MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: New (recent) image sales - Shutterstock  (Read 9708 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: August 10, 2016, 05:02 »
+7
Hi!

My new or recent images don't sell anymore. From 1. aug. my Image gallery views dropped to zero.

How do you go?

Thank you!


« Reply #1 on: August 10, 2016, 06:07 »
+2
You are not alone.

« Reply #2 on: August 10, 2016, 06:25 »
+3
I am having the same problem.

« Reply #3 on: August 10, 2016, 06:28 »
+6
Same, here.. they always experiment and change the algorithm which hurts contributors only.

« Reply #4 on: August 10, 2016, 06:37 »
0
Same, here.. they always experiment and change the algorithm which hurts contributors only.
The same cake cutting - they think about their bigger portion, but not about to cook another one when finished.

« Reply #5 on: August 10, 2016, 06:44 »
+2
Same, here.. they always experiment and change the algorithm which hurts contributors only.
It only hurts some contributors unless buyers start going elsewhere if they can't find what they are looking for.
« Last Edit: August 10, 2016, 06:48 by Pauws99 »

« Reply #6 on: August 10, 2016, 07:19 »
+4
Same, here.. they always experiment and change the algorithm which hurts contributors only.
It only hurts some contributors unless buyers start going elsewhere if they can't find what they are looking for.

Unless it is also designed to encourage subscription buyers to download less files with their subscription. In which case it could mean an overall drop in downloads for contributors across the board. Lets not forget that the whole business model relies on a buyer not using all their downloads.

An example of this sort of change could be limiting the number of images from the same photographer featuring the same model  in the results even if the individual images are best sellers. A buyer could think the model is perfect and download several versions to use only one. If they are presented with only one version they may still download it but not the variants.

Isn't this why SS started letting clients use unwatermarked images for comps? To encourage less paid downloads for us?

Chichikov

« Reply #7 on: August 10, 2016, 07:35 »
0
Same, here.. they always experiment and change the algorithm which hurts contributors only.
It only hurts some contributors unless buyers start going elsewhere if they can't find what they are looking for.

Elsewhere you will have the same contributors with the same images (most of them)
« Last Edit: August 10, 2016, 07:42 by Chichikov »

« Reply #8 on: August 10, 2016, 07:57 »
0
Same, here.. they always experiment and change the algorithm which hurts contributors only.
It only hurts some contributors unless buyers start going elsewhere if they can't find what they are looking for.

Elsewhere you will have the same contributors with the same images (most of them)
Indeed but if they were to "engineer" the search engine in a way that some suggest then buyers might go elsewhere.

gyllens

« Reply #9 on: August 10, 2016, 08:22 »
0
Exactly so!  the content is there somewhere among 80 million files but its a different story trying to find it in a very poor search that at the moment returns mostly non commercial files. Its a mess.

« Reply #10 on: August 10, 2016, 08:51 »
+8
Unless it is also designed to encourage subscription buyers to download less files with their subscription. In which case it could mean an overall drop in downloads for contributors across the board. Lets not forget that the whole business model relies on a buyer not using all their downloads.

Isn't this why SS started letting clients use unwatermarked images for comps? To encourage less paid downloads for us?

That is a very important point.  I can't imagine they would do anything to decrease subscription sales as it would likely hurt them overall.  However, in the short term it could boost profits so I suppose anything is possible.  A chilling thought in any event.

The whole idea of comps in the subscription age is very annoying.  When images were hundreds or thousands of dollars each then allowing comps makes sense.  However, for the cost of one subscription they should be able to get enough images that they could use without needing comps - they should be able to pay a few cents per image used I would think.  That practice really should end.

To the OP, sales have really dropped the past couple of months and so far August is looking dismal - it doesn't seem to be restricted only to new images.  Hopefully things will pick up next month.

« Reply #11 on: August 10, 2016, 10:39 »
+3
My sales of new work have actually spiked for the first time in quite a while, but the thought of comps when it's pennies for them to use their subscriptions is ludicrous. Isn't that why big agencies and publications have subscriptions in the first place? It's definitely a money saver for SS because they don't lose anything, & they save paying millions of us the pennies we should be getting. And if the buyers "forget" to re-download the unwatermarked image so we get paid for the chosen images, even worse for us.

« Reply #12 on: August 10, 2016, 13:36 »
+3

My new or recent images don't sell anymore. From 1. aug. my Image gallery views dropped to zero.


lol, welcome to the unforgotten and experienced!!!  refer to the old rinderhart thread (just when you think it can't get worse)..
congrats , you are now in with the old clan of expendables miserables !!!

now, wait for a new bunch to come in here to say, "what problem??? i just had my bme!!!

Rinderart

« Reply #13 on: August 10, 2016, 16:22 »
+4
now, wait for a new bunch to come in here to say, "what problem??? i just had my bme!!!



EXACTLY!!!!!!!!!!+1000

What a mess this whole business is. really sad. And I totally Believe they have no Idea.

« Reply #14 on: August 10, 2016, 16:31 »
+2
i think so too,  a company making tens of millions profit has no idea

« Reply #15 on: August 11, 2016, 00:01 »
0
Same, here.. they always experiment and change the algorithm which hurts contributors only.
It only hurts some contributors unless buyers start going elsewhere if they can't find what they are looking for.

Unless it is also designed to encourage subscription buyers to download less files with their subscription. In which case it could mean an overall drop in downloads for contributors across the board. Lets not forget that the whole business model relies on a buyer not using all their downloads.

An example of this sort of change could be limiting the number of images from the same photographer featuring the same model  in the results even if the individual images are best sellers. A buyer could think the model is perfect and download several versions to use only one. If they are presented with only one version they may still download it but not the variants.

Isn't this why SS started letting clients use unwatermarked images for comps? To encourage less paid downloads for us?

I don't think it is a secret conspiracy against us.  on the image page they have 'more of the same model' and 'similar images' which both would encourage downloads from the same shoot.

That said - yes, my earnings seem to be falling as well  :-\
« Last Edit: August 11, 2016, 00:12 by leaf »

gyllens

« Reply #16 on: August 11, 2016, 00:38 »
+5
No of course  its not  a secret conspiracy as such but something is going on or rather something has happened. I have tried to reach the director of content on his PM in three mails: no reply for two month's. He was the one guy left that cared and always gave advice and speedy replies. Out of my 22K files there the ones promoted are really old ones and not one single new file in sight. Earnings are sinking fast while other agencies are going up. Not a single word from them.
My hunch is that the entire administration is replaced and as Rinderart says they havent really got a clue but perhaps learning the ropes and meanwhile contributors will have to shoulder the heavy burden.
This mess is not only debated here but just about in every corner of our industry. Many people have throughout the years invested heavily in the SS machinery they have seen the Istock fall from grace and rightly so they see their investments beginning to fall apart.


« Reply #17 on: August 11, 2016, 03:11 »
+5
Hi!

My new or recent images don't sell anymore. From 1. aug. my Image gallery views dropped to zero.

How do you go?

Thank you!

Many of my new images sell once, right after upload, then they are buried.
I don't think sales have much to do with portfolio view. Change your avatar image and write something scandalous in the forum. You'll have many views instantly. I don't think portfolio views come from buyers.

dpimborough

« Reply #18 on: August 11, 2016, 03:25 »
+4
i think so too,  a company making tens of millions profit has no idea



Their profits are declining even though revenue is increasing

http://www.microstockgroup.com/shutterstock-com/interesting-article-about-profits-vs-revenues/
« Last Edit: August 11, 2016, 09:36 by Teddy the Cat »

« Reply #19 on: August 11, 2016, 03:43 »
0
i think so too,  a company making tens of millions profit has no idea


Wrong actually you confused revenue with profit.

Their profits are declining even though revenue is increasing

http://www.microstockgroup.com/shutterstock-com/interesting-article-about-profits-vs-revenues/
Did the poster say it was increasing?.....

« Reply #20 on: August 11, 2016, 04:11 »
+1
I upload about 60 new quality vector from aug 1.  I sell nothing from new designs. Zero Motivation.

« Reply #21 on: August 11, 2016, 04:43 »
+3
I upload about 60 new quality vector from aug 1.  I sell nothing from new designs. Zero Motivation.

can I see your 60 new quality vectors?

dpimborough

« Reply #22 on: August 11, 2016, 09:35 »
0
i think so too,  a company making tens of millions profit has no idea


Wrong actually you confused revenue with profit.

Their profits are declining even though revenue is increasing

http://www.microstockgroup.com/shutterstock-com/interesting-article-about-profits-vs-revenues/
Did the poster say it was increasing?.....


No they didn't but neither did I infer they had. ::)

The comment said "a company making tens of millions profit has no idea" inferring that SS must be doing something right when in fact they are not their profits are declining

But I corrected the post anyway  ;)

Chichikov

« Reply #23 on: August 11, 2016, 10:13 »
+2
I upload about 60 new quality vector from aug 1.  I sell nothing from new designs. Zero Motivation.

can I see your 60 new quality vectors?

I would be curious to see your art too

« Reply #24 on: August 11, 2016, 11:10 »
+3
I have a portfolio of about 10k and I do upload new content everyday, except the weekends. And YEP I see sales from new content everyday.

BUT overall the earning have dropped a lot and "portfolio views" are at 0 zero for a while now. what is happening I don't know :(

We all make suppositions here and talk about conspiracy and stuff. But I would love to see some shutter representatives starting to talk here.

C'mooon.. talk, say something....lye but say something!


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
1 Replies
3422 Views
Last post June 01, 2011, 13:05
by click_click
3 Replies
2685 Views
Last post January 19, 2012, 17:04
by Anita Potter
22 Replies
5732 Views
Last post March 31, 2013, 18:08
by Firewall
24 Replies
8373 Views
Last post August 10, 2016, 12:49
by Minsc
13 Replies
2069 Views
Last post June 02, 2020, 16:49
by zorba

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle