pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Sales on Shutterstock - not growing over the last 2 years?  (Read 40090 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #25 on: August 19, 2010, 11:38 »
0
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:)
« Last Edit: August 19, 2010, 11:54 by Elenathewise »


lagereek

« Reply #26 on: August 19, 2010, 11:51 »
0
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.

« Reply #27 on: August 19, 2010, 11:54 »
0
....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 :(

« Reply #28 on: August 19, 2010, 11:58 »
0
...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.

« Reply #29 on: August 19, 2010, 12:07 »
0
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.

« Reply #30 on: August 19, 2010, 12:09 »
0
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"  ;)

« Reply #31 on: August 19, 2010, 12:30 »
0
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.

« Reply #32 on: August 19, 2010, 13:08 »
0
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:)
« Last Edit: August 19, 2010, 16:20 by Elenathewise »

« Reply #33 on: August 19, 2010, 14:10 »
0
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 »
0
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.

« Reply #35 on: August 19, 2010, 14:32 »
0
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...

« Reply #36 on: August 19, 2010, 14:59 »
0
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.

« Reply #37 on: August 19, 2010, 15:00 »
0
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.

« Reply #38 on: August 19, 2010, 15:02 »
0
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. :D
« Last Edit: August 19, 2010, 15:06 by Tom »

« Reply #39 on: August 19, 2010, 15:10 »
0
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.

« Reply #40 on: August 19, 2010, 15:16 »
0
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.

« Reply #41 on: August 19, 2010, 15:57 »
0
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 »
0
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.
« Last Edit: August 19, 2010, 16:33 by ap »

« Reply #43 on: August 19, 2010, 16:16 »
0
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!

« Reply #44 on: August 19, 2010, 16:23 »
0
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 »
0
sweet (memories)!

grp_photo

« Reply #46 on: August 20, 2010, 01:13 »
0
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?

« Reply #47 on: August 20, 2010, 14:00 »
0
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....

« Reply #48 on: August 20, 2010, 14:45 »
0
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.

« Reply #49 on: August 20, 2010, 17:58 »
0
...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.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
11 Replies
9916 Views
Last post December 05, 2008, 17:47
by Phil
13 Replies
5167 Views
Last post March 03, 2013, 12:29
by cthoman
2 Replies
3082 Views
Last post December 25, 2015, 00:44
by Lana
0 Replies
2388 Views
Last post February 10, 2016, 23:02
by helloitsme
13 Replies
4619 Views
Last post May 03, 2019, 02:01
by SpaceStockFootage

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors