MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: SS continues to deteriorate  (Read 20004 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #100 on: October 02, 2019, 20:46 »
+2
I had a best seller that sold about once a day for about 4 years or so, then one day it went from one of the top 2 or 3 rows of a one word search with about 2000 pages of results at the time to I don't know where (I searched 25 pages or so without finding it). Daily sales stopped. Eventually I got another sale and searched again - this time it was 4 or so pages back. It gets a sale a month or so now. Search placement makes a big difference and that is one instance where a change made a noticeable difference in my income.

This happened years ago.  As far as SS deterioration goes. Mine could be all a result of the dilution of my images amongst the millions. It has dropped to about a third or a quarter of their high point. This is both less total sales and the almost complete disappearance of big sales (over $3) and the drastic reduction of OD sales.


« Reply #101 on: October 02, 2019, 20:48 »
0

 I have this conspiracy theory that SS is using sometimes the Single & Other column to renconciliate amounts after they screwed up something in the royalties. .... For the moment, however, I would still say it's a kind of conspiracy theory, as... I lack evidence,

Yup. Just another wild supposition.

There is an Adjustment tab specifically made for that, but... you know.... let people conspire and theorize.  :)

« Reply #102 on: December 22, 2019, 14:39 »
+1
Perfect example of proof by using a terrible example. One word search for Landscape? Are you joking?
What buyer would do that? Landscape  ::)

Consider I did not want to test a buyer vision, I just wanted to observe recent submissions.
Try this :
https://www.shutterstock.com/fr/search?sort=newest&image_type=photo

Better for you?

just look the ss forum , some thread like doom and gloom or that guy who wanna upload 10000 photos....then you realize.
for me it's unbieleavbel why they keep accepting that stuff..if i were a customer i would pay the dollar more to brows serious collection like stocksy or even stock i s much better with much less garbage.
they are losing market share day by day...their 4q keep losing growth and probably next will be red numbers....they keep losing enterprise customer...shouldn't they realize that the problem is their collectioN?
had they ever browsed unsplash? pixabay...i fell better looking unsplash collection for each  keyword than ss for sure....ahow we can blame customer who buy to unsplash...better images, more creative, right now covering the needs of many customers, and free!

That 10000 guy is the dumbest idiot I've ever seen in stock and when anybody tries to help him, he turns mean an attacks them. 10000 bad pictures he thinks he'll make money but he'll make nothing and complain that shutterstock is the problem. SS should charge to hold his pictures for the space they waste.

« Reply #103 on: December 22, 2019, 14:49 »
+3
Perfect example of proof by using a terrible example. One word search for Landscape? Are you joking?
What buyer would do that? Landscape  ::)

Consider I did not want to test a buyer vision, I just wanted to observe recent submissions.
Try this :
https://www.shutterstock.com/fr/search?sort=newest&image_type=photo

Better for you?

just look the ss forum , some thread like doom and gloom or that guy who wanna upload 10000 photos....then you realize.
for me it's unbieleavbel why they keep accepting that stuff..if i were a customer i would pay the dollar more to brows serious collection like stocksy or even stock i s much better with much less garbage.
they are losing market share day by day...their 4q keep losing growth and probably next will be red numbers....they keep losing enterprise customer...shouldn't they realize that the problem is their collectioN?
had they ever browsed unsplash? pixabay...i fell better looking unsplash collection for each  keyword than ss for sure....ahow we can blame customer who buy to unsplash...better images, more creative, right now covering the needs of many customers, and free!

That 10000 guy is the dumbest idiot I've ever seen in stock and when anybody tries to help him, he turns mean an attacks them. 10000 bad pictures he thinks he'll make money but he'll make nothing and complain that shutterstock is the problem. SS should charge to hold his pictures for the space they waste.

Ahh you must be talking about Joe Grossinger?

Yes he is an odd character keeps going about being too busy to post on the forum whilst busying himself posting on the forum :D

Just another character who will shortly disappear  ::)

OM

« Reply #104 on: December 24, 2019, 02:38 »
+1
With that name, I'm surprised he's not going for 14,400...nomen est omen!  ;)

Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #105 on: December 24, 2019, 11:34 »
+1
With that name, I'm surprised he's not going for 14,400...nomen est omen!  ;)

Took me a while to figure that one. No habla Latin.  :)

Joe is still going for the 10K I hope he makes it, but I want to make it perfectly clear, I think he's misguided to think that the only import fact of microstock is how many images anyone has. I've watched for long enough to see that the plain and obvious answer is not counting how many images but what are the images.

One of the sales mottoes, back when, was don't work harder, work smarter. In Microstock that means uploading good, useful content and not wasting time trying to make number quotas.

I also believe, to each their own, so as independent business people, anyone can do anything they want. Not my business to tell them how, but I can observe and say for myself and many others, uploading 10,000 nice images will earn no more than 500 carefully planned, designed, thoughtful, market appropriate images.

Nevermind...  ;)



« Reply #106 on: December 24, 2019, 12:37 »
+2
With that name, I'm surprised he's not going for 14,400...nomen est omen!  ;)

Took me a while to figure that one. No habla Latin.  :)

Joe is still going for the 10K I hope he makes it, but I want to make it perfectly clear, I think he's misguided to think that the only import fact of microstock is how many images anyone has. I've watched for long enough to see that the plain and obvious answer is not counting how many images but what are the images.

One of the sales mottoes, back when, was don't work harder, work smarter. In Microstock that means uploading good, useful content and not wasting time trying to make number quotas.

I also believe, to each their own, so as independent business people, anyone can do anything they want. Not my business to tell them how, but I can observe and say for myself and many others, uploading 10,000 nice images will earn no more than 500 carefully planned, designed, thoughtful, market appropriate images.

Nevermind...  ;)


That's true. Only a small correction. You described an ideal scenario. It is almost impossible to make a saleable picture without making 10 that don't sell. it is very hard to predict which one would sell from a series, even for seasoned stock photographers.
So, more realistic comparation would be that 10k carefully planned, designed, thoughtful, market appropriate images(from which 500 would sell)  earn more 10k nice images :)

« Reply #107 on: December 24, 2019, 13:05 »
0
With that name, I'm surprised he's not going for 14,400...nomen est omen!  ;)

Took me a while to figure that one. No habla Latin.  :)

Joe is still going for the 10K I hope he makes it, but I want to make it perfectly clear, I think he's misguided to think that the only import fact of microstock is how many images anyone has. I've watched for long enough to see that the plain and obvious answer is not counting how many images but what are the images.

One of the sales mottoes, back when, was don't work harder, work smarter. In Microstock that means uploading good, useful content and not wasting time trying to make number quotas.

I also believe, to each their own, so as independent business people, anyone can do anything they want. Not my business to tell them how, but I can observe and say for myself and many others, uploading 10,000 nice images will earn no more than 500 carefully planned, designed, thoughtful, market appropriate images.

Nevermind...  ;)



I respect his work ethic.. especially since I only produce about 100 shots a month.  However his port is profoundly un-commercial.  Some of the editorial content should sell (open mouthed politicians are in season).  Overall I wonder if he is going to break even on his transportation and equipment costs... or produce 10,000 shots at a loss?

OM

« Reply #108 on: December 24, 2019, 20:54 »
+2
With that name, I'm surprised he's not going for 14,400...nomen est omen!  ;)

Took me a while to figure that one. No habla Latin.  :)

Joe is still going for the 10K I hope he makes it, but I want to make it perfectly clear, I think he's misguided to think that the only import fact of microstock is how many images anyone has. I've watched for long enough to see that the plain and obvious answer is not counting how many images but what are the images.

One of the sales mottoes, back when, was don't work harder, work smarter. In Microstock that means uploading good, useful content and not wasting time trying to make number quotas.

I also believe, to each their own, so as independent business people, anyone can do anything they want. Not my business to tell them how, but I can observe and say for myself and many others, uploading 10,000 nice images will earn no more than 500 carefully planned, designed, thoughtful, market appropriate images.

Nevermind...  ;)



I respect his work ethic.. especially since I only produce about 100 shots a month.  However his port is profoundly un-commercial.  Some of the editorial content should sell (open mouthed politicians are in season).  Overall I wonder if he is going to break even on his transportation and equipment costs... or produce 10,000 shots at a loss?

That point about return on time/money/costs invested seems to be lost on many of the new generation of stock shooters. They will always reply that nobody knows whether their shots will become massive sellers in the future....so it's worthwhile to them!

All I can go by is what I see and that is that my meagre port on 2 agencies (<1,000 images) has brought in $20K+ in the last 7 years. All my best-sellers are kitchen table/wall stuff that cost nothing to produce and still sell every week. I'm old and pretty lazy. Never had to sign a model or property release. Haven't submitted any more than 15 new images in the last 6 months because in the 6 months prior to this, almost nothing I did submit sold (conclusions: I've either lost my touch or it's getting buried under a mountain of crap). Old stuff still sells and brings in ~$150/month which is pocket money compared to 2016/2017 when the same but slightly smaller port brought in $300-$400/month. Still, it is pocket money for nothing and I'm not complaining!

Today, micro just seems like too much effort and cost for the reward. Fine if you're in employment and get to travel, eat exotic food and shoot when a company is paying most of the bills but when things have to be funded from your own future micro licensing, I'm not sure there's a viable future in that (except perhaps when you're young with a load of young friends who hang out/go on vacation together and everyone is prepared to sign model releases for free!).

I suppose you just have to find the 'Next Big Thing' before it becomes the next big thing and milk the fad for all it's worth whilst looking out for the NBT after that!


Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #109 on: December 25, 2019, 10:52 »
+1
With that name, I'm surprised he's not going for 14,400...nomen est omen!  ;)

Took me a while to figure that one. No habla Latin.  :)

Joe is still going for the 10K I hope he makes it, but I want to make it perfectly clear, I think he's misguided to think that the only import fact of microstock is how many images anyone has. I've watched for long enough to see that the plain and obvious answer is not counting how many images but what are the images.

One of the sales mottoes, back when, was don't work harder, work smarter. In Microstock that means uploading good, useful content and not wasting time trying to make number quotas.

I also believe, to each their own, so as independent business people, anyone can do anything they want. Not my business to tell them how, but I can observe and say for myself and many others, uploading 10,000 nice images will earn no more than 500 carefully planned, designed, thoughtful, market appropriate images.

Nevermind...  ;)


That's true. Only a small correction. You described an ideal scenario. It is almost impossible to make a saleable picture without making 10 that don't sell. it is very hard to predict which one would sell from a series, even for seasoned stock photographers.
So, more realistic comparation would be that 10k carefully planned, designed, thoughtful, market appropriate images(from which 500 would sell)  earn more 10k nice images :)

Yes, that's so true, also some that I thought, "this is going to be a great selling image" have no sales, while something, "Oh I snapped this and it could be interesting" has been one of my top ten, forever, on every agency it's been posted. (except Alamy of course, not acceptable camera)

Yes, so true, we don't really know. Some parts are predictable, others unknown. I can actually predict what won't sell much easier.  ;)

[a bunch of quotes and comments removed]

(A) Today, micro just seems like too much effort and cost for the reward. Fine if you're in employment and get to travel, eat exotic food and shoot when a company is paying most of the bills but when things have to be funded from your own future micro licensing, I'm not sure there's a viable future in that (except perhaps when you're young with a load of young friends who hang out/go on vacation together and everyone is prepared to sign model releases for free!).

(B) I suppose you just have to find the 'Next Big Thing' before it becomes the next big thing and milk the fad for all it's worth whilst looking out for the NBT after that!



A - true, and also true, I am the company, I deduct my expenses and get to go places and shoot what I love. I have no expectation at all of making back my expenses, just offsetting part of that, which makes travel possible and enjoyable. I never get anything for food Etc. just gas and room deduction. Yes, to no... there's not much of a viable future, like there used to be. New people might make a note and find something else. But they won't, because the "make money with your photos" is all over as easy money.

B - and there are those "things" coming and going, every day. Not as big or popular or market changing, but they are available when someone looks. eBay selling was one of those, now it's finding sales and flipping on Amazon for under market. Some involve more investment, hard work and risk, but there are people making much more than the average Microstock artist.

Hey, there's one for the questions? 1 billion in commissions from SS. What does the average person make? L O L Or should that be median income? Some of those agencies, groups and collectives with a million images, must do well, I mean average individuals, the ones with 1,000 or more images. I'd love to see that stat.

Years ago, according to the polls here, the members of this forum were in the top 5% of all microstock contributors on iStock. The data is still back there, I wrote it, I'd be at a loss to find the posts. But back when someone had a prob=gram to search the IS data, it was possible to see overall numbers. For example, IS is at 21 right now, that's about $100 a month.

Back when the data was visible, only 5% of all the contributors on IS made $100 a month.

Anyone looking here and saying, oh look, I can make that, because of the poll on MSG is making a faulty conclusion, based on the top contributors in Microstock, not the AVERAGE or usual. The once annual poles by Leaf were filled with interesting facts and figures also.

Bottom line for me, SS does not continue to deteriorate as much as it does for others. Rather income is flat. But down from 2012, has come back a little and I see no growth. That is the way I see Microstock overall at this point. No Growth. The boom is well past for individuals, while the agencies are finding new ways to keep making more money.

« Reply #110 on: December 26, 2019, 23:55 »
+4
Well, today brought me my first-ever 24 cent ($.24) "single or other" sale on Shutterstock. After 10+ years as a contributor, I didn't even know such a thing was possible.

What a great belated Christmas present, Shutterstock. NOT!
« Last Edit: December 26, 2019, 23:57 by marthamarks »

« Reply #111 on: December 27, 2019, 04:11 »
+1
Commissions reduced and massive AI rejections.

Merry f. Xmas.

Point to Getty, AS and Alamy.

Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #112 on: March 05, 2020, 14:41 »
+7
This is new for me, composition rejection, but amusing how the reviewers are blind followers of what the software tells them. Unless, oh no, I'm wrong, this is a pretty standard way to shoot and crop a motorsports shot. Personally I don't do many of these, just now and then for that sporty look, I'm kind of not a fan of the 60s angular shots. But I'm not a mind reader either. A buyer might want one?

Rejection reasons (1)
Composition: Content has framing issues, the horizon line is not straight, and/or distracting elements are obstructing the main subject.




OK nothing obstructing? Composed pretty close to rule of thirds. Yes it is not straight. So I'll guess, it's because the horizon isn't straight? Well Golly, I never would have noticed with out their expert advice. What was I thinking?  ;D

« Last Edit: March 05, 2020, 16:48 by Uncle Pete »

wds

« Reply #113 on: March 05, 2020, 15:43 »
+3
^ It is that type of rejection that sure sounds like it is a machine interpretation. I'm guessing the reviewers have tools to give them "hints" on why an image may or may not be rejected. I am guessing some reviewers take the "hints" as the final ruling to keep their review rate as high as possible.

Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #114 on: March 05, 2020, 17:11 »
+1
^ It is that type of rejection that sure sounds like it is a machine interpretation. I'm guessing the reviewers have tools to give them "hints" on why an image may or may not be rejected. I am guessing some reviewers take the "hints" as the final ruling to keep their review rate as high as possible.

Exactly. The software makes suggestions, the lazy reviewers, just click "reject" if the machine says so, it must be. Other reviewers have a brain cell and actually look. SS is paying for machine assisted reviews and some reviewers are doing the company a disservice by relying on that.

Of course as people have pointed out, SS is still adding over 1 million new images a week. 1,571,174 new stock images added weekly it says, so why would they care? They can reject 30% and still get 1.5 million new. They can reject and make people upload over and over, and why should they care. Somehow this is costing them less than to have qualified, reviewers, who actually think.

This isn't huge, I'm starting to care less and less, but this does make Shutterstock look foolish. Just wait for April, good or bad, unless these changes are part of Jon's exit, and already agreed upon, more changes on the way. Where's the first place to cut the cost of doing business? (and this goes for Alamy as well)

Reduce the cost of inventory and supplies. Pay less for the goods that make the product. Lower commissions.

People who are artists, will be leaving, and the quality of the product will go down. People will only stay so long as contributors, making "something is better than nothing" when the something is so small that there's not enough money to survive. At some point, buyers will start to go someplace else, a place that might not have 300 gazillion images, but has a well supplied quality collection.

And as SS drops down the list, like IS did, we're the ones who suffer and losing income, because the agency is cost cutting, buy using cheap labor for the reviews. There's the future. They lose, we lose, Adobe goes to the bank smiling, and they didn't have to do anything except watch and provide a better product.

That's why I'd be upset as a contributor, because of the long term. Not because I'm getting absurd and stupid rejections.

Enough to make me want to open a sub shop in a gas station. LOL  :o

« Reply #115 on: March 06, 2020, 03:57 »
+4
The root cause for me is that they have made it possible to become a contributor with zero knowledge of photography or stock photography creating an unmanagable tsumani of images. There was a time when at least you needed to demonstrate a reasonable level of competence.  The quicker in a process you filter out poor quality the cheaper it is. Can you imagine a supermarket using a supplier where 90% of their product has to be rejected as sub-standard? I'm pretty sure SS have such people.

« Reply #116 on: March 06, 2020, 04:35 »
+3
The root cause for me is that they have made it possible to become a contributor with zero knowledge of photography or stock photography creating an unmanagable tsumani of images. There was a time when at least you needed to demonstrate a reasonable level of competence.  The quicker in a process you filter out poor quality the cheaper it is. Can you imagine a supermarket using a supplier where 90% of their product has to be rejected as sub-standard? I'm pretty sure SS have such people.
Sorry, but that's not true. It was like this since the day one of Shutterstock and microstock itself. We can't pretend now that microstock was some kind of macrostock once upon a time. Microstock ruined macrostock and any appreciation of quality in photography years ago.


« Reply #117 on: March 06, 2020, 04:43 »
0
Uncle Pete, resubmit with notice that specific race track in an up-hill! :D :P

« Reply #118 on: March 06, 2020, 06:04 »
+8
The root cause for me is that they have made it possible to become a contributor with zero knowledge of photography or stock photography creating an unmanagable tsumani of images. There was a time when at least you needed to demonstrate a reasonable level of competence.  The quicker in a process you filter out poor quality the cheaper it is. Can you imagine a supermarket using a supplier where 90% of their product has to be rejected as sub-standard? I'm pretty sure SS have such people.
Sorry, but that's not true. It was like this since the day one of Shutterstock and microstock itself. We can't pretend now that microstock was some kind of macrostock once upon a time. Microstock ruined macrostock and any appreciation of quality in photography years ago.
You had to have 7 out of 10 images approved. On Istock it was three but to high standard and if you failed you had to wait at least a month to be approved. Thats a fact.

No it wasn't Macrostock but a cetain level was required. I failed myself and had to up my game.

« Reply #119 on: March 06, 2020, 08:27 »
+3
The root cause for me is that they have made it possible to become a contributor with zero knowledge of photography or stock photography creating an unmanagable tsumani of images. There was a time when at least you needed to demonstrate a reasonable level of competence.  The quicker in a process you filter out poor quality the cheaper it is. Can you imagine a supermarket using a supplier where 90% of their product has to be rejected as sub-standard? I'm pretty sure SS have such people.
Sorry, but that's not true. It was like this since the day one of Shutterstock and microstock itself. We can't pretend now that microstock was some kind of macrostock once upon a time. Microstock ruined macrostock and any appreciation of quality in photography years ago.

That is not true. The visual requirements to be accepted on the main microstock agencies in 2006 were very high.

The main difference for the macrosctock agencies like Getty, Corbis, Jupiter, etc, is that micro would accept images with 3 megapixels, while macro demanded 18 megapixels.

From my experience the advantage of the macrostock agencies back then, besides resolution, would be on the very creative images with high production costs. Back then very few people were in position to invest a lot on photo-shoots, and creative unique image weren't (as today) the best option for micro due to low demand and low paying sales.

But apart from that, from isolated images, lifestyle, to travel photos, the quality presented by the Macros were appalling! Truly horrible in the vast majority of cases. The success of Micro isn't based only on price. A lot of it has to do with the high quality of the images supplied in the categories best suited to Micro.

Today I get to see images on SS that would absolutely NEVER have been approved in the past. They would have failed in every requisite. Tilted images (not by choice), grainy and with a strong orange cast that kill every other colors and show an absolute lack of technical ability, and in no way are an artistic choice. These are images of the interior of a palace which I know well and demand a good quality camera, not a cellphone on auto-settings.

The worst part is that they show up high in searches, above incomparably better images. That crap is the among the first images a buyer will see on SS before scrolling down to better ones. This problem is currently transversal to all images types on SS and IS.

Snow

« Reply #120 on: March 06, 2020, 08:56 »
0
There is nothing to gain by uploading new work to Shutterstock, for me at least. It's as if your work is hidden from customers after approval. Now who does the approval? hmm

Adobe is better but the very low volume in sales doesn't make them much better.
« Last Edit: March 06, 2020, 10:12 by Snow »

wds

« Reply #121 on: March 06, 2020, 09:13 »
0
There is nothing to be gain by uploading new work to Shutterstock, for me at least. It's as if your work is hidden from customers after approval. Now who does the approval? hmm

Adobe is better but the very low volume in sales doesn't make them much better.

I think the bigger problem is not visibility, but the ridiculously small amounts of money paid per download.

« Reply #122 on: March 06, 2020, 09:47 »
0
That is not true. The visual requirements to be accepted on the main microstock agencies in 2006 were very high.

Well, that is not true. I remember what crap I sent and sold in volumes at microstock 10-15 years ago.
It is exactly the same crap produced by beginners these days, only it is produced in much bigger volumes now and search engines can't deal with it anymore.

« Reply #123 on: March 06, 2020, 10:01 »
+2
making some graphic  image changing flag to show different country, they keep refusing all but one for similar content....unbielevable,...they accept crap over crap then refuse there images with great potential....they don't have a clue what they are aiming at...

looks this guy portfolio i spotted in ss forum...te guy who claims one ann expert uploading more crap and crap to reach 10000

https://www.shutterstock.com/da/g/Grossinger?sort=newest

this is an offense to me and author who spend time....people talk about past times, well in past times no even a single files of this 10000 bull...it would have minimally accepted....and they refuse files for similar content because idiot ai spot similar pixel but not the general meaning of a photo...i hope they go bankrupt int a bunch of year..

Snow

« Reply #124 on: March 06, 2020, 10:23 »
+1
making some graphic  image changing flag to show different country, they keep refusing all but one for similar content....unbielevable,...they accept crap over crap then refuse there images with great potential....they don't have a clue what they are aiming at...

looks this guy portfolio i spotted in ss forum...te guy who claims one ann expert uploading more crap and crap to reach 10000

https://www.shutterstock.com/da/g/Grossinger?sort=newest

this is an offense to me and author who spend time....people talk about past times, well in past times no even a single files of this 10000 bull...it would have minimally accepted....and they refuse files for similar content because idiot ai spot similar pixel but not the general meaning of a photo...i hope they go bankrupt int a bunch of year..

This portfolio to me is what Microstock stands for today so in a way it is perfect.
I can only hope they end up with nothing but this kind of material.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
4 Replies
3238 Views
Last post February 15, 2012, 09:29
by imlumina
11 Replies
3092 Views
Last post November 09, 2012, 16:06
by stockastic
13 Replies
3566 Views
Last post June 24, 2013, 15:35
by Roberto
1 Replies
1894 Views
Last post July 28, 2016, 16:51
by CJH Photography
0 Replies
969 Views
Last post July 11, 2019, 17:54
by zorba

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle