MicrostockGroup
Agency Based Discussion => Shutterstock.com => Topic started by: ethan on April 04, 2014, 10:00
-
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?
-
what other forum?
And What Proof?
-
My sales have continued to dip, but I don't subscribe to these conspiracy theories. I've always just assumed that SS changes their algorithms because they have so many images that they need to shuffle the deck occasionally to get new results.
-
I suppose these are the comments made by that mischief maker and ne'er do well who finds it amusing to provoke and undermine. In which case they have no value and are best ignored.
PS. He is banned from here (as far as I know) and should have been booted out of SS long ago.
-
with all due respect, it takes an idiot to no realize that most agencies today are not manipulating earning potential for contributors.
they are all messing with computer algorithms to keep our royalties as low as possible and in the meant time telling us we are "special"
-
what other forum?
And What Proof?
Who, other than a Shutterstock employee, could give you anything beyond wild speculation?
Changing best match placement is something I'd expect and for it to be nearly continual. Targeting individual photographers seems preposterous. Fotolia apparently targeted those with higher royalty rates - moving them back in search results - which was reported by enough Emeralds and up to seem credible.
People want to know the unknowable. Waste of time.
-
what other forum?
And What Proof?
I saw it on the SS forum.
-
what other forum?
And What Proof?
I saw it on the SS forum.
Quote, link?
-
what other forum?
And What Proof?
I saw it on the SS forum.
Quote, link?
Paste of message here:
Thats just it! did not want to share this but since you mentioned it: you hit the nail. Friend of my wife who many consider an analytical computer guru had a look at some agencies searches and after only half hour he came to the conclusion certain searches are controlled as far as earnings, i.e. at certain intervals you are allowed to earn at full potential etc, then you are cut-off.
If true this raise a huge moral/ethical question. Person in question is not just anybody, he has worked with corps like Adobe, Google and twitter, even put together programs for Citicorp investments.
Mind you, I hardly needed anybody to tell me something is badly worng, one day you can have like 20 ODs, 6 SODs and some ELs, next day you get like 50 subs. Even bhy the law of average, this can not hold true.
Link Here:
http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=130802&start=2940 (http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=130802&start=2940)
-
^^, but as they always warn in History lessons, "Look at the Source".
-
There has been often speculation about iStockphoto and their searches. Because iStock pays different percentages to different people there is some reasonable explanation why it would happen. Though I never bought into any of those speculation because in the bigger picture it doesn't make sense. The main target of all selling companies is to make customers buy something, and to deliberately keep a product hidden that they might want to buy to "save" money just doesn't make sense.
It makes even less sense for Shutterstock as they don't have different collections and even the difference between the top three of their four earning levels is less than 20%. Saving 5 cents by excluding an image that might otherwise sell would be rather stupid.
-
^^, but as they always warn in History lessons, "Look at the Source".
Sorry don't understand, do you mean the fellow called Chris that posted this ?
-
The chap who wrote that piece thinks "The Matrix" is a documentary.
-
Mind you, I hardly needed anybody to tell me something is badly worng, one day you can have like 20 ODs, 6 SODs and some ELs, next day you get like 50 subs. Even bhy the law of average, this can not hold true.
Stock art is heavily customer driven and customers can vary wildly on what they want. Some days it is busy and some days it is slow. Some people want subs and others want just one image.
-
There has been often speculation about iStockphoto and their searches. Because iStock pays different percentages to different people there is some reasonable explanation why it would happen. Though I never bought into any of those speculation because in the bigger picture it doesn't make sense. The main target of all selling companies is to make customers buy something, and to deliberately keep a product hidden that they might want to buy to "save" money just doesn't make sense.
It makes even less sense for Shutterstock as they don't have different collections and even the difference between the top three of their four earning levels is less than 20%. Saving 5 cents by excluding an image that might otherwise sell would be rather stupid.
It would make sense for them to do this but personally I don't see it.
Yes there are ups and downs but I am at the top tier and have been for years and I continually see my earnings increase.
And your assumption that SS sells images to make money is wrong. They sell subscriptions and other packages - Hoping & Knowing you won't use the entire allotment - that's how they make money. Actually every time someone downloads an image they lose money actually make less money.
-
^^, but as they always warn in History lessons, "Look at the Source".
Sorry don't understand, do you mean the fellow called Chris that posted this ?
Christian Lagerek is a well known purveyor of really "out there" opinions - based on his prior lives here; I don't know him personally. Can't argue with the quality of his work, but I would want some other source before printing a story if I were a newspaper :)
-
^^, but as they always warn in History lessons, "Look at the Source".
Sorry don't understand, do you mean the fellow called Chris that posted this ?
Christian Lagerek is a well known purveyor of really "out there" opinions - based on his prior lives here; I don't know him personally. Can't argue with the quality of his work, but I would want some other source before printing a story if I were a newspaper :)
OK Got it :)
-
^^, but as they always warn in History lessons, "Look at the Source".
Sorry don't understand, do you mean the fellow called Chris that posted this ?
Indeed. He has a history here.
-
And your assumption that SS sells images to make money is wrong. They sell subscriptions and other packages - Hoping & Knowing you won't use the entire allotment - that's how they make money. Actually every time someone downloads an image they lose money actually make less money.
Ok, that is another way of looking at it and has some "logic" that could be used to come up with ideas... but to achieve that kind of "success" they would have to hide all content that the customer might download, making it impossible to find something matching the customers needs. They don't win by hiding "image1" if the result is a download for "image2". And in the end the overall experience needs to be good enough to make customers renew their subscriptions if possible, right?
So I still go with "we don't care which image gets the download, we only care if the customers gets what he wants in the shortest time possible" as the most reasonable goal for any agency and how they structure their search results.
-
And your assumption that SS sells images to make money is wrong. They sell subscriptions and other packages - Hoping & Knowing you won't use the entire allotment - that's how they make money. Actually every time someone downloads an image they lose money actually make less money.
Ok, that is another way of looking at it and has some "logic" that could be used to come up with ideas... but to achieve that kind of "success" they would have to hide all content that the customer might download, making it impossible to find something matching the customers needs. They don't win by hiding "image1" if the result is a download for "image2". And in the end the overall experience needs to be good enough to make customers renew their subscriptions if possible, right?
So I still go with "we don't care which image gets the download, we only care if the customers gets what he wants in the shortest time possible" as the most reasonable goal for any agency and how they structure their search results.
Actually we agree - like I said It might make sense but I just don't see them hiding particular portfolios. If they were a lot of us would be seeing disastrous results - and we aren't. I just see growth.
-
And your assumption that SS sells images to make money is wrong. They sell subscriptions and other packages - Hoping & Knowing you won't use the entire allotment - that's how they make money. Actually every time someone downloads an image they lose money actually make less money.
Ok, that is another way of looking at it and has some "logic" that could be used to come up with ideas... but to achieve that kind of "success" they would have to hide all content that the customer might download, making it impossible to find something matching the customers needs. They don't win by hiding "image1" if the result is a download for "image2". And in the end the overall experience needs to be good enough to make customers renew their subscriptions if possible, right?
So I still go with "we don't care which image gets the download, we only care if the customers gets what he wants in the shortest time possible" as the most reasonable goal for any agency and how they structure their search results.
Actually we agree - like I said It might make sense but I just don't see them hiding particular portfolios. If they were a lot of us would be seeing disastrous results - and we aren't. I just see growth.
Definitely I concur with that. Until seeing those comments I was unaware of anything being 'wrong' or odd about my sales trends. I only have a really tiny portfolio over on SS and I have only experienced BME for the last six to eight months, not necessarily in $ every month but certainly in downloads by on average 20-25% a month increases. Albeit only three and a half days into April I have 117 D/L (subs and ODD's) and fully expect to beat March total of 894 D/L if things stay the same.
I guess I just was slightly alarmed by what I was seeing (reading) on the SS forum so mentioned it here.
I won't be concerned having seen the comments and views posted in response to my OP.
Thanks everyone :)
-
And your assumption that SS sells images to make money is wrong. They sell subscriptions and other packages - Hoping & Knowing you won't use the entire allotment - that's how they make money. Actually every time someone downloads an image they lose money actually make less money.
Last month only 36% of my earnings were from 25 a day subs - which is where SS makes more the less the buyer downloads.
64% of my earnings came from the types of sales where both SS and I make more the more the buyer downloads.
What you said was true way back when, but much less now (and the trend I see is that the non-subs stuff is growing over time)
-
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.
Answer Removed
So I still go with "we don't care which image gets the download, we only care if the customers gets what he wants in the shortest time possible" as the most reasonable goal for any agency and how they structure their search results.
Yes!
Actually we agree - like I said It might make sense but I just don't see them hiding particular portfolios. If they were a lot of us would be seeing disastrous results - and we aren't. I just see growth.
And another yes.
Stock art is heavily customer driven and customers can vary wildly on what they want. Some days it is busy and some days it is slow. Some people want subs and others want just one image.
And one more yes. Needs vary, it's random, not stable and a steady flow of demands. It makes no sense at all for SS to hide good selling images and try to force customers to buy less needed or lower quality images. They might be sending people away, which is a higher risk, than the 5 cents between .33 and .38. And what about the ODD and SODs, do you want to distract people and spread those out?
-
Source? Proof? Anything?
Who is claiming this? How many DLs do they typically get? Because if someone is seeing 5 DLs during one time of day and zero another time (for example), I can see how someone might think that their port is "off" sometimes. But that's hardly "evidence" given the total daily sales number.
Can anyone with, say, 200 typical daily sales substantiate this theory? 100? Anyone?
Personally, I see nothing to back up this portfolio throttling theory. And I'm not saying how many DLs I get per day but let's just say that I'm crossing the quarter-million lifetime DL milestone by Monday so I think I'm credible.
Matter of fact, I'm seeing the opposite and April is rocking for me so far. April 1st was pretty close to a BDE.
-
I don't believe in this conspiracy theory. Why woudn't SS want to sell as much as possible and keep their customers happy? What would SS benefit from doing this?
If someone has experienced their portfolio "dissappearing", I think it's more likely some technical glitch.
-
This theory originates from Susan who has posted world time charts, sales and points where she claims her port is turned off for 12 hours at a time. I don't see, watching the computer as proof, and it could just as well be that they only do processing at certain times, not when the country in question is most active. It's her theory, based on personal observations.
I wouldn't even say that this couldn't be true. But then for totally different reasons: There are photographers whose style is just "typical" for a certain region, be it Europe, Asia or North America. Then the search engine would learn "European buyers are not downloading these images" and as a consequence would sort them down. It wouldn't be something personal nor meant to keep someone from earning as much as they could, it would be because buyers in parts of the worlds just don't buy that kind of stuff.
There definitely is regionalization of content and search results. It's very hard to manage and master but given how much effort Shutterstock puts into mastering their search engine, I wouldn't be surprised if they are doing it better than other places.
-
... Why woudn't SS want to sell as much as possible and keep their customers happy? What would SS benefit from doing this?...
Actaully you are quite off the mark there. SS sells subscriptions - the less you download after that, the better for them. Less downloads actually means higher profit for SS.
Of course this all have to be kept between reasonable boundaries, because if someone hardly uses his/her sub quota it probably means they are not interested or do not like the site, and they won't buy another subscription. But still: SS is not interested in maximizing downloads at all.
-
...SS is not interested in maximizing downloads at all.
True, but that doesn't mean they'd make efforts to minimize downloads, either.
-
... Why woudn't SS want to sell as much as possible and keep their customers happy? What would SS benefit from doing this?...
Actaully you are quite off the mark there. SS sells subscriptions - the less you download after that, the better for them. Less downloads actually means higher profit for SS.
That would have been true some years ago. But now they also sell ODs and other things.
-
... Why woudn't SS want to sell as much as possible and keep their customers happy? What would SS benefit from doing this?...
Actaully you are quite off the mark there. SS sells subscriptions - the less you download after that, the better for them. Less downloads actually means higher profit for SS.
That would have been true some years ago. But now they also sell ODs and other things.
OD is still a package, not pay as you go, and the vast majority of dls are subs.
-
My port is turned off 24/7.... ;)
-
The sale there definitely have a trend. There is about a 8 week cycle where sales dip very low then peak after 4 weeks and then dip for another 4 weeks. The 6 month trending graph they display has always shown this. The low to high differential is significant. I'm not sure what they do, but they do it on a regular basis.
-
You know what, I'm seeing it now, too. After looking at my stats, it appears that on the 3rd waxing crescent moon phase of the year, DLs are shut off. Also on alternating waning gibbous moon phases.
Some unique planetary alignment events also coincide with BDEs. And a meteor shower later this month should be expected to boost sales.
;)
-
Paste of message here:
Thats just it! did not want to share this but since you mentioned it: you hit the nail. Friend of my wife who many consider an analytical computer guru had a look at some agencies searches and after only half hour he came to the conclusion certain searches are controlled as far as earnings, i.e. at certain intervals you are allowed to earn at full potential etc, then you are cut-off.
If true this raise a huge moral/ethical question. Person in question is not just anybody, he has worked with corps like Adobe, Google and twitter, Mind you, I hardly needed anybody to tell me something is badly worng, one day you can have like 20 ODs, 6 SODs and some ELs, next day you get like 50 subs. Even bhy the law of average, this can not hold true.
first, how did this 'analyst' make any conclujsions after a 1/2 search? and how did they obtain the proprietary info from multiple agencies in order to be able to do so
what law of averages are you referring to? in ms sales we're not dealing with a normal distreibution, or even the sort of time series you can plot from publicly traded stocks, currencies, etc - for MS, millions of images are sold every day, so we'd actually expect results to vary pretty wildly for any individual portfolio. if anything an individual's results will follow a poisson distribution, where there is a finite probability of getting zero results on any given day
-
What does "earn at full potential" mean. If all of my images that had applicable keywords showed up first in every search then I would be earning at my full potential perhaps? Maybe they do like DT and rotate portfolios up and down. Maybe they skew the search results based on where you are located and where the searcher is located. If they are pushing other portfolios down some of the time then maybe your images are earning over their full potential. If they really wanted to manipulate earnings potential they would just do it across the board all the time and the results would be more like the gbalex conspiracy than the christian conspiracy.
I have no doubt they could manipulate sales all sorts of ways. The question is why would they bother for the most part? It would make sense to encourage new photographers to get them hooked, and possibly to push lower paying sales a bit, but that would also tend to move them to higher paying sales more quickly, so only a short term fix. I think they have so many tweaks to their searches going on all the time based on the buyers location, previous sales history, seller location, previous purchases with the same keyword etc. etc. and they are probably tweaking it all the time that any simplistic explanation is going to miss the mark. Ultimately the thing they really don't want to do is have the buyers go elsewhere. (something that IS probably should consider).
-
they are manipulating with similar images. i have some images with zero downloads whole month then i sell 3 images par day. they know excatly what to offer to customer to buy.
in 2014 new images are more imporatant than old one.
-
... Can't argue with the quality of his work, ...
Absolutely +1
-
This theory originates from Susan who has posted world time charts, sales and points where she claims her port is turned off for 12 hours at a time. I don't see, watching the computer as proof, and it could just as well be that they only do processing at certain times, not when the country in question is most active. It's her theory, based on personal observations.
I wouldn't even say that this couldn't be true. But then for totally different reasons: There are photographers whose style is just "typical" for a certain region, be it Europe, Asia or North America. Then the search engine would learn "European buyers are not downloading these images" and as a consequence would sort them down. It wouldn't be something personal nor meant to keep someone from earning as much as they could, it would be because buyers in parts of the worlds just don't buy that kind of stuff.
There definitely is regionalization of content and search results. It's very hard to manage and master but given how much effort Shutterstock puts into mastering their search engine, I wouldn't be surprised if they are doing it better than other places.
Have you seen Susan's images? I think they are really high quality amazing images. I am sure there is a need on global scale for such images. I dont think that there is a zone that doesnt have use for that type of her images.
And SS has mentioned there is a geographical element involved in how the search works, but I dont think that that is a reason why she sees a gap in sales for her images in certain time zones.
-
And mine is off most of the time and turned on at random for short periods. :)
My port is turned off 24/7.... ;)
In case someone has distorted or is trying to misrepresent, what I wrote, I have said nothing about anyone's photos, or claims, except that it's their theory to start with, not someone else who is being quoted as the source.
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.
Response from me, removed.
-
You know what, I'm seeing it now, too. After looking at my stats, it appears that on the 3rd waxing crescent moon phase of the year, DLs are shut off. Also on alternating waning gibbous moon phases.
Some unique planetary alignment events also coincide with BDEs. And a meteor shower later this month should be expected to boost sales.
;)
Yeh, I noticed that too; it's just harder to extract that sort of thing with my simple forth order DSP filter on my oldish Cray. Not until I hacked the mainframe at the NSA, and reworked it to properly analyze my 2 downloads a day, could I get to bottom of this.
-
I could see this happening if a site (stock or POD) relied on a membership fees or I guess was having trouble attracting new contributors. Every happy seller tells their friends the good news and brings in more contributors.
-
I see lack of sales between 5PM and 8PM CET. I thought this was because working hours are over in Europe and they just barely started in US.
-
The search manipulation is not conspiracy theory, is just a fact. It is happening. Not everybody is affected indeed and that's why it is hard to believe. But those who are suffering from it can tell you. I am one of them, I used to have very good sales until the first of what SS called an "improvement" of the search algorithms, that caused a sudden drop of -35% in my sales, in April 2012. The second "improvement" took another -35% of my sales in April 2013 and that was overnight as well.
Top contributors, Chris among them, are reporting huge drops in March-April as well.
Nothing in my behavior has been changed (upload volume, quality etc) and both huge drop in sales took place overnight, so it is not me, it's them. I know it is hard to believe for those from you who didn't see anything but normal fluctuations in their sales over the years but trust me, if this will happen to you, you will know.
-
The search manipulation is not conspiracy theory, is just a fact. It is happening. Not everybody is affected indeed and that's why it is hard to believe. But those who are suffering from it can tell you. I am one of them, I used to have very good sales until the first of what SS called an "improvement" of the search algorithms, that caused a sudden drop of -35% in my sales, in April 2012. The second "improvement" took another -35% of my sales in April 2013 and that was overnight as well.
Top contributors, Chris among them, are reporting huge drops in March-April as well.
Nothing in my behavior has been changed (upload volume, quality etc) and both huge drop in sales took place overnight, so it is not me, it's them. I know it is hard to believe for those from you who didn't see anything but normal fluctuations in their sales over the years but trust me, if this will happen to you, you will know.
I have been saying the same thing.
Do I think it's some conspiracy directed at me personally or that it's done with malice? NO. I had wondered if it was just high selling expensive artists, but enough of them have not experienced the same thing that it pretty much dispelled that idea.
At this point, I can't say what it is in the algorithm changes that have affected my sales or why it's happened. One possible reason could be the new emphasis on location of the photographer. I have always done VERY well selling in Europe. My models are not typical perfect shiny "American" looking, but just regular people. Judging from the sites that report where sales come from, roughly half my sales (and in-actions) are from outside the US. If my images are less prominent in Europe now, then that might account for some of the drop.
To repeat, I can only guess at the reasons. Who T-F knows, really? I just know it has happened very much as Adigrosu described above and it is a big hit to my income.
-
The search manipulation is not conspiracy theory, is just a fact. It is happening. Not everybody is affected indeed and that's why it is hard to believe. But those who are suffering from it can tell you. I am one of them, I used to have very good sales until the first of what SS called an "improvement" of the search algorithms, that caused a sudden drop of -35% in my sales, in April 2012. The second "improvement" took another -35% of my sales in April 2013 and that was overnight as well.
Top contributors, Chris among them, are reporting huge drops in March-April as well.
Nothing in my behavior has been changed (upload volume, quality etc) and both huge drop in sales took place overnight, so it is not me, it's them. I know it is hard to believe for those from you who didn't see anything but normal fluctuations in their sales over the years but trust me, if this will happen to you, you will know.
Well you would be one who knows with that awesome port. I feel the same as you. When there is a change to the algorithm one thing is inevitable....some will win and some will lose. I don't know whats going on but my sales have become so erratic in the last few months. For example, yesterday (FRIDAY) I made $9 on SS and $13 the day before. I used to make $20-50 a day, so I am seeing a decline too. I just assume that during the next change perhaps I'll benefit. Since I can't control it, I just keep working at creating new content.
-
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.
My answer removed.
It's all about them and matching the customers needs.
Let me put it another way: Hey folks, we're all getting searched equally.
The search manipulation is not conspiracy theory, is just a fact. It is happening. Not everybody is affected indeed and that's why it is hard to believe. But those who are suffering from it can tell you. I am one of them, I used to have very good sales until the first of what SS called an "improvement" of the search algorithms, that caused a sudden drop of -35% in my sales, in April 2012. The second "improvement" took another -35% of my sales in April 2013 and that was overnight as well.
Top contributors, Chris among them, are reporting huge drops in March-April as well.
Nothing in my behavior has been changed (upload volume, quality etc) and both huge drop in sales took place overnight, so it is not me, it's them. I know it is hard to believe for those from you who didn't see anything but normal fluctuations in their sales over the years but trust me, if this will happen to you, you will know.
Well you would be one who knows with that awesome port. I feel the same as you. When there is a change to the algorithm one thing is inevitable....some will win and some will lose. I don't know whats going on but my sales have become so erratic in the last few months. For example, yesterday (FRIDAY) I made $9 on SS and $13 the day before. I used to make $20-50 a day, so I am seeing a decline too. I just assume that during the next change perhaps I'll benefit. Since I can't control it, I just keep working at creating new content.
-
Only thing I can say is when people talk about "the next change" they are assuming that it's day by day or month by month and not hourly or based on some algorithm and CONSTANTLY changing.
That would explain someone being off for a 12 hour period or appearing to be blocked, and then turned back ON again. Location, demands, servers, buyers business hours, it could be 100 things and we aren't going to know or be able to control that.
Plus for someone to drop and the agency sales to grow, someone has to be getting whatever the person who lost sales, in not longer receiving. It's like the one from the past, where "everyone is lower in the search ranking" which is impossible.
Someone goes down, someone else goes up.
Point is, your sales ("your" being anyone reading this) can go down, but someone else has to be making that DL and their income went up. It's impossible for everyone to be going down. When the agency has record sales and profits.
The why I don't know, but my theory is, the search is always changing, not today or tomorrow or next month. It's always changing, all the time. And the time zone/location could be a major part of it moving for specific areas and people. Depending on what subjects you have the most of?
It's not person, by person, it's the whole system that's in motion and adjusting. No I don't think they turn me on or off or anyone else. I don't think it has anything to do with manipulation of earning potential for US. It's all about them and matching the customers needs.
Let me put it another way: Hey folks, we're all getting screwed equally.
The search manipulation is not conspiracy theory, is just a fact. It is happening. Not everybody is affected indeed and that's why it is hard to believe. But those who are suffering from it can tell you. I am one of them, I used to have very good sales until the first of what SS called an "improvement" of the search algorithms, that caused a sudden drop of -35% in my sales, in April 2012. The second "improvement" took another -35% of my sales in April 2013 and that was overnight as well.
Top contributors, Chris among them, are reporting huge drops in March-April as well.
Nothing in my behavior has been changed (upload volume, quality etc) and both huge drop in sales took place overnight, so it is not me, it's them. I know it is hard to believe for those from you who didn't see anything but normal fluctuations in their sales over the years but trust me, if this will happen to you, you will know.
Well you would be one who knows with that awesome port. I feel the same as you. When there is a change to the algorithm one thing is inevitable....some will win and some will lose. I don't know whats going on but my sales have become so erratic in the last few months. For example, yesterday (FRIDAY) I made $9 on SS and $13 the day before. I used to make $20-50 a day, so I am seeing a decline too. I just assume that during the next change perhaps I'll benefit. Since I can't control it, I just keep working at creating new content.
SS has come out publicly that they change their search algorithm and do experiment. That part is factual. How frequent is an unknown. But I don't think it's daily at all. To get good data it would need to be over a period of time dictated by their sample size. Another unknown. 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.
-
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.
-
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.
I think I said this in another thread that it sometimes sounds like people are describing some alien world when they describe their earnings.
-
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.
I think I said this in another thread that it sometimes sounds like people are describing some alien world when they describe their earnings.
I did note that with interest, as your statement matches the exerience of the very few people I know personally who sell there. But they have very localised ports and no models, which probably makes a big difference.
-
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?
-
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.
-
So, in the end there really is no theory... :-\
-
So, in the end there really is no theory... :-\
Or there are several theories all of which might be true at different times. :)
-
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. :)
-
OMGPLZWTF
-
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.
-
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
-
Here's one. The maps and charts of the only person who studied and took notes.
([url]http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/files/sales_pattern_matches_international_time_zones_767.jpg[/url])
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??
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Here's one. The maps and charts of the only person who studied and took notes.
([url]http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/files/sales_pattern_matches_international_time_zones_767.jpg[/url])
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.)
-
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.
-
^ 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.
-
Here's one. The maps and charts of the only person who studied and took notes.
[url]http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=130802&start=2955[/url] ([url]http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=130802&start=2955[/url])
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.
([url]http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/files/sales_pattern_matches_international_time_zones_767.jpg[/url])
([url]http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/files/dead_zone_sales_pattern_806.jpg[/url])
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)
-
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:
(http://s5.postimg.org/fl12fx2sn/microstock_zone.jpg)
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
-
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
-
^ 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.
-
http://www.shutterstock.com/blog/infographic-shutterstocks-global-design-trends-2014 (http://www.shutterstock.com/blog/infographic-shutterstocks-global-design-trends-2014)
http://www.shutterstock.com/blog/2013/02/infographic-shutterstocks-global-design-trends-2013/ (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.
-
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
(http://images.craigslist.org/00000_1BnsIylXmac_600x450.jpg)
-
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 ;)
-
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
-
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
:)
-
So you dis me first, and then realised it was me, and then dis me again. LOL
-
So you dis me first, and then realised it was me, and then dis me again. LOL
Dis You ron?
Heck no!
Your my favorite!
:)
If I'm going to "Dis" anyone it would not be you of all people.
Why on earth (or cyberspace) would you think that?
Again I wish you all the Very Best!
Oh by the way have you seen my lost cat?
There is a $25.00 reward for Tinker Bell's Safe Return
-
I love how you know My Sales Figures
maybe in your twitter account ;)
(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/8294845/mike%2010k%20files.jpg)
978 downloads in the first 22 days of February 2012
1296 downloads in January 2012
1590 downloads in November 2011
you have daily reports since Aug 2009 until February 2012
(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/8294845/mike%2037%20down%20Aug%202009.jpg)
-
I love how you know My Sales Figures
maybe in your twitter account ;)
(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/8294845/mike%2010k%20files.jpg)
978 downloads in the first 22 days of February 2012
1296 downloads in January 2012
1590 downloads in November 2011
you have daily reports since Aug 2009 until February 2012
(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/8294845/mike%2037%20down%20Aug%202009.jpg)
Perhaps im lying to see is following me on twitter?
;)
LOL!
Maybe yes? Maybe no?
Im glad your my twitter follower
I have a fan
im blushing
-
If those 1600 downloads are all $150 SODs Mike is doing very well. Nearly a quarter million per month.
-
Todays Twitter...
mike ledray @mikeledray1 · 1m
I sold 12,000 images on http://www.shutterstock.com (http://www.shutterstock.com) today!
Check out my gallery here http://shutterstock.com/g/mikeledray (http://shutterstock.com/g/mikeledray) pic.twitter.com/wBq9tnJ6tl
-
[url]http://www.shutterstock.com/blog/infographic-shutterstocks-global-design-trends-2014[/url] ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/blog/infographic-shutterstocks-global-design-trends-2014[/url])
[url]http://www.shutterstock.com/blog/2013/02/infographic-shutterstocks-global-design-trends-2013/[/url] ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/blog/2013/02/infographic-shutterstocks-global-design-trends-2013/[/url])
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.
That sounds to me like while overall sales are going up (according to SS), best sellers are becoming a smaller proportion of the total mix. Thus the remaining sales are spread out among more and more individual images and could be a part of the reduction (dilution) of individual income many contributors are reporting. More images ... greater competition.
-
[url]http://www.shutterstock.com/blog/infographic-shutterstocks-global-design-trends-2014[/url] ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/blog/infographic-shutterstocks-global-design-trends-2014[/url])
[url]http://www.shutterstock.com/blog/2013/02/infographic-shutterstocks-global-design-trends-2013/[/url] ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/blog/2013/02/infographic-shutterstocks-global-design-trends-2013/[/url])
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.
That sounds to me like while overall sales are going up (according to SS), best sellers are becoming a smaller proportion of the total mix. Thus the remaining sales are spread out among more and more individual images and could be a part of the reduction (dilution) of individual income many contributors are reporting. More images ... greater competition.
The question is why is there a 20% reduction in the best sellers while downloads per image stayed the same or went up? Those sales are going somewhere, just not to the best sellers. Without more information the reasons are all just speculation but one reason could be that best selling images (which are likely produced by best selling and highest level contributors) are being moved down in the search. There could be other reasons too. A 20% reduction for those files sounds significant to me and doesn't suggest normal variation, but like I said there could be other reasons.
-
Im glad your my twitter follower
I have a fan
im blushing
you do follow me but I don't follow you, too much photo booth business for my taste ;D
-
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!
Mike if we all work hard to produce excellent images which can stand on their own merit, none of us will need to cling to disingenuous marketing techniques. This marketing technique speaks of desperation.
-
Im glad your my twitter follower
I have a fan
im blushing
you do follow me but I don't follow you, too much photo booth business for my taste ;D
I DO?
Funny thing is, I dont use twitter, dont look at it, very rarely post on it, dont care about it, and think its a childish waste of time
I am glad you are having fun with it
oh by the way do you ever twit anything of any interest?
Sorry but I have no idea
-
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!
Mike if we all work hard to produce excellent images which can stand on their own merit, none of us will need to cling to disingenuous marketing techniques. This marketing technique speaks of desperation.
sounds like a good plan
dont tell anyone
we would hate for these guys to change their tactics and stop crying and whining about lack of sales
what fun would that be?
-
Seems like some people don't understand where this reporting comes from? Or if they do, the criticism of Mike is misplaced?
(I don't use it, I found it would have driven everyone I know to stop following me and watching a steady flow of SPAM from my Twitter account. And Also I don't want to be announcing my sales or income. BUT...)
Look on your SS "Account Settings", it's a added feature of SS.
" Shuttertweet
Automatically promote your images with your Twitter account. Sign up for Shuttertweet and Shutterstock can automatically:
Tweet a daily summary when work gets accepted. Example tweet:I got 10 images accepted to @shutterstock today! Check out my gallery here: http://tinyurl.com/----- (http://tinyurl.com/-----)
Tweet a daily summary of your download stats. Example tweet:I sold 10 images today through @shutterstock! My gallery is here: http://tinyurl.com/----- (http://tinyurl.com/-----)
All you have to do is add the Shuttertweet application to your Twitter account. Login to Twitter and allow Shuttertweet to post updates to your account. To activate, you must authorize the Shuttertweet application. You can deactivate Shuttertweet at any time. "
So is this, which I also don't plan on using.
" Facebook Connect
Activate the Shutterstock Facebook application and share your achievements at Shutterstock with your friends:
Post a daily summary when your images or videos are accepted to Shutterstock.
Post a daily summary of your Shutterstock sales stats.
Earn referral fees.
Example post:
You can choose to post a summary of accepted images or videos, a summary of your sales, or both. Any traffic from your posts that leads to successful sales will be paid out under the terms of the Shutterstock Referral Program. All you have to do is add the Shutterstock Facebook application to your Facebook account. To activate, make sure third-party cookies are enabled in your browser, then click the button below. You can turn off Shutterstock Facebook updates any time.
Login with Facebook
"
Also as far as I can see, the features are both broken, but people who joined when it was first started can be active. Again, I have no interest in sending endless messages to my friends and followers and people who don't care or have a use for my images.
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!
Mike if we all work hard to produce excellent images which can stand on their own merit, none of us will need to cling to disingenuous marketing techniques. This marketing technique speaks of desperation.
-
Im glad your my twitter follower
I have a fan
im blushing
you do follow me but I don't follow you, too much photo booth business for my taste ;D
I DO?
Funny thing is, I dont use twitter, dont look at it, very rarely post on it, dont care about it, and think its a childish waste of time
I am glad you are having fun with it
oh by the way do you ever twit anything of any interest?
Sorry but I have no idea
you have 23 tweets this month already, 2801 tweets in total!
-
...I dont use twitter, dont look at it, very rarely post on it, dont care about it, and think its a childish waste of time...
Just because you don't get it doesn't mean it's "childish" or a "waste of time".
...Sorry but I have no idea...
Obviously. I'm sure the myriad companies and individuals who have used it with great success to promote their products and services, as well as to better communicate with customers and in some cases use it as a customer support system, would all disagree with your assessment if its value.
-
Seems like some people don't understand where this reporting comes from? Or if they do, the criticism of Mike is misplaced?
(I don't use it, I found it would have driven everyone I know to stop following me and watching a steady flow of SPAM from my Twitter account. And Also I don't want to be announcing my sales or income. BUT...)
Look on your SS "Account Settings", it's a added feature of SS.
" Shuttertweet
Automatically promote your images with your Twitter account. Sign up for Shuttertweet and Shutterstock can automatically:
Tweet a daily summary when work gets accepted. Example tweet:I got 10 images accepted to @shutterstock today! Check out my gallery here: [url]http://tinyurl.com/-----[/url] ([url]http://tinyurl.com/-----[/url])
Tweet a daily summary of your download stats. Example tweet:I sold 10 images today through @shutterstock! My gallery is here: [url]http://tinyurl.com/-----[/url] ([url]http://tinyurl.com/-----[/url])
All you have to do is add the Shuttertweet application to your Twitter account. Login to Twitter and allow Shuttertweet to post updates to your account. To activate, you must authorize the Shuttertweet application. You can deactivate Shuttertweet at any time. "
So is this, which I also don't plan on using.
" Facebook Connect
Activate the Shutterstock Facebook application and share your achievements at Shutterstock with your friends:
Post a daily summary when your images or videos are accepted to Shutterstock.
Post a daily summary of your Shutterstock sales stats.
Earn referral fees.
Example post:
You can choose to post a summary of accepted images or videos, a summary of your sales, or both. Any traffic from your posts that leads to successful sales will be paid out under the terms of the Shutterstock Referral Program. All you have to do is add the Shutterstock Facebook application to your Facebook account. To activate, make sure third-party cookies are enabled in your browser, then click the button below. You can turn off Shutterstock Facebook updates any time.
Login with Facebook
"
Also as far as I can see, the features are both broken, but people who joined when it was first started can be active. Again, I have no interest in sending endless messages to my friends and followers and people who don't care or have a use for my images.
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!
Mike if we all work hard to produce excellent images which can stand on their own merit, none of us will need to cling to disingenuous marketing techniques. This marketing technique speaks of desperation.
Why would you quote me. I made absolutely no mention of twitter. My post was in response to Mike's comment which I quoted and highlighted in bold.
As for twitter are you just figuring this out? It seems that you are the one who is confused.
Mike is the one who did not understand that his twitter account was reporting his sales. That was Louis's point!
At the time, several years ago Mike was reporting that his sales were higher than they actually were. His own SS automated tweets pointed that out.
-
Shutterstock effectively manipulates our sales to the floor with a shameful art: Approve 200,000 new photos every week.
I have prepared a counter attack with my cat 200,000 photos next week ...
;)
-
Mike stopped using using twitter because after writing Gosh Golly Gee Willikers! in every post he only had 115 characters left.
-
Im glad your my twitter follower
I have a fan
im blushing
you do follow me but I don't follow you, too much photo booth business for my taste ;D
I DO?
Funny thing is, I dont use twitter, dont look at it, very rarely post on it, dont care about it, and think its a childish waste of time
I am glad you are having fun with it
oh by the way do you ever twit anything of any interest?
Sorry but I have no idea
you have 23 tweets this month already, 2801 tweets in total!
I DO?
How would that be?
As far as I know, the ONLY TWEET I have done for a Long Long time was yesterday (I think) when I posted my daily sales on SS!
It was a SLOOOOOOOOWWWWWW day, only 12000 image sales!
:(
I sure hope it pics up soon!
-
Seems like some people don't understand where this reporting comes from? Or if they do, the criticism of Mike is misplaced?
(I don't use it, I found it would have driven everyone I know to stop following me and watching a steady flow of SPAM from my Twitter account. And Also I don't want to be announcing my sales or income. BUT...)
Look on your SS "Account Settings", it's a added feature of SS.
" Shuttertweet
Automatically promote your images with your Twitter account. Sign up for Shuttertweet and Shutterstock can automatically:
Tweet a daily summary when work gets accepted. Example tweet:I got 10 images accepted to @shutterstock today! Check out my gallery here: [url]http://tinyurl.com/-----[/url] ([url]http://tinyurl.com/-----[/url])
Tweet a daily summary of your download stats. Example tweet:I sold 10 images today through @shutterstock! My gallery is here: [url]http://tinyurl.com/-----[/url] ([url]http://tinyurl.com/-----[/url])
All you have to do is add the Shuttertweet application to your Twitter account. Login to Twitter and allow Shuttertweet to post updates to your account. To activate, you must authorize the Shuttertweet application. You can deactivate Shuttertweet at any time. "
So is this, which I also don't plan on using.
" Facebook Connect
Activate the Shutterstock Facebook application and share your achievements at Shutterstock with your friends:
Post a daily summary when your images or videos are accepted to Shutterstock.
Post a daily summary of your Shutterstock sales stats.
Earn referral fees.
Example post:
You can choose to post a summary of accepted images or videos, a summary of your sales, or both. Any traffic from your posts that leads to successful sales will be paid out under the terms of the Shutterstock Referral Program. All you have to do is add the Shutterstock Facebook application to your Facebook account. To activate, make sure third-party cookies are enabled in your browser, then click the button below. You can turn off Shutterstock Facebook updates any time.
Login with Facebook
"
Also as far as I can see, the features are both broken, but people who joined when it was first started can be active. Again, I have no interest in sending endless messages to my friends and followers and people who don't care or have a use for my images.
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!
Mike if we all work hard to produce excellent images which can stand on their own merit, none of us will need to cling to disingenuous marketing techniques. This marketing technique speaks of desperation.
Why would you quote me. I made absolutely no mention of twitter. My post was in response to Mike's comment which I quoted and highlighted in bold.
As for twitter are you just figuring this out? It seems that you are the one who is confused.
Mike is the one who did not understand that his twitter account was reporting his sales. That was Louis's point!
At the time, several years ago Mike was reporting that his sales were higher than they actually were. His own SS automated tweets pointed that out.
Thats where you are all wrong.
For what ever unknown reason the SS Tweets tweeted out Twits that Twernt Correct.
In fact they Under Twitted my daily sales.
I sort of think it was due to the time zone (me being on the Good Side of the world the West Coast) and at 12:00 midnight NY Time its only 9:00pm here and other times for other parts of the world.
But thats all good to me
My sales are MY SALES and Not Yours.
I make the money and smile every time I look at my bank accounts
Its all good.
:)
-
Mike stopped using using twitter because after writing Gosh Golly Gee Willikers! in every post he only had 115 characters left.
GOSH GOLLY GEE WILLIKERS you figured me out!
:)
-
Im glad your my twitter follower
I have a fan
im blushing
you do follow me but I don't follow you, too much photo booth business for my taste ;D
I DO?
Funny thing is, I dont use twitter, dont look at it, very rarely post on it, dont care about it, and think its a childish waste of time
I am glad you are having fun with it
oh by the way do you ever twit anything of any interest?
Sorry but I have no idea
you have 23 tweets this month already, 2801 tweets in total!
THAT STATEMENT IS AN OUTRIGHT LIE!
I just checked my Twitter page
I have 2 post This Month. The last one was in August about my Microscope
But of course Lying and False Statements by You and a few select others is nothing new!
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>I sold 13,000 images on [url=http://t.co/wieOCEQjs6]http://t.co/wieOCEQjs6 (http://t.co/wieOCEQjs6)[/url] today! [url=http://t.co/xWbwfwCAX3]http://t.co/xWbwfwCAX3 (http://t.co/xWbwfwCAX3)[/url] pic.twitter.com/wBq9tnJ6tl (http://t.co/wBq9tnJ6tl) pic.twitter.com/noQ9dbieYo (http://t.co/noQ9dbieYo)</p>— mike ledray (@mikeledray1) April 10, 2014 (https://twitter.com/mikeledray1/statuses/454391162371977218)
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
-
no I am not lying dude
https://twitter.com/mikeledray
all of them from Facebook
anyway I am done with this discussion, you are a lost case and my patience is over!
you opened another account LOL
-
Mike, let me see if I am still following this correctly. You lie about not tweeting, than you create a new account so you can show only two tweets, than accuse Louis of being a liar and making slanderous claims against him, he shows the original link to your massive tweeting.
OK, I'm up to date. Thanks :P
-
Mike, let me see if I am still following this correctly. You lie about not tweeting, than you create a new account so you can show only two tweets, than accuse Louis of being a liar and making slanderous claims against him, he shows the original link to your massive tweeting.
OK, I'm up to date. Thanks :P
Nope
That is still my same twitter account from when I started
Again
I don't have any interest in Twitter.
Twitter is for self centered morons who think everyone has to know what they are up to.
I for one could care less what anyone on twitter has to say ever
lol
This is quite funny actually
-
...Twitter is for self centered morons who think everyone has to know what they are up to...
Classy, Mike.
You know probably 90% of the people on this forum use twitter. I see you're just as good at making friends over here as you were at the SS forum.
-
Reply 101 (doesn't that remind us all of some days earlier in life?) :)
Rah Rah Sis Boom Bah! That's the team spirit. Raw Raw Raw.
What, this isn't about meat? Oh I'm so disappointed. I like steak tartare, I like sushi. I like green peas and beans, fresh off the plants. Apples off the tree.
Eat it Raw. Vegetarian or meat. That's just fine with me.
Rah Rah Rah = Raw Raw Raw.
...Twitter is for self centered morons who think everyone has to know what they are up to...
Classy, Mike.
You know probably 90% of the people on this forum use twitter. I see you're just as good at making friends over here as you were at the SS forum.
-
...Twitter is for self centered morons who think everyone has to know what they are up to...
Classy, Mike.
You know probably 90% of the people on this forum use twitter. I see you're just as good at making friends over here as you were at the SS forum.
"friends" like You, I can live without!
Thank You
-
I'm highly suspicious that IS is limiting earnings. Why would this be a good idea? They get thousands of people continuing to produce new art instead of rewarding a few top tier full timers. Algorithms could consider port size, average wage in artists country, upload rates, selling rates, anything result they want to target. IS seems hungry for new images. Standards have been dramatically lowered which means they want MORE PRODUCERS. To stimulate production they share the earnings around. If I have a high day early in the week the next 2 to 3 days are much lower and my weekly earnings are usually within $100 range week to week.
-
"mikeledray @mikeledray Oct 30
Photography is easy. Even Monkeys can do it! Just had to share!"
good. you go boy :)
-
no I am not lying dude
https://twitter.com/mikeledray
all of them from Facebook
anyway I am done with this discussion, you are a lost case and my patience is over!
you opened another account LOL
You are a * idiot!
Those are all Facebook post
Not Twitter
LOL
please take care of this Tyler :)
-
"mikeledray @mikeledray Oct 30
Photography is easy. Even Monkeys can do it! Just had to share!"
good. you go boy :)
What a Great Quote
What year was that?
-
Ya, this is OT, but.... the world is full of the most interesting people, isn't it?
-
Ya, this is OT, but.... the world is full of the most interesting people, isn't it?
Well it has certainly muddled the discussion hasn't it. Who's talking about a site possibly manipulating the search to favor paying lower royalty contributors anymore?
-
Ya, this is OT, but.... the world is full of the most interesting people, isn't it?
Well it has certainly muddled the discussion hasn't it. Who's talking about a site possibly manipulating the search to favor paying lower royalty contributors anymore?
Tell me about it!
If it were not for a few select morons attacking me on every thread I respond to or start things would go as planned.
I really do not think SS or any site even thinks or cares about this concept.
I think their in a race to be on top of the stock market, with the most photos available for sale to anyone who wants to buy them.
The more photos they have the more customers stay on their site looking for that Perfect shot.
There are many versions of any particular image which gives the buyer more options.
This is a business of selling images for use (we all know that)
Nobody guaranteed any one person (or company or group) a particular income, I for one am just glad for each and every sale I get and am always doing my own marketing also to help with My bottom line.
Everyone (well almost everyone) is a competitor, why would (or should) I give my competitors a hand in taking My sales away with real info.
Some people do not like that, to them I say Booo Hooo go get your own ideas on how to make money.
:)
-
Ya, this is OT, but.... the world is full of the most interesting people, isn't it?
Well it has certainly muddled the discussion hasn't it. Who's talking about a site possibly manipulating the search to favor paying lower royalty contributors anymore?
No thread about something happening at SS will ever really go OT with you around. There is always TS to bring it back OnT.
-
Ya, this is OT, but.... the world is full of the most interesting people, isn't it?
Well it has certainly muddled the discussion hasn't it. Who's talking about a site possibly manipulating the search to favor paying lower royalty contributors anymore?
No thread about something happening at SS will ever really go OT with you around. There is always TS to bring it back OnT.
Taking it back off topic is your job I guess, Ambassador.