fact that many of us who are seeing large and sudden drops have been at this a very long time. Longer in fact than most of the people now working at shutterstock. Our images sold well before the IPO, exactly because we understood & implemented your 33 tips and more; years before you recently wrote them down.

We have been producing images that do/did sell for many years and that is the very reason shutterstock is successful. We also understand that it is no coincidence that our images have disappeared from the searches in lieu of "new images" many of which are in fact images older than our own content which has been systematically killed off by your search.

The majority of buyers are also fully aware that a good portion of the "new content" at shutterstock is in fact old content, which has been recently uploaded by IS exclusives who jumped ship. In many cases this new shutterstock content has been selling since 2000 in the wider micro marketplace via IStock, which was founded in 2000.

It is unfortunate that shutterstock has made the choice to reward those of us who supported its growth by deliberately burying our HCV content deeply in your searches. It is even more demoralizing to see this happen to our fresh new content.

It is sad to see that you have chosen to promote images which were created by former IS exclusives circa  2000 - 2011 instead. I will not mention names but some former exclusives have mentioned here, that they send new work to sites other than shutterstock and upload 2006 and older work to shutterstock.

I would love to see shutterstock explain why our fresh new content is not selling, while content that is older than the images you have chosen to bury and which was also produced much earlier than our fresh new work; is promoted in your searches and therefor does sell well.

I have no problem competing in a market place with a level playing field, in fact in the past that is exactly why I respected and valued my business relationship with shutterstock. The previous and longstanding paradigm changed when Insight Venture Capitol got their hooks into the company. It is not lost on us that they have been quite active in placing key executives within the company as well as granting themselves stock options at a cost of $0 and then selling it at market value. http://www.marketwatch.com/investing/Stock/SSTK/insideractions
« Last Edit: September 06, 2014, 02:28 by gbalex »

« Reply #683 on: September 06, 2014, 04:45 »
+1
^^ Are you related to Sheldon Cooper?

« Reply #684 on: September 06, 2014, 09:06 »
0
^^ Are you related to Sheldon Cooper?

Are you Weyoun on Star Trek: Deep Space Nine

« Reply #685 on: September 06, 2014, 09:35 »
+2
Hi guys,

Rinder -- yes, we're honest and open the forums and try to be helpful as much as possible; I've addressed quite a bit of the search topic both here and in the SS forum.  We did presentations on search at MicrostockExpo and PACA last year as well.  We sometimes may have to generalize because of the number of variables and complexity of the algorithms (or the topic), there isn't enough info to answer thoroughly at the time, etc.   As a public company, our financials are public, as are our download numbers. We also get audited by leading accounting firms. We're out in the community under our own names publicly and anyone can come meet with us at events, talk directly by phone and email, etc.  We have contributors who visit us at the office as well.  There are
dozens of ways to get information from us.  We're trying to be very transparent.

Gbalex - you're right.  A particular bug or feature may or may not be that big, but it comes down to prioritization. There are three reasons why a bug might not get fixed:  a) because of other priorities that are expected to deliver more value to contributors or customers; b) because it couldn't be reliably reproduced or is limited in scope; or c) because we're expecting to replace that area of the code entirely in an upcoming release.

So, for example, one thing that our contributor team has been working on has been additional site languages - we just released Brazilian Portuguese as the first of new languages.  We have (many) thousands of existing Shutterstock contributors whose native language is not English and many who apply. Our goal is to be accommodating of them in their own language. 

On a daily basis, the process of prioritization basically answers the following question:  what would you do first?  Make an improvement that drives more downloads for contributors overall (and therefore, more royalty dollars to them)?  Make the site available in the native language of our thousands of non-native-English speakers? New payment methods? New forum software? Fix the Top 50? How many contributors would benefit? How big is the effort? What teams need to be involved?  Is that area of the site due for a larger upgrade - will an issue get fixed as part of another feature release? 

Some improvements have to be prioritized first as part of growth, and others are prioritized based on what we believe -- based on contributor feedback -- will benefit the most contributors over the short- and long-run.  There's a lot more to come.  ;)

I do believe there's more we can do to expose some of that externally.
 

Best,

Scott
VP of Content
Shutterstock


 



 
« Last Edit: September 06, 2014, 09:51 by scottbraut »

Uncle Pete

« Reply #686 on: September 06, 2014, 11:46 »
+9
I'll leave your wife's work out of this. And thanks for the compliment, yes I do enjoy what I shoot, even if it isn't as profitable as other things. Especially not a high profit Microstock subject.

But here's the point, and I'll try to explain.

Individual sales and income have dropped = true
Search rankings changed and dropped = many old timers with proven images re-ranked down
Good staff people have left SS = some were very favorable and positive towards contributors
Personal touch, I think communications is the weakest part of SS. Unchanged
I don't know how my "history" relates to what's going on now? Member since 2007 (This isn't about me, is it?)
Nope, we can't bring it back, the past is gone, things have changed
Yes we are now producing a commodity, not as much artists or creative as before. (for another day)
Competition is 100 times more than what it was not long ago
A well known, big name photographer, can drop SS and they don't blink or lose a sale.

Here's the points I disagree with, which people seem to be convinced are facts and I don't feel there is any logical evidence to support them.

1) SS caps earnings
2) SS turns off individual ports by location or time zone or ???

If 1000 people write on a forum that Elvis is not dead, does that make him alive? If people write on a forum that they see UFOs and conclude it must be alien visitors, does it become a fact? If people say, they think their earnings are capped, without documented proof (or say individuals are being turned off) because, they see it... does that make it true? But it does lead others to start following to the same conclusion.



1) Individual sales are down. 2) The search has been tweaked to favor different images than it used to = Conclusion Fallacy, they must have capped my earnings and are turn off my port. Really? Not a logical argument at all.

And just because someone writes something on a forum or many people write it, that opinion or common sense doesn't become true and a fact. Evidence Please?

The challenge is for someone to document that they are capping or shutting off individual artists.

It's not about individuals, or you or me, it's not personal. It's the whole system that changed, for all of us. That and 41,559,077 royalty-free stock images 10,000 new images a day! What was it in the old days? I have a list somewhere, can't find it) Even the good old days of 2008  ;D



Individual drops in sales for groups of people have  been  extremely documented like never before, More threads have been started than I've ever seen in My 10 years. It ain't gonna happen guys, This is all were gonna get. Like it or leave it. your replacement is already submitting. Maybe thats why Moderators and content division employees/supervisors is a transient Job. I've seen More folks...Some really Good folks have come and gone than I can remember,  The days When you could feel a personal touch...Thats all gone and ya can't bring that back. Pete is correct on many accounts but...so wrong on many more because he doesn't have the history that some have had with huge commercial ports that used to make huge money.

And until you have the history of what came before, you have little credibility going forward. And my friend pete has a specific Niche and he enjoys it more than the money he makes..

Like I said in another thread. These issues are a virus.....A virus that is separating us. It's to late to think we have the power anymore. We lost it around 2008 when we could and should have done something But the Lure of 38 cents or whatever killed it.

I Blame us and no one else.

Valo

« Reply #687 on: September 06, 2014, 13:07 »
-1
I believe a few people have documented the capped earnings, a guy called Duncan Andison and a few others have graphs to back up their theories.

« Reply #688 on: September 06, 2014, 13:27 »
+5
I believe a few people have documented the capped earnings, a guy called Duncan Andison and a few others have graphs to back up their theories.

nope - what we have is anecdotal evidence from a few people that their income is down -- at the same time we have other anecdotal evidence from people reporting BME.     it's partly due to lack of statistical knowledge - if you have EL sales by month of 1 ,3 ,0 ,2 ,1,...   then have no sales for 2 months, that is just a predictable statistical happening, not evidence of a conspiracy.   if you have sales off 33, 44,22,44,34, and then 0, 0 that's pretty good evidence something has changed, but again NO evidence it's a conspiracy.

in addition, these reports lack important information such as type of images, variety of portfolio, etc, etc


as pete said, stock photos are now a commodity, so comparisons with the good old days are harder to make -- I sold similar images in the 70s and 80s for hundreds of dollars each that now bring pennies from microstock.  those days are gone and the photographers choices are to find a way to prosper with the new economies or find alternative outlets.


« Reply #689 on: September 06, 2014, 13:29 »
+2
I'll leave your wife's work out of this. And thanks for the compliment, yes I do enjoy what I shoot, even if it isn't as profitable as other things. Especially not a high profit Microstock subject.

But here's the point, and I'll try to explain.

Individual sales and income have dropped = true
Search rankings changed and dropped = many old timers with proven images re-ranked down
Good staff people have left SS = some were very favorable and positive towards contributors
Personal touch, I think communications is the weakest part of SS. Unchanged
I don't know how my "history" relates to what's going on now? Member since 2007 (This isn't about me, is it?)
Nope, we can't bring it back, the past is gone, things have changed
Yes we are now producing a commodity, not as much artists or creative as before. (for another day)
Competition is 100 times more than what it was not long ago
A well known, big name photographer, can drop SS and they don't blink or lose a sale.

Here's the points I disagree with, which people seem to be convinced are facts and I don't feel there is any logical evidence to support them.

1) SS caps earnings
2) SS turns off individual ports by location or time zone or ???

If 1000 people write on a forum that Elvis is not dead, does that make him alive? If people write on a forum that they see UFOs and conclude it must be alien visitors, does it become a fact? If people say, they think their earnings are capped, without documented proof (or say individuals are being turned off) because, they see it... does that make it true? But it does lead others to start following to the same conclusion.



1) Individual sales are down. 2) The search has been tweaked to favor different images than it used to = Conclusion Fallacy, they must have capped my earnings and are turn off my port. Really? Not a logical argument at all.

And just because someone writes something on a forum or many people write it, that opinion or common sense doesn't become true and a fact. Evidence Please?

The challenge is for someone to document that they are capping or shutting off individual artists.

It's not about individuals, or you or me, it's not personal. It's the whole system that changed, for all of us. That and 41,559,077 royalty-free stock images 10,000 new images a day! What was it in the old days? I have a list somewhere, can't find it) Even the good old days of 2008  ;D



Individual drops in sales for groups of people have  been  extremely documented like never before, More threads have been started than I've ever seen in My 10 years. It ain't gonna happen guys, This is all were gonna get. Like it or leave it. your replacement is already submitting. Maybe thats why Moderators and content division employees/supervisors is a transient Job. I've seen More folks...Some really Good folks have come and gone than I can remember,  The days When you could feel a personal touch...Thats all gone and ya can't bring that back. Pete is correct on many accounts but...so wrong on many more because he doesn't have the history that some have had with huge commercial ports that used to make huge money.

And until you have the history of what came before, you have little credibility going forward. And my friend pete has a specific Niche and he enjoys it more than the money he makes..

Like I said in another thread. These issues are a virus.....A virus that is separating us. It's to late to think we have the power anymore. We lost it around 2008 when we could and should have done something But the Lure of 38 cents or whatever killed it.

I Blame us and no one else.



Maybe capping isn't the right word. Technically SS says that they don't cap and that is probably entirely true based on their definitions.  But the term "positioning" might be more appropriate.  At any time I can find my images so they don't turn off your port as you clearly state. I agree with that.  But they certainly can have an algorithm that pushes ports back in the search when that person hits a specific threshold (which is a way of capping without the literal definition of actually capping).

Valo

« Reply #690 on: September 06, 2014, 13:32 »
0
I believe a few people have documented the capped earnings, a guy called Duncan Andison and a few others have graphs to back up their theories.

nope - what we have is anecdotal evidence from a few people that their income is down -- at the same time we have other anecdotal evidence from people reporting BME.     it's partly due to lack of statistical knowledge - if you have EL sales by month of 1 ,3 ,0 ,2 ,1,...   then have no sales for 2 months, that is just a predictable statistical happening, not evidence of a conspiracy.   if you have sales off 33, 44,22,44,34, and then 0, 0 that's pretty good evidence something has changed, but again NO evidence it's a conspiracy.

in addition, these reports lack important information such as type of images, variety of portfolio, etc, etc


as pete said, stock photos are now a commodity, so comparisons with the good old days are harder to make -- I sold similar images in the 70s and 80s for hundreds of dollars each that now bring pennies from microstock.  those days are gone and the photographers choices are to find a way to prosper with the new economies or find alternative outlets.
No, that is not what I am referring too. I am talking about people with a database managing background who have their own data registered in graphs and clearly showing capped earnings.

Rinderart

« Reply #691 on: September 06, 2014, 15:27 »
0
Great Post Pete. I don't subscribe to capping or shutting off ports either. My personal sales are just OK, and slowly coming back from the big bang in Mar 2013. All the other conspiracy stuff never made any sense to me. I only have had one large question....What happened in mar 2013 when, for years it was rock solid and only fluctuated a few dollars instead of hundreds of dollars, And I question this for one reason. why did it happen so quickly? instead of slowly which would indicate something completely different. And why did they change my fought after Most Popular? in a week they went missing. BTW, they are coming back slowly because there good solid very useable Images even if there very old and sold 5000+ times each. All the other stuff...Doesn't even hit my radar unless someone brings it up. Luckily for me, I NEVER considered Stock work as more than 20% of what I need to cover my Nut anyway and I knew it going in because as a long time shooter I would get very bored very quickly having to worry about what sells and what doesn't constantly as thats a creativity killer for sure. I enjoy the process and since Photography,Painting,Music and teaching is all I've ever done, Looking back I did pretty well.

But when I see others and my friends hurting, It really gets to me and out comes the passion.  Im very much looking forward to a revamped forum and other things as Scott has promised.



Sheriff

« Reply #692 on: September 06, 2014, 16:38 »
0
Okay, it's time to put this post out to the pasture folks. 

« Reply #693 on: September 06, 2014, 17:26 »
-2
Okay, it's time to put this post out to the pasture folks.

ah, OK ! anything u say...

 :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D   coming from someone with just
    4 postings joined a couple of days ago.

considering the rest of the posters' "age",
that would be someone wet behind the ears telling senior gentries they should listen  ;D ;D ;D

« Reply #694 on: September 06, 2014, 18:12 »
+5
...I only have had one large question....What happened in mar 2013 when, for years it was rock solid and only fluctuated a few dollars instead of hundreds of dollars, And I question this for one reason. why did it happen so quickly?

According to my poor notes-I quit Istock in March 2013.  It was over the free images deal.  A factor would be that I wasn't the only one - although I wasn't exclusive, they lost a lot of exclusives.

Sheriff

« Reply #695 on: September 06, 2014, 18:27 »
-6
Okay, it's time to put this post out to the pasture folks.

ah, OK ! anything u say...

 :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D   coming from someone with just
    4 postings joined a couple of days ago.

considering the rest of the posters' "age",
that would be someone wet behind the ears telling senior gentries they should listen  ;D ;D ;D

Remember who has the badge and gun there stranger plus I refuse to do battle with the mindless grandpa...
« Last Edit: September 06, 2014, 18:32 by Sheriff »

« Reply #696 on: September 06, 2014, 18:40 »
+5
Selling what once commanded good money for peanuts has always been a numbers game and when your 10,000 files are competing against 40 million others, rather than 8 million others, it's just simple math.

I think the post from the iS exclusives mentioning the overall market and the huge influx of iS exclusives, as well as Scott's myriad explanations in this topic & the other one he linked to make a lot more sense than some conspiracy theory. To me, the fact that I frequently have multiple daily sales and rarely have a day without at least one download at SS despite the fact that I only have 212 images, a tiny fraction of the 40 million files in their database, that I put most of my best images on traditional sites yet still make SS payouts bi-monthly tells me that SS itself is going strong, that their search engine works, but it doesn't matter because we're all getting an ever smaller piece of the pie. I've been with SS since 2008, have a tiny port, heavily weighted toward travel and not the big selling lifestyle stuff, but my stuff seems to compete on a level playing field with everyone else's - the problem is, the field is just too big.

I'm not optimistic about the future. My biggest regret is that I didn't upload a few thousand files back when they'd have gotten more exposure, because despite SS's strength, I think the size of their database means that the opportunity to grow is diminishing for all of us.

I've seen my new files account for smaller and smaller portions of my sales in the past year. A year ago it was a distressing 10% and now it's down to 1%. (I increased my portfolio by 25+% in the last year - even if I doubled it, the return wouldn't be worth it). In late 2012 and early 2013, I saw a lot of growth but that growth slowed down as the SS database outpaced all expectations.

Unless you're a factory, I don't see how you can sustain growth there, which is why I'm looking toward smaller niche markets that control the number of contributors. I think Stocky's dedication to slow growth of their contributor base makes good economic sense, because if even the top earners can't keep pace with inflation, how can a stock photo site attract and keep top talent?

To me, the uncontrolled growth of the database and the contributor base which is diluting the earnings of even the top contributors, is the real problem here, since an individual contributors sales need to grow constantly, especially when royalties stay the same for 8 years (the bump of a few pennies at each milestone notwithstanding).  It's not some conspiracy. If those who can actually make a living from their microstock earnings suddenly can't, then, IMHO, the field will be left to those who do this for fun, for experimentation, etc -and if SS keeps their prices and payouts low, they may just survive. But, let's face it, part of the reason microstock has done so well is because along with the experimenters and newbies, pros got into the game and many made good money while the boom lasted, but it hurt the industry in the long run. Then again, they were changing with the times, and now, things are changing again.

It's easy to spot the problems, harder to find a solution. And I appreciate Scott trying to put things into perspective, though IMHO there's more lottery than art to a winning image these days.

Will we ever get a raise? Not a question Scott can answer, I know, but that's the only way earnings for individual contributors will grow.

« Last Edit: September 06, 2014, 18:52 by wordplanet »

« Reply #697 on: September 06, 2014, 19:11 »
+3
Selling what once commanded good money for peanuts has always been a numbers game and when your 10,000 files are competing against 40 million others, rather than 8 million others, it's just simple math.

I think the post from the iS exclusives mentioning the overall market and the huge influx of iS exclusives, as well as Scott's myriad explanations in this topic & the other one he linked to make a lot more sense than some conspiracy theory. To me, the fact that I frequently have multiple daily sales and rarely have a day without at least one download at SS despite the fact that I only have 212 images, a tiny fraction of the 40 million files in their database, that I put most of my best images on traditional sites yet still make SS payouts bi-monthly tells me that SS itself is going strong, that their search engine works, but it doesn't matter because we're all getting an ever smaller piece of the pie. I've been with SS since 2008, have a tiny port, heavily weighted toward travel and not the big selling lifestyle stuff, but my stuff seems to compete on a level playing field with everyone else's - the problem is, the field is just too big.

I'm not optimistic about the future. My biggest regret is that I didn't upload a few thousand files back when they'd have gotten more exposure, because despite SS's strength, I think the size of their database means that the opportunity to grow is diminishing for all of us.

I've seen my new files account for smaller and smaller portions of my sales in the past year. A year ago it was a distressing 10% and now it's down to 1%. (I increased my portfolio by 25+% in the last year - even if I doubled it, the return wouldn't be worth it). In late 2012 and early 2013, I saw a lot of growth but that growth slowed down as the SS database outpaced all expectations.

Unless you're a factory, I don't see how you can sustain growth there, which is why I'm looking toward smaller niche markets that control the number of contributors. I think Stocky's dedication to slow growth of their contributor base makes good economic sense, because if even the top earners can't keep pace with inflation, how can a stock photo site attract and keep top talent?

To me, the uncontrolled growth of the database and the contributor base which is diluting the earnings of even the top contributors, is the real problem here, since an individual contributors sales need to grow constantly, especially when royalties stay the same for 8 years (the bump of a few pennies at each milestone notwithstanding).  It's not some conspiracy. If those who can actually make a living from their microstock earnings suddenly can't, then, IMHO, the field will be left to those who do this for fun, for experimentation, etc -and if SS keeps their prices and payouts low, they may just survive. But, let's face it, part of the reason microstock has done so well is because along with the experimenters and newbies, pros got into the game and many made good money while the boom lasted, but it hurt the industry in the long run. Then again, they were changing with the times, and now, things are changing again.

It's easy to spot the problems, harder to find a solution. And I appreciate Scott trying to put things into perspective, though IMHO there's more lottery than art to a winning image these days.

Will we ever get a raise? Not a question Scott can answer, I know, but that's the only way earnings for individual contributors will grow.

I know that he gets hit with some questions he can't answer, either cuz he does't know or can't say, but I too appreciate him coming in here to shed whatever light he can that might help us continue to make money and be competitive.

« Reply #698 on: September 07, 2014, 00:49 »
0
Hi guys,

Gbalex - you're right.  A particular bug or feature may or may not be that big, but it comes down to prioritization. There are three reasons why a bug might not get fixed:  a) because of other priorities that are expected to deliver more value to contributors or customers; b) because it couldn't be reliably reproduced or is limited in scope; or c) because we're expecting to replace that area of the code entirely in an upcoming release.

So, for example, one thing that our contributor team has been working on has been additional site languages - we just released Brazilian Portuguese as the first of new languages.  We have (many) thousands of existing Shutterstock contributors whose native language is not English and many who apply. Our goal is to be accommodating of them in their own language. 

On a daily basis, the process of prioritization basically answers the following question:  what would you do first?  Make an improvement that drives more downloads for contributors overall (and therefore, more royalty dollars to them)?  Make the site available in the native language of our thousands of non-native-English speakers? New payment methods? New forum software? Fix the Top 50? How many contributors would benefit? How big is the effort? What teams need to be involved?  Is that area of the site due for a larger upgrade - will an issue get fixed as part of another feature release? 

Some improvements have to be prioritized first as part of growth, and others are prioritized based on what we believe -- based on contributor feedback -- will benefit the most contributors over the short- and long-run.  There's a lot more to come.  ;)

I do believe there's more we can do to expose some of that externally.
 

Best,

Scott
VP of Content
Shutterstock


Lets put this in perspective, it would take one programmer 1 hour tops, to restore the Weekly TOP 50 Most Popular images to working order.

I think you have made it quite clear that you have no intention of rolling back the changes to the page which rendered it non functional. You have had approx 2 years to accomplish one simple task, that an entry level programer could have accomplished in less than a day.

Lets talk about Priorities

Shutterstock's inside investors have literally put hundreds of millions of dollars in their pockets, by granting themselves stock at a cost of zero and then selling it a a premium.  Yet shutterstock refuses to allocate one hour of coding to repair a simple page query in 2 years time.

Shutterstock made the business decision to rent office space in one the most expensive pieces of commercial real estate in the US and yet the company flatly refuses to contract additional IT personnel, even on part time basis to stamp out the frequent bugs that plague it's life's blood contributors.

Shutterstock chooses to pay for yoga rooms & classes, Pizza Fridays, massages and many other benefits for its employees and yet it flatly refuses to spend a thin dime for one hour of work to restore contributor faith in its business practices.

Bottom line, Shutterstock has been willing to spend more on Pizza Fridays than it has been willing to spend stamping out the bugs plaguing it's contributors.

If Shutterstock really has nothing to hide and you would like to improve your relationship with contributors. It would be very simple to restore trust by repairing the TOP 50 weekly, after all shutterstock had no problem providing this very minimal level transparency for the 9 years before it went public.

With out our content your company and jobs would not exist. If Shutterstock values it's business; contributor welfare as well as contributor trust, should be at the very TOP of your priority list!
« Last Edit: September 07, 2014, 01:35 by gbalex »

BoBoBolinski

« Reply #699 on: September 07, 2014, 01:25 »
+4
Hey guys, I'm an Istockphoto exclusive and I just happened to see this thread.  Did you guys have a similar experience like me?    Everything was relatively ok and then June was disappointing, July was good, and then all of a sudden August plunged (worse than June) and it got worse till the end, with the past 2 weeks being some of my worst in years.    August is usually up there with March as my best month of the year, and it was shocking for me to see my worst August since 2011.  If you guys got a similar experience, I'm wondering if its a market issue rather than an agency or individual contributor issue.
You must be fairly unusual to have August as your best month of the year, I don't think I know anyone who would say that.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
17 Replies
20048 Views
Last post December 12, 2006, 11:06
by MiguelAngelo
36 Replies
33952 Views
Last post April 16, 2009, 17:53
by stockastic
4 Replies
4602 Views
Last post October 14, 2009, 01:11
by leaf
35 Replies
95094 Views
Last post February 05, 2021, 08:29
by Mimi the Cat
3 Replies
5055 Views
Last post April 01, 2015, 06:57
by helloitsme

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors