pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Shutterstock sales is sinking deeply...  (Read 64880 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Phadrea

    This user is banned.
« Reply #300 on: July 16, 2015, 11:52 »
+1
Tuesday great sales. Wednesday a drop. Today 1 sale.


« Reply #301 on: July 16, 2015, 12:45 »
+1
Tuesday great sales. Wednesday a drop. Today 1 sale.

Similar. Monday Tuesday $225 total Wednesday $10 today $4

« Reply #302 on: July 16, 2015, 17:03 »
0
Tuesday great sales. Wednesday a drop. Today 1 sale.

Similar. Monday Tuesday $225 total Wednesday $10 today $4
Wow that's a huge difference between the days.  I rarely get much difference in sales on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday which are usually the three best days of the week.  Unless of course I get els or large Sods.

« Reply #303 on: July 16, 2015, 18:18 »
0
that was a joke

Tuesday great sales. Wednesday a drop. Today 1 sale.

Similar. Monday Tuesday $225 total Wednesday $10 today $4

« Reply #304 on: July 17, 2015, 02:03 »
+2
Today i don't expect any sales - most of my portfolio is not shown, only gray squares. Forul is not loading, only main page

« Reply #305 on: July 17, 2015, 08:05 »
+3
Yeah, what's with that thumbs, they're not showing at all. Only showing gray squares. I thought, it's something with my browser. I had few sales, but no thumbs showing up in sales report, only "squares" with image title.

« Reply #306 on: July 17, 2015, 08:13 »
+1
Yeah, what's with that thumbs, they're not showing at all. Only showing gray squares. I thought, it's something with my browser. I had few sales, but no thumbs showing up in sales report, only "squares" with image title.

I thought that only happens to me  :-\

« Reply #307 on: July 17, 2015, 10:11 »
+1
My sales are increasing since I started to upload SS in Jan 2015. This month is fantastic, last month was as well.

Hongover

« Reply #308 on: July 17, 2015, 10:31 »
+1
July sales are on schedule and this is probably the most consistent week I've had since I became a contributor in February of this year.

PZF

« Reply #309 on: July 18, 2015, 07:42 »
+1
July sales are on schedule and this is probably the most consistent week I've had since I became a contributor in February of this year.
Wait...just wait.....
Make hay while the suns shines.
But wait.....

Hongover

« Reply #310 on: July 18, 2015, 12:07 »
0
July sales are on schedule and this is probably the most consistent week I've had since I became a contributor in February of this year.
Wait...just wait.....
Make hay while the suns shines.
But wait.....

I just double checked. I became a contributor on SS on Jan 22, 2015. So my honeymoon should have expired on June 22, 2015, right?


« Reply #311 on: July 18, 2015, 13:53 »
0
I just double checked. I became a contributor on SS on Jan 22, 2015. So my honeymoon should have expired on June 22, 2015, right?

Depends if your "honeymoon" was 5 months or 6. If it was five, then yes, it expired on June 22.

But if it was six (as you wrote elsewhere), it will expire next Wednesday, July 22.

Hongover

« Reply #312 on: July 18, 2015, 14:58 »
0
I just double checked. I became a contributor on SS on Jan 22, 2015. So my honeymoon should have expired on June 22, 2015, right?

Depends if your "honeymoon" was 5 months or 6. If it was five, then yes, it expired on June 22.

But if it was six (as you wrote elsewhere), it will expire next Wednesday, July 22.

Next week will be an interesting week. I'll let you guys know if anything changes.

« Reply #313 on: July 19, 2015, 01:42 »
+4
Do you really think it is so simple as your port dying once the new contributor bump expires?  I suspect the bump is now longer than it used to be.

If your images are well above average, your initial bump will give your port the momentum to last a few years, once you hit 38 cents. And once your images hit shutterstocks predetermined kill switch age. Your best selling images will be demoted overnight to Dante's lowest levels in the search; never to be seen again. Imagine your surprise when new images also find poor placement in the search.

So you think you have any control over your earnings....
http://forums.submit.shutterstock.com/topic/75288-so-you-think-you-have-any-control-over-your-earnings/
« Last Edit: July 19, 2015, 01:45 by gbalex »

Hongover

« Reply #314 on: July 19, 2015, 02:14 »
+1
I don't think for once I'm in control of my income when it comes to microstock. I've seen too much and know too much to not see that it's always a matter time before something changes. I've seen Apple changed their search algorithm 4 times. I've seen a site I was contributing to and making good money on changed their algorithm to favor new contributors. It favor them so much that their work gets put on top, eventually pushed down by content one day newer than theirs.

I'm not exactly new to this game. If my sales go down next week, I won't act surprised or sad or discouraged. I understand that it's the nature of the beast, a beast I've dealt with many times. And dealing with this beast has taught more more than few things: Things are not black and white. My sales are not going to hit a wall...it may fall a little, but it won't be a hard fall. I'm prepared to have some of my images fall down the search rankings, but I also know that some of my images will NEVER fall down the rankings, because there is nothing else like it.

« Reply #315 on: July 19, 2015, 08:34 »
+4
I don't think for once I'm in control of my income when it comes to microstock. I've seen too much and know too much to not see that it's always a matter time before something changes. I've seen Apple changed their search algorithm 4 times. I've seen a site I was contributing to and making good money on changed their algorithm to favor new contributors. It favor them so much that their work gets put on top, eventually pushed down by content one day newer than theirs.

I'm not exactly new to this game. If my sales go down next week, I won't act surprised or sad or discouraged. I understand that it's the nature of the beast, a beast I've dealt with many times. And dealing with this beast has taught more more than few things: Things are not black and white. My sales are not going to hit a wall...it may fall a little, but it won't be a hard fall. I'm prepared to have some of my images fall down the search rankings, but I also know that some of my images will NEVER fall down the rankings, because there is nothing else like it.

Do you really think shutterstock knows or for that matter cares which images they are sending to the nether regions. They are doing it based on port and image age, it does not matter how great they are or how many are available. Talk to a few people who have been around for a while, we all managed to cling to the notion we had untouchable unique images, that is until the "day" they permanently dropped out of the search.

Hongover

« Reply #316 on: July 19, 2015, 17:05 »
0
Do you really think shutterstock knows or for that matter cares which images they are sending to the nether regions. They are doing it based on port and image age, it does not matter how great they are or how many are available. Talk to a few people who have been around for a while, we all managed to cling to the notion we had untouchable unique images, that is until the "day" they permanently dropped out of the search.

I'm more than confident enough to know that it won't. People's idea of unique is so distorted these days that the idea of unique is longer unique, but variation of something else that already exist, in a category with over 1000 images. My idea of unique is more like having the search results just to yourself. If any contributor is able push me out of the search results, I commend them. It would mean they have knowledge of some pretty obscure subjects. Let's just leave it at that.


« Reply #317 on: July 19, 2015, 18:12 »
+3
To the original subject, last week I made less than $20 each workday (M-F) for the first time in five years. Frustrating but reality of the micro stock business. I have a bit over 3200 assets.

« Reply #318 on: July 20, 2015, 00:21 »
+12
Do you really think shutterstock knows or for that matter cares which images they are sending to the nether regions. They are doing it based on port and image age, it does not matter how great they are or how many are available. Talk to a few people who have been around for a while, we all managed to cling to the notion we had untouchable unique images, that is until the "day" they permanently dropped out of the search.

I'm more than confident enough to know that it won't. People's idea of unique is so distorted these days that the idea of unique is longer unique, but variation of something else that already exist, in a category with over 1000 images. My idea of unique is more like having the search results just to yourself. If any contributor is able push me out of the search results, I commend them. It would mean they have knowledge of some pretty obscure subjects. Let's just leave it at that.

Yes, you can have the obscure subjects all to your self.  But that is because there is virtually no demand for them.  Stumble into an obscure subject that actually sells well and the copiers will flood your niche so fast you head will spin.  Then guess what, your stuff is pushed back behind the ones that copied you.

De

« Reply #319 on: July 20, 2015, 02:21 »
+4
Do you really think shutterstock knows or for that matter cares which images they are sending to the nether regions. They are doing it based on port and image age, it does not matter how great they are or how many are available. Talk to a few people who have been around for a while, we all managed to cling to the notion we had untouchable unique images, that is until the "day" they permanently dropped out of the search.

I'm more than confident enough to know that it won't. People's idea of unique is so distorted these days that the idea of unique is longer unique, but variation of something else that already exist, in a category with over 1000 images. My idea of unique is more like having the search results just to yourself. If any contributor is able push me out of the search results, I commend them. It would mean they have knowledge of some pretty obscure subjects. Let's just leave it at that.

Either there is no demand, as mentioned or buyers just don't know this kind of content can be bought at microstock agencies. If the agency does not pimp your "unique" work it will never see the daylight.
Also, people recommend using "unique" keywords but I am willing to bet 99% of their work are still found via basic keywords.

« Reply #320 on: July 20, 2015, 06:08 »
+11
Yes, you can have the obscure subjects all to your self.  But that is because there is virtually no demand for them.  Stumble into an obscure subject that actually sells well and the copiers will flood your niche so fast you head will spin.  Then guess what, your stuff is pushed back behind the ones that copied you.

He'll learn, don't worry.

ShadySue

« Reply #321 on: July 20, 2015, 07:23 »
+1
Do you really think shutterstock knows or for that matter cares which images they are sending to the nether regions. They are doing it based on port and image age, it does not matter how great they are or how many are available. Talk to a few people who have been around for a while, we all managed to cling to the notion we had untouchable unique images, that is until the "day" they permanently dropped out of the search.

I'm more than confident enough to know that it won't. People's idea of unique is so distorted these days that the idea of unique is longer unique, but variation of something else that already exist, in a category with over 1000 images. My idea of unique is more like having the search results just to yourself. If any contributor is able push me out of the search results, I commend them. It would mean they have knowledge of some pretty obscure subjects. Let's just leave it at that.

Yes, you can have the obscure subjects all to your self.  But that is because there is virtually no demand for them.  Stumble into an obscure subject that actually sells well and the copiers will flood your niche so fast you head will spin.  Then guess what, your stuff is pushed back behind the ones that copied you.
Except that on SS specifically, how would the copiers know if a niche subject image had any dls at all?
I mean, let's say someone uploaded a photo of a (hypothetical) schoeck. How would anyone know if it had sold 0 times or 500 times?
« Last Edit: July 20, 2015, 07:35 by ShadySue »

« Reply #322 on: July 20, 2015, 12:46 »
+1
Don't forget that our ports have such statistically insignificant counts against the entire inventory that it is difficult to make statistical predictions. The sample space is too small. I think fresh, season appropriate content is important for driving sales. I read that the typical stock image has a 23 month lifespan with a peak in sales around 6 months in. If this is right what we are making today is a function of what we did 7-8 months ago.

« Reply #323 on: July 20, 2015, 13:42 »
+1
Do you really think shutterstock knows or for that matter cares which images they are sending to the nether regions. They are doing it based on port and image age, it does not matter how great they are or how many are available. Talk to a few people who have been around for a while, we all managed to cling to the notion we had untouchable unique images, that is until the "day" they permanently dropped out of the search.

I'm more than confident enough to know that it won't. People's idea of unique is so distorted these days that the idea of unique is longer unique, but variation of something else that already exist, in a category with over 1000 images. My idea of unique is more like having the search results just to yourself. If any contributor is able push me out of the search results, I commend them. It would mean they have knowledge of some pretty obscure subjects. Let's just leave it at that.

Yes, you can have the obscure subjects all to your self.  But that is because there is virtually no demand for them.  Stumble into an obscure subject that actually sells well and the copiers will flood your niche so fast you head will spin.  Then guess what, your stuff is pushed back behind the ones that copied you.
Except that on SS specifically, how would the copiers know if a niche subject image had any dls at all?
I mean, let's say someone uploaded a photo of a (hypothetical) schoeck. How would anyone know if it had sold 0 times or 500 times?

Do you know any indies who just upload to SS specifically?  Not to mention there are other ways the find out what new niches are selling.  Most of the sites put out newsletters monthly suggesting what subjects are HOT.  I am sure a lot of us who been at this awhile have had the experience of discovering a good niche and then a couple months later it is outed by the agencies. Not to mention some of the top selling factories have employees paid to do this research.
« Last Edit: July 20, 2015, 13:45 by PixelBytes »

ShadySue

« Reply #324 on: July 20, 2015, 14:07 »
0
Except that on SS specifically, how would the copiers know if a niche subject image had any dls at all?
I mean, let's say someone uploaded a photo of a (hypothetical) schoeck. How would anyone know if it had sold 0 times or 500 times?
Do you know any indies who just upload to SS specifically? 
Yes, but they don't actively upload to SS any more because their niches are too niche - in particular, too localised - to do well there.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
17 Replies
16631 Views
Last post December 12, 2006, 11:06
by MiguelAngelo
fotolia is sinking

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

163 Replies
37812 Views
Last post September 02, 2011, 11:59
by ruigsantos
9 Replies
2900 Views
Last post November 04, 2012, 04:58
by aeonf
34 Replies
50379 Views
Last post January 21, 2015, 10:11
by mendopato
43 Replies
11380 Views
Last post November 09, 2015, 04:11
by DavidZydd

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results