MicrostockGroup

Agency Based Discussion => Shutterstock.com => Topic started by: Pauws99 on February 24, 2016, 13:46

Title: Q4
Post by: Pauws99 on February 24, 2016, 13:46: http://seekingalpha.com/article/3925086-shutterstock-sstk-jonathan-oringer-q4-2015-results-earnings-call-transcript?part=single (http://seekingalpha.com/article/3925086-shutterstock-sstk-jonathan-oringer-q4-2015-results-earnings-call-transcript?part=single)

Basically it looks like business as usual .....the apocalypse is postponed but the growth in images vs incomes means we will have to pedal faster to stay in the same place......or work smarter
Title: Re: Q4
Post by: jonbull on February 25, 2016, 07:02: Quote from: Pauws99 on February 24, 2016, 13:46
[url]http://seekingalpha.com/article/3925086-shutterstock-sstk-jonathan-oringer-q4-2015-results-earnings-call-transcript?part=single[/url] ([url]http://seekingalpha.com/article/3925086-shutterstock-sstk-jonathan-oringer-q4-2015-results-earnings-call-transcript?part=single[/url])

Basically it looks like business as usual .....the apocalypse is postponed but the growth in images vs incomes means we will have to pedal faster to stay in the same place......or work smarter
ù

for hi m for sure but

- 1 million images more every week...in a year he doubled the number of images...especially coming from heap photo factory and big agency
- earning pretty similar...
- results is that earning are diluting between much more images and per photo earning has fallen down..in practice apart big agency any photographer, maybe a bunch, can live with shutter stock salary....living means from 40k-to 50k...sure i can live in thailand with 20k year but it's another question.
- the quality of photo reflect this. garbage.
Title: Re: Q4
Post by: Dumc on February 25, 2016, 07:42: Maybe you should upload that spectacular never-seen-before image of a birds flying in a heart-shape.
Title: Re: Q4
Post by: Mantis on February 25, 2016, 07:53: Quote from: Dumc on February 25, 2016, 07:42
Maybe you should upload that spectacular never-seen-before image of a birds flying in a heart-shape.

Oh Dumc, you forgot the rare mary jane images.
Title: Re: Q4
Post by: cobalt on February 25, 2016, 08:05: 1 million files a week and less overall growth than library growth (30% versus 53% increase) is not a good sign for me and my little stock shop.

For the artists, this is basically negative growth or just keeping things steady if you increase your output.

No surprise so many people are adding video, at least that is a new market where the economics might still work for us.

I do like their tools, like the new upload your own file, then search for similars etc...

But allowing the customer to subscribe to a public gallery and giving them personalized feeds of new content they are interested in (personalized feed from only food galleries, or only medical images), would seem like a much simpler and more logical and useful option.

What every customer needs, but no agency offers...incredible...
Title: Re: Q4
Post by: Microstockphoto on February 25, 2016, 08:40: 'Our commitment to maintaining an unmatched content library and developing unparalleled search technology continues to attract an increasing number of customers and contributors to our platform, fueling robust revenue and profit growth.'

yep, they can miss us complainers like a sore tooth

i mentioned before they are wanting to have the biggest library out there, oringer's goal is to have more images than getty, in the meantime squeezing the life out of old contributors.

new amateur contributors are submitting content now that can easily replace stuff submitted by pros years ago. so there is no risk for ss to lose a few complainers.

theyve got everyone by the balls, i am really hoping adobe shows them up
Title: Re: Q4
Post by: Hongover on February 25, 2016, 08:47: Bring on the noobs. I don't see any reason to be too concerned about them if you know what you're doing. Majority of them are inexperienced and have no idea what they're doing.

If they're good, so be it. We'll just have to be better.
Title: Re: Q4
Post by: Pauws99 on February 25, 2016, 09:31: Quote from: Minscer on February 25, 2016, 08:47
Bring on the noobs. I don't see any reason to be too concerned about them if you know what you're doing. Majority of them are inexperienced and have no idea what they're doing.

If they're good, so be it. We'll just have to be better.

Yes that's reality.....and some of the less than newbies aren't as good as they think they are Darwin called it natural selection
Title: Re: Q4
Post by: obj owl on February 25, 2016, 10:27: Quote from: Pauws99 on February 25, 2016, 09:31
Quote from: Minscer on February 25, 2016, 08:47
Bring on the noobs. I don't see any reason to be too concerned about them if you know what you're doing. Majority of them are inexperienced and have no idea what they're doing.

If they're good, so be it. We'll just have to be better.

Yes that's reality.....and some of the less than newbies aren't as good as they think they are Darwin called it natural selection

Problem is that the selection is not natural when some of the older beasts are protected and the younger ones are favoured, those in the middle are having to scavenge for the scraps.
Title: Re: Q4
Post by: YadaYadaYada on February 25, 2016, 13:59: Things are so bad that SS is buying back it's own stock. Or is that, they are expecting growth and find it a good investment? Repurchased $15.6 million of stock in the fourth quarter

http://seekingalpha.com/pr/16289326-shutterstock-reports-fourth-quarter-full-year-2015-financial-results (http://seekingalpha.com/pr/16289326-shutterstock-reports-fourth-quarter-full-year-2015-financial-results)

Paid downloads increased 17% and revenue per download increased 10% which I suppose is bad news to some of the grumpy doom people here. Downloads increased. Artists sold more. We made more, as a group.

Picking away at new people or the mary jane guy, does nothing. His junk won't sell and doesn't compete it's just numbers. Why do people feel threatened by newbies that don't have a chance and can't do work as good as the people here?

Right, the number of photos is diluting our earnings. This has been going on for 3 years. What's the news in that? When some of us here wrote of dilution in 2010 we got laughed at ridiculed and called names. Now it's news?
Title: Re: Q4
Post by: etudiante_rapide on February 25, 2016, 15:35: personally, ss is still earning most of all for me.
only difference is that if i extrapolate the dls to past years, my total earning actually dropped
but my dls actually increased.
also, the single earning (28 to 102 bucks) have disappeared.

are you experiencing the same disappearance? if so, what is the reason???
Title: Re: Q4
Post by: jackboy on February 25, 2016, 16:18: it's exactly the same for me, I sell the same number of images at Shutterstock but sales for some time between 28 and 102 $ disappeared. This makes a significant difference on the monthly income
Title: Re: Q4
Post by: cobalt on February 25, 2016, 16:34: Quote from: YadaYadaYada on February 25, 2016, 13:59
Paid downloads increased 17% and revenue per download increased 10% which I suppose is bad news to some of the grumpy doom people here. Downloads increased. Artists sold more. We made more, as a group.

Right, the number of photos is diluting our earnings. This has been going on for 3 years. What's the news in that? When some of us here wrote of dilution in 2010 we got laughed at ridiculed and called names. Now it's news?

The group doesn´t feed me. Only the money in my account is relevant to me. But for me stock is not a hobby, so I need reliable income not just money for gear.

The number of my share in the marketplace is an important number for my potential success. With one million new files a week, I simply don´t see how I can outshoot the flood even if I was able to produce a steady 100 files a week at the best quality ever. It will just get completely buried in the total oversupply, not just a needle in a haystack, but a drop in the ocean.

With this kind of flood, it doesn´t matter how good you are.

A few years ago agencies were accepting 50 000 a week, with 30 000 artists. That is a completely different work environment.

To ensure visibility, it is now necessary to focus on smaller collections, which is where everyone I know is going to.

Nothing wrong with that, basically macrostock is just reinventing itself, while the micros will be the places for the stock factories or the hobby crew.

SS benefits from that as well, how else can they market Offset? That will be the agency that has the content that is not ultra generic.

All of this has absolutely nothing to do with the stock price. If the pro artists move to Offset, it can only improve their bottom line and raise their share price.

So they do offer a solution for full timers, but it is offset, not SS.
Title: Re: Q4
Post by: YadaYadaYada on February 25, 2016, 16:59: Quote from: cobalt on February 25, 2016, 16:34
Quote from: YadaYadaYada on February 25, 2016, 13:59
Paid downloads increased 17% and revenue per download increased 10% which I suppose is bad news to some of the grumpy doom people here. Downloads increased. Artists sold more. We made more, as a group.

Right, the number of photos is diluting our earnings. This has been going on for 3 years. What's the news in that? When some of us here wrote of dilution in 2010 we got laughed at ridiculed and called names. Now it's news?

The group doesn´t feed me. Only the money in my account is relevant to me. But for me stock is not a hobby, so I need reliable income not just money for gear.

The number of my share in the marketplace is an important number for my potential success. With one million new files a week, I simply don´t see how I can outshoot the flood even if I was able to produce a steady 100 files a week at the best quality ever. It will just get completely buried in the total oversupply, not just a needle in a haystack, but a drop in the ocean.

With this kind of flood, it doesn´t matter how good you are.

A few years ago agencies were accepting 50 000 a week, with 30 000 artists. That is a completely different work environment.

To ensure visibility, it is now necessary to focus on smaller collections, which is where everyone I know is going to.

Nothing wrong with that, basically macrostock is just reinventing itself, while the micros will be the places for the stock factories or the hobby crew.

SS benefits from that as well, how else can they market Offset? That will be the agency that has the content that is not ultra generic.

All of this has absolutely nothing to do with the stock price. If the pro artists move to Offset, it can only improve their bottom line and raise their share price.

So they do offer a solution for full timers, but it is offset, not SS.

Can't disagree with anything you write, as an artist or individual. What do you want SS to do? Stop accepting new artists and new pictures so you can make more? Should they stop growing and adding new parts of their business?

People here argue that it's all about the stock price and stockholders. It is about the company finances and the stock price. This isn't about us, being a friend or artists, it's about business.

Paid downloads increased 17%. People say SS is losing business. People point at the stock price and say Adobe is taking the business. But SS keeps growing. Not for us. People say old artists get some special treatment and next page say new get special treatment. Always crying that they aren't the ones getting the special deals.

I guess if somebody got the special treatment they wouldn't be complaining. Who is that? I don't get special anything, no body here says they do. It's all people who say they get less. Old, new, middle, all the same. Who's getting the favorite search and better deal?

I think you are right. Time to find something else. Microstock has changed.
Title: Re: Q4
Post by: MisterElements on February 25, 2016, 17:17: I feel at this point shutterstock has become an artist scam site....nothing more. Make.... shutterstock bigger so they can say they are growing so ...in theory their market stock goes up. It is my opinion the only place shutterstock can take more money is from artist commissions. I'll let my old work ride until shutterstock in gone....but I'll never post a new item on shutterstock.
Title: Re: Q4
Post by: Pauws99 on February 25, 2016, 17:35: Quote from: MisterElements on February 25, 2016, 17:17
I feel at this point shutterstock has become an artist scam site....nothing more. Make.... shutterstock bigger so they can say they are growing so ...in theory their market stock goes up. It is my opinion the only place shutterstock can take more money is from artist commissions. I'll let my old work ride until shutterstock in gone....but I'll never post a new item on shutterstock.

The evidence would suggest otherwise..... they are increasing revenue by growing their market share and increasing revenue per download. Their total revenue has grown by 30% that has NOTHING to do with reducing their costs ie commissions. You may not like what they give you but that's another issue.
Title: Re: Q4
Post by: Rinderart on February 25, 2016, 20:12: I would pay a lot of Money to these guys asking the questions to slip in...." Your suppliers have been asking for a raise for years...Do you see that ever happening?" That would be cool.
Title: Re: Q4
Post by: cobalt on February 25, 2016, 23:03: I have Shutterstock shares, I´ve been trading them up and down for quite a while.

They make really lovely apps and have their tech right. They hire fantastic and open minded people.

But I don´t quite understand what their goals are in working with artists.

Specifically if the site is interested in working with people that do stock as a full time living and invest serious money, time and attention in their shooting and their niche.

The more I look at it, the more it seems to be excellent for those that do a little stock as a hobby, but simply not designed to work with full timers.

I suppose Offset is the agency we should either try to get into, or find distribution partners that work with them.

1 million a week now, soon 100 million a week.

It will always work for the customers and thus for the shareholders, but I don´t see how you can make predictions of cost and reliable revenue when you plan your shoots.

Stock factories, yes, they can handle it. For a while at least.

Like many I am just trying to see how I can benefit most from working with them.

For now, for me, it will be video. At least until they get 1 million videos a week.

But it is not a longterm portfolio strategy, you just take what you can get now, then watch if a new format comes along that you can join a few years, then the next etc...

Surfing the wave and jumping early bevor the flood hits.

Or just trade the shares and follow plan B for art and photography.
Title: Re: Q4
Post by: Microstockphoto on February 26, 2016, 00:02: the question of a raise has been asked and answered, the answer was no
Title: Re: Q4
Post by: Pauws99 on February 26, 2016, 01:59: "But I don´t quite understand what their goals are in working with artists."

I don't really think they see their goal as working WITH anyone in any sense of partnership maybe that's why many feel disillusioned - they offer somewhere to sell your pictures thats all if you can make a profit from it thats good if the model doesn't work for some or all your pics then realistically the only strategies are to find another channel or shoot something different. SS results mean that they aren't going to change for the next couple of years and I don't think anyone can see further than that.
Title: Re: Q4
Post by: cobalt on February 26, 2016, 08:11: Well they offer a business plattform, they must have a target or user group in mind. Not just from the buyer side, but also a clear profile of the suppliers they want to attract.

I've spent a bit of time looking at the various places I work with to decide how to proceed for the year, plan shootings, genres and styles and I cannot really determine their profile.

Whoever it is, it is not people like me. Maybe for Offset, but not for SS.

I don't expect them to change anything either, I just have to put my main efforts into the sites that target the fulltimers.
Title: Re: Q4
Post by: obj owl on February 26, 2016, 09:34: Quote from: cobalt on February 26, 2016, 08:11
Well they offer a business plattform, they must have a target or user group in mind. Not just from the buyer side, but also a clear profile of the suppliers they want to attract.

I've spent a bit of time looking at the various places I work with to decide how to proceed for the year, plan shootings, genres and styles and I cannot really determine their profile.

Whoever it is, it is not people like me. Maybe for Offset, but not for SS.

I don't expect them to change anything either, I just have to put my main efforts into the sites that target the fulltimers.

They do target fulltimers or at least the top earners, big producers and factories. They get special treatment under the name of Premier Select, invite only.
Title: Re: Q4
Post by: Microstockphoto on February 26, 2016, 10:49: i guess i wasnt clear in my first comment, its not about noobs, or whatever you call them, cant match the quality, its not about being better than them, its about sustainability. as a business you cant win from the amateur. they have no overhead, they dont do it for a living, they will accept 10c per image, and thats where you and i are long gone. ss can keep lowering their royalties because the quality provided by amateurs is of high standard and they will see every dollar as a nice little extra, they do this on the side. theyre not slaving away trying to feed the beast and submit ridiculous amounts of imagery only to see their income decline
Title: Re: Q4
Post by: cobalt on February 26, 2016, 11:15: Quote from: obj owl on February 26, 2016, 09:34

They do target fulltimers or at least the top earners, big producers and factories. They get special treatment under the name of Premier Select, invite only.

I agree, if you are a stock factory they will probably negotiate something special for you. Nothing wrong with that.

That is why I say the mix of high quality factory content and happy amateur works really well for them. No need to change anything.

But I am looking for sustainable longterm revenue as a single artist. I need a different kind of business platform that wants to target thousands of small time entrepreneurs. It is a different challenge then a little gear money for the lucky shooter.

Adobe offers one path with exclusive files, at least here in Germany that seems to work well for many people.

SS at the moment is still good with video, but if they continue on the path where dilution of files through a flood of uploads exceeds revenue growth, it is just a question of time until that income will drop for the single artist. Probably still a few years down the road, so one can make money until then, but it is important to look at the volume coming in and start to focus early on places that have a more longterm concept.

However, by then there might be a new media format worth pursuing and again SS will be really interesting as long the library is small. In the early stages you can benefit from their very large pool of customers.

So, if you pay attention and are dynamic, you can probably always make good money in their smaller libraries.
Title: Re: Q4
Post by: etudiante_rapide on February 26, 2016, 11:47: Quote from: cobalt on February 26, 2016, 11:15
Quote from: obj owl on February 26, 2016, 09:34

They do target fulltimers or at least the top earners, big producers and factories. They get special treatment under the name of Premier Select, invite only.

I agree, if you are a stock factory they will probably negotiate something special for you. Nothing wrong with that.

i think you are both correct in this suspicion of what others will call unlevel field favourism.
because last summer at a motorsport event i remember talking with some of the credential photogs
there who also told me they are like special stringers for photo agency.
they got invited to sign some special arrangement and they submit all without review, all go straight into their portfolio instantly.
at that time i told it was alot of hot-air... because i ask them ,"how can that be??? you mean you can now upload garbage or even some editorials that has IP issues or say submit something that is taboo in some countries eg not allowed to shoot at a president's compound, certain museam,etc.."
and they told me, "it is up to you. because you also agree that if you submit say a paris by night
and the agency gets sued... you the photographer will be given the lawsuit"
ie. in the special treatment, you assume all legal responsibility to not , how you say that word...
indemnify(???) the stock agency.

so in some way, it is wonderful, no more reviews, no delay, you upload 10,000 and all go live instantly. but if some one complains that one of your photos broke the rule of a country, or john deere or
a ruler of some despotic country is angry...
you are the one responsible to solve the issue, not the agency.

i am sure , it is the same with some selected invited videographers/photographers with ss too.
..like obj owl says... Premier Select.
in fact, maybe those ppl i spoke too, were with ss PS... they did not tell me. it was all hush hush
special "us" and you outsider common not special 8)
Title: Re: Q4
Post by: etudiante_rapide on February 26, 2016, 11:56: Quote from: cobalt on February 25, 2016, 08:05
1 million files a week and less overall growth than library growth (30% versus 53% increase) is not a good sign for me and my little stock shop.
For the artists, this is basically negative growth or just keeping things steady if you increase your output.

if i understand what you mean by negative growth to mean you see have xxx,000 imgs port
and xxx dls. when you look at it, you cannot really be too hip hip hooray for yourself,
instead of say you have the same xxx dls with say 800 images portfolio.

if that is what you mean, than yes, i agree. i cannot see myself be so happy i can upload 3000 photos a day without review, and they may all be also without photoshop, since no one is curating my work.
by year end i will have more images than yuri, sjlocke, lisafx,dolgachov,etc.. put together.
but that still does not mean i will also be earning as much as even one of those mentioned.

to me, it's alot of work that go to waste. it's like those govt office workers who do mindless work
just for a living. it's not satisfying. but that's me ... 8)
Title: Re: Q4
Post by: Pauws99 on February 26, 2016, 16:58: "i think you are both correct in this suspicion of what others will call unlevel field favourism.
because last summer at a motorsport event i remember talking with some of the credential photogs
there who also told me they are like special stringers for photo agency.
they got invited to sign some special arrangement and they submit all without review, all go straight into their portfolio instantly. "

Interesting as I believe in the last Teleconference it was stated that every image was inspected by SS .....misleading shareholders is taken quite seriously.......

" Overall, we now have over 100,000 contributors submitting content, almost 1 million pieces of content per week. And despite the significant quantity of submissions we receive daily, we still review every single piece of the content to ensure it meets the rigorous quality standards we have implemented."
Title: Re: Q4
Post by: etudiante_rapide on February 26, 2016, 18:44: Quote from: Pauws99 on February 26, 2016, 16:58
"i think you are both correct in this suspicion of what others will call unlevel field favourism.
because last summer at a motorsport event i remember talking with some of the credential photogs
there who also told me they are like special stringers for photo agency.
they got invited to sign some special arrangement and they submit all without review, all go straight into their portfolio instantly. "

Interesting as I believe in the last Teleconference it was stated that every image was inspected by SS .....misleading shareholders is taken quite seriously.......

" Overall, we now have over 100,000 contributors submitting content, almost 1 million pieces of content per week. And despite the significant quantity of submissions we receive daily,
we still review every single piece of the content to ensure it meets the rigorous quality
standards we have implemented."

i should clarify to repeat the quoted statement you used ... in that ... none of the credential photogs at the motorsport event mentioned , did not specifically say which agency they string for.
so pls do not think it is ss.
but again, with your own repro of ss statement
..
maybe someone who is a maths-major can give a basic calculation of whether it is possible
for one reviewer to say eye-ball each photo of say the marijuana or the illustration of the icons
of those super-humans who uploaded xxxxxxxx images in one year.
is this really humanly possible to review every piece stringently.

or to extrapolate per xxxxxxxxxxx images per day , how many reviewers does ss need to really
do what they say ...
we still review every single piece of the content to ensure it meets the rigorous quality
standards we have implemented."
[/quote]
Title: Re: Q4
Post by: YadaYadaYada on February 27, 2016, 21:43: Quote from: Pauws99 on February 26, 2016, 16:58
"i think you are both correct in this suspicion of what others will call unlevel field favourism.
because last summer at a motorsport event i remember talking with some of the credential photogs
there who also told me they are like special stringers for photo agency.
they got invited to sign some special arrangement and they submit all without review, all go straight into their portfolio instantly. "

Interesting as I believe in the last Teleconference it was stated that every image was inspected by SS .....misleading shareholders is taken quite seriously.......

" Overall, we now have over 100,000 contributors submitting content, almost 1 million pieces of content per week. And despite the significant quantity of submissions we receive daily, we still review every single piece of the content to ensure it meets the rigorous quality standards we have implemented."

was the photo agency SS or something else. Are you saying SS has special contributors who have no review. Or someplace else does.
Title: Re: Q4
Post by: Justanotherphotographer on February 28, 2016, 02:16: I know for a fact some agencies do it but never heard ss did. It seems unlikely, as you say they told shareholders every image is inspected. I also know some agencies offer to boost levels and improve search placement for contributors. Again I don't think ss is one of them.
Title: Re: Q4
Post by: robertosch on February 28, 2016, 03:10: Quote from: Pauws99 on February 24, 2016, 13:46
[url]http://seekingalpha.com/article/3925086-shutterstock-sstk-jonathan-oringer-q4-2015-results-earnings-call-transcript?part=single[/url] ([url]http://seekingalpha.com/article/3925086-shutterstock-sstk-jonathan-oringer-q4-2015-results-earnings-call-transcript?part=single[/url])

Basically it looks like business as usual .....the apocalypse is postponed but the growth in images vs incomes means we will have to pedal faster to stay in the same place......or work smarter

Wright... And as he said on page two: "And despite the significant quantity of submissions we receive daily, we still review every single piece of the content to ensure it meets the rigorous quality standards we have implemented." I really don't agree with that. A lot of junk is added every day, I mean if you just make a regular search, you'll know what I mean exactly.
For them it is maybe a good sales increase, but for us, the contributors, is a total loss, because we are not any more visible in search, as we were before year 2015. And I am not talking about quality, I am sure we all are getting better, but about quantity...
Title: Re: Q4
Post by: Pauws99 on February 28, 2016, 03:53: Quote from: robertosch on February 28, 2016, 03:10
Quote from: Pauws99 on February 24, 2016, 13:46
[url]http://seekingalpha.com/article/3925086-shutterstock-sstk-jonathan-oringer-q4-2015-results-earnings-call-transcript?part=single[/url] ([url]http://seekingalpha.com/article/3925086-shutterstock-sstk-jonathan-oringer-q4-2015-results-earnings-call-transcript?part=single[/url])

Basically it looks like business as usual .....the apocalypse is postponed but the growth in images vs incomes means we will have to pedal faster to stay in the same place......or work smarter

Wright... And as he said on page two: "And despite the significant quantity of submissions we receive daily, we still review every single piece of the content to ensure it meets the rigorous quality standards we have implemented." I really don't agree with that. A lot of junk is added every day, I mean if you just make a regular search, you'll know what I mean exactly.
For them it is maybe a good sales increase, but for us, the contributors, is a total loss, because we are not any more visible in search, as we were before year 2015. And I am not talking about quality, I am sure we all are getting better, but about quantity...
I agree the inspection process is flawed but it doesn't mean they are not inspected.....
Title: Re: Q4
Post by: robertosch on February 28, 2016, 05:09: Quote from: Pauws99 on February 24, 2016, 13:46
[url]http://seekingalpha.com/article/3925086-shutterstock-sstk-jonathan-oringer-q4-2015-results-earnings-call-transcript?part=single[/url] ([url]http://seekingalpha.com/article/3925086-shutterstock-sstk-jonathan-oringer-q4-2015-results-earnings-call-transcript?part=single[/url])

Basically it looks like business as usual .....the apocalypse is postponed but the growth in images vs incomes means we will have to pedal faster to stay in the same place......or work smarter

Wright... And as he said on page two: "And despite the significant quantity of submissions we receive daily, we still review every single piece of the content to ensure it meets the rigorous quality standards we have implemented." I really don't agree with that. A lot of junk (example: http://www.shutterstock.com/pic.mhtml?id=379512685&src=id (http://www.shutterstock.com/pic.mhtml?id=379512685&src=id)) is added every day, I mean if you just make a regular search, you'll know what I mean exactly.
For them it is maybe a good sales increase, but for us, the contributors, is a total loss, because we are not any more visible in search, as we were before year 2015. And I am not talking about quality, I am sure we all are getting better, but about quantity...
Title: Re: Q4
Post by: Pauws99 on February 28, 2016, 05:36: I don't actually think it is junk. Isn't it just the kind of thing some people might need and only want to pay a small fee for.