MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: New Content Sale  (Read 5847 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #25 on: August 15, 2016, 10:29 »
0
Everyone is jumping to the conclusion that SS is incompetent.  To me, it looks like they are doing some smart testing, at a time when it should be done -- in the dog days of summer.  If you have a theory on a new search algorithm that might boost sales, you test it out in a period that is traditionally low selling, so you can perfect it and be ready to maximize sales for the high selling days coming later in the year.

Does anyone really think they're trying to suppress sales overall?  Whose interest would that serve?  We complain when they boost newer submissions and seemingly punish the veterans, and now we complain when older images place higher in search?

To me, these changes look OK.  My sales have been a bit higher the last few days, and my new stuff is still selling, though not as quickly as before.  I'm looking at my new stuff that is selling now as my diamonds in the rough -- images that are extremely unique and serving a real demand.  It doesn't matter how low they place in search results because they're in a specific niche and will be near the top no matter how SS tweaks the search.  This is like shining a spotlight on exactly what I need to do moving forward.    If it's something that's been done a million times over, don't even bother.  Find something new -- that people actually want -- and you'll be rewarded.  Yes, it's tough to do these days, but still possible.

While I agree with everything you've said, there is a fault with that "Earnings From New Content" graph. It's showing $0 for me and I know fine well that is completely wrong... by nearly $100.

At the moment, new & old images seem to be selling well, especially given the the time of year.

So are you hypothesizing that we could be getting sales, but they are just not being reported?

What I am saying and seeing, without any question of doubt, is that at least $90 of my last weeks sales at SS were new content yet the graph says $0. To me that says the graph is wrong and can't be used to determine whether your new images are selling or not. If, you have looked through all your sales via your monthly earnings spreadsheet and you still can't see any sales from new content, well, that's a different matter. Just don't use that graph as a reason to say your new content isn't selling. That data doesn't appear to be reliable. Certainly from my point of view.

Got it. Thanks.


« Reply #26 on: August 15, 2016, 10:44 »
0
Everyone is jumping to the conclusion that SS is incompetent.  To me, it looks like they are doing some smart testing, at a time when it should be done -- in the dog days of summer.  If you have a theory on a new search algorithm that might boost sales, you test it out in a period that is traditionally low selling, so you can perfect it and be ready to maximize sales for the high selling days coming later in the year.

Does anyone really think they're trying to suppress sales overall?  Whose interest would that serve?  We complain when they boost newer submissions and seemingly punish the veterans, and now we complain when older images place higher in search?

To me, these changes look OK.  My sales have been a bit higher the last few days, and my new stuff is still selling, though not as quickly as before.  I'm looking at my new stuff that is selling now as my diamonds in the rough -- images that are extremely unique and serving a real demand.  It doesn't matter how low they place in search results because they're in a specific niche and will be near the top no matter how SS tweaks the search.  This is like shining a spotlight on exactly what I need to do moving forward.    If it's something that's been done a million times over, don't even bother.  Find something new -- that people actually want -- and you'll be rewarded.  Yes, it's tough to do these days, but still possible.

While I agree with everything you've said, there is a fault with that "Earnings From New Content" graph. It's showing $0 for me and I know fine well that is completely wrong... by nearly $100.

At the moment, new & old images seem to be selling well, especially given the the time of year.

So are you hypothesizing that we could be getting sales, but they are just not being reported?

What I am saying and seeing, without any question of doubt, is that at least $90 of my last weeks sales at SS were new content yet the graph says $0. To me that says the graph is wrong and can't be used to determine whether your new images are selling or not. If, you have looked through all your sales via your monthly earnings spreadsheet and you still can't see any sales from new content, well, that's a different matter. Just don't use that graph as a reason to say your new content isn't selling. That data doesn't appear to be reliable. Certainly from my point of view.

Got it. Thanks.

No probs.... what is concerning is that their data is't accurate. Makes you wonder what else is wrong! I think they need to either correct it or remove it as soon as possible. At the very least, explain what is going on!

« Reply #27 on: August 15, 2016, 10:54 »
0
New image earnings have been particularly weak for me for a while (like a year?), but I have been pretty busy so haven't uploaded much. There isn't much motivation to upload though when new stuff doesn't much sell. Old stuff seems to sell a bit, but I haven't had a good day yet this month and I notched up another 0 day today - I went a number of years without them, but now they are back. (over 3,000 LCV to MCV images for sale).

As an aside I sorted my port by age and the results had nothing to do with age as far as I could tell - what kind of new algorithm is this?

after reading your comment, i looked at my historical one year, two years, ...
i realised that my bme, were not really that, but really due to the large 28 to 102 single earnings.
when you remove those earnings, my monthly earnings went down in a similar graph decline
like i am sure most here.

someone once pointed out in an older thread, if not for the single large sales,
we see a shortfall and dropping .

what kind of new algorithm is this?
  you tell me!

but looking to the right  108 % ss is not losing any sleep nor sales...

« Reply #28 on: August 15, 2016, 11:02 »
0

I've just had a quick look back over this last week and I'd say a good $90+ of this weeks sales are from new work. Some days over half of all sales. As far as I can see, this is without doubt a bug in the data collection. They've changed / added new fields to the database and the "New Content Graph" is now not pointing to the correct field anymore or, something along those lines. In short, an analyst has ballsed up the data collection/display.

so they sent the IT expert home to "spend more time with family"
and replaced him with a genius cousin???
It certainly appears there are wild swings in the algorithm my new sales for the last three months are poor but OK for 6. SS will only care if it affects their sales...."fair" doesn't come into it. If buyers start going elsewhere or start complaining they can't find images they saw a couple of days ago things might change. You can only hope the next change is in your favour.

good point.

if the sales are not going down, and it isn't as we see to the right of this page poll
does this now mean sales are not being reported??? (not my conspiracy theory,
but someone else here pointed this out , if i recall )

Shelma1

« Reply #29 on: August 15, 2016, 11:08 »
0
Looking at earnings from my new images over the past six months, 80% of those earnings are from 4-6 months ago and only 20% are from the last three months.

I had a few good "hit" images last month that accounted for nearly all those earnings. Without those few exceptional images my new images from mid-May to mid-August would have earned me close to zero.

Looking back, deciding to take last summer off was an excellent decision.
« Last Edit: August 15, 2016, 11:10 by Shelma1 »

« Reply #30 on: August 15, 2016, 11:25 »
0
Looking at earnings from my new images over the past six months, 80% of those earnings are from 4-6 months ago and only 20% are from the last three months.

I had a few good "hit" images last month that accounted for nearly all those earnings. Without those few exceptional images my new images from mid-May to mid-August would have earned me close to zero.

Looking back, deciding to take last summer off was an excellent decision.

Although most of my images sell at some point, I find that the 80/20 rule seems to apply in stock photography as it does in many things - about 80% of my sales come from 20% of my images - those "hit" images are the ones that will earn most of the money - I think that's probably the case whether you have a small portfolio or a large one like yours. Was it different in the past?


Shelma1

« Reply #31 on: August 15, 2016, 12:14 »
0
I'm not saying 80% of my income came from 20% of my images...I'm saying my new images stopped selling 3 months ago. More than 75% of my images have sold, but close to 0% of  my new images have sold over the past three months. Before that they were selling at my usual 75%+ rate. This month is the worst.

suwanneeredhead

  • O.I.D. Sufferer (Obsessive Illustration Disorder)
« Reply #32 on: August 15, 2016, 16:04 »
+1
My graph is also at zero, flat-lined, when I can see from my earnings page that I am selling brand new stuff, so I say the graph is malfunctioning, especially seeing that everyone else's graph has flat-lined as well, seems pretty clear to me.  I wouldn't panic about sales of new stuff going to zero, based on that graph.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
30 Replies
17486 Views
Last post August 13, 2009, 05:20
by nehbitski
2 Replies
3789 Views
Last post September 01, 2010, 19:32
by FD
7 Replies
4329 Views
Last post July 13, 2011, 18:31
by cascoly
88 Replies
17423 Views
Last post October 04, 2016, 02:39
by Microstockphoto
8 Replies
3469 Views
Last post August 08, 2017, 07:29
by SpaceStockFootage

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results