MicrostockGroup
Agency Based Discussion => Shutterstock.com => Topic started by: niserin on January 12, 2014, 06:46
-
Do people upload their Christmas holidays backlog ? Over 200.000 is definitely too much, uploading now is like throwing the images in the abyss :(
-
Yet my sales keep growing.
-
Mine as well! But these stats make me a bit anxious...
-
Yes, its quite daunting, but if you add stuff that isnt a lot out there, you can still make sales. Concepts are a good thing. I dont think of what I do 200k similar images are added. I think people with lifestyle/model images and isolations have the toughest competition. Maybe landscapes as well, depending on where you live.
-
From one part people complain about too much rejections
From another part people complain about too much file added
Aaaah… humans are so strange…
-
From one part people complain about too much rejections
From another part people complain about too much file added
Aaaah… humans are so strange…
I don't complain about rejections. I wish Shutterstock would reject more.
-
From one part people complain about too much rejections
From another part people complain about too much file added
Aaaah… humans are so strange…
From one part people complain about too much rejections = less potential to make money
From another part people complain about too much file added = less potential to make money
I dont see the strangeness in the two complaints, they are related to each other, not the opposite.
-
The microstrock concept is that we sell our pictures for one dollar many times, so it becomes sustainable.
The cost of producing an image is returned because it sells many times.
BUT the agencies let us down, they put all the expenses on us, all the postprocessing, categorizing and keywords and all the manufacturing costs. We do all the work.
Yet they deny us the benifit of having many downloads on the images, because they just take more new contributors in.
So the agencies undermine the concept that is the basis of their success, they cheat us and they do not keep their promises.
I can understand that the agencies want to have innovative content, they want new contributors, so they dont stagnate.
Innovations are important in the world of today.
But I cannot understand why they consequently only prey on us, and not let of harvest the benifits.
Well I can. They have the oppertunity, and since we are powerless, they exploit us.
If there were a union of contributing phoitographers. The first it would command was that, the agencies could only take in as many new photographers as the rise in sales allowed.
-
The microstrock concept is that we sell our pictures for one dollar many times, so it becomes sustainable.
The cost of producing an image is returned because it sells many times.
BUT the agencies let us down, they put all the expenses on us, all the postprocessing, categorizing and keywords and all the manufacturing costs. We do all the work.
Yet they deny us the benifit of having many downloads on the images, because they just take more new contributors in.
So the agencies undermine the concept that is the basis of their success, they cheat us and they do not keep their promises.
I can understand that the agencies want to have innovative content, they want new contributors, so they dont stagnate.
Innovations are important in the world of today.
But I cannot understand why they consequently only prey on us, and not let of harvest the benifits.
Well I can. They have the oppertunity, and since we are powerless, they exploit us.
If there were a union of contributing phoitographers. The first it would command was that, the agencies could only take in as many new photographers as the rise in sales allowed.
Agree. The inflow of new photographers should be limited. 100.000 new files weekly would be more than enough.
-
I also find a bit unfair that Shutterstock employees have all the perks:
We know that the trick to keeping awesome people happy is by creating a fun, comfortable environment. This includes competitive pay for top talent, full medical benefits, plus:
Stocked beverage fridges, free breakfasts & snacks
Lunchtime Yoga
Pizza & Massage Fridays
Happy hours and killer Summer & Holiday parties
And we, photographers (especially the top tier, that has given SS the most) are treated as crowd, not individual employees as we deserve.
-
I also find a bit unfair that Shutterstock employees have all the perks:
We know that the trick to keeping awesome people happy is by creating a fun, comfortable environment. This includes competitive pay for top talent, full medical benefits, plus:
Stocked beverage fridges, free breakfasts & snacks
Lunchtime Yoga
Pizza & Massage Fridays
Happy hours and killer Summer & Holiday parties
And we, photographers (especially the top tier, that has given SS the most) are treated as crowd, not individual employees as we deserve.
I agree. Our work is used to pay for extensive benifits for a "bunch of lucky ones". Compares to parasites.
-
The folks at Shutterstock do the great work of course, but so do high tier photographers who are with SS almost from the beginning. Then, why aren't we given any perks? I don't ask for yoga, massages etc, but a pay rise to let's say 0.44$ and being more selective in approval process (at least in limiting access to newcomers)!
-
The folks at Shutterstock do the great work of course, but so do high tier photographers who are with SS almost from the beginning. Then, why aren't we given any perks? I don't ask for yoga, massages etc, but a pay rise to let's say 0.44$ and being more selective in approval process (at least for newcomers)!
I would love it, if they had a yoga massage artist flown in and massage me on Saturday. But as you say, less can do .44$ would be nice. And it is years ago since we had any rise.
-
The folks at Shutterstock do the great work of course, but so do high tier photographers who are with SS almost from the beginning. Then, why aren't we given any perks? I don't ask for yoga, massages etc, but a pay rise to let's say 0.44$ and being more selective in approval process (at least for newcomers)!
I would love it, if they had a yoga massage artist flown in and massage me on Saturday. But as you say, less can do .44$ would be nice. And it is years ago since we had any rise.
;D ;D
-
We are suppliers not employees. Asking to be treated as an employee is nonsense.
-
The folks at Shutterstock do the great work of course, but so do high tier photographers who are with SS almost from the beginning. Then, why aren't we given any perks? I don't ask for yoga, massages etc, but a pay rise to let's say 0.44$ and being more selective in approval process (at least in limiting access to newcomers)!
Newcomers are limited by the extremely tough entry test, which nobody I refer seems able to get past even those with a lifetime's work behind them in commercial photography.
It certainly would be nice to see an increase for hitting 50k or 100k sales but with shareholders to keep happy that doesn't seem likely to happen
-
I don´t want to be treated as an employee. If you do - just apply for a job with them...
-
We are suppliers not employees. Asking to be treated as an employee is nonsense.
Expecting a fair return for each image sold is perfectly reasonable, expecially if they want people to supply other than the generic high-supply, high demand images.
-
From one part people complain about too much rejections
From another part people complain about too much file added
Aaaah… humans are so strange…
I don't complain about rejections. I wish Shutterstock would reject more.
I find your sentence incomplete.
I think you wish that Shutterstock would reject more images from other people.
(Honestly… I too! lol)
-
Personally, I try not to fret over a number like that because I have zero control over it. Also, I'm a detail freak and as such can't infer anything from a random number since I don't know how many contributors uploaded or what they uploaded or whether their portfolios sell.
For all I know 20% of it could be girls or blokes not doing much other than flash their teeth at the camera or yet another 5,000 images of some rock in Utah.
In any event, 200,000 is mere plankton when you think about how many images are produced globally every day - and I mean commercial work, not just snapshots.
-
Personally, I try not to fret over a number like that because I have zero control over it. Also, I'm a detail freak and as such can't infer anything from a random number since I don't know how many contributors uploaded or what they uploaded or whether their portfolios sell.
For all I know 20% of it could be girls or blokes not doing much other than flash their teeth at the camera or yet another 5,000 images of some rock in Utah.
In any event, 200,000 is mere plankton when you think about how many images are produced globally every day - and I mean commercial work, not just snapshots.
Well, that's true, well said!
-
I also find a bit unfair that Shutterstock employees have all the perks:
We know that the trick to keeping awesome people happy is by creating a fun, comfortable environment. This includes competitive pay for top talent, full medical benefits, plus:
Stocked beverage fridges, free breakfasts & snacks
Lunchtime Yoga
Pizza & Massage Fridays
Happy hours and killer Summer & Holiday parties
And we, photographers (especially the top tier, that has given SS the most) are treated as crowd, not individual employees as we deserve.
As far as I'm concerned we contributors already have the greatest 'perks' of all. We get to work from our homes, at whatever time we choose and for as many or few hours as we feel like. We don't waste time and money commuting and are not subject to the controls, restrictions and assessments of employees.
Would you really give all that up for a free slice of pizza and a 5-minute massage once a week?
-
I also find a bit unfair that Shutterstock employees have all the perks:
We know that the trick to keeping awesome people happy is by creating a fun, comfortable environment. This includes competitive pay for top talent, full medical benefits, plus:
Stocked beverage fridges, free breakfasts & snacks
Lunchtime Yoga
Pizza & Massage Fridays
Happy hours and killer Summer & Holiday parties
I'd never complain about that, I'm actually happy about it. That's one of the best investments a company can do and wouldn't expect otherwise from the most successful agency out there.
-
I also find a bit unfair that Shutterstock employees have all the perks:
We know that the trick to keeping awesome people happy is by creating a fun, comfortable environment. This includes competitive pay for top talent, full medical benefits, plus:
Stocked beverage fridges, free breakfasts & snacks
Lunchtime Yoga
Pizza & Massage Fridays
Happy hours and killer Summer & Holiday parties
And we, photographers (especially the top tier, that has given SS the most) are treated as crowd, not individual employees as we deserve.
These perks are there to keep employees working longer hours. Especially Friday perks. People won't be in as big a hurry to get home if they know their free pizza or massage is coming up. It's much less expensive to give one employee a free slice of pizza every week and get 10 extra hours out of her than to hire more employees to work the hours current employees are covering in unpaid overtime.
I've worked for many years in "fun" environments where we get basketball courts, pool tables, on-site gyms and showers, free drinks (heck, we even had "drinks cart" every Friday at 6 p.m. at one ad agency, where we were served beer and hard liquor). The trade off is that you dedicate your life to your job, working 60+ hours per week and hardly ever taking a vacation because there's always an "emergency'"
I look forward to leaving that behind for the freedom to do illustrations at home. Freedom is the world's biggest perk, IMO.
-
Would you really give all that up for a free slice of pizza and a 5-minute massage once a week?
Not a treat for me pizza for me is cheap, fast and filling, not a treat, and massage is just embarrassing.
As for the drinks cart Shelma mentioned, you just have to worry about how to get home if you're not on a bus/train route, so bizarre. Or go without, so it's a hollow perk (no treat for me anyway, I don't drink beer or spirits).
But I'm with those who say that personally disposable time is far more important than all that stuff.
-
As for the drinks cart Shelma mentioned, you just have to worry about how to get home if you're not on a bus/train route, so bizarre. Or go without, so it's a hollow perk (no treat for me anyway, I don't drink beer or spirits).
Yeah, new York, most people took the subway. But there was a sort of understanding that you took a 20-minute break to have a drink--Friday at 6 p.m., when you were still in the office, of course--and then you went back to work for a few more hours.
That job was the worst. I worked 12-13 hours per day, 7 days a week. Which is why everyone who worked at Kirshenbaum & Bond called it "Kirshenbaum & Bondage."
-
As for the drinks cart Shelma mentioned, you just have to worry about how to get home if you're not on a bus/train route, so bizarre. Or go without, so it's a hollow perk (no treat for me anyway, I don't drink beer or spirits).
Yeah, new York, most people took the subway. But there was a sort of understanding that you took a 20-minute break to have a drink--Friday at 6 p.m., when you were still in the office, of course--and then you went back to work for a few more hours.
That job was the worst. I worked 12-13 hours per day, 7 days a week. Which is why everyone who worked at Kirshenbaum & Bond called it "Kirshenbaum & Bondage."
Hope they just paid accordingly...
-
As for the drinks cart Shelma mentioned, you just have to worry about how to get home if you're not on a bus/train route, so bizarre. Or go without, so it's a hollow perk (no treat for me anyway, I don't drink beer or spirits).
Yeah, new York, most people took the subway. But there was a sort of understanding that you took a 20-minute break to have a drink--Friday at 6 p.m., when you were still in the office, of course--and then you went back to work for a few more hours.
That job was the worst. I worked 12-13 hours per day, 7 days a week. Which is why everyone who worked at Kirshenbaum & Bond called it "Kirshenbaum & Bondage."
Hope they just paid accordingly...
Nope! Low pay, relatively speaking. But they were very creative, so you put in a year or two there, built your reel and portfolio, won a few awards, and got a different job. I lasted less than a year.
-
We are suppliers not employees. Asking to be treated as an employee is nonsense.
Expecting a fair return for each image sold is perfectly reasonable, expecially if they want people to supply other than the generic high-supply, high demand images.
Whats that got to do with being an employee?? I think you quoted the wrong comment.
-
The folks at Shutterstock do the great work of course, but so do high tier photographers who are with SS almost from the beginning. Then, why aren't we given any perks? I don't ask for yoga, massages etc, but a pay rise to let's say 0.44$ and being more selective in approval process (at least in limiting access to newcomers)!
I find it ironic that you want Shutterstock to limit new photographers while at the same time having a Shutterstock referral link in your signature.
-
The folks at Shutterstock do the great work of course, but so do high tier photographers who are with SS almost from the beginning. Then, why aren't we given any perks? I don't ask for yoga, massages etc, but a pay rise to let's say 0.44$ and being more selective in approval process (at least in limiting access to newcomers)!
I find it ironic that you want Shutterstock to limit new photographers while at the same time having a Shutterstock referral link in your signature.
I hadnt even noticed. Good catch. Thats ironic, to say the least.
-
We are suppliers not employees. Asking to be treated as an employee is nonsense.
Expecting a fair return for each image sold is perfectly reasonable, expecially if they want people to supply other than the generic high-supply, high demand images.
Whats that got to do with being an employee?? I think you quoted the wrong comment.
Not at all, I was agreeing with niserin who said,
"I don't ask for yoga, massages etc, but a pay rise to let's say 0.44$ ...!"
I didn't see anyone asking to be treated as an employee.
-
Yeah, that's a good catch :).
The signature from the old days when the market was dynamically growing and sales were raising proportionally with new images/photographers..
-
ShadySue is right, my comment was not about being an employee in the dictionary meaning of that word (would be impossible for plenty of reasons), but being treated like an individual who's a part of a team, and not as supplying crowd.
-
We are suppliers not employees. Asking to be treated as an employee is nonsense.
Expecting a fair return for each image sold is perfectly reasonable, expecially if they want people to supply other than the generic high-supply, high demand images.
Whats that got to do with being an employee?? I think you quoted the wrong comment.
Not at all, I was agreeing with niserin who said,
"I don't ask for yoga, massages etc, but a pay rise to let's say 0.44$ ...!"
I didn't see anyone asking to be treated as an employee.
http://www.microstockgroup.com/shutterstock-com/over-200-000-new-files-added-weekly-(/msg360695/#msg360695 (http://www.microstockgroup.com/shutterstock-com/over-200-000-new-files-added-weekly-(/msg360695/#msg360695)
-
ShadySue is right, my comment was not about being an employee in the dictionary meaning of that word (would be impossible for plenty of reasons), but being treated like an individual who's a part of a team, and not as supplying crowd.
You asked to be treated as an employee, shady sue says she saw no one asking for it, then I am quoted with a reply that doesnt make sense, turns out Sue is agreeing with you over another comment, you then say you agree with Sue, actually confirming your own quote, the one Sue didnt see.
Maybe you two need to read this thread again, and work out between each other who said what and who agrees with who, but I am no part of it. ;D
-
ShadySue is right, my comment was not about being an employee in the dictionary meaning of that word (would be impossible for plenty of reasons), but being treated like an individual who's a part of a team, and not as supplying crowd.
You asked to be treated as an employee, shady sue says she saw no one asking for it, then I am quoted with a reply that doesnt make sense, turns out Sue is agreeing with you over another comment, you then say you agree with Sue, actually confirming your own quote, the one Sue didnt see.
Maybe you two need to read this thread again, and work out between each other who said what and who agrees with who, but I am no part of it. ;D
I took the second post of niserin as modifying/expanding/explaining the first. And agreed with the combined posting.
-
So you did read him/her asking to be treated as an employee. Anyhoo.
Carry on.
-
Yeah, that's a good catch :).
The signature from the old days when the market was dynamically growing and sales were raising proportionally with new images/photographers..
Better delete it now then.
-
The most important trait a microstock photographer needs is an ability to see the bigger picture. Otherwise, you will go insane looking at your 38 cent sales. The fact is, those sales add up to more than what you could get selling your image once for $500.
The same ability needs to be applied to other microstock issues. Sure, I'd prefer fewer photos coming in for purely immediate selfish needs. But the fact remains, the more photos Shutterstock has, the more customers it can attract. A larger library means that buyers are more likely to find the image they want. The more times they can find the image they want, the more likely they are to be repeat customers. More repeat customers, more sales for me.
I also think there were a lot of contributors holding on to their work over the holidays, so you got a bit of a rush the past week.
-
And we're not employees. We are individual business people competing with each other subject to the laws of supply and demand. Corporate employees are generally insulated from the harsh realities of the business world.
Also, when you consider Shutterstock pays ten times as much or more than any other microstock site, how can I complain about Shutterstock? I should be complaining about 123RF, Dreamstime and Fotolia, among others. Why is it not possible for them to offer me similar earnings to Shutterstock? If Shutterstock is accepting 200,000 new images while Fotolia is taking in 50,000, and Shutterstock is paying me ten times as much, which one is doing the right thing?
-
Yeah, that's a good catch :).
The signature from the old days when the market was dynamically growing and sales were raising proportionally with new images/photographers..
You have a nice website and photos, Michael.
-
Yeah, that's a good catch :).
The signature from the old days when the market was dynamically growing and sales were raising proportionally with new images/photographers..
You have a nice website and photos, Michael.
Thanks a lot ;)
-
Its quite simple I want everyones elses pictures rejected and all mine accepted. I don't care what benefits SS choose to give their staff while they are so far ahead of the competition. I always try to remember no one has ever forced me to upload a picture anywhere.
-
The most important trait a microstock photographer needs is an ability to see the bigger picture. Otherwise, you will go insane looking at your 38 cent sales. The fact is, those sales add up to more than what you could get selling your image once for $500.
There are a lot of prices in between 38 cents and $500.
-
The microstrock concept is that we sell our pictures for one dollar many times, so it becomes sustainable.
The cost of producing an image is returned because it sells many times.
BUT the agencies let us down, they put all the expenses on us, all the postprocessing, categorizing and keywords and all the manufacturing costs. We do all the work.
Yet they deny us the benifit of having many downloads on the images, because they just take more new contributors in.
So the agencies undermine the concept that is the basis of their success, they cheat us and they do not keep their promises.
I can understand that the agencies want to have innovative content, they want new contributors, so they dont stagnate.
Innovations are important in the world of today.
But I cannot understand why they consequently only prey on us, and not let of harvest the benifits.
Well I can. They have the oppertunity, and since we are powerless, they exploit us.
If there were a union of contributing phoitographers. The first it would command was that, the agencies could only take in as many new photographers as the rise in sales allowed.
Wise words.
-
.... how can I complain about Shutterstock? I should be complaining about 123RF, Dreamstime and Fotolia, among others. Why is it not possible for them to offer me similar earnings to Shutterstock?
Maybe... just a thought... because SS has been gaining control of the market for years, by driving prices through the floor?
-
How do they drive prices through the floor when they pay out more than anyone else does? If I make more at the end of the day, I don't care what the per license price is. It's not even important. What matters is the total income. Again, it's about the bigger picture. Who else is going to pay me $1,000+ for a couple of snapshots of my kid in superhero costume? Not some fancy ad agency, that's for sure. Shutterstock has. I spent maybe five bucks making that photo!
And let's not overlook the fact that subscriptions are only part of the picture at Shutterstock. Half of my income comes from On Demands, ELs and SODs.
The fact is, microstock photographers need to manage their costs and do things on the cheap. If you're spending hundreds of dollars paying models and buying props, you only have yourself to blame if you turn around and sell your images via Microstock. I use volunteer models. I buy my props at Wal-Mart, Party City or Michaels, and then I return them for a refund when I'm done with them.
-
How do they drive prices through the floor when they pay out more than anyone else does? If I make more at the end of the day, I don't care what the per license price is. It's not even important. What matters is the total income. Again, it's about the bigger picture. Who else is going to pay me $1,000+ for a couple of snapshots of my kid in superhero costume? Not some fancy ad agency, that's for sure. Shutterstock has. I spent maybe five bucks making that photo!
And let's not overlook the fact that subscriptions are only part of the picture at Shutterstock. Half of my income comes from On Demands, ELs and SODs.
The fact is, microstock photographers need to manage their costs and do things on the cheap. If you're spending hundreds of dollars paying models and buying props, you only have yourself to blame if you turn around and sell your images via Microstock. I use volunteer models. I buy my props at Wal-Mart, Party City or Michaels, and then I return them for a refund when I'm done with them.
I guess the big picture never worked that well for me. It's nice if it does, but if it doesn't it still has an impact on what happens everywhere else. For example, Thinkstock exist because of Shutterstock, so do many other models that haven't necessarily been a good thing for us that do better at selling at higher RPDs.
-
How do they drive prices through the floor when they pay out more than anyone else does? If I make more at the end of the day, I don't care what the per license price is. It's not even important. What matters is the total income. Again, it's about the bigger picture. Who else is going to pay me $1,000+ for a couple of snapshots of my kid in superhero costume? Not some fancy ad agency, that's for sure. Shutterstock has. I spent maybe five bucks making that photo!
And let's not overlook the fact that subscriptions are only part of the picture at Shutterstock. Half of my income comes from On Demands, ELs and SODs.
The fact is, microstock photographers need to manage their costs and do things on the cheap. If you're spending hundreds of dollars paying models and buying props, you only have yourself to blame if you turn around and sell your images via Microstock. I use volunteer models. I buy my props at Wal-Mart, Party City or Michaels, and then I return them for a refund when I'm done with them.
I guess the big picture never worked that well for me. It's nice if it does, but if it doesn't it still has an impact on what happens everywhere else. For example, Thinkstock exist because of Shutterstock, so do many other models that haven't necessarily been a good thing for us that do better at selling at higher RPDs.
I don't agree, I think you hit the nail on the head in regard to the big picture and I agree with your key point.
SS has stated that they will not be raising prices and they have stated that they are doing this to capture market share. Every year our expenses go up and every year as SS grows; their growth strategy exerts yet more pressure on other stock agencies to also under cut competitors when pricing their buyer packages.
Snip
Duck Swartz
So what’s changed in the marketplace that’s giving you the opportunity to locate in the enterprise in a more, in a more robust way?
Timothy E. Bixby - CFO
The quality of the images has increased pretty dramatically over the past 10 years and as that now work keeps moving back and forth. The contributors 40,000 of them all over the world are constantly competing with each other.
So in the past five years the contents gone up to a level where the biggest publishers in the world mediated either starting to notice that is price, these images are not only price well, but they are also similar to some images that they have paid thousands of dollars for and also had to be on the phone for an hour negotiating the license for that image.
Snip
Duck Swartz
Talking about your present strategy longer term?
Timothy E. Bixby - CFO
We think we can raise the prices over the long term but we’re primary in the growth mode right now and we would like to continue to cover as much of the world as possible and take as much as growth in the business that we can before we play with the pricing level. We haven’t raised prices in many years and then been a great strategy so far to grow.
Snip
Jonathan Oringer - Founder, CEO & Chairman of the Board
It still multiples. So it's order of magnitude whether it's if you look at us compared to other stock marketplaces like an iStock or others, it's two or three or four times more expensive to not use Shutterstock. If you look at the higher end sort of more traditional marketed might be 6 or 8 or 10 times more expensive.
http://seekingalpha.com/article/1841072-shutterstocks-management-presents-at-the-goldman-sachs-us-emerging-smid-cap-growth-conference-transcript?page=2&p=qanda&l=last (http://seekingalpha.com/article/1841072-shutterstocks-management-presents-at-the-goldman-sachs-us-emerging-smid-cap-growth-conference-transcript?page=2&p=qanda&l=last)
-
I don't have a problem with them beating the competition. More money for me when they do.
I don't know what expenses you have, my friend, but mine are as close to zero while my earnings keep going up. I write off the cost of my equipment and travel in my taxes, so you can thank Uncle Sam for my new D800. I have Wal-Mart style photos and I don't mind selling them at all Wal-Mart prices. If I had Neiman Marcus photos, I wouldn't sell them at Wal-Mart. Sounds like to me you should be mad at people who take Neiman Marcus photos but sell them at Wal-Mart.
-
I'm not sure what your point was with all those quotes. I sell illustrations, and SS has never been my top agency since I started there in 2006. I've done well there, but it is not the ideal model for selling my work. I know it works the best for others, but it was never going to get me where I wanted. Maybe, one day it will change, but probably not.
-
I don't have a problem with them beating the competition. More money for me when they do.
I don't know what expenses you have, my friend, but mine are as close to zero while my earnings keep going up. I write off the cost of my equipment and travel in my taxes, so you can thank Uncle Sam for my new D800. I have Wal-Mart style photos and I don't mind selling them at all Wal-Mart prices. If I had Neiman Marcus photos, I wouldn't sell them at Wal-Mart. Sounds like to me you should be mad at people who take Neiman Marcus photos but sell them at Wal-Mart.
My expenses seem to be a bit higher than your own, however based on the numbers you have been posting I receive much higher returns even at SS.
You consistently miss the point. If you read the quotes from SS they are well aware that our assets are worth more money and they are well aware that they could successfully raise prices. They know that many of our HCV images cost more to produce, however they are low balling them long term to gain market share. They gain and our assets continue to lose value.
I no longer upload my best files to SS because I have come to the conclusion that they have no problem devaluing my assets. I think your expectations for a return on your investments and time are exceptionally low.
-
I buy my props at Wal-Mart, Party City or Michaels, and then I return them for a refund when I'm done with them.
So you'll be OK if I buy your photos and return them for a refund when my project is finished?
-
I buy my props at Wal-Mart, Party City or Michaels, and then I return them for a refund when I'm done with them.
So you'll be OK if I buy your photos and return them for a refund when my project is finished?
Well, you can certainly do that at iStock.
-
I buy my props at Wal-Mart, Party City or Michaels, and then I return them for a refund when I'm done with them.
So you'll be OK if I buy your photos and return them for a refund when my project is finished?
Well, you can certainly do that at iStock.
You can on SS, but maybe only for footage (?) as it costs more.
I was making a comment on returning clothes and props after use, not intending a war on agency policy and practice.
-
I buy my props at Wal-Mart, Party City or Michaels, and then I return them for a refund when I'm done with them.
So you'll be OK if I buy your photos and return them for a refund when my project is finished?
I've never had a refund on Shutterstock out of more than 31,000 images sold, so I'm coming out ahead. You got to do what you got to do.
-
I buy my props at Wal-Mart, Party City or Michaels, and then I return them for a refund when I'm done with them.
So you'll be OK if I buy your photos and return them for a refund when my project is finished?
Well, you can certainly do that at iStock.
You can on SS, but maybe only for footage (?) as it costs more.
I was making a comment on returning clothes and props after use, not intending a war on agency policy and practice.
I know. I was trying to be funny. Guess it went over like a lead balloon. ;)
-
if you guys think 200K per week is a lot, look at Flickr or Instagram, BILLIONS of images online and it's getting bigger and bigger thanks to smartphone apps that allow random iphone users to post their selfies with a couple clicks.
however, people love to take snaps but truely hate to keyword or adding captions so these billions of snapshots aren't in any way a danger for the stock industry and never will.
as for shutterstock, i've the impression there's an obvious polarization process at the moment, lots of photographers moving to micros and dumping their whole portfolios to see what sticks on the wall.
as always, the 20/80 rule applies, 20% of the top ranking pics will sell well and the remaining 80% will be sandboxed and forgotten.
in the long run those with big portfolios will still stay afloat and anyone else will stop making sales and leave the industry.
actually it's the same logic we see on web journalism, blogs, forum, and even in RM agencies, the number of images in the archive is not as relevant as we think.
-
Feel free to stop uploading, if you think it's a problem.
-
if you guys think 200K per week is a lot, look at Flickr or Instagram, BILLIONS of images online and it's getting bigger and bigger thanks to smartphone apps that allow random iphone users to post their selfies with a couple clicks.
How much of that impacts on stock sales? I know nothing of Instagram as it seems you have to sign up to discover anything, but Flickr isn't a vehicle for direct sales, though they can be had.
-
I think Instagram and Flickr are the biggest competition for Microstock. There are so many free images there under the creative commons licensing structure and many not half bad. Where I used to see people pay pennies for an image at SS for a web size image, now they just go to Flickr and download for free. People will always seek out high quality images and will pay for them but I think that percentage of the people is shrinking every year. Sure more images are being downloaded, but they are mostly for the web and print is shrinking away.
There are only so many people in the world that need stock images. I'm sure these stock agencies have figured out a number (like 1 billion images) as the upward limit that makes them money. We are not there yet obviously...
-
I think a part of this boom is explained by the acceptance of "illustrative editorial" images. For instance I haven't produced new images in a month or so, but I have still uploaded 200+ images (editorial images that have been rejected earlier - over half of them are now accepted, and some of them are already selling :)).
-
I think Instagram and Flickr are the biggest competition for Microstock. There are so many free images there under the creative commons licensing structure and many not half bad.
True, and that's where Stock has it for images needing releases for commercial use. Otherwise, many more subjects can be found on Flickr.
-
I'm not worried about this at all. I think the vast, vast majority of new images will be the typical stuff like a sandy or rocky beach, flowers from the backyard, the office building down the street or things people have around their houses. Of those 200k per week, only a very tiny percentage will directly compete with my portfolios.
I agree with Rob, my pictures now cost nothing to produce except some spare time, and I barely edit them before throwing them up for sale, so it is completely worth it to get my pennies on the dollar. My stuff is pure micro work, and once it gets good enough to go to the next level, that's where it will go.
-
I'm not worried about this at all. I think the vast, vast majority of new images will be the typical stuff like a sandy or rocky beach, flowers from the backyard, the office building down the street or things people have around their houses. Of those 200k per week, only a very tiny percentage will directly compete with my portfolios.
I agree with Rob, my pictures now cost nothing to produce except some spare time, and I barely edit them before throwing them up for sale, so it is completely worth it to get my pennies on the dollar. My stuff is pure micro work, and once it gets good enough to go to the next level, that's where it will go.
No, they are not, take a look at the newest pictures. 90% are very good highly competitive images.
-
I'm not worried about this at all. I think the vast, vast majority of new images will be the typical stuff like a sandy or rocky beach, flowers from the backyard, the office building down the street or things people have around their houses. Of those 200k per week, only a very tiny percentage will directly compete with my portfolios.
I agree with Rob, my pictures now cost nothing to produce except some spare time, and I barely edit them before throwing them up for sale, so it is completely worth it to get my pennies on the dollar. My stuff is pure micro work, and once it gets good enough to go to the next level, that's where it will go.
No, they are not, take a look at the newest pictures. 90% are very good highly competitive images.
Maybe so, I should've checked before stating that first bit. However, I stand by what I said after, only a tiny percentage will compete directly with my stuff.
-
Wow, now over 250,000 new files weekly. Fast pace!
-
Yet my sales keep growing.
Same here, and my port is very small, but I seem to be gaining more and more sales each day.
-
-Thought better of saying that. ;)
-
The figure is still a grease spot on a global digital scale and whether it hurts your bottom line depends on what you continue to shoot IMO. To put it in context see how many images there are behind these keywords:
Woman Headset - 400k
Apple Isolated - 1.3m
Beautiful Woman Portrait - 2m
green grass blue sky - 2.67m
If you're still knocking out any of the above (and there are some ports chock full of this stuff) it might account for your current perturbation.
-
To my shock when searching the SS library for a similar image to the one I was about to submit the return was 0
And this is a shocking result as it is a very normal subject. I looked in Shutterbuzz if there was a restriction but there was nothing about it.
It might get rejected for reasons I dont know yet, but surely it will be the only image in the library of that subject if it gets accepted.
Weird.
-
Editorial will only crowd source until some actress or actor gets publicized and the images turn out to be fake. Editorial crowd sourcing will change very rapidly after that. Imagine a nuclear explosion occuring somewhere only to find it was hoax by a group of people all reporting a mushroom cloud from different angles.
-
The folks at Shutterstock do the great work of course, but so do high tier photographers who are with SS almost from the beginning. Then, why aren't we given any perks? I don't ask for yoga, massages etc, but a pay rise to let's say 0.44$ and being more selective in approval process (at least in limiting access to newcomers)!
Newcomers are limited by the extremely tough entry test, which nobody I refer seems able to get past even those with a lifetime's work behind them in commercial photography.
It certainly would be nice to see an increase for hitting 50k or 100k sales but with shareholders to keep happy that doesn't seem likely to happen
+1 new higher level.
-
I'd certainly welcome a new higher level - especially if it was within reach for me.
-
To my shock when searching the SS library for a similar image to the one I was about to submit the return was 0
And this is a shocking result as it is a very normal subject. I looked in Shutterbuzz if there was a restriction but there was nothing about it.
It might get rejected for reasons I dont know yet, but surely it will be the only image in the library of that subject if it gets accepted.
Weird.
When I got Bell's Palsy last summer I searched SS to see if there were any images of it and there weren't. Not only is the market (small, I grant you) all mine, but you can't copy it without having it (or some injection of a paralyzing drug). And yes, they do sell :)
There are niche subjects out there if you're not trying to be Yuri or the like
-
To my shock when searching the SS library for a similar image to the one I was about to submit the return was 0
And this is a shocking result as it is a very normal subject. I looked in Shutterbuzz if there was a restriction but there was nothing about it.
It might get rejected for reasons I dont know yet, but surely it will be the only image in the library of that subject if it gets accepted.
Weird.
When I got Bell's Palsy last summer I searched SS to see if there were any images of it and there weren't. Not only is the market (small, I grant you) all mine, but you can't copy it without having it (or some injection of a paralyzing drug). And yes, they do sell :)
There are niche subjects out there if you're not trying to be Yuri or the like
My comment you quoted was voted down by someone, as if I am lying making stuff up or something (Not meaning you :) ). I will PM you the image as it has been approved.
I checked other libraries, no one has an image like mine, and I am flabbergasted. I did find it on Alamy. Its a very normal, obvious image, I would expect to see more often.
-
To my shock when searching the SS library for a similar image to the one I was about to submit the return was 0
And this is a shocking result as it is a very normal subject. I looked in Shutterbuzz if there was a restriction but there was nothing about it.
It might get rejected for reasons I dont know yet, but surely it will be the only image in the library of that subject if it gets accepted.
Weird.
When I got Bell's Palsy last summer I searched SS to see if there were any images of it and there weren't. Not only is the market (small, I grant you) all mine, but you can't copy it without having it (or some injection of a paralyzing drug). And yes, they do sell :)
There are niche subjects out there if you're not trying to be Yuri or the like
My comment you quoted was voted down by someone, as if I am lying making stuff up or something (Not meaning you :) ). I will PM you the image as it has been approved.
I checked other libraries, no one has an image like mine, and I am flabbergasted. I did find it on Alamy. Its a very normal, obvious image, I would expect to see more often.
Ron where do you find time to take any photos?
-
How do they drive prices through the floor when they pay out more than anyone else does? If I make more at the end of the day, I don't care what the per license price is. It's not even important. What matters is the total income. Again, it's about the bigger picture. Who else is going to pay me $1,000+ for a couple of snapshots of my kid in superhero costume? Not some fancy ad agency, that's for sure. Shutterstock has. I spent maybe five bucks making that photo!
And let's not overlook the fact that subscriptions are only part of the picture at Shutterstock. Half of my income comes from On Demands, ELs and SODs.
The fact is, microstock photographers need to manage their costs and do things on the cheap. If you're spending hundreds of dollars paying models and buying props, you only have yourself to blame if you turn around and sell your images via Microstock. I use volunteer models. I buy my props at Wal-Mart, Party City or Michaels, and then I return them for a refund when I'm done with them.
I guess the big picture never worked that well for me. It's nice if it does, but if it doesn't it still has an impact on what happens everywhere else. For example, Thinkstock exist because of Shutterstock, so do many other models that haven't necessarily been a good thing for us that do better at selling at higher RPDs.
I don't agree, I think you hit the nail on the head in regard to the big picture and I agree with your key point.
SS has stated that they will not be raising prices and they have stated that they are doing this to capture market share. Every year our expenses go up and every year as SS grows; their growth strategy exerts yet more pressure on other stock agencies to also under cut competitors when pricing their buyer packages.
Snip
Duck Swartz
So what’s changed in the marketplace that’s giving you the opportunity to locate in the enterprise in a more, in a more robust way?
Timothy E. Bixby - CFO
The quality of the images has increased pretty dramatically over the past 10 years and as that now work keeps moving back and forth. The contributors 40,000 of them all over the world are constantly competing with each other.
So in the past five years the contents gone up to a level where the biggest publishers in the world mediated either starting to notice that is price, these images are not only price well, but they are also similar to some images that they have paid thousands of dollars for and also had to be on the phone for an hour negotiating the license for that image.
Snip
Duck Swartz
Talking about your present strategy longer term?
Timothy E. Bixby - CFO
We think we can raise the prices over the long term but we’re primary in the growth mode right now and we would like to continue to cover as much of the world as possible and take as much as growth in the business that we can before we play with the pricing level. We haven’t raised prices in many years and then been a great strategy so far to grow.
Snip
Jonathan Oringer - Founder, CEO & Chairman of the Board
It still multiples. So it's order of magnitude whether it's if you look at us compared to other stock marketplaces like an iStock or others, it's two or three or four times more expensive to not use Shutterstock. If you look at the higher end sort of more traditional marketed might be 6 or 8 or 10 times more expensive.
[url]http://seekingalpha.com/article/1841072-shutterstocks-management-presents-at-the-goldman-sachs-us-emerging-smid-cap-growth-conference-transcript?page=2&p=qanda&l=last[/url] ([url]http://seekingalpha.com/article/1841072-shutterstocks-management-presents-at-the-goldman-sachs-us-emerging-smid-cap-growth-conference-transcript?page=2&p=qanda&l=last[/url])
-
I getting quote fatigue.
-
I getting quote fatigue.
I see grammar fatigue setting in too.
-
I getting quote fatigue.
I see grammar fatigue setting in too.
Probeer zelfs eens een woordje over de grens voor dat je iemand gaat af lopen zeiken over z'n tweede taal. lol
-
I getting quote fatigue.
Time to take some pictures lol! ;D
-
I getting quote fatigue.
Time to take some pictures lol! ;D
I am taking more pictures then ever, I am submitting more then before, I am getting out more then before. My new hobby hiking goes hand in hand with photography. And I see plenty of action on new files on Shutterstock. I have no complaints other then quote fatigue.
-
What's the current weekly upload rate to Shutterstock now? Is it still 200,000? And is anyone seeing dilution of earnings?
-
What's the current weekly upload rate to Shutterstock now? Is it still 200,000? And is anyone seeing dilution of earnings?
Not sure what the rate is but no, sales are actually up for me.
-
273,681 new stock images added this week but I see no dilution of earnings! Maybe because I spend more time producing than non productive reading.
-
273,681 new stock images added this week but I see no dilution of earnings! Maybe because I spend more time producing than non productive reading.
Probably 260,000 of them are crap images. Sorry, I know that's mean, but honestly probably true. Despite ramping up their intake week after week, year after year, SS still has pretty low standards. At least with vectors, I can't really speak to photos with any authority. There are so many junk vectors added every day. For whatever reason they still seem to be playing this numbers game as if customers care whether a company has 30 million images, 50 million, 100 million, whatever. Do they care? I have a hard time believing they do.
I have no personal problem with how many images they ingest every week because I know 95% of them are junk. From a concerned citizen standpoint, though, I really wonder if all of these images do make it harder for buyers to find what they really want.
-
My earnings are up as well. Nevertheless I'm still concerned about the number of images approved every week for the very reason EmberMike said that these tons of lower standard images/vectors may make it harder for buyers to find the good ones.
-
I think SS has really good algorithms to help sort what customers like from what they are not interested in. My portfolio is still tiny with only 500 photos and 700 videos, but I am getting downloads every day - if I upload continuously. If I stop uploading regularly, my portfolio drops fast.
I also could imagine many buyers scan the regular uploads for new images in their fields, i.e. a designer for food magazines scanning the new uploads daily and they download quickly if they see something interesting.
The other question is: how many new images are being uploaded in your specific niche? I have some areas where I rarely see new content, while objects on white get thousands of new files a day.
So if you are specialised in something than you might only be competing with 30 new files a month.
-
I think SS has really good algorithms to help sort what customers like from what they are not interested in. My portfolio is still tiny with only 500 photos and 700 videos, but I am getting downloads every day - if I upload continuously. If I stop uploading regularly, my portfolio drops fast.
I also could imagine many buyers scan the regular uploads for new images in their fields, i.e. a designer for food magazines scanning the new uploads daily and they download quickly if they see something interesting.
The other question is: how many new images are being uploaded in your specific niche? I have some areas where I rarely see new content, while objects on white get thousands of new files a day.
So if you are specialised in something than you might only be competing with 30 new files a month.
Weren't you arguing in the other threads that specialized niche subjects are best at the macros and cannot do well on sub sites?
"SS - subs agency...generic content for the mass market...very little macro content and sorting by popular downloads will give you...high volume files...the most generic content available because it was chosen by thousands of customers."
"So if you are tired of shooting generic content and want to produce more high value stuff, then just go and submit to the macros and stocksy."
"Do you really believe opting content that is not specifically created for the subs market will be a successful move?"
"All the independent artists and also all the regular Getty house artists make distinctions between content for high volume subs sites, and specialised content for midstock, macro or simply for higher prices. There is a reason we make that distinction."
"The indie artists have always known that if they supply SS or any other agency that has subscriptions, they have to produce content for high volume sales. "
-
tickstock, don´t you believe that people can produce niche subjects at different quality levels??
I can.
A simple niche can be normal generic stock done locally in your area. There will simply be a lot less other photographers competing with you.
There are many other options, but why should I explain them to you? Do your own research and make your own experiences what sells best between high volume, low volume, files that people pay 500 dollars for and files that can gain a good audience worldwide with low prices. Also the differences between what sells best at RM or RF.
But if you prefer to send everything without distinction to just one site, that is fine with me. You are the one determining how to make the most money from your images.
-
tickstock, don´t you believe that people can produce niche subjects at different quality levels??
I can.
A simple niche can be normal generic stock done locally in your area. There will simply be a lot less other photographers competing with you.
There are many other options, but why should I explain them to you? Do your own research and make your own experiences what sells best between high volume, low volume, files that people pay 500 dollars for and files that can gain a good audience worldwide with low prices. Also the differences between what sells best at RM or RF.
But if you prefer to send everything without distinction to just one site, that is fine with me. You are the one determining how to make the most money from your images.
You really do consistently put words in people's mouth that make them sound bad (I saw you do that over and over in the other thread with gbalex, I've seen you do it to bunhill and you've done it to me many times, it's obnoxious and intellectually lazy), I never ever said I prefer to send everything to one site. I do believe that different content has different value. My question was about what you said. In one thread you seem to be saying niche work is for the macros and generic work for the sub sites while in this thread you're saying put your niche work on a subs site, that's my confusion.
-
It all depends on the quality of the file.
I think everyone understand that if you want to offer files for 500 dollars you need to think of what the customer will need and be ready to pay for.
Is that really so confusing?
If you just walk around your town taking snapshots, they will probably not even be accepted at the macros. If you invest in good quality production with models,stylists etc...it will be different.
I think I also made a point of explaining that the macros reject a lot and that you cannot just"put your files there". That working with macros is a different experience to working with micros.
I am sure if you look at my posts again, you will find the passage.
-
I am sure if you look at my posts again, you will find the passage.
I found a lot of contradictory passages, that's why I brought this up.
-
Well, then I hope what I was trying to say is more clear now?
-
On quality, when I look at the new work in the "people" category, the standard is still very high, exceptional in many cases....but we've seen almost all of it before and will again.
And as I've opined previously, without the ability to drill down into it for real data, the 200,000 is a meaningless number. It might as well be 2,000,000
-
Probably 260,000 of them are crap images. Sorry, I know that's mean, but honestly probably true. Despite ramping up their intake week after week, year after year, SS still has pretty low standards. At least with vectors, I can't really speak to photos with any authority. There are so many junk vectors added every day. For whatever reason they still seem to be playing this numbers game as if customers care whether a company has 30 million images, 50 million, 100 million, whatever. Do they care? I have a hard time believing they do.
I have no personal problem with how many images they ingest every week because I know 95% of them are junk. From a concerned citizen standpoint, though, I really wonder if all of these images do make it harder for buyers to find what they really want.
To be honest, the people at the bottom worry me a lot more than the people at the top. There are a lot more of them, and they don't have the same expectations as the higher level contributors.
-
To be honest, the people at the bottom worry me a lot more than the people at the top. There are a lot more of them, and they don't have the same expectations as the higher level contributors.
I worry about some of them. For sure there are super talented people trying stock for the first time and they have the greatest chance to disrupt the market for full-timers. I've seen some new portfolios with 100 or fewer images that scare the heck out of me. :)
But I feel like a lot of the junk is from people who have been around a while. Too many people uploading 50 variations of the same junk image with the same weak artwork they originally made years ago. Unfortunately that stuff seems like a big part of that huge pile of stuff SS takes in every week.
-
To be honest, the people at the bottom worry me a lot more than the people at the top. There are a lot more of them, and they don't have the same expectations as the higher level contributors.
I worry about some of them. For sure there are super talented people trying stock for the first time and they have the greatest chance to disrupt the market for full-timers. I've seen some new portfolios with 100 or fewer images that scare the heck out of me. :)
But I feel like a lot of the junk is from people who have been around a while. Too many people uploading 50 variations of the same junk image with the same weak artwork they originally made years ago. Unfortunately that stuff seems like a big part of that huge pile of stuff SS takes in every week.
I guess I meant it as... At what point do they go full crowdsource if they keep adding more and more? We've all seen what other crowdsourced sites look like for artists, and the thought of that potentially happening to the micros scares me.
-
I guess I meant it as... At what point do they go full crowdsource if they keep adding more and more? We've all seen what other crowdsourced sites look like for artists, and the thought of that potentially happening to the micros scares me.
I get what you mean. Yeah, that is scary as well. When you've got an army of people with little concern for making a living (or making much money at all) it changes the game. Could kind of make the folks who do have those expectations become more of an annoyance than an asset.
-
And through all this I am doing Record Sales!
God I LOVE Shutterstock!
http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-133870076/stock-photo-fat-stacks-of-money-isolated-on-white-dollars-in-cash-ready-for-you-to-pick-up-and-put.html?src=KP6pfI5rmyHf0Ibfh-AiqA-1-61 (http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-133870076/stock-photo-fat-stacks-of-money-isolated-on-white-dollars-in-cash-ready-for-you-to-pick-up-and-put.html?src=KP6pfI5rmyHf0Ibfh-AiqA-1-61)
:)
-
You mean there are standards of how "serious" people must be, in order to market on SS? I thought the test to get in was discouraging enough to weed out many of the casual efforts, and review is not exactly a free pass like just about every pother site.
Talk about crowd sourcing, look at the list on the right. Every one of them, takes almost anything.
If SS is accepting 200K new files, I'm concerned that we will all get lost in the flood and buried in results. That's just the sheer numbers, but I'm pretty sure they are reviewing every image and checking them closer than any of the other sites that show in the poll.
I guess I meant it as... At what point do they go full crowdsource if they keep adding more and more? We've all seen what other crowdsourced sites look like for artists, and the thought of that potentially happening to the micros scares me.
I get what you mean. Yeah, that is scary as well. When you've got an army of people with little concern for making a living (or making much money at all) it changes the game. Could kind of make the folks who do have those expectations become more of an annoyance than an asset.
-
You mean there are standards of how "serious" people must be, in order to market on SS? I thought the test to get in was discouraging enough to weed out many of the casual efforts, and review is not exactly a free pass like just about every pother site.
Talk about crowd sourcing, look at the list on the right. Every one of them, takes almost anything.
If SS is accepting 200K new files, I'm concerned that we will all get lost in the flood and buried in results. That's just the sheer numbers, but I'm pretty sure they are reviewing every image and checking them closer than any of the other sites that show in the poll.
No, I mean there should be standards of quality that increase over time. Emphasis should shift away from quantity and more towards quality. And there were increasing quality standards for a while. Not so much anymore. It's amazing how much junk gets accepted today, and (worse yet) how many junk similars.
Maybe it's a problem of the whole industry then. Seems like all of these companies, Shutterstock included, are still in this pointless race to some arbitrary number of images. After a few million, what's the point anymore? There are plenty of images. I can't believe that buyers would be put off by any of these companies not having enough, especially the big ones. At some point the growing number of images in itself adds less and less value to the collection, and it makes more sense to focus on higher quality standards than on quantity.
-
You mean there are standards of how "serious" people must be, in order to market on SS?
Nope, there never have been. That is some of the concern I brought up. Some people have expectations of making a living with the money they make. Others just want to make a little money. Right now, SS and other micros accommodate both types. But if the supply starts to vastly outstrip the demand, will it squeeze out the people that want to make a living? Micro sites don't have to protect their higher earning contributors and the question is will they?
-
I don't think buyers are bothered by the number of images, only that it keeps increasing. By constantly increasing, and increasing by ever larger numbers it means the buyers have an ever increasing number of new images to purchase - hopefully being the first ones to use a particular image.
Look at the car market, or fashion market, or any supply and demand market, suppliers don't remove old items, they just let them sell their course and they get replaced with new models or items. Over time the once popular old items become fashionable and popular again - to some degree.
-
You mean there are standards of how "serious" people must be, in order to market on SS?
Nope, there never have been. That is some of the concern I brought up. Some people have expectations of making a living with the money they make. Others just want to make a little money. Right now, SS and other micros accommodate both types. But if the supply starts to vastly outstrip the demand, will it squeeze out the people that want to make a living? Micro sites don't have to protect their higher earning contributors and the question is will they?
Surely it would be the pocket money brigade that go first. If the small amounts get smaller very quickly they will look elsewhere for extra income.
-
The point in adding numbers to the image base is not so that the customers can have a better choice.
It is to dominate the net, the search engines and the whole flow of information and clicks.
Wise enough seen from the agencys view. Dangerous for us contributors, since our pictures get washed out..
-
The point in adding numbers to the image base is not so that the customers can have a better choice.
It is to dominate the net, the search engines and the whole flow of information and clicks.
Wise enough seen from the agencys view. Dangerous for us contributors, since our pictures get washed out..
You don't know that Jens. Is the issue new images being added or old ones not being removed? That is a different discussion as "everyone" always says to not delete old files, and then the same "everyone" moans about number of images and that their images get swamped. Simultaneously you read people saying their sales are going up on SS even with a million files added each moth. Is that down to image quality? Commercial value? Luck? Serach algorithms? Who knows.
Trhere is a reason why the search options have a "New" filter. I would love to know how these files are determined to be "new", when they pass from new to old, what percentage of sales are new or old files, etc. There is so much info to possibly analyse but we see none of it.
Is the market getting bigger? More customers? Existing customers spending more? So many variables but the increasing number of images is constant and provides a constant new choice for buyers. If you're supplying high quality commercial images does it matter to contributors if there are 100 or 1,000,000 images added each month? Your images will appeal to customers searching using your keywords and no other customers. The amount of images affects what the buyers can choose, not what you sell.
-
You don't know that Jens.
True. You can't know for sure all their strategies, but dominating the net is a pretty good bet one of their tactics. I know I've been holding images back, so they can get more traction on higher paying sites. It's definitely changed how I look at images. They are no longer just interesting concepts and aesthetics. They are keyword rich bundles for Google.
-
My mistake in understanding. I thought some of the messages were being critical of individuals for how much they work or don't. Whether they are serious and need the income, or hobby shooters making extra income.
If someone produces a high quality stock photo, it doesn't matter where they are, how much they need money or how often they upload.
Yes the number of images is over the top, but I don't find that SS has personally lowered standards or dropped reviews. Most of the other places have.
I mean, I still get my rejections and even faster now, than before, on SS. :)
Just looked at the last batch and wondered what happened to a group of shots. Oh my Why? At 100%, the final upload and edit, I see why. I should have never sent them. And if I see some doubling flaw or soft edges like these had, I wouldn't even edit them. I wasn't paying attention.
I also agree it's not better for buyers to have too many images. It's a distraction and makes it harder to find the good images in the thousands of, average, but acceptable, images. Maybe it's time for SS to add a premium collection? Curated Premium Quality, with accurate keywords, also of high quality, not some artsy trendy collection.
Maybe it's time for SS to stop accepting so many similar images and inch by inch minor variations, But then people will start screaming about those rejections.
My question would be, not what's wrong, but how should they cure the problem?
-
You don't know that Jens.
True. You can't know for sure all their strategies, but dominating the net is a pretty good bet one of their tactics. I know I've been holding images back, so they can get more traction on higher paying sites. It's definitely changed how I look at images. They are no longer just interesting concepts and aesthetics. They are keyword rich bundles for Google.
Exactly.
And yes it is true that I dont know, but that would be a motivation, wouldnt it?
-
This is amusing. And now, I'm actually pretty happy with the DLs and returns and acceptance rates for my images.
http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=136729 (http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=136729)
Rejections way up, sales down. Is the title.
I understand how sales would be down because of the volume of new images. Rejections up? But adding 200K new images a week. Imagine how many they must be receiving to review?
-
I was going to say but you know who starts those rejections posts but look who started it. 10K+ imaginative work.