Author Topic: How much this beast need to be fed? (Read 15927 times)

pancaketom · « **Reply #25 on:** September 26, 2008, 13:57 »

I'd say refining their search and getting rid of the spam (and maybe spreading out similars?) would do them more good than trying to tighten standards (which seems to result in rejecting anything a little different). It does seem that the new image bounce is less than it was.

CofkoCof · « **Reply #26 on:** September 27, 2008, 05:05 »

One of the reasons that we don't see much of a bump after adding new images is this: 76,037 new photos added in the past week. Check this thread also:
http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=47243&start=0

graficallyminded · « **Reply #27 on:** October 03, 2008, 08:27 »

http://www.arcurs.com/advanced-stock-photography-termology-for-photographers

Good read...

cascoly · « **Reply #28 on:** October 04, 2008, 15:19 »

Quote from: louoates on September 26, 2008, 09:44

Personally I haven't found that sales fall if I don't constantly upload. I've gone for months with just a few (2-4) new images per month uploaded and seen a consistent growth in sales there.

Like most here I've noticed a quick spike in new image sales within hours or days of uploading, but the main sales trend has been up regardless of new work.

The most frustrating thing about SS is the lack of good tools to track my images. It is impossible to see my portfolio there with meaningful numbers by each image. Why they can't give us tools similar to IS's "downloads per month" by image is beyond me. I've emailed support with their meaningless answers referring to their "Stats" button with its nearly worthless information.

totally agree with the latter points - SS is one of the worst to get meaningful dl stats, and they account for such a large % of total dl that it doesnt make much sense to track the other sites closely if it cant be done on SS

i' in same poisition as you - i was in peru all of aug, with no contact , and my ss sales have been steady over jul - aug - sep. i suspect one reason is that my portfolio is heavily weighted with images with long halflives - few of the top 20 sellers i have on SS were uploaded this year -- so i sell at perhaps 10% of the RPI of others, but my portfolio will stay fresh longer

CofkoCof · « **Reply #29 on:** October 04, 2008, 15:33 »

Yeah, SS has the worst system for tracking sales, editing images,... There is a great topic on the SS forums about the 10 most needed features(recently it even got a response from one of the admins). Maybe we can put some pressure on them by replying to the topic:
http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=35817

travelstock · « **Reply #30 on:** October 04, 2008, 18:52 »

Quote from: sharply_done on September 26, 2008, 11:19

Quote from: helix7 on September 26, 2008, 09:30
... Will buyers get fed up with digging through piles of crap to find good images, when they can go to sites with higher quality standards and a higher percentage of top-quality images? I believe they will.
I dunno ... if that was true then an agency with a reputation for being quite selective about their images (i.e. Crestock) would be very successful, which is clearly not the case.

Crestock is selective to the point of damaging their collection - that's not good for anyone.

Having said that I think one of the problems with SS at the moment is that they aren't being selective enough - I don't mean on the technical quality aspects, more on the subject matter. In a sense that doesn't matter if they have the servers to cope with the number of files, but I suspect that more and more contributors are falling into the trap of pumping out volume that isn't going to sell.

I'm finding that my sales aren't skyrocketing, but I'm getting gradually increasing BME's on SS. I don't have many high volume images, but I get a trickle of downloads from plenty of older files. If I stop uploading for a while, sales don't plummet, but they definitely drop off.

Lee Torrens · « **Reply #31 on:** October 04, 2008, 23:29 »

Search algorithms and tools can overcome the quality and quantity issues by pushing the better images to the top. Shutterstock use their algorithms to have their buyers do this for them. New images get lots of exposure. If they sell poorly, they're buried. If they sell well, their exposure endures.

So the technology ensures buyers don't need to spend much time finding the right image if they know how to use the tools. That's why some agencies give search tips in their newsletters - it helps buyers find images quicker which increases customer satisfaction.

LuckyOliver was big on this idea. They accepted everything that was technically passable and let the search technology ensure customers found what they wanted. In light of this I can see how being too strict can work against an agency.

I also can't understand how macrostock agencies haven't picked up on these ideas - it's not like they're new, difficult to implement, or they haven't been told a million times.

RacePhoto · « **Reply #32 on:** October 05, 2008, 17:02 »

Quote from: Lee Torrens on October 04, 2008, 23:29

I also can't understand how macrostock agencies haven't picked up on these ideas - it's not like they're new, difficult to implement, or they haven't been told a million times.

Can you say Alamy?

Photos are only checked for image quality, not content.

The 48M files are only so the buyer knows that there are no hidden artifacts in the images.

Looks pretty straight forward to me.

Seren · « **Reply #33 on:** October 06, 2008, 01:41 »

Quote from: RacePhoto on October 05, 2008, 17:02

Can you say Alamy?

And they have a search algorithm which pushes the consistently good contributors to the top, the rest get buried. No use just having a few lucky files, your rank is measured across the board, so crap shots will bring you down.

RacePhoto · « **Reply #34 on:** October 06, 2008, 12:53 »

Quote from: Seren on October 06, 2008, 01:41

Quote from: RacePhoto on October 05, 2008, 17:02

Can you say Alamy?

And they have a search algorithm which pushes the consistently good contributors to the top, the rest get buried. No use just having a few lucky files, your rank is measured across the board, so crap shots will bring you down.

So far my images are showing on the first page with the minimal keywords that are precise. Could be that I have some specialized subjects, or maybe stuff that no one buys, so no one else shoots it.

Point was that a macrostock agency has picked up on the point that Lee Torrens was making. They only accept or reject on image quality, not content.

Yes, they do have an interesting ranking system. I watched three hours of video, much of it about Alamy Rank and it's still somewhat of a mystery. Views, click through, zooms, sales... I checked my CTR and know what it is, but I don't know what the heck it means.

Oh I think I'm going OT on this, sorry.

yuliang11 · « **Reply #35 on:** October 06, 2008, 21:29 »

last month was my BME ,my downloads are pathetic this month

is it because of the recession in US ?

melastmohican · « **Reply #36 on:** October 08, 2008, 13:18 »

No uploads for 2 weeks causes big drop in sales but it seems to be even more devastating on 123RF and StockXpert where my sales when 10x lower than on SS.

shutterdrop · « **Reply #37 on:** October 09, 2008, 07:30 »

SS claim to fame was bulk cheap downloads. The big agencies took advantage of this and download tons of images.

The business model is changing. SS model was cheap download and fill up your hard-drives because it was cheap and piss on the quality.

Customers are no longer just willing to fill-up their hard-drives. Cutting expense is easy just download the image when to need them.

My experience downloading from SS is you must wade through a pile of garabe to find a good quality images.

melastmohican · « **Reply #38 on:** October 09, 2008, 15:44 »

If you go to discount store do not complain that it is overcrowded and messy :-) You would never get Mercedes quality at Fiat price :-)

louoates · « **Reply #39 on:** October 09, 2008, 17:27 »

Just my take on quality: On my top 4 topo sites there is about the same % of garbage on all.

Fran · « **Reply #40 on:** October 18, 2008, 14:03 »

Just had my first EL on SS. *jumping happily around*

hali · « **Reply #41 on:** October 18, 2008, 15:45 »

Quote from: melastmohican on October 09, 2008, 15:44

If you go to discount store do not complain that it is overcrowded and messy :-) You would never get Mercedes quality at Fiat price :-)

true true.
but then again, what another person call quality, you might call garbage, right?

peep · « **Reply #42 on:** October 19, 2008, 03:49 »

What is going on with them??? I upload regularly and I had ZERO sales yesterday! Anyone else has ever had zero sales? It is ridiculous. I usually have a few dozens DLs every day. But the stupid weekends are growing worse and worse.

borg · « **Reply #43 on:** October 19, 2008, 04:49 »

Quote from: peep on October 19, 2008, 03:49

What is going on with them??? I upload regularly and I had ZERO sales yesterday! Anyone else has ever had zero sales? It is ridiculous. I usually have a few dozens DLs every day. But the stupid weekends are growing worse and worse.

Yesterday I had ZERO day, today 1...

I think that economic crisis forced many buyers to cancel shoping for this month....

peep · « **Reply #44 on:** October 19, 2008, 11:45 »

Oh no!!!

Snufkin · « **Reply #45 on:** October 20, 2008, 03:55 »

The slowdown may be partially due to the introduction of the on-demand option.
Some customers have canceled their subscriptions and buy only stuff that they need.
In the past people wanted to use up their quota and downloaded some pictures that they didn't really need for their work. Such images will get now fewer downloads than before.

Karimala · « **Reply #46 on:** October 20, 2008, 12:32 »

My last 0 DL day at SS was on Christmas Day 2005...almost three years ago.

a.k.a.-tom · « **Reply #47 on:** October 20, 2008, 19:49 »

Quote from: hali on October 18, 2008, 15:45

Quote from: melastmohican on October 09, 2008, 15:44
If you go to discount store do not complain that it is overcrowded and messy :-) You would never get Mercedes quality at Fiat price :-)
true true.
but then again, what another person call quality, you might call garbage, right?

Amen to that, hali !!! I can confess this. I have my own share of what I consider is junk......... but, it sells! Why? Beats the stuffing out of me. All I can figure is "One man's trash is another man's treasure".
As for getting Mercedes quality at the Fiat price... hey, I've sold the very same pictures at Fiat and Mercedes prices. LOL LOL
I have one particular pic that sells for 33 cents on SS. I've also sold it for $500.

Go figure. There's no ryhme or reason to it. I just sit back and cash the checks and sip my beer.

=tom

borg · « **Reply #48 on:** October 22, 2008, 17:11 »

My Beast on SS is dying,every day more and more...
But I have new on IS...

Today SS isn't first any more in my portfolio...

melastmohican · « **Reply #49 on:** October 22, 2008, 17:23 »

For me it's still more than 60% from SS but others are getting stronger every month...

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: How much this beast need to be fed? (Read 15927 times)

pancaketom

CofkoCof

graficallyminded

cascoly

CofkoCof

travelstock

Lee Torrens

RacePhoto

Seren

RacePhoto

yuliang11

melastmohican

shutterdrop

melastmohican

louoates

Fran

hali

peep

borg

peep

Snufkin

Karimala

a.k.a.-tom

borg

melastmohican

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors