MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Just when you thought It couldn't get worse.  (Read 30237 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #225 on: July 21, 2016, 14:34 »
+2
And yes there are hundreds or more new contributors (boats) joining every month you have to compete against for the same buyer.

You may be right, Paulie, but this statement makes me wonder.

Given the world's overall population growth, is there any reason why the number of contributors and the number of buyers doesn't remain roughly in balance?

Absolutely a great point. When I saw some of SS recent financials I got the impression library growth was outpacing sales growth which is why I keep mentioning supply/demand. But again it's only my impression. The numbers would need to be analyzed to verify that. Again could be dozens of possible causes.

still, if supply /demand are of the kind of images created by say rinderhart, mantis,etc (viz those who came here to say their sales have plunged)
it would account for the sudden drop in earnings of these experienced contributors.

but if you say the supply increased manifolds of marijuana, landscape, flowers,etc..
that still does not explain why rinderhart and everyone here in this thread and corresponding threads
at ss are experiencing a sudden drop in earnings.

and this is my/their impression, which is very real from their side of the story..
.. which may not be a FACT to some, but it's hurting them in the pocket

and there is no one out there coming in to explain why these experienced contributors
are in fact IN FACT seeing their portfolio vanished
along with their prior regular earnings of 28 to 102 dollars which they had
before all these flipping about started


« Reply #226 on: July 21, 2016, 18:02 »
+7
It maybe that a change in the search algorithm may have had a very severe effect on some contributors. Whether thats "fair" or not is not really relevant to SS they will look at their revenue. it is possible that their algorithm now favours  profit over total income i'e promoting smaller contributors. Think we have no way of knowing but there is some anecdotal evidence for this. It would be a quite rational thing for them to do.

+100.  Sales don't collapse overnight without something like that happening and they do admit that they play with the algorithm.  I was making $40 -$100 a day. Now I am making $7 to $15 for the last three weeks. 

« Reply #227 on: July 21, 2016, 18:38 »
+2
It maybe that a change in the search algorithm may have had a very severe effect on some contributors. Whether thats "fair" or not is not really relevant to SS they will look at their revenue. it is possible that their algorithm now favours  profit over total income i'e promoting smaller contributors. Think we have no way of knowing but there is some anecdotal evidence for this. It would be a quite rational thing for them to do.

+100.  Sales don't collapse overnight without something like that happening and they do admit that they play with the algorithm. I was making $40 -$100 a day. Now I am making $7 to $15 for the last three weeks.

good of you to be so honest about it. usually it is someone who will tell how successful they are
but would never admit they are losing money overnight.

and many have already said they have been missing those single earnings of 28 to 102 dollars overnight for over a year now.

it may not have disappeared for one or two, but for many who came here to admit it,
it has. and that does not erase the fact that it did for them.

dbvirago

« Reply #228 on: July 21, 2016, 19:12 »
+5
For me, it has nothing to do with the search algorithms. All of my images that have come up high in searches still do. My normal sub purchases are at or higher than ever.

Where my earnings have dropped, and I think for many others, it's the loss of the ELs and SODs that used to boost our income. I don't think that had anything to do with search algorithms, but changes in marketing and licensing. Changes to licensing made fewer people need to buy ELs, changes in marketing has acquired more sub customers, which means less OD and SOD customers.

I can't do anything about any of this, so I will keep doing what I have been doing for 10 years. Shoot, process upload, rinse and repeat.

gyllens

« Reply #229 on: July 21, 2016, 23:46 »
+4
No what you see in your search is not what the buyers see and in different parts of the world depending on where they don't even see your port. It is from time to time a complete switch off of portfolios. Nothing new its been going on for some time. In certain parts of Europe especially during nights its a complete stand-still.

Lower royalty members are favoured in the sort order meaning of course that agency is saving millions in payouts every month. Its laughable really because its become a way to punish prominent suppliers of stock, the more successful you are the less you are favoured in the search.

Its not a nice game anymore. :)

« Reply #230 on: July 22, 2016, 00:01 »
0
sorry but who buys images at night?

gyllens

« Reply #231 on: July 22, 2016, 00:04 »
+7
sorry but who buys images at night?

European nights are business hours in America, South-America etc. and of course vice-versa.

« Reply #232 on: July 22, 2016, 00:15 »
+1
the most downloads come from europe and the states, at 5pm in the US theres basically no one working till 9am in europe.

also,  shutterstock has roughly 12.5 million downloads per month. if those would all be subs and  go to 25 cent portfolios they would make 1.5m usd more per month, not millions. but many 38 cent portfolios still getting sales,

your statements are emotional rather than factual

« Reply #233 on: July 22, 2016, 00:24 »
+3
This kind of pointless rants has been going on for years and it will only get worse. In 2 years most of you will dream about today's stock income. Blaming the agencies, newbies, etc. - so pointless, such a waste of time.... Basic economic fact is: there is too many suppliers and the share of the cake is getting smaller and smaller for each supplier. What is the way to survive? Writing useless rants and continuing to pump your assets into an unsustainable system? Continuing to sell rope to agencies with which they will hang you? No, the only way to think about survival is stop feeding the current system and try to create an alternative system where the number of suppliers is limited and the content is of high quality and exclusive.
Stocksy got it right: hard limit on the number of members. Stocksy also got many other things right and now reap the rewards.

I cannot understand the "pros" who continue to pump their content into the system that will eat them, instead of trying harder to come up with a better system. Stocksy has proved that it is possible, only very difficult.
 
All right, for this post you may grab your pitchforks and chase me, but I am sure if I come back in 1 year, 2 years, there will be exactly the same kind of useless rants, only the income level of most people will be much lower.
« Last Edit: July 22, 2016, 02:09 by LDV81 »

« Reply #234 on: July 22, 2016, 01:59 »
+1
This kind of pointless rants has been going on for years and it will only get worse. In 2 years most of you will dream about today's stock income. Blaming the agencies, newbies, etc. - so pointless, such a waste of time.... Basic economic fact is: there is too many suppliers and the share of the cake is getting smaller and smaller for each supplier. What is the way to survive? Writing useless rants and continuing to pump your assets into an unsustainable system? Continuing to sell rope to agencies with which they will hang you? No, the only way to think about survival is stop feeding the current system and try to create an alternative system where the number of suppliers is limited and the content is of high quality and exclusive.
Stocksy got it right: hard limit on the number of members. Stocksy also got many other things right and now reap the rewards.

I cannot understand the "pros" who continue to pump their content into the system that will eat them, instead of trying harder to come up with a better system. Stocksy has proved that it is possible, only very difficult.
 
All right, for this post you may grab your pitchforks and chase me, but I am sure if I come back in 1 year, 2 years, and there will be exactly the same kind of useless rants, only the income level of most people will be much lower.
What this implies though is increased income for the chosen few at the expense of those excluded. It may work well for some but doesn't really address the supply issue. Seems to me its an outdated model ...will be interesting to see where Stocksy is in a year or two as well.

« Reply #235 on: July 22, 2016, 02:06 »
+2
This kind of pointless rants has been going on for years and it will only get worse. In 2 years most of you will dream about today's stock income. Blaming the agencies, newbies, etc. - so pointless, such a waste of time.... Basic economic fact is: there is too many suppliers and the share of the cake is getting smaller and smaller for each supplier. What is the way to survive? Writing useless rants and continuing to pump your assets into an unsustainable system? Continuing to sell rope to agencies with which they will hang you? No, the only way to think about survival is stop feeding the current system and try to create an alternative system where the number of suppliers is limited and the content is of high quality and exclusive.
Stocksy got it right: hard limit on the number of members. Stocksy also got many other things right and now reap the rewards.

I cannot understand the "pros" who continue to pump their content into the system that will eat them, instead of trying harder to come up with a better system. Stocksy has proved that it is possible, only very difficult.
 
All right, for this post you may grab your pitchforks and chase me, but I am sure if I come back in 1 year, 2 years, and there will be exactly the same kind of useless rants, only the income level of most people will be much lower.
What this implies though is increased income for the chosen few at the expense of those excluded. It may work well for some but doesn't really address the supply issue. Seems to me its an outdated model ...will be interesting to see where Stocksy is in a year or two as well.

The only alternative are ever shrinking earnings for everyone. The ones that are "excluded" (as you say) on one site may join other sites. It was also pretty much like this when e.g. entrance tests at SS mattered. Only the entrance barriers should be higher now and the membership limited.

I don't think you should even try to address the oversupply issue. Hopeless! It's like with lightning strikes. A lightning rod is not supposed to solve the issue of lightning strikes but it prevents your house from being destroyed when it hits you.
« Last Edit: July 22, 2016, 02:19 by LDV81 »

« Reply #236 on: July 22, 2016, 02:14 »
0
This kind of pointless rants has been going on for years and it will only get worse. In 2 years most of you will dream about today's stock income. Blaming the agencies, newbies, etc. - so pointless, such a waste of time.... Basic economic fact is: there is too many suppliers and the share of the cake is getting smaller and smaller for each supplier. What is the way to survive? Writing useless rants and continuing to pump your assets into an unsustainable system? Continuing to sell rope to agencies with which they will hang you? No, the only way to think about survival is stop feeding the current system and try to create an alternative system where the number of suppliers is limited and the content is of high quality and exclusive.
Stocksy got it right: hard limit on the number of members. Stocksy also got many other things right and now reap the rewards.

I cannot understand the "pros" who continue to pump their content into the system that will eat them, instead of trying harder to come up with a better system. Stocksy has proved that it is possible, only very difficult.
 
All right, for this post you may grab your pitchforks and chase me, but I am sure if I come back in 1 year, 2 years, and there will be exactly the same kind of useless rants, only the income level of most people will be much lower.
What this implies though is increased income for the chosen few at the expense of those excluded. It may work well for some but doesn't really address the supply issue. Seems to me its an outdated model ...will be interesting to see where Stocksy is in a year or two as well.

The only alternative are ever shrinking earnings for everyone. The ones that are "excluded" (as you say) on one site may join other sites. It was also pretty much like this when e.g. entrance tests at SS mattered. Only the entrance barriers should be higher now and the membership limited.
Thats all true maybe i'm a fatalist but I just don't think it will work....look around at every digitally based industry. Ultimately its buyers who determine what quality is. Sometimes I think people forget no one can force them to buy anything.

« Reply #237 on: July 22, 2016, 02:44 »
+5
LDV81, please explain why people suddenly see a massive drop one day to the next, as happened in this july for a lot of people ?

« Reply #238 on: July 22, 2016, 02:49 »
+5
LDV81, please explain why people suddenly see a massive drop one day to the next, as happened in this july for a lot of people ?
I would have thought the only answer is a change in search algorithm.

« Reply #239 on: July 22, 2016, 04:43 »
+1
This july is heading for the worst july for me since I started uploading to SS in 2010.

Subs look normal in numbers,- it's the OD's and SOD's that are missing.

« Reply #240 on: July 22, 2016, 10:04 »
0
yes pauws but ldv says its just basic economics, supply and demand

« Reply #241 on: July 22, 2016, 12:30 »
+4
yes pauws but ldv says its just basic economics, supply and demand
I don't know why people can't accept that it's obviously a change in the search.  The same has happened with other sites when they changed their search.  The only other logical explanation I can think of is that they have had a technical error recording sales and they would probably of told us about that by now.

Some people don't get hit by a change in the search and some do better but a lot of us see a massive fall in sales and if this is like the way Fotolia did it, we are unlikely to see our earnings ever recover.  It hurts much more than the slow decline from over supply that had been happening for years and is possible to cope with.

If SS are now penalising contributors that have reached the higher tiers, it should be bad news for everyone, as eventually, others will reach the higher tiers and they will suffer the same fate.
« Last Edit: July 22, 2016, 12:33 by sharpshot »


« Reply #242 on: July 22, 2016, 13:26 »
0
yes pauws but ldv says its just basic economics, supply and demand
Yes so if someone else can provide an image that equally meets the needs of the buyer then its only the rolling dice (weighted or otherwise) that means that some images sell over others.

« Reply #243 on: July 22, 2016, 13:27 »
+1
sorry but who buys images at night?

for your information when it's night in your part of the sewer
there is day and someone else is waking up to do his / her thing in the loo

« Reply #244 on: July 22, 2016, 13:28 »
0
sorry but who buys images at night?

European nights are business hours in America, South-America etc. and of course vice-versa.

yes, i already told msp that, but in their mindspeak

« Reply #245 on: July 22, 2016, 13:35 »
0

 Basic economic fact is: there is too many suppliers and the share of the cake is getting smaller and smaller for each supplier.

Continuing to sell rope to agencies with which they will hang you?

I cannot understand the "pros" who continue to pump their content into the system that will eat them

 exactly the same kind of useless rants



What this implies though is increased income for the chosen few at the expense of those excluded. It may work well for some but doesn't really address the supply issue.

all very good points...

except there is no such thing as a useless rant..
a rant helps to vent the frustrations...

since they can't all raid ss H.O. with pitch forks and rope to hang them ... or hemp... to offer the "ganja gods of ss " and appease them, depending on which method of persuasion you prefer)

« Reply #246 on: July 22, 2016, 13:37 »
0
LDV81, please explain why people suddenly see a massive drop one day to the next, as happened in this july for a lot of people ?

The agency may change the search algorithm whenever they want. I noticed that after a very good day at SS I am now usually punished with pathetic sales on the next day. It feels like they switch off parts of my port in certain markets. Some of the other sites also seem to have a kind of "rotation".

And that's the whole point I am trying to make. They have no obligations towards contributors only towards shareholders. THERE'S TOO MANY SUPPLIERS, so they can afford to lose some. For crying out loud, you can't change that. That's the way it is. What do you want do? A hunger strike? No point complaining, got to adapt and find alternatives.

That is why successful and smart co-ops with limited memberships and exclusive images are the only way for full-time contributors to survive in the stock business in the long run.
« Last Edit: July 22, 2016, 13:42 by LDV81 »

« Reply #247 on: July 22, 2016, 13:49 »
+1
LDV81, please explain why people suddenly see a massive drop one day to the next, as happened in this july for a lot of people ?

The agency may change the search algorithm whenever they want. I noticed that after a very good day at SS I am now usually punished with pathetic sales on the next day. It feels like they switch off parts of my port in certain markets. Some of the other sites also seem to have a kind of "rotation".

And that's the whole point I am trying to make. They have no obligations towards contributors only towards shareholders. For crying out loud, you can't change that. That's the way it is. What do you want do? A hunger strike? No point complaining, got to adapt and find alternatives.

That is why successful and smart co-ops with limited memberships and exclusive images are the only way for full-time contributors to survive in the stock business in the long run.


red -  statements your points
i) glad you agree there is some kind of manipulation unlike some handful who insist
it's not happening
ii) why would ss encourage the established contributors to exodus to stocksy,etc???
would they not be chopping off their own feet?

otoh, shareholders plan is short-term and really do not care if tomorrow , after they short their holdings , ss no longer exists, ... sort of a repeat of istock.

i try to see your point though. since we are not able to storm ss HO for not being
a native in that city, luckily for them most of us are not,
there is really nothing else we can do...

but vent !!!
ranting does send out a message to other potential shareholders
that all is not good at ss.
this will drop the share prices ,
so it is not useless rant as you say it is.


you can still hit them in the pocketbook by ranting here and ss forum
to show other shareholders it is not long-term that ss current look for.
iow, you go in now, and you will be left holding the bag
when the majority shareholders sell and take profit at your expense.

« Reply #248 on: July 22, 2016, 14:07 »
0
LDV81, please explain why people suddenly see a massive drop one day to the next, as happened in this july for a lot of people ?

The agency may change the search algorithm whenever they want. I noticed that after a very good day at SS I am now usually punished with pathetic sales on the next day. It feels like they switch off parts of my port in certain markets. Some of the other sites also seem to have a kind of "rotation".

And that's the whole point I am trying to make. They have no obligations towards contributors only towards shareholders. For crying out loud, you can't change that. That's the way it is. What do you want do? A hunger strike? No point complaining, got to adapt and find alternatives.

That is why successful and smart co-ops with limited memberships and exclusive images are the only way for full-time contributors to survive in the stock business in the long run.


red -  statements your points
i) glad you agree there is some kind of manipulation unlike some handful who insist
it's not happening
ii) why would ss encourage the established contributors to exodus to stocksy,etc???
would they not be chopping off their own feet?

otoh, shareholders plan is short-term and really do not care if tomorrow , after they short their holdings , ss no longer exists, ... sort of a repeat of istock.

i try to see your point though. since we are not able to storm ss HO for not being
a native in that city, luckily for them most of us are not,
there is really nothing else we can do...

but vent !!!
ranting does send out a message to other potential shareholders
that all is not good at ss.
this will drop the share prices ,
so it is not useless rant as you say it is.


you can still hit them in the pocketbook by ranting here and ss forum
to show other shareholders it is not long-term that ss current look for.
iow, you go in now, and you will be left holding the bag
when the majority shareholders sell and take profit at your expense.

Stocksy is limited to a few hundred photographers.  There will be no exodus to them... unless they change the rules.   

gyllens

« Reply #249 on: July 22, 2016, 14:09 »
0
LDV81, please explain why people suddenly see a massive drop one day to the next, as happened in this july for a lot of people ?

The agency may change the search algorithm whenever they want. I noticed that after a very good day at SS I am now usually punished with pathetic sales on the next day. It feels like they switch off parts of my port in certain markets. Some of the other sites also seem to have a kind of "rotation".

And that's the whole point I am trying to make. They have no obligations towards contributors only towards shareholders. THERE'S TOO MANY SUPPLIERS, so they can afford to lose some. For crying out loud, you can't change that. That's the way it is. What do you want do? A hunger strike? No point complaining, got to adapt and find alternatives.

That is why successful and smart co-ops with limited memberships and exclusive images are the only way for full-time contributors to survive in the stock business in the long run.

Correct!  no obligations at all only all their 80 mil so called assets belong to us.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
12 Replies
3427 Views
Last post June 17, 2008, 12:18
by Brian O'Shea
10 Replies
2561 Views
Last post August 10, 2010, 07:21
by Dreamframer
3 Replies
1952 Views
Last post October 25, 2011, 09:27
by Slovenian
2 Replies
1553 Views
Last post October 08, 2013, 02:34
by WindyTai
15 Replies
2545 Views
Last post July 13, 2019, 08:44
by Uncle Pete

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results