Author Topic: Sales on Shutterstock - not growing over the last 2 years? (Read 40254 times)

Elenathewise · « **on:** August 18, 2010, 11:59 »

This has nothing to do with the summer slowdown.
With over 10, 000 images in my portfolio currently I see a troublesome trend on Shutterstock - my sales are practically the same there as they were 2 years ago, when my portfolio size was about 6,000. So adding extra 4,000 images just kept me afloat there.
However, I am not at all "hitting the wall" on other agencies. Fotolia has grown substantially, so did Istock. The only other agency with the same pattern as SS is Dreamstime - in spite of increasing portfolio size, sales are actually worse than 2 years ago.
Does with mean that both Shutterstock and Dreamstime are losing their market share? If this was due to the economic slowdown, or growing libraries, you would expect to see the same trend everywhere, which I don't see.
But then I see people reporting good sales on SS - makes me wonder if there is something wrong with my portfolio on SS (some technical problem?)
Anyone with large portfolios and more than 3 years in this business - what's your data on SS for the last couple of years?

Xalanx · « **Reply #1 on:** August 18, 2010, 12:28 »

Almost 6000 photos in my portfolio. Started about 3 years ago, but payed close attention to stock just about an year and a half ago, when I really started to try and actually do something. I become full-time microstocker few months ago.
Actually I am seeing an increase at SS. Almost every month I beat some record. In number of sales, ODs per day, total month income, etc. But nevertheless - I keep the beast happy.
Anyway, taken into account that I started far too late in this business, my increasing numbers might not impress you too much.

Dreamstime is really down for me, Fotolia is good and Istock is doing really fine, with less than 300 images in my port. My fault not to upload there, that system put me off easily. However, I'm building patience and I'm kinda encouraged of the latest 100% acceptance rate batches.

cmcderm1 · « **Reply #2 on:** August 18, 2010, 12:47 »

AGREED.

SS has hit a wall - even with "feeding the beast" and a larger portfolio (3500+). DT has actually declined a bit.

IS and FO (or FT) have been steady. Maybe slight growth.

lisafx · « **Reply #3 on:** August 18, 2010, 13:23 »

I have 6k images and 5+ years in microstock. I am seeing the same stagnation at SS, however my portfolio seems to have "hit the wall" on all sites in the past several months.

I reported in the July Stats thread that over the past year I have added 36% to my portfolio and overall income has dropped by 21%. So in the case of SS, merely being stagnant doesn't look so bad.

FWIW, if you had asked this in March of this year I would have had a much rosier picture to report. I really don't know how much of this is the economy, or summer slowdown, or simply point of diminishing returns. I would wait until October or so to get a better idea of sales patterns.

Elenathewise · « **Reply #4 on:** August 18, 2010, 13:26 »

Quote from: Xalanx on August 18, 2010, 12:28

Actually I am seeing an increase at SS. Almost every month I beat some record. In number of sales, ODs per day, total month income, etc. But nevertheless - I keep the beast happy.
Anyway, taken into account that I started far too late in this business, my increasing numbers might not impress you too much.

Yup it used to be like that for me too - 2 years ago. But then it just leveled off. I do upload on a regular basis, keeping pretty much the same pace. I wonder if it's related to them giving preference to newer files - although I thought they did change that a little while ago? If they still do it, the ratio of newer files to the size of portfolio would definitely affect sales. Which is kinda stupid because then there is no incentive to upload once you reached the "wall".

Anyka · « **Reply #5 on:** August 18, 2010, 13:27 »

Totally agree. Between 2006 and 2008 income still went up because of the raises, but the number of downloads has not been growing for 2 years now, it's even going down, and as we did not have a raise last year, SS income is going down too, even with a bigger portfolio.

Xalanx · « **Reply #6 on:** August 18, 2010, 13:55 »

Quote from: Elenathewise on August 18, 2010, 13:26

Quote from: Xalanx on August 18, 2010, 12:28

Actually I am seeing an increase at SS. Almost every month I beat some record. In number of sales, ODs per day, total month income, etc. But nevertheless - I keep the beast happy.
Anyway, taken into account that I started far too late in this business, my increasing numbers might not impress you too much.

Yup it used to be like that for me too - 2 years ago. But then it just leveled off. I do upload on a regular basis, keeping pretty much the same pace. I wonder if it's related to them giving preference to newer files - although I thought they did change that a little while ago? If they still do it, the ratio of newer files to the size of portfolio would definitely affect sales. Which is kinda stupid because then there is no incentive to upload once you reached the "wall".

From my experience - SS makes weird changes to their search engine, every once in a while. This, added to the mass of new files in some periods (like NOW for example) can lead to a plateau in sales. The criteria at the base of their SEO is very well hidden but sometimes returns very weird and ugly stuff. It's so random that I'm thinking its hand-made, not done by an algorithm - perhaps this is the way they choose to "refresh" first pages of the most popular. We'll never know, remember that it's one of the few agencies that doesn't even let us know the number of views per file (among other things).
Oh and btw - your portfolio is absolutely awesome, but you already know that

searagen · « **Reply #7 on:** August 18, 2010, 14:01 »

I have a much smaller portfolio (400-500 or so images) on each of the Top 4 and have varying numbers of images on a handful of other microstocks. I have maintained a pretty good database of monthly earnings and downloads and I trend them on a 12-month rolling average to eliminate seasonality. For me, the trends are:

All-Up: Earnings have been generally flat from about July 2008 onwards driven by what appears to be dramatic changes at IS and SS -- probably a result coming from a combination of changes to search algorithms coupled with slower growth in my portfolio relative to image grown online at each of the agencies. The most telling global trends for me is that for every 100 images that I have online, I am recording about a 5% decline every month in average number of downloads. (Note that this corresponds very roughly with the rate of increase of new photos. Using SS as a proxy, it looks like they are adding about 70-80k new photos/week against a total of 7-8M images -- so about 5% per month increase.) As I am not growing my overall portfolio by 5% every month, my proportion of sales is declining. On the other hand, due to slowly increasing payouts, my average royalty per download has been increasing at a very steady 1.2% every month. By adding 3% new photos each month to my portfolio, I am roughly running at a steady state.

Specific trends at the Top 4 are:

IS: Earnings trend declined consistently from July 2008 to Dec 2008 and then started to increase slowly since that time. Downloads are still flat-to-down but earnings/download has increased steadily.

SS: Earnings trend also declined consistently from July 2008 to Jan 2009 and has stabilized since then. Downloads declined through mid-2009 but have stabilized while average earnings/download has increased steadily with more enhanced downloads of various sorts.

DT: Earnings trend has increased consistently ever since I joined in 2006. Downloads are flat from mid 2008 onwards but average earnings/image has increased steadily as my images reach new tiers.

FO: Earnings trend has generally flattened since September 2009. Total downloads started to increase in September 2008 (coincident with subscriptions?) but average earnings/image has been slightly down since then as mix shift to subscriptions has occurred.

Dook · « **Reply #8 on:** August 18, 2010, 14:35 »

Quote from: Elenathewise on August 18, 2010, 13:26

Quote from: Xalanx on August 18, 2010, 12:28

Actually I am seeing an increase at SS. Almost every month I beat some record. In number of sales, ODs per day, total month income, etc. But nevertheless - I keep the beast happy.
Anyway, taken into account that I started far too late in this business, my increasing numbers might not impress you too much.

Yup it used to be like that for me too - 2 years ago. But then it just leveled off. I do upload on a regular basis, keeping pretty much the same pace. I wonder if it's related to them giving preference to newer files - although I thought they did change that a little while ago? If they still do it, the ratio of newer files to the size of portfolio would definitely affect sales. Which is kinda stupid because then there is no incentive to upload once you reached the "wall".

Few days ago I wanted to start new thread about this problem. If new pictures are so important for growth of sales and you rich the point when you add just 1 or 2% of new pictures a month, you are not helping much the growth. So, it could be better to just stop uploading and start another photography business, for example weddings. You would help you income growth more this way.
Elena, I have around 4000 pictures at SS and my sales stopped growing 6 months ago.

Elenathewise · « **Reply #9 on:** August 18, 2010, 14:37 »

Quote from: Xalanx on August 18, 2010, 13:55

From my experience - SS makes weird changes to their search engine, every once in a while. This, added to the mass of new files in some periods (like NOW for example) can lead to a plateau in sales. The criteria at the base of their SEO is very well hidden but sometimes returns very weird and ugly stuff. It's so random that I'm thinking its hand-made, not done by an algorithm - perhaps this is the way they choose to "refresh" first pages of the most popular. We'll never know, remember that it's one of the few agencies that doesn't even let us know the number of views per file (among other things).

Yeah I did see weird stuff happening - most popular pages sometimes have a God-awful images included, clearly there not because of number of downloads. Also made me think that someone's messing up with stuff manually. Ah well. I wonder what's their earnings as an agency for the past year for example? If they report increase in sales, they must be doing it on new images mostly. Or some set of portfolios that clearly doesn't include mine:)

Quote from: Xalanx on August 18, 2010, 13:55

Oh and btw - your portfolio is absolutely awesome, but you already know that

Thank you:)

gostwyck · « **Reply #10 on:** August 18, 2010, 15:05 »

Quote from: Elenathewise on August 18, 2010, 11:59

This has nothing to do with the summer slowdown.
With over 10, 000 images in my portfolio currently I see a troublesome trend on Shutterstock - my sales are practically the same there as they were 2 years ago, when my portfolio size was about 6,000. So adding extra 4,000 images just kept me afloat there.

Yes, but in the same timescale SS have probably increased the size of their library by 3x. Over many, many months now they've been adding new images at the rate of 80-100K per week which equates to 4-5M per year. Against those numbers I'm only surprised that our income hasn't fallen further although that's probably a reflection of how many truly pathetic images SS accepts from 'contributors' that clearly haven't got a clue. I really don't know why they waste their bandwidth and reviewing costs on such idiots. Such images always contain vast amounts of spam in their keywords too and they just clutter the searches and make the good stuff harder to find.

With over 5 years under my belt and 4K images online my 'growth' has turned negative since March. However for the last 30 months SS have certainly maintained their contribution to my total income relative to the other agencies. They've averaged about 27% of total income over that period and this month are actually projected at over 30%.

Kone · « **Reply #11 on:** August 18, 2010, 16:21 »

I have close to 6000 photos on SS. Accepted to SS in 2006.
I have seen an increase at SS every month until July of last year. Almost every month was better than the previous. But I count only the total monthly income, I upload almost regularly. Since July 2009, my income went down by 20%. I blame economics for this.

Dreamstime is way down for me,
Fotolia is OK,
Istock is down 25%,

Cheers

Dreamframer · « **Reply #12 on:** August 18, 2010, 17:04 »

I think it's because of SS search engine that prefers new images. The pattern is going like this:
We submit images, and suddenly have few more sales, because our images appear in most popular files (best match). But very soon, these images get buried, and they sell rarely. So, our number of sales depends mostly on the frequency of your uploading, and less on the total number of images we have in our ports.

Most of other agencies have different model for most popular images (best match). Let's take an IS for example. Their most popular files stick to the top even if they are several years old giving much more exposure to the contributors who submitted them. When we upload new files, they don't sell immediately because almost no one sees them. But files with several downloads slowly get more and more exposure, and continue to live, giving us more earnings in time.

sharpshot · « **Reply #13 on:** August 18, 2010, 18:03 »

I agree, they have more of a bias towards new images, so old ones don't sell as well as they do on the other sites and it becomes harder to increase earnings. I don't mind though, it wouldn't be good if all the sites did the same thing.

Elenathewise · « **Reply #14 on:** August 18, 2010, 19:01 »

Quote from: gostwyck on August 18, 2010, 15:05

Yes, but in the same timescale SS have probably increased the size of their library by 3x. Over many, many months now they've been adding new images at the rate of 80-100K per week which equates to 4-5M per year. Against those numbers I'm only surprised that our income hasn't fallen further although that's probably a reflection of how many truly pathetic images SS accepts from 'contributors' that clearly haven't got a clue. I really don't know why they waste their bandwidth and reviewing costs on such idiots. Such images always contain vast amounts of spam in their keywords too and they just clutter the searches and make the good stuff harder to find.

With over 5 years under my belt and 4K images online my 'growth' has turned negative since March. However for the last 30 months SS have certainly maintained their contribution to my total income relative to the other agencies. They've averaged about 27% of total income over that period and this month are actually projected at over 30%.

Yes, they do add a lot of images, but so do other agencies, right? I do see growth on FT and IS (and a few others) - the more I upload, the more I sell - not steep of course, giving the percentage of new files relative to the portfolio size, but looking back a couple of years I see significant increase in number of downloads. But not with Shutterstock. Not seeing a significant increase in downloads with almost doubling the portfolio size over 2 years is really strange... Actually the subscription downloads even decreased compared to what they used to be, the earnings stayed the same because of enhanced and on-demand downloads.
For me they are about 20% of my income. Which is way less than they used to be in 2008.

Pixart · « **Reply #15 on:** August 18, 2010, 20:30 »

A small factor is that SS has pretty much maintained the same acceptance standards through this period and FT/IS have really tightened theirs. Higher percentage of new files to compete with at SS? I'm willing to bet that you have quite a superb acceptance rate so you likely have similar numbers at the three sites, but for me FT won't take many "people-less" shots (they take maybe 60% of what SS accepts). Have your individual downloads increased accordingly on FT/IS, or RPD or a combination?

Elenathewise · « **Reply #16 on:** August 18, 2010, 21:47 »

Quote from: Pixart on August 18, 2010, 20:30

A small factor is that SS has pretty much maintained the same acceptance standards through this period and FT/IS have really tightened theirs. Higher percentage of new files to compete with at SS? I'm willing to bet that you have quite a superb acceptance rate so you likely have similar numbers at the three sites, but for me FT won't take many "people-less" shots (they take maybe 60% of what SS accepts). Have your individual downloads increased accordingly on FT/IS, or RPD or a combination?

I have almost the same number of files on FT and SS, less files on IS (because of upload limits). I upload less files per month to IS than to other agencies for the same reason.
Here are the numbers for downloads:

Istockphoto:
March 2008 - 2020
March 2009 - 2362
March 2010 - 3156 (regular file purchases)

Shutterstock:
March 2008 - 6882
March 2009 - 5770
March 2010 - 5852

See what I mean? The size of portfolio increased 4000 images on Shutterstock; for Istock about 2000 images. Number of downloads on Shutterstock actually fell since 2008, but earnings remain the same (due to enhanced downloads here and there).
But no growth. For 2 years. Which means if didn't keep uploading I would see the sales actually go down, by 40% or so.

ceeker · « **Reply #17 on:** August 18, 2010, 23:44 »

I have a small portfolio - 500+ images, but even I have noticed a similar trend:

My Downloads on SS over the last year despite an increase of 50-60 images/month except in April and May. There is a Peak in Jan, but overall no real growth

(Portfolio grew from 180 images to 580 images in this period):

OCT 09: 278
NOV 09: 271
DEC 09: 313
JAN 10: 436
FEB 10: 354
MAR 10: 350
APR 10: 188
MAY 10: 241
JUNE 10: 218
JULY 10: 198

I am begining to wonder if the remedy for this is IStock Exclusivity. Given Getty's Track record with RM market years ago, my guess is that they will control the majority of the market within a few years anyway...

sharpshot · « **Reply #18 on:** August 19, 2010, 02:27 »

I'm sure another factor is that SS had little competition with subs a few years ago. Since then, FT, DT, StockXpert, photos.com and TS have taken some of their market share. They have fought back with PPD but has that replaced all their lost revenue?

Some of my images that sell well on the PPD sites are lost in the SS search and rarely sell. I used to like the Lucky Oliver side bar, where people with enough sales could put a percentage of their portfolio in to a section that randomly appeared on the first search page. Something like that could make SS and us more money and perhaps give people more incentive to remain non-exclusive.

Microbius · « **Reply #19 on:** August 19, 2010, 03:11 »

Yup SS has been on the decline for individual contributors for years.
Not to say that that necessarily ties in with any problems for SS as a company. They could well be laughing all the way to the bank as the explosion in numbers of contributors might mean they are selling just as many, or more, subs but just having to payout less as less people reach payout or are on the lower percentage tiers.

andresr · « **Reply #20 on:** August 19, 2010, 10:09 »

Quote from: lisafx on August 18, 2010, 13:23

I have 6k images and 5+ years in microstock. I am seeing the same stagnation at SS, however my portfolio seems to have "hit the wall" on all sites in the past several months.

I reported in the July Stats thread that over the past year I have added 36% to my portfolio and overall income has dropped by 21%. So in the case of SS, merely being stagnant doesn't look so bad.

FWIW, if you had asked this in March of this year I would have had a much rosier picture to report. I really don't know how much of this is the economy, or summer slowdown, or simply point of diminishing returns. I would wait until October or so to get a better idea of sales patterns.

I am seeing a similar pattern Lisa. But I think number of sales in microstock has never actually gone higher that much. What has gone up is the costs of images to buyers and thus our comissions.
I just simply dont understand why this trend of putting up prices stopped all of a sudden. Shutterstock could make double or triple if they did a proper size set for buyers from $1 to $15 like other agencies rather than having just 2 sizes at very low prices, same applies to bigstock.

123rf has NEVER put prices up which is annoying, an XXL for $5?

DT could easily stretch their higher levels, instead of charging 4,5,6,7 and 8 for xs, s, m, l and xl they could charge 4, 6 , 8, 10 and 14 for example, and coule keep stretching them year by year ....... They could also introduce a premium collection like FT and istock, shutterstock could do the same.

Fotolia stopped us from growing the minute they changed the ranking levels.

Istock is hardly worth it anymore unless you are exclusive.

I have been slowly stopping to shoot for micro and looking for more avenues as there is no sign of possibilities to grow sales within the agencies we used to so submit images to. My income has grown but it has grown because I have more distributors, and I will be shooting for the traditional market, at least 80% of my work will go there. It has been a very frustrating year in microstock, but yet exciting in the rest of the stock industry.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #21 on:** August 19, 2010, 10:25 »

Quote from: andresr on August 19, 2010, 10:09

I have been slowly stopping to shoot for micro and looking for more avenues as there is no sign of possibilities to grow sales within the agencies we used to so submit images to. My income has grown but it has grown because I have more distributors, and I will be shooting for the traditional market, at least 80% of my work will go there. It has been a very frustrating year in microstock, but yet exciting in the rest of the stock industry.

Maybe because you're cannibalizing your own sales. Looking at your latest in IS, it looks like you're just reshooting groups on white, girls with phones, business people. So, people buy the newer one, or the older one, but they don't need both.

What are you doing differently for the "traditional" market, and where? My Getty sales are less than encouraging, as well, the contributor side of the workflow (stats, sales data) is very unhelpful.

andresr · « **Reply #22 on:** August 19, 2010, 10:43 »

Quote from: sjlocke on August 19, 2010, 10:25

Quote from: andresr on August 19, 2010, 10:09
I have been slowly stopping to shoot for micro and looking for more avenues as there is no sign of possibilities to grow sales within the agencies we used to so submit images to. My income has grown but it has grown because I have more distributors, and I will be shooting for the traditional market, at least 80% of my work will go there. It has been a very frustrating year in microstock, but yet exciting in the rest of the stock industry.

Maybe because you're cannibalizing your own sales. Looking at your latest in IS, it looks like you're just reshooting groups on white, girls with phones, business people. So, people buy the newer one, or the older one, but they don't need both.

What are you doing differently for the "traditional" market, and where? My Getty sales are less than encouraging, as well, the contributor side of the workflow (stats, sales data) is very unhelpful.

Yeah that's partly true ..... I'm leaving the different stuff for traditional places or premium collections. I have tried uploading different topics in micro and there is simply too much supply and not enough demand anymore so I am just shooting to mantain sales while I try to make the other avenues as profitable as micro once was for me.
A really good image even if it's "Different" will sell 12 times at the most on a day in shutterstock just after uploading, I use to see 48 dls in a day for a good image.

lefty · « **Reply #23 on:** August 19, 2010, 10:59 »

Quote from: andresr on August 19, 2010, 10:43

Quote from: sjlocke on August 19, 2010, 10:25
Quote from: andresr on August 19, 2010, 10:09
I have been slowly stopping to shoot for micro and looking for more avenues as there is no sign of possibilities to grow sales within the agencies we used to so submit images to. My income has grown but it has grown because I have more distributors, and I will be shooting for the traditional market, at least 80% of my work will go there. It has been a very frustrating year in microstock, but yet exciting in the rest of the stock industry.

Maybe because you're cannibalizing your own sales. Looking at your latest in IS, it looks like you're just reshooting groups on white, girls with phones, business people. So, people buy the newer one, or the older one, but they don't need both.

What are you doing differently for the "traditional" market, and where? My Getty sales are less than encouraging, as well, the contributor side of the workflow (stats, sales data) is very unhelpful.

Yeah that's partly true ..... I'm leaving the different stuff for traditional places or premium collections. I have tried uploading different topics in micro and there is simply too much supply and not enough demand anymore so I am just shooting to mantain sales while I try to make the other avenues as profitable as micro once was for me.
A really good image even if it's "Different" will sell 12 times at the most on a day in shutterstock just after uploading, I use to see 48 dls in a day for a good image.

Good point by sjlocke. Also I remember sjlocke say somewhere too it is not Shutterstock not growing over time, it is seller's piece ofpie is smaller
because more supply by new contributors with better idea. Or maybe another Istock quote , the drop of sales for specific contributor is not
indication that agency sales is bad , only the contributor share of commission is in decrease.

andresr · « **Reply #24 on:** August 19, 2010, 11:05 »

Quote from: lefty on August 19, 2010, 10:59

Quote from: andresr on August 19, 2010, 10:43
Quote from: sjlocke on August 19, 2010, 10:25
Quote from: andresr on August 19, 2010, 10:09
I have been slowly stopping to shoot for micro and looking for more avenues as there is no sign of possibilities to grow sales within the agencies we used to so submit images to. My income has grown but it has grown because I have more distributors, and I will be shooting for the traditional market, at least 80% of my work will go there. It has been a very frustrating year in microstock, but yet exciting in the rest of the stock industry.

Maybe because you're cannibalizing your own sales. Looking at your latest in IS, it looks like you're just reshooting groups on white, girls with phones, business people. So, people buy the newer one, or the older one, but they don't need both.

What are you doing differently for the "traditional" market, and where? My Getty sales are less than encouraging, as well, the contributor side of the workflow (stats, sales data) is very unhelpful.

Yeah that's partly true ..... I'm leaving the different stuff for traditional places or premium collections. I have tried uploading different topics in micro and there is simply too much supply and not enough demand anymore so I am just shooting to mantain sales while I try to make the other avenues as profitable as micro once was for me.
A really good image even if it's "Different" will sell 12 times at the most on a day in shutterstock just after uploading, I use to see 48 dls in a day for a good image.

Good point by sjlocke. Also I remember sjlocke say somewhere too it is not Shutterstock not growing over time, it is seller's piece ofpie is smaller
because more supply by new contributors with better idea. Or maybe another Istock quote , the drop of sales for specific contributor is not
indication that agency sales is bad , only the contributor share of commission is in decrease.

Yeah all true, and it could be easily mended by making adjustments but all the agencies are scared of making the first step as they think they will loose market share ..... I think it will benefit everyone, higher prices = higher budgets = better quality images.

Elenathewise · « **Reply #25 on:** August 19, 2010, 11:38 »

Quote from: lefty on August 19, 2010, 10:59

Good point by sjlocke. Also I remember sjlocke say somewhere too it is not Shutterstock not growing over time, it is seller's piece ofpie is smaller
because more supply by new contributors with better idea. Or maybe another Istock quote , the drop of sales for specific contributor is not
indication that agency sales is bad , only the contributor share of commission is in decrease.

Yup that's why I am trying to find out if anyone's sales actually increased (at least proportionally to number of uploaded images) over the last couple years. So far among the contributors with big mature portfolios I see only reports of decrease or stagnation. The only increase was reported by Xalanx, but looks like it's a fairly new portfolio just getting "up to speed". If newer contributors report increase and older - decrease, that would indicate SS is making most money on selling new images by new contributors with lower payout rates.

As to quality of images, Andres, I don't think they care. Many of the people (not all:)) working for the micro agencies wouldn't tell a good image if it bit them from behind. Many of the customers don't need high quality images. And many agencies see low prices as the only way to compete.
I have also considered moving to macros mostly. But my sales on Getty and other macros are not that impressive.
I think that's it, dudes - we are screwed:)

lagereek · « **Reply #26 on:** August 19, 2010, 11:51 »

They have all hit the wall! some more others. Maybe its time for a new concept? Its got nothing to do with summertime, its been and gone. My thought are somewhat differant, I believe that if you constantly, year after year service buyers with lousy search-engines, having to wade through tons of irrelevant material, rising prices, this and that. It will take its toll.
SS have always been a great earner for me, no complaints but I totally agree, sales have not grown one bit, contrary I earned more from them a year ago inspite of lots of uploads.

sharpshot · « **Reply #27 on:** August 19, 2010, 11:54 »

Quote from: andresr on August 19, 2010, 11:05

....higher prices = higher budgets = better quality images.

I would like to think it works like that but are we now seeing,
higher prices = Less sales = decreased earnings?

And if the sites try the old trick or raising prices and lowering commissions or moving the canister levels, will we end up even worse off?

I still think the solution to all our problems would be to stop supplying sites that are paying low commissions, start our own site and we wouldn't have to pay huge fees to owners and share holders. Buyers would soon go to where all the best images are. Unfortunately not many people share that dream

sharpshot · « **Reply #28 on:** August 19, 2010, 11:58 »

Quote from: lagereek on August 19, 2010, 11:51

...Its got nothing to do with summertime, its been and gone...

August is summertime in the UK and I think for a lot of Europe. The schools don't go back until September, most people are on vacation. I definitely wont panic until the end of September, I think there's still a chance that this is just a slow summer, as sales were great earlier in the year.

gostwyck · « **Reply #29 on:** August 19, 2010, 12:07 »

Quote from: Elenathewise on August 19, 2010, 11:38

I think that's it, dudes - we are screwed:)

Yep __ basically that's it in a nutshell. We might be able to work harder, smarter and for longer but ultimately the best we can hope to do is delay the inevitable. Supply is exceeding demand and no individual contributor can increase their output enough to make a significant difference.

neotakezo · « **Reply #30 on:** August 19, 2010, 12:09 »

Quote from: Elenathewise on August 18, 2010, 14:37

Yeah I did see weird stuff happening - most popular pages sometimes have a God-awful images included <snip> Or some set of portfolios that clearly doesn't include mine:)

This is obviously the case...after all Mike Ledray's shots "Sell like hotcakes"

gostwyck · « **Reply #31 on:** August 19, 2010, 12:30 »

Quote from: andresr on August 19, 2010, 11:05

Yeah all true, and it could be easily mended by making adjustments but all the agencies are scared of making the first step as they think they will loose market share ..... I think it will benefit everyone, higher prices = higher budgets = better quality images.

Yes maybe, in an ideal world, but in the real world prices are driven by supply and demand. Right now the successful agencies are already making eye-wateringly high profits so why should they endanger things by being too greedy?

Isn't it actually the massive output of 'photo factories' like yourself that is doing more damage than anyone else? Collectively we are all driving down prices by making stock images so abundant. It'll only be when prices go so low and/or sales so slow that the higher-cost production outfits will scale output back.

Elenathewise · « **Reply #32 on:** August 19, 2010, 13:08 »

Actually, it's just became clear to me, from all that was said here, there seems to be a very good explanation.
Shutterstock pays 25c (?) per download to new and low-selling contributors.
The best-selling ones and older ones with many sales are paid 38 per download.
Now, if I was looking for ANY (including slightly scummy) way to increase my profits, I would realize that 25c is about 65% of the 38c payout and would try to serve the customers mostly 25c images, thus increasing my profits. I would throw in a few real best-sellers in the search results so it won't be all crap, but many customers are satisfied with low quality images anyway, so it wouldn't be a big issue.

Here - Shutterstock getting their increase in profits, most customers are OK with mediocre images, the only ones that are getting screwed are hard working photographers with big high quality portfolios! The ones that helped making Shutterstock into what it is today. Ironic, isn't it?

Ha. That explains ugly stuff in the "best sellers" search. That explains leveling off the profits for old portfolios. That explains Shutterstock reporting that they are doing well. That explains new people seeing good increase in sales.

Disclaimer - this is just my theory, I don't have any official confirmation of this (and I don't think I'd ever get one), but I am pretty convinced that that's the case. See, my formal education is Ph.D. in Physics, I can tell a good theory when I see one:)

gostwyck · « **Reply #33 on:** August 19, 2010, 14:10 »

Quote from: Elenathewise on August 19, 2010, 13:08

Actually, it's just became clear to me, from all that was said here, there seems to be a very good explanation.
Shutterstock pays 25c (?) per download to new and low-selling contributors.
The best-selling ones and older ones with many sales are paid 38 per download.
Now, if I was looking ANY (including slightly scummy) way to increase my profits, I would realize that 25c is about 65% of the 38c payout and would try to serve the customers mostly 25c images, thus increasing my profits. I would throw in a few real best-sellers in the search results so it won't be all crap, but many customers are satisfied with low quality images anyway, so it wouldn't be a big issue.

Here - Shutterstock getting their increase in profits, most customers are OK with mediocre images, the only ones that are getting screwed are hard working photographers with big high quality portfolios! The ones that helped making Shutterstock into what it is today. Ironic, isn't it?

Ha. That explains ugly stuff in the "best sellers" search. That explains leveling off the profits for old portfolios. That explains Shutterstock reporting that they are doing well. That explains new people seeing good increase in sales.

Disclaimer - this is just my theory, I don't have any official confirmation of this (and I don't think I'd ever get one), but I am pretty convinced that that's the case. See, my formal education is Ph.D. in Physics, I can tell a good theory when I see one:)

^^^ SS can't win can they? They arrange commissions to reward their most productive and successful contributors ... and those same contributors then accuse them of artificially rigging the sort order to minimise payments.

I don't believe that is happening. SS is a staggeringly successful business model and I'm sure it is extremely profitable without resorting to fraudulent activities. If Jon was in it to make a quick buck he could have sold out for tens of millions of $'s years ago. Instead he's done the opposite and acquired BigStock.

lagereek · « **Reply #34 on:** August 19, 2010, 14:26 »

Quote from: gostwyck on August 19, 2010, 14:10

Quote from: Elenathewise on August 19, 2010, 13:08
Actually, it's just became clear to me, from all that was said here, there seems to be a very good explanation.
Shutterstock pays 25c (?) per download to new and low-selling contributors.
The best-selling ones and older ones with many sales are paid 38 per download.
Now, if I was looking ANY (including slightly scummy) way to increase my profits, I would realize that 25c is about 65% of the 38c payout and would try to serve the customers mostly 25c images, thus increasing my profits. I would throw in a few real best-sellers in the search results so it won't be all crap, but many customers are satisfied with low quality images anyway, so it wouldn't be a big issue.

Here - Shutterstock getting their increase in profits, most customers are OK with mediocre images, the only ones that are getting screwed are hard working photographers with big high quality portfolios! The ones that helped making Shutterstock into what it is today. Ironic, isn't it?

Ha. That explains ugly stuff in the "best sellers" search. That explains leveling off the profits for old portfolios. That explains Shutterstock reporting that they are doing well. That explains new people seeing good increase in sales.

Disclaimer - this is just my theory, I don't have any official confirmation of this (and I don't think I'd ever get one), but I am pretty convinced that that's the case. See, my formal education is Ph.D. in Physics, I can tell a good theory when I see one:)

^^^ SS can't win can they? They arrange commissions to reward their most productive and successful contributors ... and those same contributors then accuse them of artificially rigging the sort order to minimise payments.

I don't believe that is happening. SS is a staggeringly successful business model and I'm sure it is extremely profitable without resorting to fraudulent activities. If Jon was in it to make a quick buck he could have sold out for tens of millions of $'s years ago. Instead he's done the opposite and acquired BigStock.

Yes I agree. I dont think anyone is purposly screwing us, not even worth it. We look in tealeafs and tarrot cards here, trying to predict, coming up with one scenario after another. It might just be that its a piss poor business at the moment. I mean its not just one, its all of them, including RF and RM.
Although as I said earlier, lousy search-engines and price rises certainly doesnt help.

Elenathewise · « **Reply #35 on:** August 19, 2010, 14:32 »

Quote from: gostwyck on August 19, 2010, 14:10

Quote from: Elenathewise on August 19, 2010, 13:08
Actually, it's just became clear to me, from all that was said here, there seems to be a very good explanation.
Shutterstock pays 25c (?) per download to new and low-selling contributors.
The best-selling ones and older ones with many sales are paid 38 per download.
Now, if I was looking ANY (including slightly scummy) way to increase my profits, I would realize that 25c is about 65% of the 38c payout and would try to serve the customers mostly 25c images, thus increasing my profits. I would throw in a few real best-sellers in the search results so it won't be all crap, but many customers are satisfied with low quality images anyway, so it wouldn't be a big issue.

Here - Shutterstock getting their increase in profits, most customers are OK with mediocre images, the only ones that are getting screwed are hard working photographers with big high quality portfolios! The ones that helped making Shutterstock into what it is today. Ironic, isn't it?

Ha. That explains ugly stuff in the "best sellers" search. That explains leveling off the profits for old portfolios. That explains Shutterstock reporting that they are doing well. That explains new people seeing good increase in sales.

Disclaimer - this is just my theory, I don't have any official confirmation of this (and I don't think I'd ever get one), but I am pretty convinced that that's the case. See, my formal education is Ph.D. in Physics, I can tell a good theory when I see one:)

^^^ SS can't win can they? They arrange commissions to reward their most productive and successful contributors ... and those same contributors then accuse them of artificially rigging the sort order to minimise payments.

I don't believe that is happening. SS is a staggeringly successful business model and I'm sure it is extremely profitable without resorting to fraudulent activities. If Jon was in it to make a quick buck he could have sold out for tens of millions of $'s years ago. Instead he's done the opposite and acquired BigStock.

Oh, I am not saying it's fraudulent. They are not doing anything illegal or anything that violates the contributor agreement. They can serve images in whatever order they want. And yes, they are winning big time:) And it's the only explanation that fits all the facts - for now; maybe there is a better one, but I don't see it.
They arranged commissions to reward most productive and successful contributors and then they made sure that their files are not selling too often to reduce the payouts. It's not a quick-buck, it's a nicely working business scheme.... it just smells a bit in my opinion...

gostwyck · « **Reply #36 on:** August 19, 2010, 14:59 »

Quote from: Elenathewise on August 19, 2010, 14:32

Oh, I am not saying it's fraudulent. They are not doing anything illegal or anything that violates the contributor agreement. They can serve images in whatever order they want. And yes, they are winning big time:) And it's the only explanation that fits all the facts - for now; maybe there is a better one, but I don't see it.
They arranged commissions to reward most productive and successful contributors and then they made sure that their files are not selling too often to reduce the payouts. It's not a quick-buck, it's a nicely working business scheme.... it just smells a bit in my opinion...

But you can see where your images appear in the sort order and whether they deserve to be in relation to the other images (and how the results concur with similar searches on other agencies). You and I both do some food subjects for example and I often see your images competing with mine on the front page of a search, along with a couple of other major players. Virtually every search on popular food subjects is hugely dominated by a relatively few of us, and all of us on the 38c rate.

When I do a search on 'business team' or anything similar then the page is awash with images from Yuri, Andres, et al __ as you'd expect.

Both IS and FT have similar incentives to favour lower ranking artists over others __ but I'm sure they don't.

Major players like you are the lifeblood of SS and similar agencies. It is in Jon's interest to pay you as much as the business model allows because the worst thing that can happen, from his point of view, is for you to go exclusive with IS. I am sure that Jon is well aware how close that little equation has been over the years.

djpadavona · « **Reply #37 on:** August 19, 2010, 15:00 »

Quote from: Elenathewise on August 19, 2010, 13:08

Shutterstock pays 25c (?) per download to new and low-selling contributors.
The best-selling ones and older ones with many sales are paid 38 per download.
Now, if I was looking ANY (including slightly scummy) way to increase my profits, I would realize that 25c is about 65% of the 38c payout and would try to serve the customers mostly 25c images, thus increasing my profits. I would throw in a few real best-sellers in the search results so it won't be all crap, but many customers are satisfied with low quality images anyway, so it wouldn't be a big issue.

I don't know Jon Oringer but I can't imagine him doing something like this. FWIW Shutterstock treated me terrificly for the 3 years I was there. I just took a look at the Most Popular images in the categories I used to compete in, and I recognize a lot of the images and their authors. Most have been there a very long time, so I would assume they are all in the 36c or 38c camp.

I do see a few newbies sprinkled in, which may mean they are trying to give exposure to new files in a way that doesn't include changing the sort to "Newest First." Which is a smart thing to do, as it gives buyers something new to look at when they log in and keeps the sorts fresh. I'm not ready to scream conspiracy.

For the same argument at DT and IS, it makes more sense for both those agencies to sell non-exclusive images due to the lower commission percentage offered to them. But both DT and IS favor exclusives in their sorts to one degree or another. Neither appears to be taking the "low road," so I don't see why SS would be expected to.

Snufkin · « **Reply #38 on:** August 19, 2010, 15:02 »

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand that IN THE LONG RUN SS's model is not sustainable for contributors.
I realized that during my first month there, but in 2008 they were turning virtually everything into dollars so I didn't mind and I don't mind it now. Face the music, you will never be able to keep up with the growth of their collection no matter how good you are. Shutterstock is not a freaking perpetuum mobile for the photographers, it's supposed to earn money to the owners in the first place.

Until they introduced ODs, they didn't earn money when a customer bought your photo, but when he didn't.
In this model the money is made when a subscription is sold, and later this amount is split between the agency and the contributors.
It is not in the interest of the agency that the customers download your images, quite the opposite. Of course ELs and now ODs are an exception, but I suppose most of the income comes from subs.

I also supposed that the search engine might be biased towards newbies - because it would make sense from a business point of view. Even if it is, so what? IS can favour exclusives, SS can favour newbies if they wish.

Do I like SS? Yes, I do, it's a great site, in their own way they are very contributor-friendly and quite fair. I just don't rely on them for my pension.

sharpshot · « **Reply #39 on:** August 19, 2010, 15:10 »

I remember when we were all on $0.25 and it doesn't seem any different to now. A theory has to be proved or at least well tested before I will believe in it.

lefty · « **Reply #40 on:** August 19, 2010, 15:16 »

I am sorry I do not understand everyhting but I don't agree Shutterstock is not viable business. It is same to say because McDonald sell cheap food they cannot survive, but we know that story who is right.
Shutterstock keep old seller but also encorage new seller with potential. So this very intelligent business model because you cannot sustain growth without new idea.
If oldest member quit because they don't sell as much in comparising, it is only smart move to appease new members to fill void left . So, ok, one or two big sellers leave big hole in Shutterstock inventory becayse old stock is not selling so well.
Quick to response with new contributors to fill void , and yes, they sell new stock fast with instant approval instant sales. New contributors encouragement continue to feed the beast. Why not? You do the same for IStock, and other agency , no?
My thinking only. Shutterstock why so successful. It is not dying. Dying maybe for you, but not for Shutterstock and many contributors. I think that is why inventory continue to grow. It is why they never lose Place #1.

Phil · « **Reply #41 on:** August 19, 2010, 15:57 »

5700 images on ss, started 2007.

My income is still increasing, doubling my port has seen about 20% increase since 2008. The images going on now though are miles better than what I was submitting then. The increase though is not subs sales which used to be much higher (I remember thinking it was good for a new image to get 20+ sales in a day, once ot twice I got 50 subs sales on a single image. Now it is good for me if I can get 5) the increased income is increase commission rate and mostly because of ppd sales.

I still earn the same on DT that did then, and still only about 75% of what I earn't on istock. Overall I earn the same.

ap · « **Reply #42 on:** August 19, 2010, 16:07 »

Quote from: Phil on August 19, 2010, 15:57

5700 images on ss, started 2007.

My income is still increasing, doubling my port has seen about 20% increase since 2008. The images going on now though are miles better than what I was submitting then. The increase though is not subs sales which used to be much higher (I remember thinking it was good for a new image to get 20+ sales in a day, once ot twice I got 50 subs sales on a single image. Now it is good for me if I can get 5) the increased income is increase commission rate and mostly because of ppd sales.

50 a day, wow... i started only a year ago and i guess the gravy train has already left the station for 5/day on the same image is something i have not achieved yet.

on a brighter note, my sales have increased at a much higher rate than my upload rate, consistently. although i'm currently at tier 2 pricing, it hasn't affected sales at all. bme and bde.

Elenathewise · « **Reply #43 on:** August 19, 2010, 16:16 »

Sigh... Noone saying Shutterstock is not viable business - on the contrary, they are very successful as a business. Noone saying there is a "conspiracy" or fraud or anything like that, for God's sake:)
And no - I am not taking my portfolio off Shutterstock, don't hold your breath:)
The reason for this thread was - there was a strange trend in SS sales and searches that I couldn't explain. I was wondering if other people with similar portfolios and years in business observed that trend too. Since I got several confirmations of the same trend, I speculated on how this can be explained. I am not attacking Shutterstock or telling them how to do their business. We all signed a contributor's agreement that allows the agencies (not only SS) a lot of freedom on what to do with the images we supply.
I don't want to open another can of worms and give examples of what FT does that I also find borderline ethical. Big companies always try to increase profits and often enough the means are not quite ... well, let's put it this way: crystal honest. So - calm down people:) Nothing unusual here. I got my answer, thank you every one who participated!

Phil · « **Reply #44 on:** August 19, 2010, 16:23 »

sorry, those sales were in late 2007 (my first year

- one image - a metal background LOL got 52 sales in a day and another image 44. got 20+ a couple of dozen times.

ap · « **Reply #45 on:** August 19, 2010, 16:27 »

sweet (memories)!

grp_photo · « **Reply #46 on:** August 20, 2010, 01:13 »

Out of interest for those of you which are not satisfied with their sales at Getty (I think it was Elenethewise and SJlocke) do you sell mainly RF and RM and in which collection your pictures are mainly?

Elenathewise · « **Reply #47 on:** August 20, 2010, 14:00 »

Sure - I was invited to participate in "Photographer choice" which means you have to pay 50 dollars placement fee per image. They allowed me to submit 10 images for free, and then there is this "sell one submit one for free" thingy, but I wasn't able to grow my portfolio much. I did have a few sales and submitted a few more images and also put all the money I earned there back, but I still have only about 30 images there, sold as RM. Which I know is not at all any reasonable set to make conclusions from, but even the fact that it's hard to grow the portfolio without investing huge amounts of money speaks for itself....

Kngkyle · « **Reply #48 on:** August 20, 2010, 14:45 »

I remember when I first started at Shutterstock in 2007 I used to get like 20+ downloads a day with only 50 images in my portfolio, and all of them being absolute trash. I ended up spending 2007 and the first half of 2008 just creating trash for Shutterstock. Then I got into submitting to the other sites and stopped feeding the beast.

Sad thing is Shutterstock would still likely accept all that crap. I'd imagine 70%+ of the images uploaded on Shutterstock are subpar and would be rejected by iStock.

sharpshot · « **Reply #49 on:** August 20, 2010, 17:58 »

Quote from: Kngkyle on August 20, 2010, 14:45

...I'd imagine 70%+ of the images uploaded on Shutterstock are subpar and would be rejected by iStock.

But my new trash still sells with SS, virtually everything that gets accepted sells for me. Most of my new images with istock haven't sold since they did a best match change over a year ago now.

leaf · « **Reply #50 on:** August 23, 2010, 06:35 »

Contrary to many people, I think shutterstock has a great search algorithm. I think there is nothing more frustrating than on other sites where you upload a pile of photos you put a lot of work into, they end up on page 10 of the search results and never see the light of day.

On shutterstock, new images are put on page one when they get a few sales, as well as previously proven best sellers. If the new image is really great it will stay on top with the best sellers. If the image wasn't so hot, it won't last long on the top and will sift to the bottom. I think the shutterstock method at least gives new images a chance.

Smithore · « **Reply #51 on:** August 23, 2010, 10:07 »

Shutterstock simply killed the microstock market by starting subscription system with very low earnings for photographers, the others agencies have done exactly the same stupidity few time after, that's all. Today Alamy have also 25c royalties pictures...
Only istock seems to be a real agency, that's the only one who double your earnings/year when you regularly uploading new files.

lisafx · « **Reply #52 on:** August 23, 2010, 10:22 »

Quote from: Smithore on August 23, 2010, 10:07

Shutterstock simply killed the microstock market by starting subscription system with very low earnings for photographers

Wasn't Shutterstock the second microstock agency EVER? After Istock? How can they have "killed the market" when they were one of the very first models to create the market?

Smithore · « **Reply #53 on:** August 23, 2010, 10:39 »

Quote

Wasn't Shutterstock the second microstock agency EVER? After Istock? How can they have "killed the market" when they were one of the very first models to create the market?

Microstocks market is live till the 70's, shutterstock was simply one of the first established on web. If earnings don't grow anymore, the model is already obsolete.

gostwyck · « **Reply #54 on:** August 23, 2010, 10:59 »

Quote from: Smithore on August 23, 2010, 10:07

Shutterstock simply killed the microstock market by starting subscription system with very low earnings for photographers, the others agencies have done exactly the same stupidity few time after, that's all. Today Alamy have also 25c royalties pictures...
Only istock seems to be a real agency, that's the only one who double your earnings/year when you regularly uploading new files.

Sub agencies were around for years before SS. Previously though they were always wholly-owned content, as indeed was SS until it had the bright idea to open it's doors to contributors. SS hasn't 'killed the microstock market' anyway __ for most independent contributors it is their first or second largest earning agency. The problem we have now is massive over-supply which, if anything, suggests contributors are actually earning more than their efforts are really worth. We are probably experiencing a 'correction' at the moment which is likely to end up with many contributors finding it not worth their time & effort to continue.

rubyroo · « **Reply #55 on:** August 23, 2010, 11:09 »

Shutterstock makes up for the low commission by bringing in a high volume of sales - and it also sells On Demand and Extended Licences, as well as increasing the commission to the photographer at various stages as their individual sales grow. The way they operate makes it worthwhile, IMO.

Other agencies who are jumping on the 25c 'bandwagon' seem not to realise that there are compensating factors for photographers with Shutterstock, and until they understand that, I think they will find that many photographers won't join up and many will leave when they realise their sales are so low.

Smithore · « **Reply #56 on:** August 23, 2010, 11:16 »

Quote

Other agencies who are jumping on the 25c 'bandwagon' seem not to realise that there are compensating factors for photographers with Shutterstock, and until they understand that, I think they will find that many photographers won't join up and many will leave when they realise their sales are so low.

Yes, it's true!

Quote

The problem we have now is massive over-supply which, if anything, suggests contributors are actually earning more than their efforts are really worth. We are probably experiencing a 'correction' at the moment which is likely to end up with many contributors finding it not worth their time & effort to continue.

Absolutely, but do you think it's only to the contributors to change something?

lefty · « **Reply #57 on:** August 23, 2010, 13:38 »

Quote from: leaf on August 23, 2010, 06:35

Contrary to many people, I think shutterstock has a great search algorithm. I think there is nothing more frustrating than on other sites where you upload a pile of photos you put a lot of work into, they end up on page 10 of the search results and never see the light of day.

On shutterstock, new images are put on page one when they get a few sales, as well as previously proven best sellers. If the new image is really great it will stay on top with the best sellers. If the image wasn't so hot, it won't last long on the top and will sift to the bottom. I think the shutterstock method at least gives new images a chance.

Agree agree. Also like so many said Shutterstock is equal standing for all old and new contributor with no download information to bias buyers group think. So image stand on sellability. Not because I am Mr Big seller with big sale . You like my picture or you don't. So instant sale because it is what buyer want.
No surprise contrarian report sales drop but sales up for others , even new people.
Fair level field .

WarrenPrice · « **Reply #58 on:** August 23, 2010, 14:14 »

I've halfheartedly followed this thread, thinking that it doesn't really apply to me. I'm so new that I'm still growing in SS and, in microstock in general. What I might offer, however, is that I'm certainly not the only one. Someone had mentioned that the new folks would like get discouraged and find that it isn't worth the time and effort. That could be true. I can speak only for myself. I'm not ready to cash in ... or would that be cash out. This business is just now starting to look like a way to make a few buck while having fun. Besides, my hard disk and archaic film portfolio are filled with possibilities, possibilities that are just setting there gathering dust.

Maybe Shutterstock, and microstock in general, are aware of that. Maybe buyers are aware, and willing to consider less quality for many of the projects that are appearing more and more as internet ads than in slick magazine quality work.

I won't pretend to have the knowledge of those making their living here. And, I don't want to get SJLocke stirred up.

But, I am here for the long haul, especially since my sales are still climbing.

gbalex · « **Reply #59 on:** August 23, 2010, 15:22 »

Quote from: Elenathewise on August 19, 2010, 13:08

Actually, it's just became clear to me, from all that was said here, there seems to be a very good explanation.
Shutterstock pays 25c (?) per download to new and low-selling contributors.
The best-selling ones and older ones with many sales are paid 38 per download.
Now, if I was looking for ANY (including slightly scummy) way to increase my profits, I would realize that 25c is about 65% of the 38c payout and would try to serve the customers mostly 25c images, thus increasing my profits. I would throw in a few real best-sellers in the search results so it won't be all crap, but many customers are satisfied with low quality images anyway, so it wouldn't be a big issue.

Here - Shutterstock getting their increase in profits, most customers are OK with mediocre images, the only ones that are getting screwed are hard working photographers with big high quality portfolios! The ones that helped making Shutterstock into what it is today. Ironic, isn't it?

Ha. That explains ugly stuff in the "best sellers" search. That explains leveling off the profits for old portfolios. That explains Shutterstock reporting that they are doing well. That explains new people seeing good increase in sales.

Disclaimer - this is just my theory, I don't have any official confirmation of this (and I don't think I'd ever get one), but I am pretty convinced that that's the case. See, my formal education is Ph.D. in Physics, I can tell a good theory when I see one:)

About 6 months ago I noticed a substantial drop in sales for images that had 1000 to 2800 sales each. Those images used to get downloaded in numbers every day and now I am lucky if they are downloaded a few times a week!

Something has changed!

lisafx · « **Reply #60 on:** August 23, 2010, 17:26 »

Quote from: lefty on August 23, 2010, 13:38

Agree agree. Also like so many said Shutterstock is equal standing for all old and new contributor with no download information to bias buyers group think. So image stand on sellability. Not because I am Mr Big seller with big sale . You like my picture or you don't. So instant sale because it is what buyer want.
No surprise contrarian report sales drop but sales up for others , even new people.
Fair level field .

Agree with Lefty here. It is a very level playing field for all. And I think most contributors appreciate it. The sites that stack the deck have certainly earned a lot of ill will with many contributors. OTOH, nobody seems to feel they are getting a raw deal at SS.

Elenathewise · « **Reply #61 on:** August 23, 2010, 17:40 »

To all feeling the need to defend Shutterstock or badmouth it: it doesn't really matter, if they are "good" or "bad". The fact is (and I gave the numbers earlier) - my sales didn't grow there for the past 2 years, in spite of substantially increasing the portfolio.
They did grow proportionally to the number of uploaded images on other agencies, like FT and Istock.
That's a fact. SS may or may not have a good search algorithm, subscription may be good or bad thing, they could be good or bad to contributors, whatever your opinion is.
But sales on SS stopped growing in (second half of?) 2008 for big portfolios. I was trying to figure out why.
Maybe it's a result of losing market share. Maybe it's a result of trying to increase profits (as I speculated earlier). Maybe it's because their library is growing too fast and has a lot of redundant images in it.
Whatever it is, currently Fotolia and Istock are doing much better for me. And no matter what emotions we may have about this agency or the other, it's the sales that matter in the end.

lisafx · « **Reply #62 on:** August 23, 2010, 17:52 »

Quote from: Elenathewise on August 23, 2010, 17:40

But sales on SS stopped growing in (second half of?) 2008 for big portfolios. I was trying to figure out why.
Maybe it's a result of losing market share. Maybe it's a result of trying to increase profits (as I speculated earlier). Maybe it's because their library is growing too fast and has a lot of redundant images in it.
Whatever it is, currently Fotolia and Istock are doing much better for me. And no matter what emotions we may have about this agency or the other, it's the sales that matter in the end.

Elena, I think we all got the point of your thread. We have been discussing exactly those phenomena you mentioned for three pages now.

Are you expecting some sort of definitive answer here? Obviously none of us can give that to you and I expect you already understand that. All anyone here has to offer is their opinion. Feel free to pick and choose the ones you feel are most useful to you.

lefty · « **Reply #63 on:** August 23, 2010, 18:46 »

Quote from: lisafx on August 23, 2010, 17:26

Quote from: lefty on August 23, 2010, 13:38

Agree agree. Also like so many said Shutterstock is equal standing for all old and new contributor with no download information to bias buyers group think. So image stand on sellability. Not because I am Mr Big seller with big sale . You like my picture or you don't. So instant sale because it is what buyer want.
No surprise contrarian report sales drop but sales up for others , even new people.
Fair level field .

Agree with Lefty here. It is a very level playing field for all. And I think most contributors appreciate it. The sites that stack the deck have certainly earned a lot of ill will with many contributors. OTOH, nobody seems to feel they are getting a raw deal at SS.

Lisafx, sorry if I do not understand "stack the deck" meaning. But nobody seems to feel they get raw deal at SS
because like some notables here many times said too, it's not 25 cents or $2 or 50% commission or xxx % or cents per download we care. Only we care is at the end of the day how many dollars and cents go into my cumulative earnings.
Shutterstock , maybe significant drop for many, or maybe significant increase for others,
still in the end give 1) level playing field for all
2) no bias with stacking deck (if that is your meaning to mine understanding) with number of downloads info
3) others invisible bias we cannot see.

No surprise even though per download money is small for Shutterstock, the takehome money is still
the best in the market for contributors , old or new. So no surprise Shutterstock will get me and others like me
and maybe you ,etc from old school , to continue to give Shutterstock the priority of new work
IN SPITE OF what others say how much higher Fotolia or Istock pay per download.

Again hope my writing make sense.

Elenathewise · « **Reply #64 on:** August 23, 2010, 19:51 »

Quote from: lisafx on August 23, 2010, 17:52

Quote from: Elenathewise on August 23, 2010, 17:40
But sales on SS stopped growing in (second half of?) 2008 for big portfolios. I was trying to figure out why.
Maybe it's a result of losing market share. Maybe it's a result of trying to increase profits (as I speculated earlier). Maybe it's because their library is growing too fast and has a lot of redundant images in it.
Whatever it is, currently Fotolia and Istock are doing much better for me. And no matter what emotions we may have about this agency or the other, it's the sales that matter in the end.

Elena, I think we all got the point of your thread. We have been discussing exactly those phenomena you mentioned for three pages now.

Are you expecting some sort of definitive answer here? Obviously none of us can give that to you and I expect you already understand that. All anyone here has to offer is their opinion. Feel free to pick and choose the ones you feel are most useful to you.

Yes Lisa, I know quite a few people got the point :-), and again thank you all for your responses and opinions. My last response was aimed at some people that didn't, I know I should have included quotations, but I guess I was too lazy to do that:)
I was also hoping that Shutterstock people may help to clarify things, but I guess this has to be on their forum to to get a reply.

gostwyck · « **Reply #65 on:** August 24, 2010, 03:59 »

Quote from: Elenathewise on August 23, 2010, 17:40

Maybe it's because their library is growing too fast and has a lot of redundant images in it.
Whatever it is, currently Fotolia and Istock are doing much better for me. And no matter what emotions we may have about this agency or the other, it's the sales that matter in the end.

Yes, we do get your point, but surely you can figure this one out for yourself? My own figures for March 2008-10 are very similar to yours, taking into account that I upload fewer images per year and therefore the % increase in my port is smaller.

It's a combination of many issues. SS has the lowest hurdle of entry and no upload limit so inevitably there is the most competition there (quite frankly it is ridiculous what they accept). IS has thankfully insulated us from those who churn out millions of near-identical images that clutter up the searches. FT has grown hugely for me too __ but from a relatively low base. I'm not even sure that FT had introduced subscriptions in March 2008? FT have been aggressively marketing themselves over the last couple of years in order to grab themselves a decent chunk of the market (with considerable success). Subscribers certainly have more choice now than they did in March 2008. Subscriptions are also a relatively high-cost purchase and nowadays, what with the economy and all, there may simply be fewer customers who have the need for volumes of images. Despite all of these issues SS have still maintained their share of the money when it comes to my total earnings. In Aug 2008 they generated 28% of my earnings, in Aug 2009 it was 26% and this month they are projected to generate 29%.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #66 on:** August 24, 2010, 10:08 »

Quote from: WarrenPrice on August 23, 2010, 14:14

Besides, my hard disk and archaic film portfolio are filled with possibilities, possibilities that are just setting there gathering dust.

Maybe Shutterstock, and microstock in general, are aware of that. Maybe buyers are aware, and willing to consider less quality for many of the projects that are appearing more and more as internet ads than in slick magazine quality work.

That's exactly what Shutterstock said at the beginning - something along the lines of "make cash from all those old pictures on your hard drive" was splashed all over their home page. But things have moved on a long way from there. Unless your drive and neg files are full of work shot to a high standard you are not likely to get it on (getting perfectly clean negative scans is a hassle, too).

RacePhoto · « **Reply #67 on:** August 31, 2010, 17:51 »

Quote from: Elenathewise on August 23, 2010, 19:51

I was also hoping that Shutterstock people may help to clarify things, but I guess this has to be on their forum to to get a reply.

Let me help (opinion) as someone who isn't with SS and not on their forums.

2008 you 10,000 images, SS 3 million images. Now You 10,000 images SS 12 million images.

Sales on SS could be up, but sales per contributor are diluted because of competition and diversity. Buyers have more choices from new offerings, fresh material, taken with better equipment.

No matter that you may have the best images and may have had them two years ago. Now the competition is raising the bar and creating equal or better material. You can't expect the same old shots to sell at the same rate forever, especially considering four times the content competition!

That would be my best guess down to simple math and freshness.

CCK · « **Reply #68 on:** November 11, 2010, 04:44 »

Did anyone else notice a sudden rise in sales at Shutterstock this month? It is only the 11th and I'm at double my best month ever. At the same time sales at ather acencies are slower than usual (as they have been for the last months).

lagereek · « **Reply #69 on:** November 11, 2010, 05:10 »

Same within the main core of the Getty-RM, where since 1998, earnings have "hit the wall" and that was in the film days. I dont think a large sucessful port all of a sudden can "hit the wall" just like that.
Must be a number of reasons, gazillions of new contributors, bad searches, bad placements in bad search-engines, lousy reviewing, etc, etc, in the end it all becomes too much. Lately we have had some examples of just that.

lisafx · « **Reply #70 on:** November 11, 2010, 08:50 »

Quote from: CCK on November 11, 2010, 04:44

Did anyone else notice a sudden rise in sales at Shutterstock this month? It is only the 11th and I'm at double my best month ever. At the same time sales at ather acencies are slower than usual (as they have been for the last months).

Steady as she goes here. No unusual bump.

gostwyck · « **Reply #71 on:** November 11, 2010, 10:00 »

Quote from: CCK on November 11, 2010, 04:44

Did anyone else notice a sudden rise in sales at Shutterstock this month? It is only the 11th and I'm at double my best month ever. At the same time sales at ather acencies are slower than usual (as they have been for the last months).

Not just this month but for several weeks now mainly due to growing PPD and EL sales. I've had BME's for the last two months and am currently on target for a third. With sales static or slowing at Istockphoto SS appears to have taken over as my #1 earning agency.

jcpjr · « **Reply #72 on:** November 11, 2010, 10:49 »

SS has always been my best earner... and the past 2 months, including this month, have been great. This year has been a banner year with a payout every month starting with Feb. and increasing each month...ty-ss

Elenathewise · « **Reply #73 on:** November 11, 2010, 13:30 »

Things are finally picking up for me... Last month was finally able to get above the plateau. Hope this trend continues:)

molka · « **Reply #74 on:** November 14, 2010, 16:05 »

Quote from: andresr on August 19, 2010, 11:05

Quote from: lefty on August 19, 2010, 10:59
Quote from: andresr on August 19, 2010, 10:43
Quote from: sjlocke on August 19, 2010, 10:25
Quote from: andresr on August 19, 2010, 10:09
I have been slowly stopping to shoot for micro and looking for more avenues as there is no sign of possibilities to grow sales within the agencies we used to so submit images to. My income has grown but it has grown because I have more distributors, and I will be shooting for the traditional market, at least 80% of my work will go there. It has been a very frustrating year in microstock, but yet exciting in the rest of the stock industry.

Maybe because you're cannibalizing your own sales. Looking at your latest in IS, it looks like you're just reshooting groups on white, girls with phones, business people. So, people buy the newer one, or the older one, but they don't need both.

What are you doing differently for the "traditional" market, and where? My Getty sales are less than encouraging, as well, the contributor side of the workflow (stats, sales data) is very unhelpful.

Yeah that's partly true ..... I'm leaving the different stuff for traditional places or premium collections. I have tried uploading different topics in micro and there is simply too much supply and not enough demand anymore so I am just shooting to mantain sales while I try to make the other avenues as profitable as micro once was for me.
A really good image even if it's "Different" will sell 12 times at the most on a day in shutterstock just after uploading, I use to see 48 dls in a day for a good image.

Good point by sjlocke. Also I remember sjlocke say somewhere too it is not Shutterstock not growing over time, it is seller's piece ofpie is smaller
because more supply by new contributors with better idea. Or maybe another Istock quote , the drop of sales for specific contributor is not
indication that agency sales is bad , only the contributor share of commission is in decrease.

Yeah all true, and it could be easily mended by making adjustments but all the agencies are scared of making the first step as they think they will loose market share ..... I think it will benefit everyone, higher prices = higher budgets = better quality images.

They all fail miserably at their insepction policy, that's the absolute biggest problem. The mostly maltrained granpas who are told to freak out and push the big red button at seeing weird and wonderfull things like shadows, surely won't go around selecting anything by easthetical or style standards. : ) That's a scary alien world to those ppl. So all the images with horribly inapt models, crap and-or dull lighting, just visually and contentwise repulsive litter that makes a real creative's eyes bleed gets thru if it happens to have no noise or smthng like that... and that's most of the images, probably 70%. The guys at certain places would have hard time raising prices for the more artsypantsy in such a junkyard enviroment : )

mike ledray · « **Reply #75 on:** April 03, 2011, 22:59 »

Quote from: neotakezo on August 19, 2010, 12:09

Quote from: Elenathewise on August 18, 2010, 14:37
Yeah I did see weird stuff happening - most popular pages sometimes have a God-awful images included <snip> Or some set of portfolios that clearly doesn't include mine:)

This is obviously the case...after all Mike Ledray's shots "Sell like hotcakes"

WOW!
Me mentioned by some unknown random person on here
Thats so cool!

lagereek · « **Reply #76 on:** April 04, 2011, 02:03 »

Quote from: leaf on August 23, 2010, 06:35

Contrary to many people, I think shutterstock has a great search algorithm. I think there is nothing more frustrating than on other sites where you upload a pile of photos you put a lot of work into, they end up on page 10 of the search results and never see the light of day.

On shutterstock, new images are put on page one when they get a few sales, as well as previously proven best sellers. If the new image is really great it will stay on top with the best sellers. If the image wasn't so hot, it won't last long on the top and will sift to the bottom. I think the shutterstock method at least gives new images a chance.

Agree! the SS search is by far the best one, I think they are using the most popular but also giving prefs to new files which makes it sustainable in fact. Its very strange that many other agencies havent caught on to this since it generates money.
The IS, best match, for example is far too concentrated on simple generic stuff, kind of what we in the film days used to call the "chocholate-box" agency style, hence it really doesnt generate money and DT, well they insist on showing massive series in many searches.

Elenathewise · « **Reply #77 on:** April 04, 2011, 10:24 »

I have to say that I finally saw an increase in sales on Shutterstock. After sitting at the same level for 3 years in spite of adding lot of new images the sales jumped up, especially this March. I hope the trend continues! :-)

lagereek · « **Reply #78 on:** April 04, 2011, 10:32 »

I have an increase of around 40% just over the last year. SS, is at the moment my most stable agency. Its a pitty they dont have an exclusivity option.

helix7 · « **Reply #79 on:** April 04, 2011, 12:06 »

Quote from: lagereek on April 04, 2011, 10:32

I have an increase of around 40% just over the last year. Shutterstock, is at the moment my most stable agency. Its a pitty they dont have an exclusivity option.

SS is far and away my most profitable agency. But even with that in mind, I'd never go exclusive with them or anyone else. I think we've seen enough lately of how exclusivity can backfire on contributors, and how agencies can abuse exclusive contributors' loyalty.

I had my best month in almost 3 years at SS in March, despite not uploading a single new image. Whatever it is they're doing over there to keep the buyers clicking, it works.

gostwyck · « **Reply #80 on:** April 04, 2011, 12:22 »

Quote from: helix7 on April 04, 2011, 12:06

Shutterstock is far and away my most profitable agency. But even with that in mind, I'd never go exclusive with them or anyone else. I think we've seen enough lately of how exclusivity can backfire on contributors, and how agencies can abuse exclusive contributors' loyalty.

I had my best month in almost 3 years at Shutterstock in March, despite not uploading a single new image. Whatever it is they're doing over there to keep the buyers clicking, it works.

Same here. I've just had a massive BME at SS following several months of fairly steady growth. Most of the growth is coming from an ever-increasing number of PPD sales. Together with BigStock the 'Shutterstock Group' now account for over 38% of my microstock income. As far as I'm concerned they have taken over from Istock as the most dominant agency and the trend from my data suggests that the gap is only likely to get wider.

click_click · « **Reply #81 on:** April 04, 2011, 13:25 »

I remain skeptical as it's also the time of the year when loads of images are being purchased.

At least I see two peaks in a year, one of them being now and then starting in September to December again after the summer slump.
Although this mileage may vary for others.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Sales on Shutterstock - not growing over the last 2 years? (Read 40254 times)

Xalanx

lisafx

Xalanx

Dook

Microbius

lagereek

lagereek

grp_photo

lisafx

rubyroo

WarrenPrice

lisafx

lisafx

RacePhoto

lagereek

lisafx

lagereek

lagereek

helix7

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors