Author Topic: huge sales drop for new images (Read 34628 times)

philfreez · « **on:** May 24, 2018, 03:37 »

Hello guys,
since one month and an half I've noticed two unusual (for me) facts:

- sales from my new images are dropping down in a way that I never experienced from 3 years of activity or so;
- on the other hand, some old photos* that maybe did not sell almost anything have suddenly started selling modestly like never did before..

I've changed nothing in my production 'style', neither in keywording, quality and quantity. The only different thing I've done since dec 2017 is to start with footage uploads..
I know that in recent times SS has made some changes to their algorithm and the first thing I've noticed is the disappearance of the "relevance" tab in the search engine.
Maybe I've posted only bad subjects for more then a month but it still looks strange for me, the other agencies (9) are keeping their usual sales levels with the same portfolio and the same new pictures...

Maybe the problem is just me but I'd like to know if something similar happened to you too

*oh, and my old best sellers still sells really good

CrFx · « **Reply #1 on:** May 24, 2018, 03:58 »

Quote from: philfreez on May 24, 2018, 03:37

- sales from my new images are dropping down in a way that I never experienced from 3 years of activity or so;

*oh, and my old best sellers still sells really good

Are you happy or sad?

philfreez · « **Reply #2 on:** May 24, 2018, 04:09 »

Quote

Are you happy or sad?

Well I am.... normal?

my final monthly income in $ has not had major changes (thanks to the best sellers and the new footage activity)
but I am just a little worried about my new content cause new content means growth.. I'm simply trying to understand the reason

Video-StockOrg · « **Reply #3 on:** May 24, 2018, 05:42 »

lucky you all who were selling new stuff.... what can we say about our footage that starts selling after about a year. For many years now. It is like if we are doing future footage. Annoying though.

Dumc · « **Reply #4 on:** May 24, 2018, 08:38 »

Quote from: philfreez on May 24, 2018, 04:09

Quote
Are you happy or sad?

Well I am.... normal?
my final monthly income in $ has not had major changes (thanks to the best sellers and the new footage activity)
but I am just a little worried about my new content cause new content means growth.. I'm simply trying to understand the reason

1.367.365 new stock images added this week

Here is your reason.

BalkanskiMacak · « **Reply #5 on:** May 24, 2018, 10:30 »

Actually, I noticed it as well, but I noticed too that some files from a few months ago are getting dowloads now, so I guess they changed their algorithm to reduce the frenshness parameter.

On another subject, I got a lot of bulg purchases, more than before, so they must have done something about this as well.

In the end, like most of the people, I didn't see a huge change in the dynamic.

IvonneW · « **Reply #6 on:** June 19, 2018, 02:30 »

I have a portfolio of 30.000 images. My income is rather bad, because I am selling less and less, every month. I upload about 30 new images, every week, but at Shutterstock I almost never sell new images. Just old stuff. It's rare. At Fotolia I sell them both, old and new.

Steveball · « **Reply #7 on:** June 19, 2018, 04:17 »

Same here, AS outselling SS by at least 2-1.

derek · « **Reply #8 on:** June 19, 2018, 04:31 »

Yep at this moment Adobe is outselling SS by far!

gnirtS · « **Reply #9 on:** June 19, 2018, 04:41 »

New stuff is really being de ranked in the searching again it seems.
Usually uploading a modest number of new you'd expect a decent number to pick up sales.
Lately that just isn't the case. New stuff sits there whereas old stuff (sometimes really old and having never sold in years of being there) with the same keywording sell.
Im in the process of clearing a backlog of 9 months of images and uploading, added about 1000 in the last month. Sadly, with the algorithm at the moment its making no difference - all my sales are still the older images.
Looks like i picked exactly the wrong time to update my portfolio.

panicAttack · « **Reply #10 on:** June 19, 2018, 06:14 »

yes, new images just dont sell anymore.

it isnt just 1 million weekly thing, it was like that 4-5 months ago but new images did sell, now for last few months, and also when relevant search was removed, new images don't sell anymore.

derek · « **Reply #11 on:** June 19, 2018, 07:22 »

Uploading right now is fatal! it will just sit there not selling and then it falls down in rank and finally just vanishes never to be seen let alone sell. Thats the new name of the game!

BikeTourist · « **Reply #12 on:** June 19, 2018, 13:12 »

What I wonder is . . . What's the reasoning behind it? Why does SS's algorithm greatly favor our old stuff? How does SS benefit?

Pauws99 · « **Reply #13 on:** June 19, 2018, 13:58 »

Quote from: BikeTourist on June 19, 2018, 13:12

What I wonder is . . . What's the reasoning behind it? Why does SS's algorithm greatly favor our old stuff? How does SS benefit?

I think people greatly overestimate SS's ability to manipulate their algorithm without messing it up....after all they can barely keep the site fully functional. It may favour items that have actually sold which would favour older established material though I am often surprised by some of my old rubbish that never sold suddenly getting a sale or two.

pancaketom · « **Reply #14 on:** June 19, 2018, 14:49 »

Quote from: BikeTourist on June 19, 2018, 13:12

What I wonder is . . . What's the reasoning behind it? Why does SS's algorithm greatly favor our old stuff? How does SS benefit?

Maybe using the older search algorithm settings shows too much of the new dreck, so they turn the settings back to favor older sellers and that makes the search look a little less messed up - the casualty is any sales on recently uploaded images. If they aren't going to quality control at the submission point then it is hard to put a lot of recent uploads in the search results without showing a lot of images with little quality control. I am guessing that in their A/B testing this puts off buyers so they change it. In the long run having no newer images seen in search will put buyers off too, but it won't be immediately obvious like overloading the search results with lots of recent lousy images does. Good or bad, if an image is buried immediately then there will be no data to use so the good images can rise in the search over time.

Buyers can choose "new", but that is probably even worse for many search terms.

gnirtS · « **Reply #15 on:** June 19, 2018, 15:58 »

They've admitted on the forums they trial different algorithms with random groups of buyers and people then evaluate after a while the income, number of sales and so on. Its so big and complex that cant know how it works so live tests are the only option. Remember also their goal is more sales or more income, the individual contributor income is completely irrelevant to them.

SS used to favour new stuff but potentially too much - a crap new image would rank above a really good, really well selling older one no problem.
Its gone too far the other way now, made worse i suspect by image dilution from the sheer number of substandard images being accepted on every topic imaginable.

They used to provide the "earnings from new content" on the dashboard. I suspect they axed that as people would clearly see that graph dropping like a stone.

We used to have buyer options for "relevant", "never sold" and so on as well. Those have now gone as options. I doubt any buyer selects "new" either - they'll just leave it on popular so get old tried and tested images for the first 20+ pages

jonbull · « **Reply #16 on:** June 19, 2018, 17:43 »

Quote from: gnirtS on June 19, 2018, 15:58

They've admitted on the forums they trial different algorithms with random groups of buyers and people then evaluate after a while the income, number of sales and so on. Its so big and complex that cant know how it works so live tests are the only option. Remember also their goal is more sales or more income, the individual contributor income is completely irrelevant to them.

SS used to favour new stuff but potentially too much - a crap new image would rank above a really good, really well selling older one no problem.
Its gone too far the other way now, made worse i suspect by image dilution from the sheer number of substandard images being accepted on every topic imaginable.

They used to provide the "earnings from new content" on the dashboard. I suspect they axed that as people would clearly see that graph dropping like a stone.

We used to have buyer options for "relevant", "never sold" and so on as well. Those have now gone as options. I doubt any buyer selects "new" either - they'll just leave it on popular so get old tried and tested images for the first 20+ pages

i made two set in catalog manager one last year for image made in 2017...barely 1600 images, today after one half year they have rip of near 2, 4 dollar....this year in the first 6 month i uploaded 1600 images, who i consider better and more oriented to stock than last year...after 6 months, the 2018 set mae 87 dollar.....probably on perspective after 1 year and half no more than 0,2 dollar per image at this pace...and last year was still a year of 1 million image per week growing....so don't know what to think. in the last month i saw an increase in new image sales, but nowhere near last year. ù
in addiction last sale above 70 dollar...in january.. first two weeks of janaury had three 70 and more sale...after 15 january the biggest sales in ss is 14 dollar.

namussi · « **Reply #17 on:** June 19, 2018, 20:18 »

Quote from: jonbull on June 19, 2018, 17:43

i made two set in catalog manager one last year for image made in 2017...barely 1600 images, today after one half year they have rip of near 2, 4 dollar....this year in the first 6 month i uploaded 1600 images, who i consider better and more oriented to stock than last year...after 6 months, the 2018 set mae 87 dollar.....probably on perspective after 1 year and half no more than 0,2 dollar per image at this pace...and last year was still a year of 1 million image per week growing....so don't know what to think. in the last month i saw an increase in new image sales, but nowhere near last year. ù
in addiction last sale above 70 dollar...in january.. first two weeks of janaury had three 70 and more sale...after 15 january the biggest sales in ss is 14 dollar.

이해가 안되는데요.

YadaYadaYada · « **Reply #18 on:** June 19, 2018, 22:29 »

Seems like anybody can find whatever they want and make up some private theory. Old don't sell like they did, new don't sell like they should, income drops because of lower RPI, and the search is broken, they changed their algorithm, they are favoring new people, low level are forced to front, they favor old files. Everyone here and I mean everyone is making up answers but they are all personal without any proof or data, just ideas and wild guessing. Same people will say the opposite next week. No one knows except what we do know is 1.2 million new images a week, buyers can't see our new uploads, we hardly have any exposure even if they looked at new, our new would be buried in hours, unlike taking days or weeks before.

Anybody can find anything they want to see from their own but the real answer is 200 million image database and 1 million new a week. The answer is right there in front of your eyes and obvious. No need for conspiracy, complicated plots against us, plain as day, too many files, new and old, slice of the pie keeps shrinking. The time has changed the pay for cheap micro is lower while the return for new work keeps dropping because there's more new work then buyers. Demand can be the same but products keep coming in new at 1 million a week.

What would you expect if supply of anything else on a market was 10 times the demand? Lower and lower sales profits and income. The value of our work has been deflated and is decreasing. Over supply kills profit. Stop blaming the agency or quality, it's simple economics.

derek · « **Reply #19 on:** June 20, 2018, 00:50 »

Quote from: namussi on June 19, 2018, 20:18

Quote from: jonbull on June 19, 2018, 17:43

i made two set in catalog manager one last year for image made in 2017...barely 1600 images, today after one half year they have rip of near 2, 4 dollar....this year in the first 6 month i uploaded 1600 images, who i consider better and more oriented to stock than last year...after 6 months, the 2018 set mae 87 dollar.....probably on perspective after 1 year and half no more than 0,2 dollar per image at this pace...and last year was still a year of 1 million image per week growing....so don't know what to think. in the last month i saw an increase in new image sales, but nowhere near last year. ù
in addiction last sale above 70 dollar...in january.. first two weeks of janaury had three 70 and more sale...after 15 january the biggest sales in ss is 14 dollar.

이해가 안되는데요.

I know! its terrible!

gnirtS · « **Reply #20 on:** June 20, 2018, 04:19 »

Quote from: YadaYadaYada on June 19, 2018, 22:29

Stop blaming the agency or quality

Well the lack of quality control is largely responsible for the massive above linear increase with library size and that is the agencies decision.

They've also publicly stated they vary the algorithm and test it with randomly selected groups (its on their forum) so thats not some conspiracy theory.

Pauws99 · « **Reply #21 on:** June 20, 2018, 04:33 »

Quote from: gnirtS on June 20, 2018, 04:19

Quote from: YadaYadaYada on June 19, 2018, 22:29
Stop blaming the agency or quality

Well the lack of quality control is largely responsible for the massive above linear increase with library size and that is the agencies decision.

They've also publicly stated they vary the algorithm and test it with randomly selected groups (its on their forum) so thats not some conspiracy theory.

Of course they vary the algorithm I don't think anyone said otherwise....the idea that they vary it to penalise certain contributors is the question.

leremy · « **Reply #22 on:** June 20, 2018, 04:58 »

If I were to choose, I'll pick old images to sell better because we got more old images than new images. And yeah, our new images will become old anyways, someday.

pics2 · « **Reply #23 on:** June 20, 2018, 05:11 »

Quote from: leremy on June 20, 2018, 04:58

If I were to choose, I'll pick old images to sell better because we got more old images than new images. And yeah, our new images will become old anyways, someday.

If only time freezes and there wasn't competition. One day buyers will realize that there is an agency or few of them out there with good choice of quality new images, and SS offering 10 or 15 years old stuff will not be attractive any more. At least I hope there will be competition.

Uncle Pete · « **Reply #24 on:** June 20, 2018, 08:56 »

Quote from: Pauws99 on June 20, 2018, 04:33

Quote from: gnirtS on June 20, 2018, 04:19
Quote from: YadaYadaYada on June 19, 2018, 22:29
Stop blaming the agency or quality

Well the lack of quality control is largely responsible for the massive above linear increase with library size and that is the agencies decision.

They've also publicly stated they vary the algorithm and test it with randomly selected groups (its on their forum) so thats not some conspiracy theory.
Of course they vary the algorithm I don't think anyone said otherwise....the idea that they vary it to penalise certain contributors is the question.

They don't care about us as individuals, there's the flaw in the logic. Sure the QC has fallen, so how does that hurt me? I don't care, my images are better. Sure they change and test the search, so they can make more money, not to penalize me or anyone else. Why do people here think it's all about them or us? This is not personal, the agencies don't care about us, they only care about making more money and what the customers will pay for.

Yes the obvious the massive acceptance of new photos will hurt, but some people claim that the quality of these images is the problem, when buyers will buy what they need, and not bad or low quality. Back to what I just wrote, the agency doesn't care if I make 100 sales a month or 1,000 there's no reason for them to care, just like they don't target us as individuals. Just that some people on the forums seem to think SS actually knows who we are and cares which of 100,000 contributors get capped. What persons photos get pushed to the back. NO THEY DON'T CARE!

How does that work? Why is my cap different from anyone else, why don't we all have the same caps if we have the same number of pictures. Something wrong with the controlled income theories, all kinds of something logically wrong. I say we can only make what the portfolio demand limit is, then no more sales. My portfolio is capped by my content, not the agency.

Yes any income growth is nearly impossible now, new images that are just like hundreds of thousands of other similar images, get lost before they get seen. The market is flat or declining. Not because of caps, manipulation or artificial control, but because the flood of competition. I don't consider poorly reviewed, weak images or things that should have been rejected, as competition. No buyer should want some junk, instead of one of our good images. Some of the new images are good enough and that's going to take away our sales.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: huge sales drop for new images (Read 34628 times)

philfreez

CrFx

philfreez

Video-StockOrg

Dumc

BalkanskiMacak

IvonneW

Steveball

derek

gnirtS

panicAttack

derek

BikeTourist

Pauws99

pancaketom

gnirtS

jonbull

namussi

YadaYadaYada

derek

gnirtS

Pauws99

leremy

pics2

Uncle Pete

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors