Author Topic: New photos = no sales (Read 16191 times)

hsfelix · « **on:** March 24, 2015, 09:02 »

Hello guys,

Since 2005 when I started to upload to Shutterstock I've noticed that new photos always had a lot of sales, and those sales decreased along time.

For the last 6 months I've noticed that new photos have almost no sales at all...

Have you noticed the same thing?

Sebastian Radu · « **Reply #1 on:** March 24, 2015, 09:09 »

Same for me

fritz · « **Reply #2 on:** March 24, 2015, 09:11 »

objowl · « **Reply #3 on:** March 24, 2015, 09:16 »

6 downloads from last 50 uploaded, 56 downloads from last 100, so sales do start to pick up eventually, keep feeding the beast

Ariene · « **Reply #4 on:** March 24, 2015, 09:17 »

Not in my case. New stuff is selling very good in a fact. I wonder if it has something to do with my regular uploads lately... thinking.

adi911 · « **Reply #5 on:** March 24, 2015, 09:18 »

Hello. For me is quite oposite. My newest photos have increasing sales.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Semmick Photo · « **Reply #6 on:** March 24, 2015, 09:18 »

Whats no sales at all. I see action on new shots. I dont know what the behaviour should be, but with 50 million images, what do you expect. The latest SS annual report shows that SS is outpacing the demand, thus slowing down sales on average per contributor. Expectancy is to see a decrease for sales on new images with a million images added per month.

Semmick Photo · « **Reply #7 on:** March 24, 2015, 09:19 »

The experience of anonymous people is difficult to weigh as we have no idea of how big or small your portfolio is or how long you have been contributor.

borg · « **Reply #8 on:** March 24, 2015, 10:20 »

Last two work days I've only few sales!
Does it SS become one of low earners?

mojaric · « **Reply #9 on:** March 24, 2015, 10:25 »

depends on kind of picture to me

i've uploaded nice and postproduced landscapes and 0 sales
i've uploaded niche technical stuff (industrial machinery) and have turbo sales...3 img have been sold 15 times in the first day

Now: my heart goes to landscape...but money goes to industry....you choose!

Ariene · « **Reply #10 on:** March 24, 2015, 10:42 »

Quote from: mojaric on March 24, 2015, 10:25

Now: my heart goes to landscape...but money goes to industry....you choose!

Haha

That's always a pain in the business!

Ps. I went to your gallery... and wow! Maybe your landscapes are to good for SS? Very good work I've found! Why don't you try exclude them from micros and offer in better places? Keep machines here on SS only

Oh, and I'd suggest not uploading more tomatos isolated if you want to get the success anywhere

sharpshot · « **Reply #11 on:** March 24, 2015, 10:51 »

It probably is down to what people are uploading. My new images aren't selling but I'm just uploading for fun at the moment, not really working at it. It got boring doing isolated objects and other subjects that sell but I might have to get back in to it if sales dip. The SODS have kept my earnings going but it probably isn't wise to rely on them.

etudiante_rapide · « **Reply #12 on:** March 24, 2015, 11:06 »

yes, lately ie past 4 days are strange... 3 zero days in a row. i account that to another IT eff-up instead of no sales cos i even get SOD on weekends.
but yes also, my new sales are good esp the isolated apples and tomatoes. i know, LMAO
but if they want apples, tomatoes, shoes... etc etc etc on white,
why do i waste my brain and electricity to create amazing photos when all they want is snapshots of grocery???
if the goat eats rubbish, why feed it oats???

No Free Lunch · « **Reply #13 on:** March 24, 2015, 11:32 »

Quote from: borg on March 24, 2015, 10:20

Last two work days I've only few sales!
Does it SS become one of low earners?

If SS becomes one of the low earners than my goose is cooked since about 35% of all my sales income comes from them...

ultimagina · « **Reply #14 on:** March 24, 2015, 12:40 »

It is true that I'm only uploading in the weekends, but I'm only uploading the best shots and I'm taking my time to "discover" the best processing version possible.

Here is the number of sales for my latest uploads, taken from the first page of the image gallery stats:
0, 0, 0, 2, 3, 11, 3, 1, 7, 1, 1, 7, 9, 20, 2, 1, 3, 3, 4, 15

The only zeros are the ones accepted yesterday. Moreover, the ones that sold the most are the ones I personally consider above my average.

So, new stuff sells, no need to panic (unless "new" means yesterday).

ArenaCreative · « **Reply #15 on:** March 24, 2015, 13:22 »

Feed the beast mode is over, bruh. Many reasons; but it's a shame we won't see the type of results like we did in 2005-2008. New stuff isn't going to sell like hotcakes anymore. In 12-24 months from image approval, you can seem to gauge a more accurate RPI on those new images.

Still, I have certain images found in action very quickly. I made .38 cents on this image which was found in the local mall within a few months from upload. Can you sense my excitement?! I miss the old days, when practically anything you uploaded would sell 1-5 times the following day that it was approved. Now you're doing good if you can get 1 or 2 sales from a new upload that entire next MONTH.

PixelBytes · « **Reply #16 on:** March 24, 2015, 13:30 »

Quote from: Semmick Photo on March 24, 2015, 09:19

The experience of anonymous people is difficult to weigh as we have no idea of how big or small your portfolio is or how long you have been contributor.

He said he's been with SS since 2005.

Dook · « **Reply #17 on:** March 24, 2015, 13:53 »

SS made it really easy to see your new content performance. Look under Overall earnings and Earnings from new content graphs. You can change period of time from 3 months to 2 years. It should give you pretty good idea how your new content performs now and how it did year or two ago.

ultimagina · « **Reply #18 on:** March 24, 2015, 13:58 »

Quote from: Dook on March 24, 2015, 13:53

SS made it really easy to see your new content performance. Look under Overall earnings and Earnings from new content graphs. You can change period of time from 3 months to 2 years. It should give you pretty good idea how your new content performs now and how it did year or two ago.

Actually, I believe that you can only define what new means:
new = content uploaded during the past 3 months, or
new = content uploaded during the past 2 years.

So you cannot tell how the 3 months old content sold 2 years ago.

Dook · « **Reply #19 on:** March 24, 2015, 14:02 »

You can compare Earnings from new content to overall earnings during different periods of time.

Dook · « **Reply #20 on:** March 24, 2015, 14:07 »

Quote from: ultimagaina on March 24, 2015, 13:58

So you cannot tell how the 3 months old content sold 2 years ago.

You can't, but you can tell how well new content have sold during last 2 years.

ultimagina · « **Reply #21 on:** March 24, 2015, 14:09 »

Quote from: Dook on March 24, 2015, 14:02

You can compare Earnings from new content to overall earnings during different periods of time.

No, I don't think you can.

You can only define what "new" means and see how many sales following this variable definition you have.

Quote from: Dook on March 24, 2015, 14:07

You can't, but you can tell how well new content have sold during last 2 years.

What you will see when you select 2 years is how many sales you have for the content you have uploaded during the past 2 years, not how much "new" (what is "new"?) content you have sold during the past 2 years.

Dook · « **Reply #22 on:** March 24, 2015, 14:14 »

Of course I can compare them. They are one under the other. The problem is, you are right, we don't know what "new" means.

Rinderart · « **Reply #23 on:** March 24, 2015, 14:19 »

Nowdays..For me at least as compared to many years ago and in 2005 with very few images online . it used to be almost Overnight. Mine start to sell in about 2/3 weeks. If not by then? Goodbye Images.

ultimagina · « **Reply #24 on:** March 24, 2015, 14:19 »

Quote from: Dook on March 24, 2015, 14:14

Of course I can compare them. They are one under the other. The problem is, you are right, we don't know what "new" means.

Actually we do know what "new" means and not the other way around.
When you select 3 months, "new" means 3 months old stuff.
...
When you select 2 years, "new" means 2 years old stuff.

That's why that graph always starts from ~0. Obviously, 4 months ago, you couldn't have sold stuff that's only 3 months old.

Dook · « **Reply #25 on:** March 24, 2015, 14:28 »

I'm not sure. I think the definition of "new" is constant (which we don't know what exactly means, one month old, two..), and what are you changing is the period of time you are looking at of its performance.
Which then compared to Overall earnings in the same period of time can give you some valuable information.
At least, that's how I've looked at these graphs all these years

ultimagina · « **Reply #26 on:** March 24, 2015, 14:37 »

Quote from: Dook on March 24, 2015, 14:28

I'm not sure. I think the definition of "new" is constant (which we don't know what exactly means, one month old, two..), and what are you changing is the period of time you are looking at of its performance.
Which then compared to Overall earnings in the same period of time can give you some valuable information.

When you select "Overall Earnings -> last 3 months", you obviously see the sales you had, during the last 3 months, for all your stuff, regardless of its age.
When you select "Earnings from New Content -> content submitted last 3 months", you only see how much you sold, during the last 3 months, from the content you have submitted during the last 3 months, as the name of graph obviously tells you.

When you select "Overall Earnings -> last 2 years", you obviously see the sales you had, during the last 2 years, for all your stuff, regardless of its age.
When you select "Earnings from New Content -> content submitted last 2 years", you only see how much you sold, during the last 2 years, from the content you have submitted during the last 2 years, as the name of graph obviously tells you.

You define what "new" means

Dook · « **Reply #27 on:** March 24, 2015, 14:50 »

I don't agree, sorry.
You don't define what new means. What would be the point of Overall earnings graph if you define the Earnings from new content the way you described. It doesn't make sense.

ultimagina · « **Reply #28 on:** March 24, 2015, 14:52 »

Quote from: Dook on March 24, 2015, 14:50

I don't agree, sorry.
You don't define what new means. What would be the point of Overall earnings graph if you define the Earnings from new content the way you described. It doesn't make sense.

If you are a less than 2 years old contributor, the 2 graphs are identical, when you select 2 years, on both.
This can't happen in your scenario.

Dook · « **Reply #29 on:** March 24, 2015, 14:56 »

Are they? Didn't know this, sorry! Why didn't you tell me that before, we could save a lot of time and energy.

ultimagina · « **Reply #30 on:** March 24, 2015, 15:00 »

Quote from: Dook on March 24, 2015, 14:56

Are they? Didn't know this, sorry! Why didn't you tell me that before, we could save a lot of time and energy.

They are identical, indeed.

Semmick Photo · « **Reply #31 on:** March 24, 2015, 16:06 »

Quote from: PixelBytes on March 24, 2015, 13:30

Quote from: Semmick Photo on March 24, 2015, 09:19
The experience of anonymous people is difficult to weigh as we have no idea of how big or small your portfolio is or how long you have been contributor.

He said he's been with SS since 2005.

I wasnt referring to the OP

ultimagina · « **Reply #32 on:** March 24, 2015, 16:45 »

Quote from: ultimagaina on March 24, 2015, 12:40

Here is the number of sales for my latest uploads, taken from the first page of the image gallery stats:
0, 0, 0, 2, 3, 11, 3, 1, 7, 1, 1, 7, 9, 20, 2, 1, 3, 3, 4, 15

The only zeros are the ones accepted yesterday.

I have to modify this sequence:

0, 1, 0, 2, 3, 11, 3, 1, 7, 1, 1, 7, 9, 20, 2, 1, 3, 3, 4, 15

Since I just sold 1 image accepted yesterday.

So, again: brand new stuff still sells!

60D · « **Reply #33 on:** March 25, 2015, 09:33 »

Quote from: ultimagaina on March 24, 2015, 16:45

So, again: brand new stuff still sells!

Agree, but old stuff doesn't sell as it used to be

Maximilian · « **Reply #34 on:** March 25, 2015, 09:38 »

Quote from: 60D on March 25, 2015, 09:33

Quote from: ultimagaina on March 24, 2015, 16:45
So, again: brand new stuff still sells!

Agree, but old stuff doesn't sell as it used to be

5% of all accepted images sell regularly for me (daily or weekly) . 95% not.
But I also have many variations of each motif.
But this value is same for all agencies. At least this value applies to me.

Nikovsk · « **Reply #35 on:** March 25, 2015, 11:23 »

New images sell, the problem is that most stop selling after 2 weeks.

Noedelhap · « **Reply #36 on:** March 25, 2015, 16:47 »

Sales these days are dire, across all agencies.

ultimagina · « **Reply #37 on:** March 26, 2015, 10:27 »

Quote from: Nikovsk on March 25, 2015, 11:23

New images sell, the problem is that most stop selling after 2 weeks.

This is most probably because after ~2 weeks SS stops artificially boosting the popularity of new photos.
During these ~2 "honey" weeks, the photo must accumulate enough sales, views, (or whatever other criteria is built in the popularity algorithm) to stand on its own against older photos.
If the photo is good enough, it will be able to remain competitive, generate more sales and slowly climb up the popularity ranks, generate even more sales ... and so on.

etudiante_rapide · « **Reply #38 on:** March 26, 2015, 12:01 »

Quote from: ultimagaina on March 26, 2015, 10:27

Quote from: Nikovsk on March 25, 2015, 11:23
New images sell, the problem is that most stop selling after 2 weeks.

This is most probably because after ~2 weeks SS stops artificially boosting the popularity of new photos.
During these ~2 "honey" weeks..

good observation ultimagaina

it's the same with new contributors , the honeymoon period or the carrot period that gets them all excited ... make a few cents a day so they cheer their success on the forum like waaa i make money here like nowhere else ... so they feed the beast with all those poor exposure stuff and tons of similars that mysteriously get approved while the older accounts get rejections
mysteriously too...
much like leaving the old wife for some new debutante
... ss the clinton system

ultimagina · « **Reply #39 on:** March 26, 2015, 13:19 »

I'm afraid I don't buy this discrimination between old and new contributors. The popularity boost for new photos is the one that gets everyone excited, old or new. Proposing crappy underexposed photos only to play tricks with a new contributor is like shooting yourself in the foot. SS must always want to promote the best photos to their customers, while giving a chance to the best fresh content to improve the perceived quality of the overall collection.

etudiante_rapide · « **Reply #40 on:** March 26, 2015, 14:02 »

Quote from: ultimagaina on March 26, 2015, 13:19

I'm afraid I don't buy this discrimination between old and new contributors. The popularity boost for new photos is the one that gets everyone excited, old or new. Proposing crappy underexposed photos only to play tricks with a new contributor is like shooting yourself in the foot. SS must always want to promote the best photos to their customers, while giving a chance to the best fresh content to improve the perceived quality of the overall collection.

no need to be afraid

look beyond your own foot in the new dailies and you will stop being afraid

ultimagina · « **Reply #41 on:** March 26, 2015, 14:58 »

Quote

look beyond your own foot in the new dailies and you will stop being afraid

I'm doing exactly that, and I don't see any reasons to be worried.

The boost for new photos is fact and anyone can check it when analyzing the popularity tabs. It makes business sense to refresh the top of the collection with the best content, regardless of the contributor's seniority.

The boost for new contributors is pure speculation you have no proof for. Conspiracy theory. It doesn't make any business sense.

gbalex · « **Reply #42 on:** March 26, 2015, 15:14 »

Quote from: ultimagaina on March 26, 2015, 14:58

Quote
look beyond your own foot in the new dailies and you will stop being afraid

I'm doing exactly that, and I don't see any reasons to be worried.

The boost for new photos is fact and anyone can check it when analyzing the popularity tabs. It makes business sense to refresh the top of the collection with the best content, regardless of the contributor's seniority.

The boost for new contributors is pure speculation you have no proof for. Conspiracy theory. It doesn't make any business sense.

The new contributors bump is fact, if the search were not broken I could provide links where shutterstock states that they do give bumps to new ports for a unspecified period of time. In 2004 or 2005 Jon mentioned that it was a in the order of months (not specified).

I think that is fair for new contributors who do not have large ports and are starting out. It gives them the chance to have their images noticed.

However now we have contributors from IS with very large ports and large amounts of experience joining shutterstock. These are not new images, they are images that have been for sale on other sites for many years, in some cases since IS was founded in 2000. In other words 15 years.

In this case an extended bump in sales is not fair and it would not be equitable to give these contributors the same months long bump inexperienced newbies with tiny ports receive.

etudiante_rapide · « **Reply #43 on:** March 26, 2015, 16:33 »

Quote from: gbalex on March 26, 2015, 15:14

The new contributors bump is fact, if the search were not broken I could provide links where shutterstock states that they do give bumps to new ports for a unspecified period of time. In 2004 or 2005 Jon mentioned that it was a in the order of months (not specified).

I think that is fair for new contributors who do not have large ports and are starting out. It gives them the chance to have their images noticed.

However now we have contributors from IS with very large ports and large amounts of experience joining shutterstock. These are not new images, they are images that have been for sale on other sites for many years, in some cases since IS was founded in 2000. In other words 15 years.

In this case an extended bump in sales is not fair and it would not be equitable to give these contributors the same months long bump inexperienced newbies with tiny ports receive.

absolutamundo...en agreement here with you gbalex big time!!!
as i said there is a honeymoon carrot period for beginners
to boost their saliva
or kindly said to help them learn the ropes.
++++ but not allow honeymoon to those mentioned by gbalex
good point good point

PixelBytes · « **Reply #44 on:** March 26, 2015, 18:02 »

Seems like around here it has become common to discount other people's experience as conspiracy theories if it didn't happen to you. Kind of closed minded.

ultimagina · « **Reply #45 on:** March 26, 2015, 21:24 »

Quote from: PixelBytes on March 26, 2015, 18:02

Seems like around here it has become common to discount other people's experience as conspiracy theories if it didn't happen to you. Kind of closed minded.

No, it is the other way around: close minded are those blaming their lack of success on external factors, instead of what they see, every morning, in the mirror.

PixelBytes · « **Reply #46 on:** March 26, 2015, 23:32 »

Quote from: ultimagaina on March 26, 2015, 21:24

Quote from: PixelBytes on March 26, 2015, 18:02
Seems like around here it has become common to discount other people's experience as conspiracy theories if it didn't happen to you. Kind of closed minded.
No, it is the other way around: close minded are those blaming their lack of success on external factors, instead of what they see, every morning, in the mirror.

Sorry mate. You are not in a position to know that. Many of those you say are to blame for falling sales have made and probably still make more in micro then you do or ever will.

Their success is the reason they are in a better position to notice and understand changing trends.

ultimagina · « **Reply #47 on:** March 27, 2015, 07:11 »

Quote

Sorry mate. You are not in a position to know that. Many of those you say are to blame for falling sales have made and probably still make more in micro then you do or ever will.

Their success is the reason they are in a better position to notice and understand changing trends.

I'll skip over your arrogant remark, but you have to decide: you either have falling sales or success. The two notions exclude each other.

I agree that, statistically, the more samples you have, the more reliable the trend is (in terms of error margin or confidence level). Nobody is disputing mathematics, here.
However, the way you explain the root cause of the more reliable trend you see is pure speculation. You have no proof to justify your hypothesis.

From the root cause point of view, my opinion is as good as yours, even if we disagree.

Therefore, I'm stating again that: it will be foolish for SS to demote good photos, made by older contributors, only to promote crap from newcomers.
This will only make the customers unhappy and incentivise them to look elsewhere for better photos.

etudiante_rapide · « **Reply #48 on:** March 27, 2015, 11:19 »

Quote from: ultimagaina on March 27, 2015, 07:11

Quote
Sorry mate. You are not in a position to know that. Many of those you say are to blame for falling sales have made and probably still make more in micro then you do or ever will.

Their success is the reason they are in a better position to notice and understand changing trends.

Therefore, I'm stating again that: it will be foolish for SS to demote good photos, made by older contributors, only to promote crap from newcomers.
This will only make the customers unhappy and incentivise them to look elsewhere for better photos.

from an agency standpoint like many parasite businesses with a huge turnaround of employees like telemarketing , fast food, chain stores,etc... the point of profit is about low pay to employees .
making customers unhappy is not the issue, as customers go with whatever you sell much like the current trend to sell pictures made with mobs, ... even the papers promote readers to send in pictures to have your glory moment of seeing your snapshot published.
promote crap is subjective. paying new contributors vs older contributors also increase the bottom line in a P&L or Balance Sheet to please shareholders at AGM.
to say what you say is all conspiracy is total dreamworld mentality...

as PixelBytes said, you are entitled to your own opinion, but it is not farfetcehd and it is not a conspiracy theory that sales of older contributors are down.

ultimagina · « **Reply #49 on:** March 27, 2015, 12:39 »

Quote

...that sales of older contributors are down.

I'm not denying that your sales are down. I believe you. I'm only disagreeing with your explanations.

Quote

...from an agency standpoint like many parasite businesses with a huge turnaround of employees ..

Wrong. SS and other agencies are not parasite companies. They offer you a service you are not able to fulfill yourself. They connect you with customers you could not reach by yourself.
If you could replace their services by yourself, you would not be wasting your time on this forum.

This is valid for all the intermediators or agents. They are not parasites, but an essential part of a functional economy. They allow you to focus on what you do best, like photography, growing crops or milking cows. They are better than you in finding customers for your photos, crops or milk.
Obviously, it is your choice if you want to pay for their services.

Quote

like telemarketing , fast food, chain stores,etc... the point of profit is about low pay to employees

Wrong, they pay the employees as much as the market forces value that type of work. If a company would underpay its employees, rest assured that, very soon, a competitor will attract them with better salaries. If it doesn't happen, then, that's how much that work is worth.

Quote

...making customers unhappy is not the issue, as customers go with whatever you sell

Wrong. Rest assured: the customers will always want the best and the cheapest. I'm sure you think the same when you buy your stuff: lenses, milk or bread.
If a company is foolish enough to assume that its customers would pay for crap, then they on a highway towards bankruptcy.

Quote

...much like the current trend to sell pictures made with mobs, ... even the papers promote readers to send in pictures to have your glory moment of seeing your snapshot published.

Correct. Your problem is the new competition. Amateurs might get that right shot once in while. Even a broken clock is right twice a day. And as you said, there are so many amateur photographers these days.

But if your photos are competitive, rest assured that nobody would want to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs. You will continue to sell them well, even after 10 years.

etudiante_rapide · « **Reply #50 on:** March 27, 2015, 13:41 »

Quote from: ultimagaina on March 27, 2015, 12:39

...that sales of older contributors are down.

I'm not denying that your sales are down. I believe you. I'm only disagreeing with your explanations.

i never said MY SALES are down. i said older contributors sales are down. there is a difference between the apple and an apple

ultimagina · « **Reply #51 on:** March 27, 2015, 13:53 »

Quote from: etudiante_rapide on March 27, 2015, 13:41

Quote from: ultimagaina on March 27, 2015, 12:39

...that sales of older contributors are down.

I'm not denying that your sales are down. I believe you. I'm only disagreeing with your explanations.

i never said MY SALES are down. i said older contributors sales are down. there is a difference between the apple and an apple

Great! Good for you! But it doesn't change the essence of what has been said.

Cesar · « **Reply #52 on:** March 27, 2015, 14:18 »

anyone have today low sales?

PixelBytes · « **Reply #53 on:** March 27, 2015, 17:39 »

Quote from: ultimagaina on March 27, 2015, 07:11

Quote
Sorry mate. You are not in a position to know that. Many of those you say are to blame for falling sales have made and probably still make more in micro then you do or ever will.

Their success is the reason they are in a better position to notice and understand changing trends.

I'll skip over your arrogant remark, but you have to decide: you either have falling sales or success. The two notions exclude each other.

I agree that, statistically, the more samples you have, the more reliable the trend is (in terms of error margin or confidence level). Nobody is disputing mathematics, here.
However, the way you explain the root cause of the more reliable trend you see is pure speculation. You have no proof to justify your hypothesis.

From the root cause point of view, my opinion is as good as yours, even if we disagree.

Therefore, I'm stating again that: it will be foolish for SS to demote good photos, made by older contributors, only to promote crap from newcomers.
This will only make the customers unhappy and incentivise them to look elsewhere for better photos.

Actually, if you review this thread, you will find I didn't post a hypothesis. I am just defending ones who did from your attacks.

And yes, it is very possible to be both successful in micro, and at the same time concerned with falling sales. For example, I know a contrib who made over $100K in micro last year. That is successful by any measure. But two years ago he made 140k. That is a big drop and something to be worried about. And if you ever make enough to see a 20k or 40k income drop in one year, you will be wondering why too and won't appreciate insults from some guy who thinks his year or so in the biz make him an expert

ultimagina · « **Reply #54 on:** March 27, 2015, 18:25 »

If you read my replies, you will notice that I'm arguing against fallacies that are not necessarily related to microstock, but to general economic principles.
I hope that we can agree that there is no reason to believe that the microstock industry is deviating from these general economic principles.

Therefore, you don't have to be a microstock expert to take note of fallacies, like agencies = parasites, or the customer doesn't care about quality, or the employers do not follow the market prices when it comes to salaries, etc.

PixelBytes · « **Reply #55 on:** March 27, 2015, 18:47 »

Well, thanks for removing the part where you said I adhere to fallacies, since I have not once endorsed any particular fallacy and in fact disagree with a number of the theories you mention.

I was taking issue with your belief that to be dissatisfied with current falling earnings automatically means you are not successful. I believe I have demonstrated that to be a fallacy.

We can all voice and discuss opinions, and none of them should be dismissed as fallacies until proven to be so. Otherwise they are just theories, and one person's is as good as another until either proven or discredited.

ultimagina · « **Reply #56 on:** March 27, 2015, 18:47 »

Quote

And yes, it is very possible to be both successful in micro, and at the same time concerned with falling sales. For example, I know a contrib who made over $100K in micro last year. That is successful by any measure. But two years ago he made 140k. That is a big drop and something to be worried about.

And your definition of success is debatable, if not just wrong:

suc·cess·ful
səkˈsesfəl
adjective
accomplishing an aim or purpose.

When you aim is to make 140k and you only make 120k, you have not accomplished your aim.

PixelBytes · « **Reply #57 on:** March 27, 2015, 18:56 »

Quote from: ultimagaina on March 27, 2015, 18:47

Quote
And yes, it is very possible to be both successful in micro, and at the same time concerned with falling sales. For example, I know a contrib who made over $100K in micro last year. That is successful by any measure. But two years ago he made 140k. That is a big drop and something to be worried about.

And your definition of success is debatable, if not just wrong:

suc·cess·ful
səkˈsesfəl
adjective
accomplishing an aim or purpose.

When you aim is to make 140k and you only make 120k, you have not accomplished your aim.

Um. You left out half the definition. Here's the part you left out. The part after "accomplishing a purpose":

suc·cess·ful
səkˈsesfəl/
adjective
adjective: successful

accomplishing an aim or purpose.

having achieved popularity, profit, or distinction.
synonyms: prosperous, affluent, wealthy, rich;
doing well, famous, eminent, top

People who are making six figures in micro are in the top 1-2% of contributors. That certainly meets the definition of popularity, affluence, distinction, and doing well - therefore = success.

Gotta run. Friend's band is playing at a pub tonight. But you keep on trying to sound smart. You may even fool some people.

ultimagina · « **Reply #58 on:** March 27, 2015, 20:13 »

If indeed your friend's goal was to be popular among microstockers, then I agree with the way you bend the definition.

But this topic is not about falling popularity, but about falling sales justified through theories that don't make sense.

If your friend is concened about $, and his aim was 140k, then, by any standard, he failed to achieve his goal.
If he is complaining about it, then he obviously is not doing well.
He might as well be a succesful as a piano player, but not in terms of achieving his $ goal through microstock.

Enjoy your friends music.

etudiante_rapide · « **Reply #59 on:** March 28, 2015, 09:55 »

Quote from: PixelBytes on March 27, 2015, 18:47

Well, thanks for removing the part where you said I adhere to fallacies, since I have not once endorsed any particular fallacy and in fact disagree with a number of the theories you mention.

I was taking issue with your belief that to be dissatisfied with current falling earnings automatically means you are not successful. I believe I have demonstrated that to be a fallacy.

We can all voice and discuss opinions, and none of them should be dismissed as fallacies until proven to be so. Otherwise they are just theories, and one person's is as good as another until either proven or discredited.

+10 , only gave you a +1 , unable to + the other 9 , so here

etudiante_rapide · « **Reply #60 on:** March 28, 2015, 10:06 »

postdata:
it's threads like this and experts like that which behooves me ...
like the ones asking for contributors increment of earning when the Balance Sheet of the agency
praise themself at the AGM. we all cheer the poster asking for more money to us,
and yet comes in some strange person giving minuses to such an idea.
same like the one who comes in to keep siding atilla.
you wonder why a contributor would go for slicing our throats instead of cheering for all as a team.
no wonder the BS (balance sheet) (b*llshit)(BallockS) persist
creating millionaires while contributors eat scraps off the table

Shelma1 · « **Reply #61 on:** March 28, 2015, 10:12 »

It often feels to me like my new images aren't selling. So I picked a random day this month and added up new vs. old sales. I considered anything under 1 year old as new. To my surprise, more than half my sales were new images. That means they're actually selling better than my old images, because I haven't doubled my portfolio size in the past year. I've been more strategic about what I draw and how I keyword over the past year, though. (Or at least I think I'm being more strategic.)

ultimagina · « **Reply #62 on:** March 28, 2015, 15:28 »

Quote from: Shelma1 on March 28, 2015, 10:12

That means they're actually selling better than my old images, because I haven't doubled my portfolio size in the past year. I've been more strategic about what I draw and how I keyword over the past year, though. (Or at least I think I'm being more strategic.)

My point exactly! Most probably your new photos are more competitive and more in tune with what customers like and want today.

Quote from: etudiante_rapide on March 28, 2015, 10:06

postdata:
it's threads like this and experts like that which behooves me ...
like the ones asking for contributors increment of earning when the Balance Sheet of the agency
praise themself at the AGM. we all cheer the poster asking for more money to us,
and yet comes in some strange person giving minuses to such an idea.
same like the one who comes in to keep siding atilla.
you wonder why a contributor would go for slicing our throats instead of cheering for all as a team.
no wonder the BS (balance sheet) (b*llshit)(BallockS) persist
creating millionaires while contributors eat scraps off the table

Of course everyone wants more money, but you have to be realistic about how to achieve this goal. Try to really understand and change what doesn't work. Adapt to the new trends, instead of whining and moaning on a forum. Bitc*ing against millionaires and agencies, calling them parasites, denotes a communist mentality which will not take you far.

PixelBytes · « **Reply #63 on:** March 29, 2015, 00:02 »

Quote from: ultimagaina on March 27, 2015, 20:13

If indeed your friend's goal was to be popular among microstockers, then I agree with the way you bend the definition.

But this topic is not about falling popularity, but about falling sales justified through theories that don't make sense.

If your friend is concened about $, and his aim was 140k, then, by any standard, he failed to achieve his goal.
If he is complaining about it, then he obviously is not doing well.
He might as well be a succesful as a piano player, but not in terms of achieving his $ goal through microstock.

Enjoy your friends music.

Thanks. Had a great time! Drank too much and rocked out.

But the musician friend and the photographer friend are two different dudes. The photog can't play piano for sh*t. But even if he could, most the musicians I know are either broke or married to wives that make good money.

The photographer is still scraping by on his 6 figure income, in spite of you thinking he's a failure, LOL. If I ever make even half that in micro I will be real happy, but with even those top players seeing big drops, I am not kidding myself about the future of where this industry is headed for artists. Maybe the same way as the music industry went for most musicians. So your metaphor turns out to be pretty on point.

ultimagina · « **Reply #64 on:** March 29, 2015, 07:22 »

If your friend is losing 20k/year, if he still doesn't understand why, (since he using you to complain in forums, blaming some conspiracy), if he doesn't take action to stop the losses, then he is not succesful. If he is missing 20k in his budget, and maybe he is not able to pay his mortgage anymore, he is not succesful. He failed to achieve his financial goal, even if by your petty standards he is still a God.

The industry is doing fine with the evergrowing number of contributors and the continuously improved content quality.

However, your friend's revenue, generated by his ageing portfolio, will continue to sink, the more he will be forced to share it all these talented newcomers.

ShadySue · « **Reply #65 on:** March 29, 2015, 07:46 »

Quote from: ultimagaina on March 29, 2015, 07:22

If your friend is losing 20k/year, if he still doesn't understand why, (since he using you to complain in forums, blaming some conspiracy) ...

What evidence to you have for thinking he is
1. "using PB to complain in forums"
or
2. "blaming some conspiracy"
or even that he
3. "doesn't understand why"? (though you did say 'if' for that one)

ultimagina · « **Reply #66 on:** March 29, 2015, 08:10 »

Quote from: ShadySue on March 29, 2015, 07:46

Quote from: ultimagaina on March 29, 2015, 07:22
If your friend is losing 20k/year, if he still doesn't understand why, (since he using you to complain in forums, blaming some conspiracy) ...
What evidence to you have for thinking he is
1. "using PB to complain in forums"
or
2. "blaming some conspiracy"
or even that he
3. "doesn't understand why"? (though you did say 'if' for that one)

Good questions.

It is not me, but PB using his friend's example to justify the sales decline of some older photographers through actions taken by the agencies against them. I call these justifications, "conspiracy theory", since they have nothing to do with the real world economics.

What I always said is that there is no proof for such a conspiracy, indeed.

If PB's friend doesn't believe PB's theory, if PB's friend is aware of what's really going on, then he shouldn't be used by PB as an example in this discussion.

Maybe PB should use his personal experience as an example, since I understand that his sales are fine, proving that he can compete in this industry.

ShadySue · « **Reply #67 on:** March 29, 2015, 08:16 »

Quote from: ultimagaina on March 29, 2015, 08:10

Quote from: ShadySue on March 29, 2015, 07:46
Quote from: ultimagaina on March 29, 2015, 07:22
If your friend is losing 20k/year, if he still doesn't understand why, (since he using you to complain in forums, blaming some conspiracy) ...
What evidence to you have for thinking he is
1. "using PB to complain in forums"
or
2. "blaming some conspiracy"
or even that he
3. "doesn't understand why"? (though you did say 'if' for that one)
Good questions.
It is not me, but PB using his friend's example to justify the sales decline of some older photographers through actions taken by the agencies against them.

He didn't.
He said, "I know a contrib who made over $100K in micro last year. That is successful by any measure. But two years ago he made 140k. That is a big drop and something to be worried about."
No conspiracies, no mention of 'not understanding'. It was a simple example. You read far too much into that simple statement.

ultimagina · « **Reply #68 on:** March 29, 2015, 08:28 »

Ok, then.

I didn't really want to debate the definition of success. It's a relative term.
Nevertheless PB said that his friend is "worried" about the drop in sales, in the context of this topic.
This topic talks about alleged actions against older contributors (like PB's friend), taken by the agencies. Moreover, these actions are claimed to be the reason for not selling new content like in the old days.

Either PB shouldn't be using an off-topic example, or his example is on-topic.

Only PB can clarify, if he or his friend belive that the drop in some of older contributors' sales is caused by specific actions taken by the agencies against them.

marthamarks · « **Reply #69 on:** March 29, 2015, 08:48 »

I suspect most of us are pretty tired of this "conversation" by now. I don't intend to tune in to this thread again.

tickstock · « **Reply #70 on:** March 29, 2015, 08:56 »

Shutterstock says they don't manipulate the search, if they did then surely there would be some solid evidence by now. If you look at the "popular" search you'll see very good images not bad images by new contributors at the top. There are many other real reasons why sales could be falling that don't involve conspiracies and search manipulation.

ruxpriencdiam · « **Reply #71 on:** March 29, 2015, 09:52 »

The drop in sales for the older contributors can come back to it being their own fault I went and checked on a bunch of their ports and here is what I found.

IPYU is Images per year uploaded average

IPW is Images per week

4365 images
545.625 IPYU
Member since 2006
10.49 IPW

1588 images
226.857 IPYU
Member since 2007
4.362 IPW

2938 images
419.714 IPYU
Member since 2007
8.07 IPW

445 images
49.444 IPYU
Member since 2005
.9508 IPW

2526 images
280.666 IPYU
Member since 2005
5.397 IPW

2271 images
283.875 IPYU
Member since 2006
5.45 IPW

840 images
93.333 IPYU
Member since 2005
1.79 IPW

1907 images
272.428 IPYU
Member since 2007
5.239 IPW

1415 images
176.875 IPYU
Member since 2006
3.401 IPW

5162 images
573.555 IPYU
Member since 2005
11.02 IPW

4615 images
576.875 IPYU
Member since 2006
11.09 IPW

718 images
89.75 IPYU
Member since 2006
1.72 IPW

391 images
43.444 IPYU
Member since 2005
.835 IPW

So you have contributors from back in 2005 that have been and are hardly uploading anything, yet there are other newer contributors one being from 2009 with over 18,000 images compared to the older contributors so what is wrong with that picture?

Everyone seems to like talking numbers so there they are and they speak volumes for what is happening to the old contributors, not forgetting to mention what was in high demand is no more because designers are looking for new stuff like filtered images that old timers consider stupid old out of focus faded Polaroids, so they want nothing to do with the trend and the BUS has run over them.

Quote from: ultimagaina on March 29, 2015, 08:28

Ok, then.

I didn't really want to debate the definition of success. It's a relative term.
Nevertheless PB said that his friend is "worried" about the drop in sales, in the context of this topic.
This topic talks about alleged actions against older contributors (like PB's friend), taken by the agencies. Moreover, these actions are claimed to be the reason for not selling new content like in the old days.

Either PB shouldn't be using an off-topic example, or his example is on-topic.

Only PB can clarify, if he or his friend belive that the drop in some of older contributors' sales is caused by specific actions taken by the agencies against them.

etudiante_rapide · « **Reply #72 on:** March 29, 2015, 10:47 »

Quote from: marthamarks on March 29, 2015, 08:48

I suspect most of us are pretty tired of this "conversation" by now. I don't intend to tune in to this thread again.

remember the good ole days of photocopy machines at work

how the most popular employees past-time was to take off their pants and photocopy their moon
to circulate around the accounting dept before sending it off to typing pool???

gbalex · « **Reply #73 on:** March 29, 2015, 13:14 »

Quote from: ruxpriencdiam on March 29, 2015, 09:52

The drop in sales for the older contributors can come back to it being their own fault I went and checked on a bunch of their ports and here is what I found.

IPYU is Images per year uploaded average

IPW is Images per week

4365 images
545.625 IPYU
Member since 2006
10.49 IPW

1588 images
226.857 IPYU
Member since 2007
4.362 IPW

2938 images
419.714 IPYU
Member since 2007
8.07 IPW

445 images
49.444 IPYU
Member since 2005
.9508 IPW

2526 images
280.666 IPYU
Member since 2005
5.397 IPW

2271 images
283.875 IPYU
Member since 2006
5.45 IPW

840 images
93.333 IPYU
Member since 2005
1.79 IPW

1907 images
272.428 IPYU
Member since 2007
5.239 IPW

1415 images
176.875 IPYU
Member since 2006
3.401 IPW

5162 images
573.555 IPYU
Member since 2005
11.02 IPW

4615 images
576.875 IPYU
Member since 2006
11.09 IPW

718 images
89.75 IPYU
Member since 2006
1.72 IPW

391 images
43.444 IPYU
Member since 2005
.835 IPW

So you have contributors from back in 2005 that have been and are hardly uploading anything, yet there are other newer contributors one being from 2009 with over 18,000 images compared to the older contributors so what is wrong with that picture?

Everyone seems to like talking numbers so there they are and they speak volumes for what is happening to the old contributors, not forgetting to mention what was in high demand is no more because designers are looking for new stuff like filtered images that old timers consider stupid old out of focus faded Polaroids, so they want nothing to do with the trend and the BUS has run over them.

Quote from: ultimagaina on March 29, 2015, 08:28
Ok, then.

I didn't really want to debate the definition of success. It's a relative term.
Nevertheless PB said that his friend is "worried" about the drop in sales, in the context of this topic.
This topic talks about alleged actions against older contributors (like PB's friend), taken by the agencies. Moreover, these actions are claimed to be the reason for not selling new content like in the old days.

Either PB shouldn't be using an off-topic example, or his example is on-topic.

Only PB can clarify, if he or his friend belive that the drop in some of older contributors' sales is caused by specific actions taken by the agencies against them.

So you went back and picked a bunch of older contributors and you are erroneously representing them as representative of all older contributors who are seeing drops on shutterstock.

How do you explain drops for older contributors who have superb quality and upload regularly and in good volume.

The denial in this industry is rich and the sites love to see posts like these because it keeps new contributors in the harness.

Keep thinking it can never happen to you, work harder and ramp up the quality of your work significantly! You are being deluged by ports from IS and their work is at least on par with most images at shutterstock and in some cases much better. To top it off new ports are being given priority in the search.

ruxpriencdiam · « **Reply #74 on:** March 29, 2015, 13:19 »

These are all of the so called top of the crop on SS that are the ones that are complaining.

If they are not one of the tops and are not complaining they are not on that list.

And it also goes back to what they shoot that designers are no longer looking for and what they refuse to shoot that designers are looking for.

Quote from: gbalex on March 29, 2015, 13:14

Quote from: ruxpriencdiam on March 29, 2015, 09:52
The drop in sales for the older contributors can come back to it being their own fault I went and checked on a bunch of their ports and here is what I found.

IPYU is Images per year uploaded average

IPW is Images per week

4365 images
545.625 IPYU
Member since 2006
10.49 IPW

1588 images
226.857 IPYU
Member since 2007
4.362 IPW

2938 images
419.714 IPYU
Member since 2007
8.07 IPW

445 images
49.444 IPYU
Member since 2005
.9508 IPW

2526 images
280.666 IPYU
Member since 2005
5.397 IPW

2271 images
283.875 IPYU
Member since 2006
5.45 IPW

840 images
93.333 IPYU
Member since 2005
1.79 IPW

1907 images
272.428 IPYU
Member since 2007
5.239 IPW

1415 images
176.875 IPYU
Member since 2006
3.401 IPW

5162 images
573.555 IPYU
Member since 2005
11.02 IPW

4615 images
576.875 IPYU
Member since 2006
11.09 IPW

718 images
89.75 IPYU
Member since 2006
1.72 IPW

391 images
43.444 IPYU
Member since 2005
.835 IPW

So you have contributors from back in 2005 that have been and are hardly uploading anything, yet there are other newer contributors one being from 2009 with over 18,000 images compared to the older contributors so what is wrong with that picture?

Everyone seems to like talking numbers so there they are and they speak volumes for what is happening to the old contributors, not forgetting to mention what was in high demand is no more because designers are looking for new stuff like filtered images that old timers consider stupid old out of focus faded Polaroids, so they want nothing to do with the trend and the BUS has run over them.

Quote from: ultimagaina on March 29, 2015, 08:28
Ok, then.

I didn't really want to debate the definition of success. It's a relative term.
Nevertheless PB said that his friend is "worried" about the drop in sales, in the context of this topic.
This topic talks about alleged actions against older contributors (like PB's friend), taken by the agencies. Moreover, these actions are claimed to be the reason for not selling new content like in the old days.

Either PB shouldn't be using an off-topic example, or his example is on-topic.

Only PB can clarify, if he or his friend belive that the drop in some of older contributors' sales is caused by specific actions taken by the agencies against them.

So you went back and picked a bunch of older contributors and you are erroneously representing them as representative of all older contributors who are seeing drops on shutterstock.

How do you explain drops for older contributors who have superb quality and upload regularly and in good volume.

The denial in this industry is rich and the sites love to see posts like these because it keeps new contributors in the harness.

Keep thinking it can never happen to you, work harder and ramp up the quality of your work significantly! You are being deluged by ports from IS and their work is at least on par with most images at shutterstock and in some cases much better. To top it off new ports are being given priority in the search.

gbalex · « **Reply #75 on:** March 29, 2015, 13:34 »

I would worry more about what is my own port.

ultimagina · « **Reply #76 on:** March 29, 2015, 13:43 »

Quote from: tickstock on March 29, 2015, 08:56

Shutterstock says they don't manipulate the search, if they did then surely there would be some solid evidence by now. If you look at the "popular" search you'll see very good images not bad images by new contributors at the top. There are many other real reasons why sales could be falling that don't involve conspiracies and search manipulation.

Exactly my point!

Quote from: gbalex on March 29, 2015, 13:34

I would worry more about what is my own port.

Exactly! Please let PB know about this, since he is more concerned about the falling sales of his 120k/year friend that his own success.

Quote from: ruxpriencdiam on March 29, 2015, 09:52

... what was in high demand is no more because designers are looking for new stuff like filtered images that old timers consider stupid old out of focus faded Polaroids, so they want nothing to do with the trend and the BUS has run over them.

Agree. Customers are tired of that "good old" business handshake which used to sell like hot cakes 10 years ago. There might still be a demand, but it is a falling demand.

Quote from: gbalex on March 29, 2015, 13:14

You are being deluged by ports from IS and their work is at least on par with most images at shutterstock and in some cases much better. To top it off new ports are being given priority in the search.

Here you go! This is valid explanation!
Except that not the new ports are given priority, but the new images, as stated earlier on this topic.
And it is normal to be like this. Otherwise those "new" images which are, as you said, "at least on par" with the best from SS, would never get their deserved place on top of the popularity ranks.

This is called competition, like or not!

PixelBytes · « **Reply #77 on:** March 29, 2015, 14:38 »

Wow Ultimagia, you are either deliberately trying to mischaracterize my posts, or you are really not good at following a train of thought. Let me try to make it simple for you.

1. I am not a big fish or a small one. I been at this around 5 years and managed to get between 5k and 6k online, varying by site.

2. My main concern is my own income and paying my own bills.

3. I ONLY brought my more successful friend in to refute your ridiculous statement that successful people aren't complaining about sales, and if your sales are down you are the only one to blame. If he wants to chime in here he can, but unlike me, he's probably too smart to waste his time.

4. The past couple years I have seem trends, not conspiracies, that have effected my income. These include greater competition, which is inevitable, but also actions by the agencies, like lower prices, images given away for free, shady distribution deals, royalty credit schemes designed to lower our royalty percentages, OD sales turning to sub sales, and total meltdown of what was the top site when I started. You don't need a crystal ball to see this is not going in good direction.

5. I sold 15% MORE photos in 2014 then 2013, but made 20% LESS. That's not a conspiracy, that's a FACT, and if it's my fault for producing sh*t, then why did I sell more? For me its a bummer to be down a couple k per year, but if that 20% was a loss of 20k I would be real upset!

Some top sellers like Yuri, Dolgachov, Elena, and a few others come in here once in awhile, and they seem to also mention sales are going down for them. But most of the top guys don't waste their time here anymore arguing with the uninformed and dogmatic blowhards who seem so prevalent here now. I shouldn't have bothered either. It's like arguing with my 5 year old only at least she's cute.

tickstock · « **Reply #78 on:** March 29, 2015, 14:55 »

Quote from: PixelBytes on March 28, 2015, 23:49

Couple years ago averaged $2.20 - 2.55/ rpi per month. These days more like $1.10 - 1.25.

Quote from: PixelBytes on March 29, 2015, 14:38

Wow Ultimagia, you are either deliberately trying to mischaracterize my posts, or you are really not good at following a train of thought. Let me try to make it simple for you.

1. I am not a big fish or a small one. I been at this around 5 years and managed to get between 5k and 6k online, varying by site.

2. My main concern is my own income and paying my own bills.

3. I ONLY brought my more successful friend in to refute your ridiculous statement that successful people aren't complaining about sales, and if your sales are down you are the only one to blame. If he wants to chime in here he can, but unlike me, he's probably too smart to waste his time.

4. The past couple years I have seem trends, not conspiracies, that have effected my income. These include greater competition, which is inevitable, but also actions by the agencies, like lower prices, images given away for free, shady distribution deals, DFC, OD sales turning to sub sales, and total meltdown of what was the top site when I started. You don't need a crystal ball to see this is not going in good direction.

5. I sold 15% MORE photos in 2014 then 2013, but made 20% LESS. That's not a conspiracy, that's a FACT, and if it's my fault for producing sh*t, then why did I sell more? For me its a bummer to be down a couple k per year, but if that 20% was a loss of 20k I would be real upset!

Some top sellers like Yuri, Dolgachov, Elena, and a few others come in here once in awhile, and they seem to also mention sales are going down for them. But most of the top guys don't waste their time here anymore arguing with the uninformed and dogmatic blowhards who seem so prevalent here now. I shouldn't have bothered either. It's like arguing with my 5 year old only at least she's cute.

Aren't you down about 20k? You said in the other thread your RPI was about $1.25/month, that's $7,500 per month or about $90,000 per year. If you are down 20% then you are down $22, 500, right? If you are telling the truth about your numbers RPI $1.25, 6000 images then you wouldn't be down a couple thousand you would be down 10x that. Which numbers are you fudging here?
If you are down a couple thousand like you say and you are down 20% that would mean you make about $8,000/year now, that's a pretty big difference from $90,000/year which you are claiming with those RPI numbers. It just doesn't add up.

ultimagina · « **Reply #79 on:** March 29, 2015, 21:39 »

Quote from: PixelBytes on March 29, 2015, 14:38

1. I am not a big fish or a small one. I been at this around 5 years and managed to get between 5k and 6k online, varying by site.

Nice!
But seeing the math presented by tickstock above, and if indeed your are making 90k/year, then you are not far from what your friend is making (120k-140k). Same ballpark. So your case is very similar to your friends' case: you had similar losses (~20k/year). If so, it would have been more honest to use your own case instead of bringing "a friend" in the discussion.

Or maybe it is the other alternative offered by tickstock: you make about 8k-9k/year. If this is true, then that's not so much for someone with 6k photos online. You definitely have a a lot of good competitors eating a good slice of your pie.

Anyway, you better check your math.

Quote

2. My main concern is my own income and paying my own bills.

Good! It is also very noble to defend those who din't ask for your help.

Quote

3. I ONLY brought my more successful friend in to refute your ridiculous statement that successful people aren't complaining about sales, and if your sales are down you are the only one to blame. If he wants to chime in here he can, but unlike me, he's probably too smart to waste his time.

Follow the logic, since you missed it last time: if "he" (or you?) is complaining, and you explain how painful it is to lose 20k/year (I agree), then it means that he didn't "plan" to have 20k less and he suffers because of it. Or in other words, he failed to meet his own goal.

In my world, failure and success are mutually exclusive, when using the same reference point.

If he would have planned to make 20k less, then yes, he would have been successful, despite the losses. Because he would have achieved his goal. And it wouldn't have been painful (as it is for your friend), because it was expected and planned for.

Quote

4. The past couple years I have seem trends, not conspiracies, that have effected my income. These include greater competition, which is inevitable, but also actions by the agencies, like lower prices, images given away for free, shady distribution deals, royalty credit schemes designed to lower our royalty percentages, OD sales turning to sub sales, and total meltdown of what was the top site when I started. You don't need a crystal ball to see this is not going in good direction.

I'm happy to see that you don't believe in conspiracies and you understand that no agency has any interest to penalize specific contributors.

You don't have to explain that some contributors see sales falling. On the other hand, other contributors see their sales growing.
For me, this is only normal and part of a normal competition in the market place, either between the overgrowing number of contributors, or between agencies, competing on quality, services or prices.

Simple economics.

If you don't like an agency, just drop it and find something better.

Quote

5. I sold 15% MORE photos in 2014 then 2013, but made 20% LESS. That's not a conspiracy, that's a FACT, and if it's my fault for producing sh*t, then why did I sell more? For me its a bummer to be down a couple k per year, but if that 20% was a loss of 20k I would be real upset!

I'm sorry for your 2k or the 20k. Bummer indeed. See the above comment: this is competition.

mojaric · « **Reply #80 on:** March 30, 2015, 06:49 »

this 3d as gone so far away from it's central point that could be brought in universities and be a subject for psicological/sociological studies

1- The title is clear "New photos = No sales" and NOT "sales are down"

2- The statement: New images don't sell is not true because we have reported that many of us have images that sell a lot the day after uploading

3- The statement that incomes are down is also be true as reported by older and more experienced contributors

so there is really nothing to speak and worse fight about...if i was a moderator i would have close this ages ago

PixelBytes · « **Reply #81 on:** March 30, 2015, 23:23 »

Quote from: tickstock on March 29, 2015, 14:55

Quote from: PixelBytes on March 28, 2015, 23:49
Couple years ago averaged $2.20 - 2.55/ rpi per month. These days more like $1.10 - 1.25.

Quote from: PixelBytes on March 29, 2015, 14:38
Wow Ultimagia, you are either deliberately trying to mischaracterize my posts, or you are really not good at following a train of thought. Let me try to make it simple for you.

1. I am not a big fish or a small one. I been at this around 5 years and managed to get between 5k and 6k online, varying by site.

2. My main concern is my own income and paying my own bills.

3. I ONLY brought my more successful friend in to refute your ridiculous statement that successful people aren't complaining about sales, and if your sales are down you are the only one to blame. If he wants to chime in here he can, but unlike me, he's probably too smart to waste his time.

4. The past couple years I have seem trends, not conspiracies, that have effected my income. These include greater competition, which is inevitable, but also actions by the agencies, like lower prices, images given away for free, shady distribution deals, DFC, OD sales turning to sub sales, and total meltdown of what was the top site when I started. You don't need a crystal ball to see this is not going in good direction.

5. I sold 15% MORE photos in 2014 then 2013, but made 20% LESS. That's not a conspiracy, that's a FACT, and if it's my fault for producing sh*t, then why did I sell more? For me its a bummer to be down a couple k per year, but if that 20% was a loss of 20k I would be real upset!

Some top sellers like Yuri, Dolgachov, Elena, and a few others come in here once in awhile, and they seem to also mention sales are going down for them. But most of the top guys don't waste their time here anymore arguing with the uninformed and dogmatic blowhards who seem so prevalent here now. I shouldn't have bothered either. It's like arguing with my 5 year old only at least she's cute.
Aren't you down about 20k? You said in the other thread your RPI was about $1.25/month, that's $7,500 per month or about $90,000 per year. If you are down 20% then you are down $22, 500, right? If you are telling the truth about your numbers RPI $1.25, 6000 images then you wouldn't be down a couple thousand you would be down 10x that. Which numbers are you fudging here?
If you are down a couple thousand like you say and you are down 20% that would mean you make about $8,000/year now, that's a pretty big difference from $90,000/year which you are claiming with those RPI numbers. It just doesn't add up.

Your right. My maths don't add up. Not so much fudged as effed up.. The first post should have read rpd instead of rpi.

None of this changes the fact that even when my sales go up, the income goes down. I have lost money, others lost much more and a lot of us upset. Which is a result of agencies changes to prices and TOS. I am not a mathematician, but I am a micro photographer and this downward slide is affecting not just me but a lot more people.

My last thoughts on the topic, since mojaric is right, this whole debate wandered way OT.

tickstock · « **Reply #82 on:** March 30, 2015, 23:32 »

Quote from: PixelBytes on March 30, 2015, 23:23

Quote from: tickstock on March 29, 2015, 14:55
Quote from: PixelBytes on March 28, 2015, 23:49
Couple years ago averaged $2.20 - 2.55/ rpi per month. These days more like $1.10 - 1.25.

Quote from: PixelBytes on March 29, 2015, 14:38
Wow Ultimagia, you are either deliberately trying to mischaracterize my posts, or you are really not good at following a train of thought. Let me try to make it simple for you.

1. I am not a big fish or a small one. I been at this around 5 years and managed to get between 5k and 6k online, varying by site.

2. My main concern is my own income and paying my own bills.

3. I ONLY brought my more successful friend in to refute your ridiculous statement that successful people aren't complaining about sales, and if your sales are down you are the only one to blame. If he wants to chime in here he can, but unlike me, he's probably too smart to waste his time.

4. The past couple years I have seem trends, not conspiracies, that have effected my income. These include greater competition, which is inevitable, but also actions by the agencies, like lower prices, images given away for free, shady distribution deals, DFC, OD sales turning to sub sales, and total meltdown of what was the top site when I started. You don't need a crystal ball to see this is not going in good direction.

5. I sold 15% MORE photos in 2014 then 2013, but made 20% LESS. That's not a conspiracy, that's a FACT, and if it's my fault for producing sh*t, then why did I sell more? For me its a bummer to be down a couple k per year, but if that 20% was a loss of 20k I would be real upset!

Some top sellers like Yuri, Dolgachov, Elena, and a few others come in here once in awhile, and they seem to also mention sales are going down for them. But most of the top guys don't waste their time here anymore arguing with the uninformed and dogmatic blowhards who seem so prevalent here now. I shouldn't have bothered either. It's like arguing with my 5 year old only at least she's cute.
Aren't you down about 20k? You said in the other thread your RPI was about $1.25/month, that's $7,500 per month or about $90,000 per year. If you are down 20% then you are down $22, 500, right? If you are telling the truth about your numbers RPI $1.25, 6000 images then you wouldn't be down a couple thousand you would be down 10x that. Which numbers are you fudging here?
If you are down a couple thousand like you say and you are down 20% that would mean you make about $8,000/year now, that's a pretty big difference from $90,000/year which you are claiming with those RPI numbers. It just doesn't add up.

Your right. My maths don't add up. Not so much fudged as effed up.. The first post should have read rpd instead of rpi.

None of this changes the fact that even when my sales go up, the income goes down. I have lost money, others lost much more and a lot of us upset. Which is a result of agencies changes to prices and TOS. I am not a mathematician, but I am a micro photographer and this downward slide is affecting not just me but a lot more people.

The thread was titled "RPI", you wrote RPI, and the rest of your response was describing RPI

Quote from: PixelBytes on March 28, 2015, 23:49

Couple years ago averaged $2.20 - 2.55/ rpi per month. These days more like $1.10 - 1.25. Lots of factors in play. Among those is that as your port grows your sales gets dituted and rpi goes down.

It's clear you were talking about RPI, your port size has nothing to do with RPD. And what would RPD per month even mean?

But you're right this off topic.

ultimagina · « **Reply #83 on:** March 31, 2015, 10:34 »

Quote from: PixelBytes on March 30, 2015, 23:23

I have lost money, others lost much more and a lot of us upset. Which is a result of agencies changes to prices and TOS.

That + you suffer from an increased competition from a lot of new talented microstockers. Nothing new.

And this:

Quote

My maths don't add up. Not so much fudged as effed up..

should put doubts on your whole analysis. But I give you credit for the guts to admit that you were wrong.

ultimagina · « **Reply #84 on:** March 31, 2015, 10:35 »

These are also "my last thoughts on the topic, since mojaric is right, this whole debate wandered way OT"

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: New photos = no sales (Read 16191 times)

objowl

Semmick Photo

Semmick Photo

No Free Lunch

ultimagina

Dook

ultimagina

Dook

Dook

ultimagina

Dook

Rinderart

ultimagina

Dook

ultimagina

Dook

ultimagina

Dook

ultimagina

Semmick Photo

ultimagina

ultimagina

ultimagina

ultimagina

ultimagina

ultimagina

ultimagina

ultimagina

ultimagina

ultimagina

ultimagina

ultimagina

ultimagina

ultimagina

ultimagina

marthamarks

ultimagina

ultimagina

ultimagina

ultimagina

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors