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.

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

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.

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. 

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

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.)

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.

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)

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.

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

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.

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.

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.