Author Topic: Shutterstock Q2 Profit Rises (Read 29091 times)

Ron · « **Reply #125 on:** August 15, 2013, 02:27 »

Quote from: tickstock on August 14, 2013, 17:44

I'm not arguing whether or not they profited. You said Shutterstock's higher revenue per download showed that they were messing with the search and putting lower level ex-exclusives first in the search, at least that seemed like the implication (edit: looking back it was clearly stated as such not implied). I'm just saying revenue isn't changed depending which files are bought (low level vs. higher level), even Shutterstock said the higher RPD is from selling more single image sales.

Agree with that, revenue doesnt change, only profit, when paying out 25 or 28 cent

Batman · « **Reply #126 on:** August 19, 2013, 21:58 »

Quote from: YadaYadaYada on August 14, 2013, 15:57

Quote from: Ron on August 14, 2013, 05:27
Quote from: Pauws99 on August 14, 2013, 05:21
Why is shareholders getting an income on investment dividend greed and photographers asking for a raise not? SS are doing a good job for shareholders and opening up markets. Do you think if they were losing money it would be a good thing?
Its called greed because they are squeezing the contributors. The royalties were reduced by about 60% over the last 7 years whilst some people lined their pockets. Contributors are asking for a bit of that royalty back now it turns out that the company is making more and more profit. As Tror said, they are not losing money, they might get a little less profit.

When did SS reduce royalties 60%?

Never, Ron just makes up this to get attention and won't answer you to back up his lies. He has not a camera, doesn't upload to microstock, comes here to troll. SS never reduced royalties 60%.

robhainer · « **Reply #127 on:** August 20, 2013, 00:08 »

Ron is an active stock contributor.

On the other hand, the theory that Shutterstock adjusted the search to benefit lower level contributors is just not true. I had a photo jump to No. 4 in popularity under "pets" (4 out of 427,724). It was submitted in mid May after the search change. I'm on the 38 cent tier. It would not have jumped that fast that far before the search change. The change helped new images, not new contributors.

That's as it should be. Old images should be less "popular." It's better for buyers, and it's better for contributors, unless you don't bother doing new work.

Ron · « **Reply #128 on:** August 20, 2013, 05:17 »

Quote from: Batman on August 19, 2013, 21:58

Quote from: YadaYadaYada on August 14, 2013, 15:57
Quote from: Ron on August 14, 2013, 05:27
Quote from: Pauws99 on August 14, 2013, 05:21
Why is shareholders getting an income on investment dividend greed and photographers asking for a raise not? SS are doing a good job for shareholders and opening up markets. Do you think if they were losing money it would be a good thing?
Its called greed because they are squeezing the contributors. The royalties were reduced by about 60% over the last 7 years whilst some people lined their pockets. Contributors are asking for a bit of that royalty back now it turns out that the company is making more and more profit. As Tror said, they are not losing money, they might get a little less profit.

When did SS reduce royalties 60%?

Never, Ron just makes up this to get attention and won't answer you to back up his lies. He has not a camera, doesn't upload to microstock, comes here to troll. SS never reduced royalties 60%.

Feels good being a big man behind your keyboard no? Let me know when you are in Dublin. We'll have a pint. Care to prove your accusations? I dont lie, never have. Why would I? I am not anonymous, you can verify everything I claim.

You are correct, Shutterstock didnt lower their royalites from 90% to 30%, that was more a general statement about the greed in stock agencies over the last 7 years, however, posted in a Shutterstock thread, I agree its wrong and not true to Shutterstock. Its not a lie, its an oversight.

Have a nice day, you are now a person I dont want to turn my back to. I might end up with a knife in it.

gbalex · « **Reply #129 on:** August 20, 2013, 08:52 »

Quote from: robhainer on August 20, 2013, 00:08

Ron is an active stock contributor.

On the other hand, the theory that Shutterstock adjusted the search to benefit lower level contributors is just not true. I had a photo jump to No. 4 in popularity under "pets" (4 out of 427,724). It was submitted in mid May after the search change. I'm on the 38 cent tier. It would not have jumped that fast that far before the search change. The change helped new images, not new contributors.

That's as it should be. Old images should be less "popular." It's better for buyers, and it's better for contributors, unless you don't bother doing new work.

You can not use EITHER ~ OR thinking when talking about search "ranking" algorithms. Are they steering all sales to new submitters? I would say no. Are they steering more sales to new submitters? Based on the collective feedback I have been getting from many long term submitters, I would say it is very likely.

You can also not judge what is happening with the search by example of what is happening with your own port and with one type of file. Especially when your port consists of images that most contributors are hesitant to submit. Children images sell well on SS because many submitters do not want to expose their children to miss use issues. Therefore what you are experiencing in regard to sales is not the general experience of most submitters. In your case the pet image that went to a first page search most likely also included a child which also helped give it a boost.

You have to look at the global picture and talk to a large number of older contributors to see what they are experiencing. I can tell you that in general new files are not selling, our older files sell well but they have killed off our best selling images. Does that mean that I never have images that hit first page searches? No I do, but in general that is happening less and less often since the search change and I am getting the same feed back from friends with large quality ports.

It is naive to think that now that SS has put ranking capabilities in place that they are not steering a percentage of sales to lower tier contributors when it makes sense for the long term and benefits the sites bottom line. Especially since a large portion of IS submitters who jumped ship have high quality files.

gostwyck · « **Reply #130 on:** August 20, 2013, 09:22 »

Quote from: gbalex on August 20, 2013, 08:52

It is naive to think that they are not steering a percentage of sales to lower tier contributors when it makes sense for the long term and benefits the sites bottom line.

I think it is 'naive' to explain one's own lack of sales with a variety of complex conspiracy theories with no evidence to support them.

SS's success, relative to their competitors, is precisely because they don't configure the search algorithm to promote/demote individual contributors or 'more profitable' images. If SS really wanted to pay out less than 38c, or whatever ... they why wouldn't they just amend the royalties accordingly? Much simpler than messing about with the search algorithm. When they wanted to amend the referral programme they just went ahead and did it without any notice, negotiation or discussion.

SS have always had to walk the tightrope between rewarding their contributors enough to incentivise them (and to dissuade them from going exclusive at IS) whilst spending enough on marketing/R&D and also remaining profitable.

gbalex · « **Reply #131 on:** August 20, 2013, 09:37 »

Quote from: gostwyck on August 20, 2013, 09:22

Quote from: gbalex on August 20, 2013, 08:52
It is naive to think that they are not steering a percentage of sales to lower tier contributors when it makes sense for the long term and benefits the sites bottom line.

I think it is 'naive' to explain one's own lack of sales with a variety of complex conspiracy theories with no evidence to support them.

SS's success, relative to their competitors, is precisely because they don't configure the search algorithm to promote/demote individual contributors or 'more profitable' images. If SS really wanted to pay out less than 38c, or whatever ... they why wouldn't they just amend the royalties accordingly? Much simpler than messing about with the search algorithm. When they wanted to amend the referral programme they just went ahead and did it without any notice, negotiation or discussion.

SS have always had to walk the tightrope between rewarding their contributors enough to incentivise them (and to dissuade them from going exclusive at IS) whilst spending enough on marketing/R&D and also remaining profitable.

Right my success and the success of many more was never in question until SS put search ranking algorithms in place. And suddenly it is a game changer. You guys are ignoring what is happening to long term submitters around you. How can our files be popular and selling well one day and the very next day disappear off the map? Some long term submitters I have talked to with large ports of HCV images have seen 70% drops in income and their new images which used to sell well are not selling. How do you explain that? Can it all be attributed to site bugs?

Based on your comments I take it you have never developed search ranking algorithms to serve content. We are talking about pulling info out of one or two database fields.

VB inc · « **Reply #132 on:** August 20, 2013, 09:38 »

Quote from: gbalex on August 20, 2013, 08:52

...
You can not use EITHER ~ OR thinking when talking about search "ranking" algorithms. Are they steering all sales to new submitters? I would say no. Are they steering more sales to new submitters? Based on the collective feedback I have been getting from many long term submitters, I would say it is very likely.

Do you think its a possibility that these newer contributors have better/commercial images than the library that they are replacing?

As a former istock exclusive, I have a pretty good idea about image quality on both sites. I can safely say that a lot more of my images are appearing on the first pages of search on shutterstock than it did on istock because the quality of the library on most instances is still better on istock IMO.

I think its just increased competition.

Ron · « **Reply #133 on:** August 20, 2013, 10:03 »

gbalex · « **Reply #134 on:** August 20, 2013, 10:04 »

Quote from: VB inc on August 20, 2013, 09:38

Quote from: gbalex on August 20, 2013, 08:52
...
You can not use EITHER ~ OR thinking when talking about search "ranking" algorithms. Are they steering all sales to new submitters? I would say no. Are they steering more sales to new submitters? Based on the collective feedback I have been getting from many long term submitters, I would say it is very likely.

Do you think its a possibility that these newer contributors have better/commercial images than the library that they are replacing?

As a former istock exclusive, I have a pretty good idea about image quality on both sites. I can safely say that a lot more of my images are appearing on the first pages of search on shutterstock than it did on istock because the quality of the library on most instances is still better on istock IMO.

I think its just increased competition.

In some cases yes I do and you make a good point. In other cases I would say they are picking the newer submitters over ports that have equal or better images. I could point to a few ports I know who have had large drops but that would not be fair they should have the option to show or not show those results themselves.

Ron · « **Reply #135 on:** August 20, 2013, 10:09 »

Quote from: gbalex on August 20, 2013, 09:37

Quote from: gostwyck on August 20, 2013, 09:22
Quote from: gbalex on August 20, 2013, 08:52
It is naive to think that they are not steering a percentage of sales to lower tier contributors when it makes sense for the long term and benefits the sites bottom line.

I think it is 'naive' to explain one's own lack of sales with a variety of complex conspiracy theories with no evidence to support them.

SS's success, relative to their competitors, is precisely because they don't configure the search algorithm to promote/demote individual contributors or 'more profitable' images. If SS really wanted to pay out less than 38c, or whatever ... they why wouldn't they just amend the royalties accordingly? Much simpler than messing about with the search algorithm. When they wanted to amend the referral programme they just went ahead and did it without any notice, negotiation or discussion.

SS have always had to walk the tightrope between rewarding their contributors enough to incentivise them (and to dissuade them from going exclusive at IS) whilst spending enough on marketing/R&D and also remaining profitable.

Right my success and the success of many more was never in question until SS put search ranking algorithms in place. And suddenly it is a game changer. You guys are ignoring what is happening to long term submitters around you. How can our files be popular and selling well one day and the very next day disappear off the map? Some long term submitters I have talked to with large ports of HCV images have seen 70% drops in income and their new images which used to sell well are not selling. How do you explain that? Can it all be attributed to site bugs?

Based on your comments I take it you have never developed search ranking algorithms to serve content. We are talking about pulling info out of one or two database fields.

Anthony has already said they are constantly tweaking the search and the article on the SS blog about AB testing confirmed it as well. I dont know why people constantly ignore those facts.

gbalex · « **Reply #136 on:** August 20, 2013, 10:36 »

Quote from: Ron on August 20, 2013, 10:09

Quote from: gbalex on August 20, 2013, 09:37
Quote from: gostwyck on August 20, 2013, 09:22
Quote from: gbalex on August 20, 2013, 08:52
It is naive to think that they are not steering a percentage of sales to lower tier contributors when it makes sense for the long term and benefits the sites bottom line.

I think it is 'naive' to explain one's own lack of sales with a variety of complex conspiracy theories with no evidence to support them.

SS's success, relative to their competitors, is precisely because they don't configure the search algorithm to promote/demote individual contributors or 'more profitable' images. If SS really wanted to pay out less than 38c, or whatever ... they why wouldn't they just amend the royalties accordingly? Much simpler than messing about with the search algorithm. When they wanted to amend the referral programme they just went ahead and did it without any notice, negotiation or discussion.

SS have always had to walk the tightrope between rewarding their contributors enough to incentivise them (and to dissuade them from going exclusive at IS) whilst spending enough on marketing/R&D and also remaining profitable.

Right my success and the success of many more was never in question until SS put search ranking algorithms in place. And suddenly it is a game changer. You guys are ignoring what is happening to long term submitters around you. How can our files be popular and selling well one day and the very next day disappear off the map? Some long term submitters I have talked to with large ports of HCV images have seen 70% drops in income and their new images which used to sell well are not selling. How do you explain that? Can it all be attributed to site bugs?

Based on your comments I take it you have never developed search ranking algorithms to serve content. We are talking about pulling info out of one or two database fields.
Anthony has already said they are constantly tweaking the search and the article on the SS blog about AB testing confirmed it as well. I dont know why people constantly ignore those facts.

They don't want to see the facts and it is easier to overlook them if you have a nitch that is not impacted as heavily via the new AB ranking results.

I do not think it could be any clearer than the example in the blog "How we use A/B test results to make business decisions" but that went right over most peoples heads because it is out of their scope of experience and is not great news.

Snip
How we use A/B test results to make business decisions. Instead of statistical significance, let’s make decisions based on expected value, i.e. $benefit × probability − $cost.

Snip
Now suppose you are so diligent that you keep rolling out A/B tests, this time testing a fancy search ranking algorithm. Two weeks later you see that there is a $0.10 increase in dollar spent per visitor for the test variant compared to the control (i.e. existing search ranking algorithm) variant. If the increase is real, with 100K visitors each day, that’s $0.10 × 100,000 = $10,000 dollars extra revenue each day. Now, let’s add a twist: you need five extra servers to support that fancy algorithm in production, and the servers cost $10,000 each to buy, and another $10,000 to run per year. You want to make sure it’s worth the investment. Your stats tell you that you currently have a p-value of 0.3, which most people would interpret as a “nonsignificant” result. But a p-value of 0.3 means that with the new ranking algorithm the net gain in extra-money-making probability is 0.7 − 0.3 = 0.4. With the expected size of the gain being $0.10 per visitor, the expected extra revenue per year is $0.10 × 100,000 × 0.4 × 365 = $1.46M dollars. The rational thing to do is of course release it.

http://bits.shutterstock.com/

Uncle Pete · « **Reply #137 on:** August 21, 2013, 13:13 »

"I think it is 'naive' to explain one's own lack of sales with a variety of complex conspiracy theories with no evidence to support them."

But that won't stop them from posting these theories over and over. LOL

Batman · « **Reply #138 on:** August 21, 2013, 14:21 »

Quote from: Ron on August 20, 2013, 05:17

Quote from: Batman on August 19, 2013, 21:58
Quote from: YadaYadaYada on August 14, 2013, 15:57
Quote from: Ron on August 14, 2013, 05:27
Quote from: Pauws99 on August 14, 2013, 05:21
Why is shareholders getting an income on investment dividend greed and photographers asking for a raise not? SS are doing a good job for shareholders and opening up markets. Do you think if they were losing money it would be a good thing?
Its called greed because they are squeezing the contributors. The royalties were reduced by about 60% over the last 7 years whilst some people lined their pockets. Contributors are asking for a bit of that royalty back now it turns out that the company is making more and more profit. As Tror said, they are not losing money, they might get a little less profit.

When did SS reduce royalties 60%?

Never, Ron just makes up this to get attention and won't answer you to back up his lies. He has not a camera, doesn't upload to microstock, comes here to troll. SS never reduced royalties 60%.
Feels good being a big man behind your keyboard no? Let me know when you are in Dublin. We'll have a pint. Care to prove your accusations? I dont lie, never have. Why would I? I am not anonymous, you can verify everything I claim.

You are correct, Shutterstock didnt lower their royalites from 90% to 30%, that was more a general statement about the greed in stock agencies over the last 7 years, however, posted in a Shutterstock thread, I agree its wrong and not true to Shutterstock. Its not a lie, its an oversight.

Have a nice day, you are now a person I dont want to turn my back to. I might end up with a knife in it.

Posted Shutterstock.com forum subjkect Shutterstock Q2 Profit and you call me out. You write these messages all the time here and on SS forum but don't stand back up for what oversight.

Quote from: Ron on July 31, 2013, 09:20

Absolutely, but why doesnt the Lobo give me that answer instead of being a dickhole?

You must want to be like Lobo. Don't answer questions just write a mean reply.

tickstock · « **Reply #139 on:** August 21, 2013, 14:32 »

Uncle Pete · « **Reply #140 on:** August 21, 2013, 15:09 »

Why? It's like arguing who has clearer pee in a pissing contest. LOL

Quote from: tickstock on August 21, 2013, 14:32

^Fix the quotes.

Ron · « **Reply #141 on:** August 21, 2013, 16:35 »

Quote from: Batman on August 21, 2013, 14:21

Quote from: Ron on August 20, 2013, 05:17
Quote from: Batman on August 19, 2013, 21:58
Quote from: YadaYadaYada on August 14, 2013, 15:57
Quote from: Ron on August 14, 2013, 05:27
Quote from: Pauws99 on August 14, 2013, 05:21
Why is shareholders getting an income on investment dividend greed and photographers asking for a raise not? SS are doing a good job for shareholders and opening up markets. Do you think if they were losing money it would be a good thing?
Its called greed because they are squeezing the contributors. The royalties were reduced by about 60% over the last 7 years whilst some people lined their pockets. Contributors are asking for a bit of that royalty back now it turns out that the company is making more and more profit. As Tror said, they are not losing money, they might get a little less profit.

When did SS reduce royalties 60%?

Never, Ron just makes up this to get attention and won't answer you to back up his lies. He has not a camera, doesn't upload to microstock, comes here to troll. SS never reduced royalties 60%.
Feels good being a big man behind your keyboard no? Let me know when you are in Dublin. We'll have a pint. Care to prove your accusations? I dont lie, never have. Why would I? I am not anonymous, you can verify everything I claim.

You are correct, Shutterstock didnt lower their royalites from 90% to 30%, that was more a general statement about the greed in stock agencies over the last 7 years, however, posted in a Shutterstock thread, I agree its wrong and not true to Shutterstock. Its not a lie, its an oversight.

Have a nice day, you are now a person I dont want to turn my back to. I might end up with a knife in it.

Posted Shutterstock.com forum subjkect Shutterstock Q2 Profit and you call me out. You write these messages all the time here and on SS forum but don't stand back up for what oversight.

Quote from: Ron on July 31, 2013, 09:20

Absolutely, but why doesnt the Lobo give me that answer instead of being a dickhole?

You must want to be like Lobo. Don't answer questions just write a mean reply.

But I am not anonymous, like you. And him

gbalex · « **Reply #142 on:** August 22, 2013, 13:13 »

Quote from: Uncle Pete on August 21, 2013, 13:13

"I think it is 'naive' to explain one's own lack of sales with a variety of complex conspiracy theories with no evidence to support them."

But that won't stop them from posting these theories over and over. LOL

I have submitter to SS since 2004, my sales have been steady and consistent every month up until the time SS implemented the new search algorithm. After its implementation my sales dropped over 50% in one day and have never recovered.

My new files which sold just fine for 9 years and often ended up on first page searches are no longer selling.

It does not take rocket science to determine those sales have been pushed somewhere else and you only have to read what new submitters are conveying in regard to increased sales to determine where those sales have been pushed after the new search was implemented.

You would have to be in utter denial not to understand what has occurred, unfortunately I am not alone.

http://www.microstockgroup.com/shutterstock-com/shutterstock-down-again-!/msg322717/#msg322717

Quote from: VB inc on June 11, 2013, 21:49

Quote from: Ron on June 11, 2013, 12:40
Here is a quote on their testing on live portfolios

http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=130239&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=anthony&start=135

Quote
Posted: Sun May 12, 2013 2:33 pm

Hello all,

At Shutterstock, we perform regular tests of small modifications to search. Those tests are typically released to limited segments of the overall customer population. If a test wins over time – which typically means that the changes have demonstrably increased the total number of customer downloads – then the resulting improvements are accepted and deployed.

Search testing and analysis is a continuous process of small improvements that generally won’t result in dramatic swings in search. Changes are carefully tested and evaluated to make sure that the overall effect on customer downloads and/or purchases is a positive one.

Customer demand, content differentiation, keyword quantity and quality, global holidays, seasonality and other factors can affect an individual contributor's day-to-day earnings. We recommend allowing a little time before evaluating the effect on your personal portfolio.

Sincerely,
Anthony Correia
Director, Contributor Success
Shutterstock|Bigstock

I have noticed a significant boost in the amount of downloads i have been getting since starting last week. I would say anywhere from 10-25%. So this explains why as they have tweaked the search for newer files to have a slightly better exposure. Since im fairly new on SS, all my files are new I guess. Im sorry for the older portfolios that is taking a hit from this but this is probably going to be an on going thing where they will be tweaking the search constantly.

Quote from: VB inc on August 20, 2013, 09:38
Quote from: gbalex on August 20, 2013, 08:52
...You can not use EITHER ~ OR thinking when talking about search "ranking" algorithms. Are they steering all sales to new submitters? I would say no. Are they steering more sales to new submitters? Based on the collective feedback I have been getting from many long term submitters, I would say it is very likely.

Do you think its a possibility that these newer contributors have better/commercial images than the library that they are replacing?

As a former istock exclusive, I have a pretty good idea about image quality on both sites. I can safely say that a lot more of my images are appearing on the first pages of search on shutterstock than it did on istock because the quality of the library on most instances is still better on istock IMO.

I think its just increased competition.

VB inc · « **Reply #143 on:** August 22, 2013, 18:12 »

Quote from: gbalex on August 22, 2013, 13:13

...

I guess i need to respond since your quoting my earlier statements. Its in my opinion that historically, the talent on istock is superior to that of Shutterstock until fairly recently. I have been studying the quality of the images (mainly vectors) on both sites since 2007 or so when i started paying more attention to it. From around 2-3 years ago, i really started noticing the quality drastically improve on shutterstock.

If your job is to get the best image for your clients/buyers as quick as possible with no bias to a files past performance, wouldnt you showcase these images where the clients can see them? Lets say you get an massive influx of new quality proven images (ex istock exclusive images whose files have been proven sellers among a tougher competition) It would make sense to tweak your search to favor these new files so they have a chance to be seen and bought instead of getting buried. The search would seem to favor newer files, but i believe it affects all newer files and not certain contributors.

I have some files that have sold well on istock that havent even been bought on SS so i think it is a fairly non biased search on SS. I am pretty objective in comparing my competition to my own works and can clearly see that the competition made much better files than mine which prevents me from making more of those same type of files.
If there is a tweaking where the newer files get a boost, and these newer files aren't as good as whats available in the library, i believe they will sink further back in searches eventually.

I believe it only takes 25-50 established portfolios to take a significant amount of real estate space in the first couple of page search results. These 25 portfolios probably replaces over 100 older established contributor base because in my opinion is that their skill sets (producing sellable content) might be slightly higher. It also makes sense to think that the higher skilled portfolios most likely has more images that are in the first couple of pages than the average contributor.

If your experiencing severe drops in your downloads and your newer files aren't selling, the most plausible explaining that comes to me is that the quality of the current library is superior what you have experienced in the past. You and others probably enjoyed the weighting of the search algorithm to favor the amount of past downloads as this current search doesn't rely heavily take that into account anymore. That's what i think is happening but who knows?

Ron · « **Reply #144 on:** August 23, 2013, 04:05 »

@ VB Inc,

There are people with extremely good portfolios, staggering images, high quality vectors, that report a massive drop of 50% from one day to the next and never recovered.

There is a portfolio of 5000 photos, amazing imagery, beautiful commercial images, who has less sales then my 900 crapstock.

gbalex · « **Reply #145 on:** August 23, 2013, 12:16 »

Quote from: VB inc on August 22, 2013, 18:12

Quote from: gbalex on August 22, 2013, 13:13
...
If your job is to get the best image for your clients/buyers as quick as possible with no bias to a files past performance, wouldnt you showcase these images where the clients can see them? Lets say you get an massive influx of new quality proven images (ex istock exclusive images whose files have been proven sellers among a tougher competition) It would make sense to tweak your search to favor these new files so they have a chance to be seen and bought instead of getting buried. The search would seem to favor newer files, but i believe it affects all newer files and not certain contributors.

I have some files that have sold well on istock that havent even been bought on SS so i think it is a fairly non biased search on SS. I am pretty objective in comparing my competition to my own works and can clearly see that the competition made much better files than mine which prevents me from making more of those same type of files.
If there is a tweaking where the newer files get a boost, and these newer files aren't as good as whats available in the library, i believe they will sink further back in searches eventually.

If your experiencing severe drops in your downloads and your newer files aren't selling, the most plausible explaining that comes to me is that the quality of the current library is superior what you have experienced in the past. You and others probably enjoyed the weighting of the search algorithm to favor the amount of past downloads as this current search doesn't rely heavily take that into account anymore. That's what i think is happening but who knows?

I am a buyer and submitter and would be fine with the scenario you detailed. Competition is fine by me and that in my opinion is what made SS a cut above for buyers until the new ranking algorithm was implemented.

Now I will ask you a question, if my files do not even show up in searches after I have searched thru 50 pages to find them. How can I ever expect buyers to be able to make the choice between my image and your files? I can not compete if buyers never see my files.

New submitters have always had a boost for a small time period on SS and I think that is fair. The migration from IS has been a win win for SS. They get good files on first page searches and they pay less. The fact that my files are buried so that no buyer will ever see them in search results is not fair.

Lets talk after you hit the .38 tier.

VB inc · « **Reply #146 on:** August 23, 2013, 14:56 »

Wow I didn't know it was that bad for you. Sorry to hear about that. Is any of your newer files selling or do you think it has something to do with u being at the .38 level?
Since starting to contribute in January, I'm at the .33 level and will most likely be at the next level in a month w 200 vector files in my SS portfolio.

wordplanet · « **Reply #147 on:** August 23, 2013, 15:55 »

After a slow June & July with returns that I now see are average according to the dls/day/per file etc, SS has come roaring back for me to earn returns of $1.10 per download - not going to make me rich but at least things seem to be back to normal.

Uploaded some creative mixed media stuff lately including stuff I've taken on my iPhone and reworked in PS and it was all accepted. Will be interesting to see if it sells. My port is far from traditional microstock so it was good to see that it compares favorably in terms of returns per file and also is more than twice the RPI than the SS average - I guess most of us are earning well above the average return since there are still plenty of photos on there that don't sell at all, but I was worried when after having a fair number of images on page 1 for one-word fairly common search terms, a lot of my work had dropped back by several pages. Close to a BME and there's still a week to go.

And my SS stock is earning for me too. Gotta have all the bases covered, greedy stockholder that I am

robhainer · « **Reply #148 on:** August 24, 2013, 09:51 »

Quote from: gbalex on August 20, 2013, 08:52

Quote from: robhainer on August 20, 2013, 00:08
Ron is an active stock contributor.

On the other hand, the theory that Shutterstock adjusted the search to benefit lower level contributors is just not true. I had a photo jump to No. 4 in popularity under "pets" (4 out of 427,724). It was submitted in mid May after the search change. I'm on the 38 cent tier. It would not have jumped that fast that far before the search change. The change helped new images, not new contributors.

That's as it should be. Old images should be less "popular." It's better for buyers, and it's better for contributors, unless you don't bother doing new work.

You can not use EITHER ~ OR thinking when talking about search "ranking" algorithms. Are they steering all sales to new submitters? I would say no. Are they steering more sales to new submitters? Based on the collective feedback I have been getting from many long term submitters, I would say it is very likely.

You can also not judge what is happening with the search by example of what is happening with your own port and with one type of file. Especially when your port consists of images that most contributors are hesitant to submit. Children images sell well on SS because many submitters do not want to expose their children to miss use issues. Therefore what you are experiencing in regard to sales is not the general experience of most submitters. In your case the pet image that went to a first page search most likely also included a child which also helped give it a boost.

You have to look at the global picture and talk to a large number of older contributors to see what they are experiencing. I can tell you that in general new files are not selling, our older files sell well but they have killed off our best selling images. Does that mean that I never have images that hit first page searches? No I do, but in general that is happening less and less often since the search change and I am getting the same feed back from friends with large quality ports.

It is naive to think that now that SS has put ranking capabilities in place that they are not steering a percentage of sales to lower tier contributors when it makes sense for the long term and benefits the sites bottom line. Especially since a large portion of IS submitters who jumped ship have high quality files.

I don't think they are steering sales toward new contributors as much as they are steering sales toward new images. It just so happens that new contributors with large portfolios have all new images, so the end result is the same. That doesn't mean Shutterstock is trying to cut down earnings of people on the 38 cent tier. Otherwise, I wouldn't have been able to break in with some of my new photos like I have. Besides, those new contributors with large portfolios will probably be on the top tier in a matter of months if not weeks.

gbalex · « **Reply #149 on:** August 24, 2013, 15:47 »

Quote from: robhainer on August 24, 2013, 09:51

Quote from: gbalex on August 20, 2013, 08:52
Quote from: robhainer on August 20, 2013, 00:08
Ron is an active stock contributor.

On the other hand, the theory that Shutterstock adjusted the search to benefit lower level contributors is just not true. I had a photo jump to No. 4 in popularity under "pets" (4 out of 427,724). It was submitted in mid May after the search change. I'm on the 38 cent tier. It would not have jumped that fast that far before the search change. The change helped new images, not new contributors.

That's as it should be. Old images should be less "popular." It's better for buyers, and it's better for contributors, unless you don't bother doing new work.

You can not use EITHER ~ OR thinking when talking about search "ranking" algorithms. Are they steering all sales to new submitters? I would say no. Are they steering more sales to new submitters? Based on the collective feedback I have been getting from many long term submitters, I would say it is very likely.

You can also not judge what is happening with the search by example of what is happening with your own port and with one type of file. Especially when your port consists of images that most contributors are hesitant to submit. Children images sell well on SS because many submitters do not want to expose their children to miss use issues. Therefore what you are experiencing in regard to sales is not the general experience of most submitters. In your case the pet image that went to a first page search most likely also included a child which also helped give it a boost.

You have to look at the global picture and talk to a large number of older contributors to see what they are experiencing. I can tell you that in general new files are not selling, our older files sell well but they have killed off our best selling images. Does that mean that I never have images that hit first page searches? No I do, but in general that is happening less and less often since the search change and I am getting the same feed back from friends with large quality ports.

It is naive to think that now that SS has put ranking capabilities in place that they are not steering a percentage of sales to lower tier contributors when it makes sense for the long term and benefits the sites bottom line. Especially since a large portion of IS submitters who jumped ship have high quality files.

I don't think they are steering sales toward new contributors as much as they are steering sales toward new images. It just so happens that new contributors with large portfolios have all new images, so the end result is the same. That doesn't mean Shutterstock is trying to cut down earnings of people on the 38 cent tier. Otherwise, I wouldn't have been able to break in with some of my new photos like I have. Besides, those new contributors with large portfolios will probably be on the top tier in a matter of months if not weeks.

You are discounting skillfeed and the new video advertisements they are asking us to provide to lure and train new contributors.

Again, you can not compare the contents of your port to the average contributors port. Many contributors do not even shoot people and if they do their ports have far more adults. You shoot a large number of children and that gives your images a boost in the searches because SS has fewer images of children to serve buyers. You are well aware of this yet you continue to compare apples to oranges.

boy 767,610 results
kid 837,552 results
child 1,236,279

woman 4,488,134 results
adult 2,834,611 results
man 2,421,178 results

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Shutterstock Q2 Profit Rises (Read 29091 times)

Ron

Batman

robhainer

Ron

gbalex

gostwyck

gbalex

VB inc

Ron

gbalex

Ron

gbalex

Uncle Pete

Batman

tickstock

Uncle Pete

Ron

gbalex

VB inc

Ron

gbalex

VB inc

wordplanet

robhainer

gbalex

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors