pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: SS continues to deteriorate  (Read 16064 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 »
0
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 »
+2
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 »
0
Commissions reduced and massive AI rejections.

Merry f. Xmas.

Point to Getty, AS and Alamy.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
4 Replies
3113 Views
Last post February 15, 2012, 09:29
by imlumina
11 Replies
2948 Views
Last post November 09, 2012, 16:06
by stockastic
13 Replies
3406 Views
Last post June 24, 2013, 15:35
by Roberto
1 Replies
1767 Views
Last post July 28, 2016, 16:51
by CJH Photography
0 Replies
773 Views
Last post July 11, 2019, 17:54
by zorba

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results