MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Shutterstock manipulating earning potential - Can they do this really?  (Read 20864 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #50 on: April 06, 2014, 14:17 »
+13
  And one other known fact is what I stated.  My sales "used to be fairly consistent", now they are like a roller coaster.  Why? I am merely speculating that it's due to them tweaking the dials, but I could be wrong.

But it's also interesting that a lot of people on here are constantly reporting BMEs at SS. Obviously, that will normally be the case for newbies, for a certain amount of time, but some aren't newbies.

IS exclusives moved to SS. Ron makes $7200 a year now. New people join with good cameras and photo experience. All of that takes some money from the old. Was there some promise from SS they would always have your old pictures from 7 years ago on top of the search? Did they say your old small shots would always be ranked first because the sold good in 2009. The search changed. 30M new pictures were added. And people wonder why they don't make as much on the same pictures they took 7 years ago? Do you have a new camera? How many since you start. Why should buyers stay with the old out of date stale pictures?


ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #51 on: April 06, 2014, 14:41 »
+5
  And one other known fact is what I stated.  My sales "used to be fairly consistent", now they are like a roller coaster.  Why? I am merely speculating that it's due to them tweaking the dials, but I could be wrong.

But it's also interesting that a lot of people on here are constantly reporting BMEs at SS. Obviously, that will normally be the case for newbies, for a certain amount of time, but some aren't newbies.

IS exclusives moved to SS. Ron makes $7200 a year now. New people join with good cameras and photo experience. All of that takes some money from the old. Was there some promise from SS they would always have your old pictures from 7 years ago on top of the search? Did they say your old small shots would always be ranked first because the sold good in 2009. The search changed. 30M new pictures were added. And people wonder why they don't make as much on the same pictures they took 7 years ago? Do you have a new camera? How many since you start. Why should buyers stay with the old out of date stale pictures?

I'm not on SS, so I don't know why you're asking me.

iS is totally opposite, it's my old photos which are selling, (including old scanned sides and photos from a Coolscan 5700) which most people are experiencing and definitely is the consequence of their best match choices. So for me, your questions are irrelevant. And there is a hint that the buyers buy what they can see quickly and easily and don't care what camera the pics are made with. I'm definitely selling more from my old 350D than from my 5D2.
« Last Edit: April 06, 2014, 14:45 by ShadySue »

Goofy

« Reply #52 on: April 06, 2014, 14:46 »
+1
So, in the end there really is no theory... :-\



ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #53 on: April 06, 2014, 14:54 »
+9
So, in the end there really is no theory... :-\
Or there are several theories all of which might be true at different times.  :)

Uncle Pete

« Reply #54 on: April 06, 2014, 17:51 »
0
Amazing how simply pointing out something that's been written about over and over, becomes "attacking someone". I'm just repeating what has been posted on the SS forum.

I am reading some alarming claims on another forum that the very recent (apparently) change to the SS search facility is turning on and off photographers portfolios during the day to limit their ports exposure and subsequently their earnings, thereby controlling a photographers success.

I guess it's wrong to answer a question, so I won't.

So, in the end there really is no theory... :-\
Or there are several theories all of which might be true at different times.  :)
« Last Edit: April 08, 2014, 00:00 by Uncle Pete »

« Reply #55 on: April 06, 2014, 18:32 »
+4
OMGPLZWTF

lisafx

« Reply #56 on: April 06, 2014, 21:43 »
+2
  And one other known fact is what I stated.  My sales "used to be fairly consistent", now they are like a roller coaster.  Why? I am merely speculating that it's due to them tweaking the dials, but I could be wrong.

But it's also interesting that a lot of people on here are constantly reporting BMEs at SS. Obviously, that will normally be the case for newbies, for a certain amount of time, but some aren't newbies.

IS exclusives moved to SS. Ron makes $7200 a year now. New people join with good cameras and photo experience. All of that takes some money from the old. Was there some promise from SS they would always have your old pictures from 7 years ago on top of the search? Did they say your old small shots would always be ranked first because the sold good in 2009. The search changed. 30M new pictures were added. And people wonder why they don't make as much on the same pictures they took 7 years ago? Do you have a new camera? How many since you start. Why should buyers stay with the old out of date stale pictures?

Your questions imply that all the sellers who have experienced the drops are relying on the same old pictures shot with old equipment.  You also suggest it is the influx of artists from Istock.  I completely agree that the exodus from Istock exclusivity is a factor in the most recent drops,  although their ports probably also contain older images (for example, hasn't Sean said he's only putting older stuff on sub sites?). However, this does not account for the earlier drops being reported.

As for the assumption that top sellers have been resting on their laurels and not uploading new content and concepts,  and haven't upgraded equipment, that's mostly false.  These are people who shoot photos for a living.  Of course they are using current technology and continuing to upload.  In fact, the complaints I've read (and made) are about continuing to upload and seeing stagnation or drops anyway.

« Reply #57 on: April 07, 2014, 03:15 »
+2
have buyers changed their search method? (Popular and Relevant don't seem to have many new files, at the search I just did for "business man" I don't see many results from 2014 (5-10 out of 100) which means that those contributors aren't making 25 cents)

I would love to hear a theory based on facts

Beppe Grillo

« Reply #58 on: April 07, 2014, 05:05 »
0
Here's one. The maps and charts of the only person who studied and took notes.






The map completely corresponds to my reality.
Of course I cannot tell for others.

I can understand that the sales are very little in center Asia for obvious reasons.
But I have always wondered why, in my case, they are close to zero in the usa's west coast {???}
Do they only surf, play basket and make movies there??

Dook

« Reply #59 on: April 07, 2014, 05:17 »
+3
I find stagnation of income at SS completely logical, at least in my case. I make around 200 pictures a month. When I had 1000 pictures it was 20% increas of potrfolio size at the given month. Now I have 10000 pictures and that's only 2% increase. How can I expect noticable increase of income with 2% growth? Even the stagnation is success having in mind the increased competition etc.
« Last Edit: April 07, 2014, 06:48 by Dook »

« Reply #60 on: April 07, 2014, 06:13 »
0
A reporting delay might account for the US West Coast appearing to be blank.

I've always had very low sales outside the US/Western Europe working day, not just at SS but at IS and DT, too. It's never struck me as being odd.

« Reply #61 on: April 07, 2014, 06:17 »
+1
I am reading some alarming claims on another forum that the very recent (apparently) change to the SS search facility is turning on and off photographers portfolios during the day to limit their ports exposure and subsequently their earnings, thereby controlling a photographers success.

Surely this cannot be true  :o

Is it even legal to do such a thing? Well, maybe it is legal but surely not moral or ethical?

Or is this just unhappy SS photog's going through a dip in sales?

Stop giving them ideas.

Shelma1

« Reply #62 on: April 07, 2014, 06:25 »
-1
Here's one. The maps and charts of the only person who studied and took notes.






The map completely corresponds to my reality.
Of course I cannot tell for others.

I can understand that the sales are very little in center Asia for obvious reasons.
But I have always wondered why, in my case, they are close to zero in the usa's west coast {???}
Do they only surf, play basket and make movies there??


Most ad agencies (buyers) are in NY and Chicago. The West Coast agencies are fewer and smaller. There's a lot of film (video) production out west, but that doesn't use much stock. We buy stock photography for our print ads in the East, then fly out west to shoot our commercials. Just a guess. (Also, the Eastern half of the U.S. is more heavily populated.)

« Reply #63 on: April 07, 2014, 07:57 »
0
I am reading some alarming claims on another forum that the very recent (apparently) change to the SS search facility is turning on and off photographers portfolios during the day to limit their ports exposure and subsequently their earnings, thereby controlling a photographers success.

Surely this cannot be true  :o

Is it even legal to do such a thing? Well, maybe it is legal but surely not moral or ethical?

Or is this just unhappy SS photog's going through a dip in sales?

Honestly, this cannot be true unless it just turns off only some images and that tactic is simply unrealistic. Do these claimants think that SS would tie up valuable labor resources and other assets just to "control" some contributors? Why on earth would they do that? That only hurts the customer.  Finally, it holds no water anyhow.  On my slow, erratic days I still get downloads, just not a bunch. If they turned off my port I would get zilch.
« Last Edit: April 07, 2014, 08:00 by Mantis »

ethan

« Reply #64 on: April 07, 2014, 08:28 »
+1
^ Dear Mantis

I was not suggesting they were. I only voiced a concern regarding (some rather vocal) posts on the SS forum. They (seemed) or suggested they knew that 'manipulations' where taking place. I agree with the point of view that SS would not/maybe even, could not, do such a thing.

But there's a but. I know there always is, but, some of the folks commenting, here and there (SS), genuinely feel that changes are directly affecting their individual incomes/success.

Importantly, they're not (all) the 'crack-pot' type posters either, they're reasonably rational, grown up and concerned about how THEY are being affected. They have a right to hold those views if they believe them to be true, and equally a right to voice them.

I don't normally curry favour with conspiracy theorists, but in this specific regard others genuinely seem to believe (something) may be happening, at least to some contributors but thankfully not all.

Goofy

« Reply #65 on: April 07, 2014, 09:02 »
-1
Here's one. The maps and charts of the only person who studied and took notes.

http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=130802&start=2955

No I'm not saying this is the same for everyone, just that one person has found a pattern.

Amazing how simply pointing out something that's been written about over and over, becomes "attacking someone". I'm just repeating what has been posted on the SS forum. There appears to be a repeating dark period for this account.





Your results may vary.

I don't have the same results, mine seem to be even longer periods when things have no activity, but then for days, everything is fine. I don't have noticeable slow periods because I have low interest niche images. They are streaky on their own. I've had four zero days this year.



So, in the end there really is no theory... :-\

Or there are several theories all of which might be true at different times.  :)



Are you sure this isn't the 'Twilight Zone' instead of the 'Dead Zone'?  8)



Uncle Pete

« Reply #66 on: April 07, 2014, 10:09 »
-1
Do I have to spell out everything, word for word? The OP asked about "another forum" and the shutting off ports, that people were talking about there. I posted some of that discussion for information and background.

I am reading some alarming claims on another forum that the very recent (apparently) change to the SS search facility is turning on and off photographers portfolios during the day to limit their ports exposure and subsequently their earnings, thereby controlling a photographers success.


Someone ran back to that forum and said I was spreading alarmist rumors and back stabbing and some other rather nasty accusations. No I'm not. I'm spreading the only studies that anyone has taken the time to record. Some find the same trends, some don't.

Here's one. The maps and charts of the only person who studied and took notes.

No I'm not saying this is the same for everyone, just that one person has found a pattern.



Are you sure this isn't the 'Twilight Zone' instead of the 'Dead Zone'?  8)


Rather:



This is ridiculous. If someone can't post a link or quote something from elsewhere on the Internet.

Enjoy yourselves and remember to Shoot The Messenger 
« Last Edit: April 08, 2014, 00:03 by Uncle Pete »


« Reply #67 on: April 07, 2014, 10:39 »
+2
Most ad agencies (buyers) are in NY and Chicago. The West Coast agencies are fewer and smaller. There's a lot of film (video) production out west, but that doesn't use much stock. We buy stock photography for our print ads in the East, then fly out west to shoot our commercials. Just a guess. (Also, the Eastern half of the U.S. is more heavily populated.)

Wait, I thought they didn't buy from SS because they want free comps.  ;)

It seems weird that one of the biggest states in the US doesn't get a lot of sales (if this info is accurate). Maybe, they are all on vacation in California, although none of my friends there have mentioned it.  ;D

« Reply #68 on: April 07, 2014, 18:14 »
+2
^ Dear Mantis

I was not suggesting they were. I only voiced a concern regarding (some rather vocal) posts on the SS forum. They (seemed) or suggested they knew that 'manipulations' where taking place. I agree with the point of view that SS would not/maybe even, could not, do such a thing.

But there's a but. I know there always is, but, some of the folks commenting, here and there (SS), genuinely feel that changes are directly affecting their individual incomes/success.

Importantly, they're not (all) the 'crack-pot' type posters either, they're reasonably rational, grown up and concerned about how THEY are being affected. They have a right to hold those views if they believe them to be true, and equally a right to voice them.

I don't normally curry favour with conspiracy theorists, but in this specific regard others genuinely seem to believe (something) may be happening, at least to some contributors but thankfully not all.

I get it Ethan, my response was not aimed at you, but those peeps on the other forum.

« Reply #69 on: April 09, 2014, 14:07 »
0
http://www.shutterstock.com/blog/infographic-shutterstocks-global-design-trends-2014
http://www.shutterstock.com/blog/2013/02/infographic-shutterstocks-global-design-trends-2013/

Best sellers of video, photo, illustration, and vector from 2013:  11,340
Best sellers of photo, illustration, and vector (not including video) from 2012:  13,968

Without even including videos for 2012 the best sellers had 20% less sales than the best sellers from the previous year.  I don't know if that means best sellers are punished or there is something else at work but a 20% decline seems significant especially when Shutterstock had 100 million downloads last year (28% of the total downloads were in 2013).  Average downloads per image in the library stayed at about the same level, maybe even increasing slightly.
« Last Edit: April 09, 2014, 14:11 by tickstock »

« Reply #70 on: April 09, 2014, 14:43 »
-3
  And one other known fact is what I stated.  My sales "used to be fairly consistent", now they are like a roller coaster.  Why? I am merely speculating that it's due to them tweaking the dials, but I could be wrong.


But it's also interesting that a lot of people on here are constantly reporting BMEs at SS. Obviously, that will normally be the case for newbies, for a certain amount of time, but some aren't newbies.


IS exclusives moved to SS. Ron makes $7200 a year now. New people join with good cameras and photo experience. All of that takes some money from the old. Was there some promise from SS they would always have your old pictures from 7 years ago on top of the search? Did they say your old small shots would always be ranked first because the sold good in 2009. The search changed. 30M new pictures were added. And people wonder why they don't make as much on the same pictures they took 7 years ago? Do you have a new camera? How many since you start. Why should buyers stay with the old out of date stale pictures?


Is that All?
Who is Ron anyways?
I aint sain nutin   :-X


Ron

« Reply #71 on: April 09, 2014, 14:51 »
0
LOL, you make what, 12 grand per year, on SS and BS combined, with 11,000 images? I have 1600 images on SS and nothing on BS. So I do a lot better then you in terms of RPI, smart ass  ;)

« Reply #72 on: April 09, 2014, 14:55 »
-2
Perhaps One Theory is ...

SS knows and documents those who Whine and Cry and Bitch all the time and only turn off THOSE galleries while others who Praise SS for all the AMAZING GOODNESS they do get Special Super Duper Advertising to help their sales!

Or then again, it could be that Some of US (namely me) advertise my SS Gallery in other ways and have record months in sales almost every month!

But than again I could be lying about it to throw some of you off my trail of tears for such low and non existent sales that others Whine and Cry about on a Daily Basis!

Or then again, I could be Lying about Lying and its all a big fat fib to keep you guessing which way is nq/up? or is it the other way around?

Who's to know?

 :o

« Reply #73 on: April 09, 2014, 15:00 »
-1
LOL, you make what, 12 grand per year, on SS and BS combined, with 11,000 images? I have 1600 images on SS and nothing on BS. So I do a lot better then you in terms of RPI, smart ass  ;)

Oh THAT ron.

Hey dude
Im proud of you,
Good going!
I am impressed.

Keep up the good work buddy
I love how you know My Sales Figures (along with whats his name who doesn't even know which way to look into a camera and can only make vector images, lol but I'm not naming names)

There does seem to be a lot of misinformation and false statements on all these forums
I do find it interesting how strangers (yes you are a stranger to me, as we have never met, talked on the phone, in person or even im'd that I know of) like to be so Obnoxious and argue about things that have no idea what the truth is or even has any concern to them.

I wish you all the very best
:)


Ron

« Reply #74 on: April 09, 2014, 15:02 »
+1
So you dis me first, and then realised it was me, and then dis me again. LOL


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
11 Replies
3891 Views
Last post April 13, 2015, 23:58
by Me
10 Replies
4326 Views
Last post June 23, 2016, 05:08
by Justanotherphotographer
144 Replies
26525 Views
Last post February 22, 2017, 20:47
by JimP
3 Replies
3142 Views
Last post June 28, 2018, 00:23
by dpimborough
20 Replies
5505 Views
Last post September 29, 2018, 15:59
by nobody

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle