MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Shutterstock sales is sinking deeply...  (Read 64482 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Semmick Photo

« Reply #100 on: January 29, 2015, 14:44 »
+2
The monster week i needed to make my average month isnt happening. Very strange but no video sales, no sod's and very few od's and subs are low--almost half the average volume.  Cant understand it. See how next month goes.
This week completely collapsed for me too.


« Reply #101 on: January 29, 2015, 14:53 »
-6
This thread is about as useful as the Doom and Gloom thread over at SS....all problems and no solutions. Then again, most of us know it is unwise to offer solutions in business until you've milked the opportunity dry yourself.

Unfortunately all solutions are at SS management side. Not at all in contributors hands... I'd say that the most significant problem in this diminishing sales is overabundant crap images acceptance. And, stupid search which gives advantage to cheaper images from newbies who are in 25c or 33c tiers. Established contributors have to deal with wall which comes up to doubling portfolio size if they want to keep their earnings pace.
Do you have anything to share with us that proves that theory?

Added edit in my previous post. About the wall? Well... Mostly all what I can tell you about it is what I've heard. Search has changed when EX iStock exclusives come to SS. Many of people have very hard times to maintain their earnings if they don't upload on regular basis. New images don't sell as they sold before. You might get one or two sales in week after upload and that is it. So, there is a constant burying of new images...
No not about the wall, about the part I bolded

I think it is not the picture was cheaper. It is SS get more money from newbie,less left for contributor.
I know that, in fact, if someone uses up their 750 images per month, SS will lose money. But that is not what I am asking. I am just asking if there is proof that SS is favouring images from newbies? I am no newbie, I am on 38 cent, I dont see a decline. And I know more people with 38 cent ports still increasing their earnings.


Formula for that is what? To upload thousand or two thousands photos a month? Do you claim that all of that photos are pure quality? Come on? Just wait and see the wall you hit in some time!
? This wasnt about the wall but about your claim that images of newbies on 25 cent royalties are favoured in the search. No one attacked you, just disagreeing, no biggie.

Dude, no biggie at all... Just trying to show you that you and most here are using your time not to read and understand what is written. Most people read to find something in post to respond. That is what is problem! I asked you directly about your formula. I expect to see what Dave has to say also. Yes all newbies are favoured in search since ages. As you are established stocker you must know it. On shutterstock newbies have priority in search for first 3 months or so. That is not any kind of secret! The point is that some searches for some specific images today show some specific image. And the same search would not show that image day after and so on! So, Shutterstock has search which excludes some results from showing - not on first page - it excludes some result showing AT ALL!

« Reply #102 on: January 29, 2015, 15:04 »
+2
Hello guys!
Same for me here, since December SS is sinking.
I have a portfolio of almost 19k images and noticed a big decrease in the last 15days of December, surely because of the holiday season. The problem is that it didn't recover in January. This is worrying me a lot since stocks are my work and SS represents a bug % of my income :(

« Reply #103 on: January 29, 2015, 18:26 »
0
Unfortunately all solutions are at SS management side. Not at all in contributors hands... I'd say that the most significant problem in this diminishing sales is overabundant crap images acceptance. And, stupid search which gives advantage to cheaper images from newbies who are in 25c or 33c tiers. Established contributors have to deal with wall which comes up to doubling portfolio size if they want to keep their earnings pace.
Who needs that kind of photo?

as all here know, i am one of the biggest ss objector when it comes to their problem with us.
but here i have to be pro ss re: your statement about overabundant crap
who needs that kind of photo bit.


the way i see it, u should be happy that if it is true. the more  overabundant crap
who needs that kind of photo being approved ... the better for you the better for me.
the downloaders are not blind, they can see the difference.


i wish u are right, as the more overabundant crap ss accepts the better my portfolio is going to look.

« Reply #104 on: January 29, 2015, 18:44 »
+8
Agree with you in theory Estudiante but I think the over abundant crap just makes it harder for buyers to find the good stuff.

Rinderart

« Reply #105 on: January 29, 2015, 21:27 »
+10
Agree with you in theory Estudiante but I think the over abundant crap just makes it harder for buyers to find the good stuff.

And let me add. The vast.VAST majority of DL's are blogs,church fliers etc,etc,etc , Not book covers or Billboards what not. They want the ordinary, The everyday,The real and the simplistic story that can be told, Not blown out super Pics with unreal colors or massive time consuming composites as much as we love seeing them,appreciate and love doing them. Clean and clear even if they could do them themselves.

Im not saying the High enders here aren't doing well, they probably are but, thats not the bulk of what Microstock really is and where it's roots are. hence the reason for stocksy,Offset and the like. I have and can do some fairly artistic stuff Photographically But what sells for me..Personally is the simplest stuff I've done  and every now and then something I thought was cool sells But, By and large it's the dead on simple message that can be used over and over which, is the hardest thing for me to keep doing and could be the reason The majority of my sales are Very Old when I had more of a "PURE" stock mentality.

It's just so * Boring...LOL
« Last Edit: January 30, 2015, 01:17 by Rinderart »

« Reply #106 on: January 30, 2015, 04:16 »
0

And let me add. The vast.VAST majority of DL's are blogs,church fliers etc,etc,etc , Not book covers or Billboards what not. They want the ordinary, The everyday,The real and the simplistic story that can be told, Not blown out super Pics with unreal colors or massive time consuming composites as much as we love seeing them,appreciate and love doing them. Clean and clear even if they could do them themselves.

... Im not saying the High enders here aren't doing well, they probably are but, thats not the bulk of what Microstock really is and where it's roots are. hence the reason for stocksy,Offset and the like....

It's just so * Boring...LOL

Could not agree more... Even though I'm doing stock only one year, I'm starting to realize what is it all about. Decent composition, soft light, ordinary subject, everyday activity, happy faces, no shallow DOF, no noise.

So... The most important thing is quantity of photos in your port. There is quite stable equation how much downloads you can have depending strictly on quantity. With a few exceptions...

« Reply #107 on: January 30, 2015, 06:04 »
-8
Unfortunately all solutions are at SS management side. Not at all in contributors hands... I'd say that the most significant problem in this diminishing sales is overabundant crap images acceptance. And, stupid search which gives advantage to cheaper images from newbies who are in 25c or 33c tiers. Established contributors have to deal with wall which comes up to doubling portfolio size if they want to keep their earnings pace.
Who needs that kind of photo?

as all here know, i am one of the biggest ss objector when it comes to their problem with us.
but here i have to be pro ss re: your statement about overabundant crap
who needs that kind of photo bit.


the way i see it, u should be happy that if it is true. the more  overabundant crap
who needs that kind of photo being approved ... the better for you the better for me.
the downloaders are not blind, they can see the difference.


i wish u are right, as the more overabundant crap ss accepts the better my portfolio is going to look.

Dude, shhhh! they might really read what you wrote. But, anyhow they will not understand what you are talking about. Most of those 10000+ images stockers have more than 4/5 of pure crap in their ports. That is why they woo yay on crap photo I showed here ;)

Semmick Photo

« Reply #108 on: January 30, 2015, 06:49 »
+8
I'll take 4/5th of Sean's 'crap' photos any day !  ;D Still ten times better than my best shots LOL.

« Reply #109 on: January 30, 2015, 06:59 »
+5
I've got some right duffers in my port and I'm sure everybody has. This isn't art, although some would like to think it is. Having said that, there is room for art of course but I'll bet there are images of a pencil sharpener out there that outsell images of some elfin girl prancing through a wheat field back lit by a setting sun.

We have a saying in England: Where there's muck there's brass. Loosely translated, crap makes money. The trick is finding the right sort of crap and making it look fit for purpose.

« Reply #110 on: January 30, 2015, 13:40 »
+2
I've got some right duffers in my port and I'm sure everybody has. This isn't art, although some would like to think it is. Having said that, there is room for art of course but I'll bet there are images of a pencil sharpener out there that outsell images of some elfin girl prancing through a wheat field back lit by a setting sun.

We have a saying in England: Where there's muck there's brass. Loosely translated, crap makes money. The trick is finding the right sort of crap and making it look fit for purpose.

exactamento 8)
lady gaga, miley cyrus, justin beiber, etc sells more tickets than pavoratti even when he was alive.
the cardboard tasting fast muck at the foodcourt sells more per minute than your best restaurant.
microstock is no different. as someone said many years ago here , Ansel Adams would be a pauper if he was in microstock.
it's like the newsprint , we were told write Primary 5 (British school) English ; don't try to write anything "vague" . Even Bob Dylan's lyrics would confuse the newsprint readers.
microstock is no different. creative depth of field would be considered out of focus,
and low sunlight cast would be consider wrong WB.

« Reply #111 on: January 30, 2015, 15:00 »
+4
Well, I don't want to be a party pooper but my Jan 2015 sales are currently just 78c short of my Jan 2014 sales, with 24 hours or so left to beat last year's tally.  Admittedly, both years are significantly down on the 2012 and 2013 (so I was probably complaining, this time last year) but flatlining on last year is not a catastrophe.  I just wish all the other sites would do at least as well.

Rinderart

« Reply #112 on: January 30, 2015, 15:59 »
+2
How many have you added in the year. If a whole bunch, You lose. with adding None your ahead.  More goes into what I call a bad month than sales. Cost effectiveness doing this has always been a big Factor to me.

« Reply #113 on: January 30, 2015, 16:09 »
0
How many have you added in the year. If a whole bunch, You lose. with adding None your ahead.  More goes into what I call a bad month than sales. Cost effectiveness doing this has always been a big Factor to me.
I increased my portfolio by less than 10%, so as I've been at it for almost 11 years now that's a bit below average for annual uploads.  Not sure how that affects your assessment.

Rinderart

« Reply #114 on: January 30, 2015, 21:04 »
0
Time spent and expenses for return. If I get a 100 Sub sales,add in the cost of shooting,equipment and processing Time Based on a Hourly rate....Im going backwards. Micro is No longer sustainable looking at it Like that.Thank god, It has never accounted for more than 20/25% of what my Nut is being a full time Photographer when OD's SOD's and EL's become very scarce.

No Free Lunch

« Reply #115 on: January 30, 2015, 21:15 »
0
Unfortunately all solutions are at SS management side. Not at all in contributors hands... I'd say that the most significant problem in this diminishing sales is overabundant crap images acceptance. And, stupid search which gives advantage to cheaper images from newbies who are in 25c or 33c tiers. Established contributors have to deal with wall which comes up to doubling portfolio size if they want to keep their earnings pace.
Who needs that kind of photo?

as all here know, i am one of the biggest ss objector when it comes to their problem with us.
but here i have to be pro ss re: your statement about overabundant crap
who needs that kind of photo bit.


the way i see it, u should be happy that if it is true. the more  overabundant crap
who needs that kind of photo being approved ... the better for you the better for me.
the downloaders are not blind, they can see the difference.


i wish u are right, as the more overabundant crap ss accepts the better my portfolio is going to look.

Dude, shhhh! they might really read what you wrote. But, anyhow they will not understand what you are talking about. Most of those 10000+ images stockers have more than 4/5 of pure crap in their ports. That is why they woo yay on crap photo I showed here ;)

Maybe they should label 'Horrible Post' after you get -5  8)



« Reply #116 on: January 31, 2015, 02:30 »
+4
Time spent and expenses for return. If I get a 100 Sub sales,add in the cost of shooting,equipment and processing Time Based on a Hourly rate....Im going backwards. Micro is No longer sustainable looking at it Like that.Thank god, It has never accounted for more than 20/25% of what my Nut is being a full time Photographer when OD's SOD's and EL's become very scarce.

I have a different calculation, which is whether it lets me live as I choose. I would certainly earn more in a full-time job but I don't want to work for someone else, nor do I want to have to invest heavily in promoting my work in the hope of recouping the money through direct sales.  The money isn't as good as it was so, like you, I'm going backwards, but I spend hardly anything on shoots and a day's work might still bring in $1,000 over the course of a few years if I'm lucky, so I'm still some way off throwing in the towel.


« Reply #117 on: January 31, 2015, 03:17 »
+9
I have a different calculation, which is whether it lets me live as I choose.

100% on this one - not having some tit in a suit telling me I have to "work on networking my personal brand" or having to sit in meetings and stare at a stale croissant, or pretending I care about mission statements, or listening to hours of gobbledygook at seminars, or having to watch my back constantly, or arriving sweaty and lost at some airport in the middle of nowhere at midnight is worth a million smackers to me.

« Reply #118 on: January 31, 2015, 04:45 »
+1
I have a different calculation, which is whether it lets me live as I choose.

100% on this one - not having some tit in a suit telling me....
Exactly. Plus I've just been to the Post Office and found $280 sitting in my box that I knew nothing about, and another $1,400 that I was expecting.  That's job satisfaction.

« Reply #119 on: January 31, 2015, 05:23 »
+2
I have a different calculation, which is whether it lets me live as I choose.

100% on this one - not having some tit in a suit telling me....
Exactly. Plus I've just been to the Post Office and found $280 sitting in my box that I knew nothing about, and another $1,400 that I was expecting.  That's job satisfaction.

Exactly.
That's all about this. It's the best job of the world.
And no matter what happens, no matter how many photographers enter into this, no matter how many photos will enter daily you just have to keep pushing.
Back in 2008 when the sales decrease a LOT, eceryone talked about the end of microstock.

Since 2009 I've been always increasing my income... It's true that in 2008 I sold a bunch of 25s in Shutterstock and never reached that volume again.
But then you got ODs, singles etc... the market will always fit and I believe that if we continue to work, things will work for us

« Reply #120 on: January 31, 2015, 08:54 »
+1
... or pretending I care about mission statements...

LOL!  I know that feeling exactly!

« Reply #121 on: January 31, 2015, 08:56 »
0
100% on this one - not having some tit in a suit telling me I have to "work on networking my personal brand" or having to sit in meetings and stare at a stale croissant, or pretending I care about mission statements, or listening to hours of gobbledygook at seminars, or having to watch my back constantly, or arriving sweaty and lost at some airport in the middle of nowhere at midnight is worth a million smackers to me.

Ironically, arriving sweaty and lost at an airport at midnight is how I avoid doing those other things which you despair about.

« Reply #122 on: January 31, 2015, 09:26 »
+1
Ironically, arriving sweaty and lost at an airport at midnight is how I avoid doing those other things which you despair about.

I envy you and when I was a whippersnapper I wasn't worried - but now I'm older flip flops and rucksacks are out. I prefer to have my luggage on wheels and my hotel in easy reach of a Mercedes, driven by someone who doesn't smell of boiled onions. ;)

PS. Apologies for straying off topic.
« Last Edit: January 31, 2015, 09:33 by Red Dove »

« Reply #123 on: January 31, 2015, 12:14 »
+2
Wow, I am not posting doom and gloom for once - on this last day of the month my SS sales are 2x both 2014 and 2013 (which were almost the same and still not bad).  Had no el's but several SOD's ranging from sub value to $19.04.  That column sure adds up nicely.  Hopefully new norm!

Rinderart

« Reply #124 on: January 31, 2015, 12:39 »
+2
Time spent and expenses for return. If I get a 100 Sub sales,add in the cost of shooting,equipment and processing Time Based on a Hourly rate....Im going backwards. Micro is No longer sustainable looking at it Like that.Thank god, It has never accounted for more than 20/25% of what my Nut is being a full time Photographer when OD's SOD's and EL's become very scarce.

I have a different calculation, which is whether it lets me live as I choose. I would certainly earn more in a full-time job but I don't want to work for someone else, nor do I want to have to invest heavily in promoting my work in the hope of recouping the money through direct sales.  The money isn't as good as it was so, like you, I'm going backwards, but I spend hardly anything on shoots and a day's work might still bring in $1,000 over the course of a few years if I'm lucky, so I'm still some way off throwing in the towel.

I agree. I've never had a Job in My 72 years. never took a paycheck from anyone. Did pretty well all said and done.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
17 Replies
16365 Views
Last post December 12, 2006, 11:06
by MiguelAngelo
fotolia is sinking

Started by saniphoto « 1 2 ... 6 7 » Adobe Stock

163 Replies
37675 Views
Last post September 02, 2011, 11:59
by ruigsantos
9 Replies
2885 Views
Last post November 04, 2012, 04:58
by aeonf
34 Replies
50079 Views
Last post January 21, 2015, 10:11
by mendopato
43 Replies
11250 Views
Last post November 09, 2015, 04:11
by DavidZydd

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results