Author Topic: S J Locke Uploading to Shutterstock (Read 49214 times)

Travelling-light · « **Reply #125 on:** January 22, 2014, 15:52 »

Once sold 5 ELs in one day at IS, for over $500 total, back in the good old days...BDE.

stock-will-eat-itself · « **Reply #126 on:** January 22, 2014, 16:41 »

Quote from: Travelling-light on January 22, 2014, 15:52

Once sold 5 ELs in one day at IS, for over $500 total, back in the good old days...BDE.

Used to get regular $300 days at iS in 2010 with no EL's.

Anyway back on topic Woo Yay for 38c sales.

Ron · « **Reply #127 on:** January 22, 2014, 16:46 »

Quote from: stock-will-eat-itself on January 22, 2014, 16:41

Quote from: Travelling-light on January 22, 2014, 15:52
Once sold 5 ELs in one day at IS, for over $500 total, back in the good old days...BDE.

Used to get regular $300 days at iS in 2010 with no EL's.

Anyway back on topic Woo Yay for 38c sales.

Where have they gone then? Why blame SS for poor sales over at IS. According to Bunhill IS is cheaper then SS.

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #128 on:** January 22, 2014, 17:50 »

iStock's woes are an own goal.

SS has been out there since 2004 and iStock did just great for a long time in spite of them (and other competitors).

Can't blame other businesses for picking up the pieces when Getty and two private equity ~~vultures~~ companies ruined iStock

gostwyck · « **Reply #129 on:** January 22, 2014, 18:03 »

Quote from: stock-will-eat-itself on January 22, 2014, 16:41

Quote from: Travelling-light on January 22, 2014, 15:52
Once sold 5 ELs in one day at IS, for over $500 total, back in the good old days...BDE.

Used to get regular $300 days at iS in 2010 with no EL's.

Anyway back on topic Woo Yay for 38c sales.

It's hardly an 'apples and apples' comparison when you were exclusive with Istock. I've had $300 days with SS too ... whilst also earning at all the other agencies.

Anyway, Istock is pretty much history now. They screwed it up, all by themselves. The only certainty, like death and taxes, is that they will continue to do so.

stock-will-eat-itself · « **Reply #130 on:** January 22, 2014, 18:54 »

For all of Getty's faults (and there are many) they did try to raise the value of our assets while SS went in the opposite direction.

Subs only work in high volume, in a few years it will be low volume and low sales value when the remaining exclusives are forced to move in the opposite direction, I don't hold out much hope for anyone doing this full time in the next decade.

Oringer will be able to buy another helicopter though, so its not all bad.

gbalex · « **Reply #131 on:** January 22, 2014, 18:58 »

Quote from: Ron on January 22, 2014, 16:46

Quote from: stock-will-eat-itself on January 22, 2014, 16:41
Quote from: Travelling-light on January 22, 2014, 15:52
Once sold 5 ELs in one day at IS, for over $500 total, back in the good old days...BDE.

Used to get regular $300 days at iS in 2010 with no EL's.

Anyway back on topic Woo Yay for 38c sales.
Where have they gone then? Why blame SS for poor sales over at IS. According to Bunhill IS is cheaper then SS.

Straight from the SS founders mouth "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. "

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

Travelling-light · « **Reply #132 on:** January 22, 2014, 19:05 »

Quote from: stock-will-eat-itself on January 22, 2014, 16:41

Quote from: Travelling-light on January 22, 2014, 15:52
Once sold 5 ELs in one day at IS, for over $500 total, back in the good old days...BDE.

Used to get regular $300 days at iS in 2010 with no EL's.

Anyway back on topic Woo Yay for 38c sales.

What are you making now, if you don't mind saying? Send a site mail if you like.

stock-will-eat-itself · « **Reply #133 on:** January 22, 2014, 19:28 »

As an indy a very sketchy levelling off of the dramatic drops experienced in 2012 with the same port, no where near the highs of 2010.

I would have stayed as an exclusive but it became impossible to dig out of the decline with new work as no one ever viewed it or bought it. Don't see it changing over there either with the massive ingestion of new files.

Now I'm part of the problem selling my work for chump change and increasing pressure on the remaining exclusives.

The future is in Oringer's hands, unless he raises the prices or tiers the collection he'll break the business model for many full time photographers.

Travelling-light · « **Reply #134 on:** January 22, 2014, 19:39 »

Quote from: stock-will-eat-itself on January 22, 2014, 19:28

As an indy a very sketchy levelling off of the dramatic drops experienced in 2012 with the same port, no where near the highs of 2010.

I would have stayed as an exclusive but it became impossible to dig out of the decline with new work as no one ever viewed it or bought it. Don't see it changing over there either with the massive ingestion of new files.

Now I'm part of the problem selling my work for chump change and increasing pressure on the remaining exclusives.

The future is in Oringer's hands, unless he raises the prices or tiers the collection he'll break the business model for many full time photographers.

Thanks for the comments. I have to agree.

gostwyck · « **Reply #135 on:** January 22, 2014, 20:13 »

Quote from: stock-will-eat-itself on January 22, 2014, 18:54

For all of Getty's faults (and there are many) they did try to raise the value of our assets while SS went in the opposite direction.

That's utter bollocks. SS never 'went in the opposite direction' on the value of our assets, as you put it. They have never decreased prices and they have never decreased contributors' royalties either ... unlike Istock and Getty. They just weren't so stupidly greedy and short-term as Istock/Getty and therefore have allowed their contributors to build a stable and sustainable income. I've been with SS for over 9 years and I am absolutely delighted with the growth and the relative stability of my income from them. Their website actually works too and I have never had a 'customer refund' or 'clawback' of income from them either. Your exalting of Istock/Getty has to be a joke, isn't it?.

Anyway, more fool you for believing in the Istock/Getty hype and thinking that prices could just double every year to make up for the painfully obvious fall in the volume of sales that resulted. You think that you and your precious images are worth far more than you are getting ... but you are wrong. They are worth what the market decides they are worth and Istock/Getty cannot actually change that, whatever pricing architecture they choose to employ. The market will always 'out', especially one in which supply so obviously exceeds demand.

Travelling-light · « **Reply #136 on:** January 22, 2014, 20:28 »

Gostwyck, in this case the market hasn't decided - SS has, and they admit it. Haven't you read the comments which GBAlex has posted so many times? They have chosen to price our images low to win market share.

No one is defending IS, and no one thinks their are images are precious. We all know the market is saturated. Our images are nothing more than the Pawns being swept around and off the board as the Kings slug it out.

gostwyck · « **Reply #137 on:** January 22, 2014, 20:53 »

Quote from: Travelling-light on January 22, 2014, 20:28

Gostwyck, in this case the market hasn't decided - SS has, and they admit it. Haven't you read the comments which GBAlex has posted so many times? They have chosen to price our images low to win market share.

No one is defending IS, and no one thinks their are images are precious. We all know the market is saturated. Our images are nothing more than the Pawns being swept around and off the board as the Kings slug it out.

No, again you're off the mark. SS haven't decreased prices (unlike Istock). They simply haven't increased prices of subscriptions for a few years (and neither have FT or DT). That's fair enough. A business will always choose to operate either for growth or for profit ... according to market conditions. SS know that they already have their foot on the windpipe of most of their competitors. Why on earth would they choose to release it now? Would you if you were in their position?

Gbalex always 'quotes' minuscule segments, usually so out of context that they lose their meaning anyway. If only Istock/Getty were so open in their financial reporting then we could also judge them by the same standards as Gbalex pretends to do with SS.

I know you and many others mourn for the heady days of 2010 when, as Istock exclusives, you earned far more than you had previously believed was possible (and then began to believe it was you birth-right to do so for ever more) but unfortunately it was simply unsustainable. Now where have you heard that word before?

Travelling-light · « **Reply #138 on:** January 22, 2014, 21:12 »

Quote from: gostwyck on January 22, 2014, 20:13

Quote from: stock-will-eat-itself on January 22, 2014, 18:54
For all of Getty's faults (and there are many) they did try to raise the value of our assets while SS went in the opposite direction.

That's utter bollocks. SS never 'went in the opposite direction' on the value of our assets, as you put it. They have never decreased prices and they have never decreased contributors' royalties either ... unlike Istock and Getty. They just weren't so stupidly greedy and short-term as Istock/Getty and therefore have allowed their contributors to build a stable and sustainable income. I've been with SS for over 9 years and I am absolutely delighted with the growth and the relative stability of my income from them. Their website actually works too and I have never had a 'customer refund' or 'clawback' of income from them either. Your exalting of Istock/Getty has to be a joke, isn't it?.

Anyway, more fool you for believing in the Istock/Getty hype and thinking that prices could just double every year to make up for the painfully obvious fall in the volume of sales that resulted. You think that you and your precious images are worth far more than you are getting ... but you are wrong. They are worth what the market decides they are worth and Istock/Getty cannot actually change that, whatever pricing architecture they choose to employ. The market will always 'out', especially one in which supply so obviously exceeds demand.

They used to pay 40% and they now pay "around" 30%. Economical with the truth Gostwyck?

gostwyck · « **Reply #139 on:** January 22, 2014, 21:21 »

Quote from: Travelling-light on January 22, 2014, 21:12

Quote from: gostwyck on January 22, 2014, 20:13
Quote from: stock-will-eat-itself on January 22, 2014, 18:54
For all of Getty's faults (and there are many) they did try to raise the value of our assets while SS went in the opposite direction.

That's utter bollocks. SS never 'went in the opposite direction' on the value of our assets, as you put it. They have never decreased prices and they have never decreased contributors' royalties either ... unlike Istock and Getty. They just weren't so stupidly greedy and short-term as Istock/Getty and therefore have allowed their contributors to build a stable and sustainable income. I've been with SS for over 9 years and I am absolutely delighted with the growth and the relative stability of my income from them. Their website actually works too and I have never had a 'customer refund' or 'clawback' of income from them either. Your exalting of Istock/Getty has to be a joke, isn't it?.

Anyway, more fool you for believing in the Istock/Getty hype and thinking that prices could just double every year to make up for the painfully obvious fall in the volume of sales that resulted. You think that you and your precious images are worth far more than you are getting ... but you are wrong. They are worth what the market decides they are worth and Istock/Getty cannot actually change that, whatever pricing architecture they choose to employ. The market will always 'out', especially one in which supply so obviously exceeds demand.

They used to pay 40% and they now pay "around" 30%. Economical with the truth Gostwyck?

Who did? Can you substantiate your statement with links to prove your point?

Travelling-light · « **Reply #140 on:** January 22, 2014, 21:37 »

Quote from: gostwyck on January 22, 2014, 21:21

Quote from: Travelling-light on January 22, 2014, 21:12
Quote from: gostwyck on January 22, 2014, 20:13
Quote from: stock-will-eat-itself on January 22, 2014, 18:54
For all of Getty's faults (and there are many) they did try to raise the value of our assets while SS went in the opposite direction.

That's utter bollocks. SS never 'went in the opposite direction' on the value of our assets, as you put it. They have never decreased prices and they have never decreased contributors' royalties either ... unlike Istock and Getty. They just weren't so stupidly greedy and short-term as Istock/Getty and therefore have allowed their contributors to build a stable and sustainable income. I've been with SS for over 9 years and I am absolutely delighted with the growth and the relative stability of my income from them. Their website actually works too and I have never had a 'customer refund' or 'clawback' of income from them either. Your exalting of Istock/Getty has to be a joke, isn't it?.

Anyway, more fool you for believing in the Istock/Getty hype and thinking that prices could just double every year to make up for the painfully obvious fall in the volume of sales that resulted. You think that you and your precious images are worth far more than you are getting ... but you are wrong. They are worth what the market decides they are worth and Istock/Getty cannot actually change that, whatever pricing architecture they choose to employ. The market will always 'out', especially one in which supply so obviously exceeds demand.

They used to pay 40% and they now pay "around" 30%. Economical with the truth Gostwyck?

Who did? Can you substantiate your statement with links to prove your point?

SS of course. I have it somewhere, I know that for sure because you sent it to me. I'll have a look.

There's another one too - a post from you where you praised IS for raising prices - "going in the right direction" if I remember rightly. It's in the forum somewhere, maybe Luis can find it for us.

Just call me Jumbo

gostwyck · « **Reply #141 on:** January 22, 2014, 22:03 »

Quote from: Travelling-light on January 22, 2014, 21:37

Quote from: gostwyck on January 22, 2014, 21:21
Quote from: Travelling-light on January 22, 2014, 21:12
Quote from: gostwyck on January 22, 2014, 20:13
Quote from: stock-will-eat-itself on January 22, 2014, 18:54
For all of Getty's faults (and there are many) they did try to raise the value of our assets while SS went in the opposite direction.

That's utter bollocks. SS never 'went in the opposite direction' on the value of our assets, as you put it. They have never decreased prices and they have never decreased contributors' royalties either ... unlike Istock and Getty. They just weren't so stupidly greedy and short-term as Istock/Getty and therefore have allowed their contributors to build a stable and sustainable income. I've been with SS for over 9 years and I am absolutely delighted with the growth and the relative stability of my income from them. Their website actually works too and I have never had a 'customer refund' or 'clawback' of income from them either. Your exalting of Istock/Getty has to be a joke, isn't it?.

Anyway, more fool you for believing in the Istock/Getty hype and thinking that prices could just double every year to make up for the painfully obvious fall in the volume of sales that resulted. You think that you and your precious images are worth far more than you are getting ... but you are wrong. They are worth what the market decides they are worth and Istock/Getty cannot actually change that, whatever pricing architecture they choose to employ. The market will always 'out', especially one in which supply so obviously exceeds demand.

They used to pay 40% and they now pay "around" 30%. Economical with the truth Gostwyck?

Who did? Can you substantiate your statement with links to prove your point?

SS of course. I have it somewhere, I know that for sure because you sent it to me. I'll have a look.

There's another one too - a post from you where you praised IS for raising prices - "going in the right direction" if I remember rightly. It's in the forum somewhere, maybe Luis can find it for us.

Just call me Jumbo

I'll call you 'Jumbo' when you produce the evidence. Good luck with that!

gbalex · « **Reply #142 on:** January 22, 2014, 22:03 »

Quote from: gostwyck on January 22, 2014, 20:53

Quote from: Travelling-light on January 22, 2014, 20:28
Gostwyck, in this case the market hasn't decided - SS has, and they admit it. Haven't you read the comments which GBAlex has posted so many times? They have chosen to price our images low to win market share.

No one is defending IS, and no one thinks their are images are precious. We all know the market is saturated. Our images are nothing more than the Pawns being swept around and off the board as the Kings slug it out.

No, again you're off the mark. SS haven't decreased prices (unlike Istock). They simply haven't increased prices of subscriptions for a few years (and neither have FT or DT). That's fair enough. A business will always choose to operate either for growth or for profit ... according to market conditions. SS know that they already have their foot on the windpipe of most of their competitors. Why on earth would they choose to release it now? Would you if you were in their position?

Gbalex always 'quotes' minuscule segments, usually so out of context that they lose their meaning anyway. If only Istock/Getty were so open in their financial reporting then we could also judge them by the same standards as Gbalex pretends to do with SS.

I know you and many others mourn for the heady days of 2010 when, as Istock exclusives, you earned far more than you had previously believed was possible (and then began to believe it was you birth-right to do so for ever more) but unfortunately it was simply unsustainable. Now where have you heard that word before?

No worries mate it has become clear you permanently have your SS blinders on. I would expect that harsh facts will either be ignored or go right over your head. Cause and effect seem to be beyond your comprehension.

Carry on with the insults and ostrich routine

loop · « **Reply #143 on:** January 23, 2014, 05:19 »

Quote from: gostwyck on January 22, 2014, 20:53

Quote from: Travelling-light on January 22, 2014, 20:28
Gostwyck, in this case the market hasn't decided - SS has, and they admit it. Haven't you read the comments which GBAlex has posted so many times? They have chosen to price our images low to win market share.

No one is defending IS, and no one thinks their are images are precious. We all know the market is saturated. Our images are nothing more than the Pawns being swept around and off the board as the Kings slug it out.

No, again you're off the mark. SS haven't decreased prices (unlike Istock). They simply haven't increased prices of subscriptions for a few years (and neither have FT or DT). That's fair enough. A business will always choose to operate either for growth or for profit ... according to market conditions. SS know that they already have their foot on the windpipe of most of their competitors. Why on earth would they choose to release it now? Would you if you were in their position?

Gbalex always 'quotes' minuscule segments, usually so out of context that they lose their meaning anyway. If only Istock/Getty were so open in their financial reporting then we could also judge them by the same standards as Gbalex pretends to do with SS.

I know you and many others mourn for the heady days of 2010 when, as Istock exclusives, you earned far more than you had previously believed was possible (and then began to believe it was you birth-right to do so for ever more) but unfortunately it was simply unsustainable. Now where have you heard that word before?

I don't know how you extrapolate your numbers. Maybe things are going really bad for non exc at IS, I don't know.

About my folder: Number of downloads has decreased, from sure, from 2010. And earnings. But, regarding earnings what I got last year (2013) isn't so far from what I got at back 2010 (and better than 2012). RPD has skyrocked (about 17 dollars, compare that with subs downloads, even with EL, SOD and all the acronyms).

Ok, with more files (40% more) I should get more. We all are hoping for some kind of improvement but, at this point, although things not being shiny I would't
t characterize that as a disaster. If it was, I would had left exclusivity. I will should things worsen until a certain point.

Regarding SS, DT, FT etc... they are selling a 300% much better product than in 2006 at the same tiny price.

stock-will-eat-itself · « **Reply #144 on:** January 23, 2014, 07:21 »

Quote from: gostwyck on January 22, 2014, 20:13

That's utter bollocks. SS never 'went in the opposite direction' on the value of our assets, as you put it.

It's 38c a file however you cut the cloth, that is the asset value as Oringer decided way back.

Either way we are sat next to each other at SS now diluting each others sales.

grey1 · « **Reply #145 on:** January 23, 2014, 10:47 »

One thing is for sure. I joined in 2008 and you had to look real hard to find any negative postings about SS, anywhere. Nowadays they are everywhere. Among them an SS doom thread 145 page long and not just by anybody but with some serious people. Something must be up.

Copidosoma · « **Reply #146 on:** January 23, 2014, 10:47 »

Sooooo, I hear that S J Locke is uploading to shutterstock...

I think we were discussing that earlier. Maybe not.

Ron · « **Reply #147 on:** January 23, 2014, 11:24 »

Quote from: grey1 on January 23, 2014, 10:47

One thing is for sure. I joined in 2008 and you had to look real hard to find any negative postings about SS, anywhere. Nowadays they are everywhere. Among them an SS doom thread 145 page long and not just by anybody but with some serious people. Something must be up.

Some people with big portfolios, and 3 of the same people who probably were good for 140 of the 145 pages. Lately that doom and gloom is only about people not having downloads for a few hours. Come on. Or having a bad Saturday when the whole world is BBQing or Skiing.

I am not denying there are some weird drops and there are portfolios that shouldnt see such a drop, but doom and gloom to me is not having a poor Saturday. Sorry.

gbalex · « **Reply #148 on:** January 26, 2014, 06:45 »

Quote from: Ron on January 23, 2014, 11:24

Quote from: grey1 on January 23, 2014, 10:47
One thing is for sure. I joined in 2008 and you had to look real hard to find any negative postings about SS, anywhere. Nowadays they are everywhere. Among them an SS doom thread 145 page long and not just by anybody but with some serious people. Something must be up.
Some people with big portfolios, and 3 of the same people who probably were good for 140 of the 145 pages. Lately that doom and gloom is only about people not having downloads for a few hours. Come on. Or having a bad Saturday when the whole world is BBQing or Skiing.

I am not denying there are some weird drops and there are portfolios that shouldnt see such a drop, but doom and gloom to me is not having a poor Saturday. Sorry.

You seem to have selective reading and serious contributors are posting in various threads.

One recent short thread on SS http://tinyurl.com/kb3e9f4

Snip

Joined: 15 Jun 2007 Worst January since 2010 for me. And on top of that I have added 300 images over the last 2 and half months. Sales keep going down for me..... It is a bit depressing though - new equipment (5D MkIII) and many hours of work only to see sales go DOWN!

Joined: 12 Jul 2005 I added a LOT of new Images. We all know the time it takes to do this, I wasted a LOT of time and got a backwards return for my investment. Im selling Mostly Very Old stuff due to search. What a waste of time

Joined: 29 Jan 2006 Last month and this month are about 40% less than the year before. I've been uploading new images but they rarely sell so that doesn't help much.

Joined: 29 Jan 2006 It's just crazy how sales could drop that much. My DLs were consistent from Jan-Oct. then they came tumbling down fast in Nov-Current. Is the Apocalypse coming? It makes me want to scream!

Joined: 03 Oct 2007 But there does seem to be a trend towards the people who have been here the longest (often also the people on the highest rate) who are reporting the falling figures and the much newer people reporting the increases. Obviously if you are constantly adding to your portfolio you would expect to see an increase year on year, but that's no longer the case for some of us on SS.

Joined: 20 Jun 2006 I think quite a few people have noticed that. I can only go by what I see here on the forums but so many of us who have been here for a long time are showing definite downward trends. I used to see more downloads at the time I got up early in the morning than I am seeing now at 3 in the afternoon. I have never seen it this bad.

Joined: 08 Mar 2008 Awful slow 2 weeks for me, 50% down if compared to Jan 2013. I do not know what is going on???

Joined: 11 May 2006 For me so far, the slowest month ever.

Joined: 12 Jul 2008 I'm also very disappointing with the actual policy. Everytime they made a change (and of course I'm talking about the searching rules and alghorithm) our downloads fall down. I have a big portfolio and I used to sell several thousands of images on monthly basis... When I see 20 0r 30% down in dls... from a week to another I'm always worried... in the past those kind of changes has never pickup completely.. and good old dls days of 2011 are simply gone!!

Joined: 26 Jan 2007 Very slow month so far. Just checked my sales from January 2012 and 2011 and they were higher than right now. What's up with that?

Joined: 03 Mar 2008 Very, very slow for me. Totally different than last year...

Joined: 07 Aug 2007 very slow week for me too... uncommonly so even for this time of year

Ron · « **Reply #149 on:** January 26, 2014, 06:58 »

Quote from: gbalex on January 26, 2014, 06:45

Quote from: Ron on January 23, 2014, 11:24
Quote from: grey1 on January 23, 2014, 10:47
One thing is for sure. I joined in 2008 and you had to look real hard to find any negative postings about SS, anywhere. Nowadays they are everywhere. Among them an SS doom thread 145 page long and not just by anybody but with some serious people. Something must be up.
Some people with big portfolios, and 3 of the same people who probably were good for 140 of the 145 pages. Lately that doom and gloom is only about people not having downloads for a few hours. Come on. Or having a bad Saturday when the whole world is BBQing or Skiing.

I am not denying there are some weird drops and there are portfolios that shouldnt see such a drop, but doom and gloom to me is not having a poor Saturday. Sorry.

You seem to have selective reading and serious contributors are posting in various threads.

One recent short thread on SS http://tinyurl.com/kb3e9f4

Snip

Joined: 15 Jun 2007 Worst January since 2010 for me. And on top of that I have added 300 images over the last 2 and half months. Sales keep going down for me..... It is a bit depressing though - new equipment (5D MkIII) and many hours of work only to see sales go DOWN!

Joined: 12 Jul 2005 I added a LOT of new Images. We all know the time it takes to do this, I wasted a LOT of time and got a backwards return for my investment. Im selling Mostly Very Old stuff due to search. What a waste of time

Joined: 29 Jan 2006 Last month and this month are about 40% less than the year before. I've been uploading new images but they rarely sell so that doesn't help much.

Joined: 29 Jan 2006 It's just crazy how sales could drop that much. My DLs were consistent from Jan-Oct. then they came tumbling down fast in Nov-Current. Is the Apocalypse coming? It makes me want to scream!

Joined: 03 Oct 2007 But there does seem to be a trend towards the people who have been here the longest (often also the people on the highest rate) who are reporting the falling figures and the much newer people reporting the increases. Obviously if you are constantly adding to your portfolio you would expect to see an increase year on year, but that's no longer the case for some of us on SS.

Joined: 20 Jun 2006 I think quite a few people have noticed that. I can only go by what I see here on the forums but so many of us who have been here for a long time are showing definite downward trends. I used to see more downloads at the time I got up early in the morning than I am seeing now at 3 in the afternoon. I have never seen it this bad.

Joined: 08 Mar 2008 Awful slow 2 weeks for me, 50% down if compared to Jan 2013. I do not know what is going on???

Joined: 11 May 2006 For me so far, the slowest month ever.

Joined: 12 Jul 2008 I'm also very disappointing with the actual policy. Everytime they made a change (and of course I'm talking about the searching rules and alghorithm) our downloads fall down. I have a big portfolio and I used to sell several thousands of images on monthly basis... When I see 20 0r 30% down in dls... from a week to another I'm always worried... in the past those kind of changes has never pickup completely.. and good old dls days of 2011 are simply gone!!

Joined: 26 Jan 2007 Very slow month so far. Just checked my sales from January 2012 and 2011 and they were higher than right now. What's up with that?

Joined: 03 Mar 2008 Very, very slow for me. Totally different than last year...

Joined: 07 Aug 2007 very slow week for me too... uncommonly so even for this time of year

[email protected]

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: S J Locke Uploading to Shutterstock (Read 49214 times)

Travelling-light

stock-will-eat-itself

Ron

Jo Ann Snover

gostwyck

stock-will-eat-itself

gbalex

Travelling-light

stock-will-eat-itself

Travelling-light

gostwyck

Travelling-light

gostwyck

Travelling-light

gostwyck

Travelling-light

gostwyck

gbalex

loop

stock-will-eat-itself

grey1

Copidosoma

Ron

gbalex

Ron

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors