Author Topic: Shutterstock Q2 Profit Rises (Read 32209 times)

robhainer · « **Reply #150 on:** August 24, 2013, 16:57 »

What difference does that make? I sell more than one kind of image. You act like that's where I get all of my downloads. It's not. A search for "town" returns 428,933 images. One of my recent photos is No. 16 most popular and rising. No. 16 out of more than 400,000 isn't too bad for an image that's barely a month old, and not a person in it.

Your premise is that people on the top tier automatically got their images demoted. There's two examples where I showed you that isn't the case. It's older images that lost out in the search change, not older contributors.

gbalex · « **Reply #151 on:** August 24, 2013, 18:16 »

Quote from: robhainer on August 24, 2013, 16:57

What difference does that make? I sell more than one kind of image. You act like that's where I get all of my downloads. It's not. A search for "town" returns 428,933 images. One of my recent photos is No. 16 most popular and rising. No. 16 out of more than 400,000 isn't too bad for an image that's barely a month old, and not a person in it.

Your premise is that people on the top tier automatically got their images demoted. There's two examples where I showed you that isn't the case. It's older images that lost out in the search change, not older contributors.

That is only your opinion and not my experience or the experience of many long term submitters I have talked to personally. Our new files are not selling and that was not the case just a few short months ago!

robhainer · « **Reply #152 on:** August 26, 2013, 07:51 »

Quote from: gbalex on August 24, 2013, 18:16

Quote from: robhainer on August 24, 2013, 16:57
What difference does that make? I sell more than one kind of image. You act like that's where I get all of my downloads. It's not. A search for "town" returns 428,933 images. One of my recent photos is No. 16 most popular and rising. No. 16 out of more than 400,000 isn't too bad for an image that's barely a month old, and not a person in it.

Your premise is that people on the top tier automatically got their images demoted. There's two examples where I showed you that isn't the case. It's older images that lost out in the search change, not older contributors.

That is only your opinion and not my experience or the experience of many long term submitters I have talked to personally. Our new files are not selling and that was not the case just a few short months ago!

So you've submitted several hundred new files since March and not a single one has sold even one time?

gbalex · « **Reply #153 on:** August 28, 2013, 11:34 »

Quote from: robhainer on August 26, 2013, 07:51

Quote from: gbalex on August 24, 2013, 18:16
Quote from: robhainer on August 24, 2013, 16:57
What difference does that make? I sell more than one kind of image. You act like that's where I get all of my downloads. It's not. A search for "town" returns 428,933 images. One of my recent photos is No. 16 most popular and rising. No. 16 out of more than 400,000 isn't too bad for an image that's barely a month old, and not a person in it.

Your premise is that people on the top tier automatically got their images demoted. There's two examples where I showed you that isn't the case. It's older images that lost out in the search change, not older contributors.

That is only your opinion and not my experience or the experience of many long term submitters I have talked to personally. Our new files are not selling and that was not the case just a few short months ago!

So you've submitted several hundred new files since March and not a single one has sold even one time?

No they quit selling well in February. I used to regularly have images which hit the Top 50 weekly.

Funny how the Weekly Top 50 suddenly quit updating after 9 years of working perfectly. Almost makes you think they do not want us to see who has those top positions now.

http://submit.shutterstock.com/top50.mhtml?span=week&filter=all

VB inc · « **Reply #154 on:** August 28, 2013, 12:45 »

Quote from: gbalex on August 28, 2013, 11:34

Funny how the Weekly Top 50 suddenly quit updating after 9 years of working perfectly. Almost makes you think they do not want us to see who has those top positions now.

It looks like it stopped working around february as one of the images i see is valentines. I have been looking at that from time to time to see if they updated but nope...

gbalex · « **Reply #155 on:** August 28, 2013, 13:59 »

Quote from: VB inc on August 28, 2013, 12:45

Quote from: gbalex on August 28, 2013, 11:34

Funny how the Weekly Top 50 suddenly quit updating after 9 years of working perfectly. Almost makes you think they do not want us to see who has those top positions now.

It looks like it stopped working around february as one of the images i see is valentines. I have been looking at that from time to time to see if they updated but nope...

Exactly and sales dropped of the cliff in March.

gostwyck · « **Reply #156 on:** August 28, 2013, 18:56 »

Quote from: gbalex on August 28, 2013, 13:59

Quote from: VB inc on August 28, 2013, 12:45
Quote from: gbalex on August 28, 2013, 11:34

Funny how the Weekly Top 50 suddenly quit updating after 9 years of working perfectly. Almost makes you think they do not want us to see who has those top positions now.

It looks like it stopped working around february as one of the images i see is valentines. I have been looking at that from time to time to see if they updated but nope...

Exactly and sales dropped of the cliff in March.

It's just weird how the jolly old share price keeps rising despite your protestations of how sales keep falling ... and most others are reporting the opposite. I reckon that's worthy of an editorial in 'Amazing Phenomena' magazine.

gbalex · « **Reply #157 on:** August 28, 2013, 20:26 »

Quote from: gostwyck on August 28, 2013, 18:56

Quote from: gbalex on August 28, 2013, 13:59
Quote from: VB inc on August 28, 2013, 12:45
Quote from: gbalex on August 28, 2013, 11:34

Funny how the Weekly Top 50 suddenly quit updating after 9 years of working perfectly. Almost makes you think they do not want us to see who has those top positions now.

It looks like it stopped working around february as one of the images i see is valentines. I have been looking at that from time to time to see if they updated but nope...

Exactly and sales dropped of the cliff in March.

It's just weird how the jolly old share price keeps rising despite your protestations of how sales keep falling ... and most others are reporting the opposite. I reckon that's worthy of an editorial in 'Amazing Phenomena' magazine.

You don't pay attention well do you? Sales are not falling "for SS" and it is not at all surprising that the share prices have gone up! Mean while I just saw one of the classic old timers with more HCV images in her port than any of us will ever shoot complaining about sales dropping off a cliff. Bet most people do not even know who she is and she is smart to stay under the radar.

EmberMike · « **Reply #158 on:** August 28, 2013, 23:37 »

Quote from: gbalex on August 28, 2013, 11:34

Funny how the Weekly Top 50 suddenly quit updating after 9 years of working perfectly. Almost makes you think they do not want us to see who has those top positions now...

I hope it was deliberate that the Top 50 stopped working, and I hope they don't ever "fix" it. Those lists were nothing more than copycat fodder.

gbalex · « **Reply #159 on:** August 29, 2013, 02:52 »

Quote from: EmberMike on August 28, 2013, 23:37

Quote from: gbalex on August 28, 2013, 11:34
Funny how the Weekly Top 50 suddenly quit updating after 9 years of working perfectly. Almost makes you think they do not want us to see who has those top positions now...

I hope it was deliberate that the Top 50 stopped working, and I hope they don't ever "fix" it. Those lists were nothing more than copycat fodder.

That was my first response also, but after talking to a few of my friends who also used to make it into that list on a regular basis we have started to wonder about the timing of our drops and its demise. I think many of us were not fans.