Since I have read things like this in this forum, ........ If you do not know English well, do not use irony..... or in my comments, recommend that you do not use the google translator, because my intention to participate in this forum is not valued,...... I decided to leave the comments for the usual four others and simply read, as 99% of the users of this forum do.
That said, I entered here probably the last time, because I liked your approach. I simply want to add, that today, it is more expensive for the websites to delete the files. The price of keeping them in the server is null for the storage capacity of these days. Deleting files is laborious and costs money.
Since I have read things like this in this forum, ........ If you do not know English well, do not use irony..... or in my comments, recommend that you do not use the google translator, because my intention to participate in this forum is not valued,...... I decided to leave the comments for the usual four others and simply read, as 99% of the users of this forum do.
That said, I entered here probably the last time, because I liked your approach. I simply want to add, that today, it is more expensive for the websites to delete the files. The price of keeping them in the server is null for the storage capacity of these days. Deleting files is laborious and costs money.
Deleting files could be fast and easy if they simply delete unsold files after ___ years.
Why should they delete products that payed people to curate and stored for a long time? Further why should upset people that spend time to shoot, upload keyowrk and list them?
Bulk sales, lowest prices and resolutions seems a better idea. Guess this already happened?
After all, deleting all unsold would actually reduce marketplaces to a big reset point.
By the technical or artistic side, you are totally correct @trek
But an agency is a company, accountants that counts products and assets. And they love to see and show numbers grow. Perhaps i am wrong though
:)
Why should they delete products that payed people to curate and stored for a long time? Further why should upset people that spend time to shoot, upload keyowrk and list them?
Bulk sales, lowest prices and resolutions seems a better idea. Guess this already happened?
After all, deleting all unsold would actually reduce marketplaces to a big reset point.
Why.. to get rid of insanely redundant low quality material that frustrates buyers. If it hasn't sold in 10 years I say trash it.
The problem would be would they remove the "right" people. We already know how inconsistent their reviewing is.Why should they delete products that payed people to curate and stored for a long time? Further why should upset people that spend time to shoot, upload keyowrk and list them?
Bulk sales, lowest prices and resolutions seems a better idea. Guess this already happened?
After all, deleting all unsold would actually reduce marketplaces to a big reset point.
Why.. to get rid of insanely redundant low quality material that frustrates buyers. If it hasn't sold in 10 years I say trash it.
Not going to say I really want or believe this, but why not get rid of artists with poor collections, loads of redundant poor selling images and spammed up keywords? Lets say, people who don't make many sales and are just taking up space with poor images that will never sell. Asking because at what point does the remove someone else's work, come down to remove someone else, and maybe remove someone who's here and cares?
Therefore, it is simply the current market. When pirates steal the images of today in two hours and upload them to all agencies in two hours in 100 pirate accounts, it will be a problem greater than the amount of images hosted on a server, patrimony of each agency.
If I got it right "most" people start by uploading poor quality or common themed items and start to grow or get better / more relevant / pickyOddly though I am selling more images from 6-7 years back for the first time than new content. tbh my standards have slipped from the days where 40-50% rejections from shutterstock was fairly common.
If I was asked / had to delete half of current port, it would be the half first with minor exclucions.
Actually.... first 3/4 of it...
let's make it 9/10 to be more accurate...
:P
Jokes aside, whatever I "think" as good or curators tend to rate as better than most of my items is never sold until today.QuoteTherefore, it is simply the current market. When pirates steal the images of today in two hours and upload them to all agencies in two hours in 100 pirate accounts, it will be a problem greater than the amount of images hosted on a server, patrimony of each agency.
Going offtopic, as long as this is SS thread, it would be interesting, how P5 will react to hosting originals that are stolen and listed in other or even free sites as long as they will have to "match" prices.
???
The problem would be would they remove the "right" people. We already know how inconsistent their reviewing is.Why should they delete products that payed people to curate and stored for a long time? Further why should upset people that spend time to shoot, upload keyowrk and list them?
Bulk sales, lowest prices and resolutions seems a better idea. Guess this already happened?
After all, deleting all unsold would actually reduce marketplaces to a big reset point.
Why.. to get rid of insanely redundant low quality material that frustrates buyers. If it hasn't sold in 10 years I say trash it.
Not going to say I really want or believe this, but why not get rid of artists with poor collections, loads of redundant poor selling images and spammed up keywords? Lets say, people who don't make many sales and are just taking up space with poor images that will never sell. Asking because at what point does the remove someone else's work, come down to remove someone else, and maybe remove someone who's here and cares?
Whatever contributors think the key to this industry is satisfying buyers. If an agency can actually achieve a step change in search quality putting relevant high quality images in front of buyers consistently they will "win". Some claim to with their AI enhanced search engines...I just don't believe that. The cost of quality control to achieve this at microstock prices is prohibitive I think.
The following makes for depressing reading...but as always, there's light at the end of the tunnel....
https://brutallyhonestmicrostock.com/2019/09/03/declining-earnings-in-microstock-veterans-pov/
The following makes for depressing reading...but as always, there's light at the end of the tunnel....
https://brutallyhonestmicrostock.com/2019/09/03/declining-earnings-in-microstock-veterans-pov/
I'd hate to burst your bubble... you say in your article "you have to face the fact that the “good old days” are long gone by at least 3-5 years, maybe even longer" and as an industry veteran I can say "maybe even longer", the slide really began circa 2007 for the industry as a whole. The industry shift to microstock was the warning shot across the bow. It's a sad day when you have to sell 30 photos at Adobe or SS or IS and even GI just to pay for your monthly Cloud Subscription and note that is before taxes.
september begin worst than august and august was not the best month across all agency.
september begin worst than august and august was not the best month across all agency.
Since April something clearly has been "off" across several agencies and across all genres of content so I think with it being so sudden it might very well be the global economy reading into recession and that affects all industries directly or indirectly and with everyone from individuals to businesses being so massively in debt right now it's not pretty.
Every agency is suddenly making changes, Pond5 obviously, Storyblocks and now SS is seriously limiting what you can upload onto their servers, it is a similar video or photo to what is already on the site it is rejected so they suddenly care about server space although they are presenting it as caring about the customer experience.
Have to get creative and busy making new content and promoting the heck out of it everywhere.
...and this may be just co-incidence but I was uploading a batch every day and as soon as stuff got approved sales started coming in...
Not only lazy for not doing new things. For me at my 46 or so is kind of hard to learn from scratch eg 3D. And even when i get in the mood there is no spare time..
:/
september begin worst than august and august was not the best month across all agency.
Since April something clearly has been "off" across several agencies and across all genres of content so I think with it being so sudden it might very well be the global economy reading into recession and that affects all industries directly or indirectly and with everyone from individuals to businesses being so massively in debt right now it's not pretty.
Every agency is suddenly making changes, Pond5 obviously, Storyblocks and now SS is seriously limiting what you can upload onto their servers, it is a similar video or photo to what is already on the site it is rejected so they suddenly care about server space although they are presenting it as caring about the customer experience.
Have to get creative and busy making new content and promoting the heck out of it everywhere.
i doubt being creative will make a big difference in micro stock world....you can be creative but too many garbage files....for me it's clear that most sales are made through popular tab, nobody search for new files in that mess of garbages they accepted since 2017....my sales are mostly related to files older than 2017, nothing new sells and they are better content i was sure they had a market...since they reduced tabs to 2 instead to 3 new files sales are simply non existent...i would like the add a chosen by staff files, so new files with good character could have a chance to sell.. the rpd of files uploaded in 2018 and 2019 for me are simply terrible while 2017 i have already passe the 1,5 dollar for each file uploaded. in 2018 and 2019 we are near 0,1 cent. after 2017 they opened the gates et voila.
in addiction for me free stuff is impacting more and more, why you can criticize customer? they go to unsplash and find much better and creative stuff than 99% of files you see in micro, for free...i saw file downloaded 10 millions times...and those are money taken away by micro stock.
That said, the extra effort required to get new techniques, locations, topics may not be worth it if you sell an image for $0.20 or a video for $0.6.+100
That said, the extra effort required to get new techniques, locations, topics may not be worth it if you sell an image for $0.20 or a video for $0.6.+100
Especially as most things not well covered or oversaturated have limited buyer interest, so pointless in Micro.
I'm sure there are some desirable niches to find, but not many, and I suspect most of them would be very difficult and/or expensive to get pemission to shoot.
I'd certainly go along with "local" its an area you know better than your competitors and one where you can get images at far less cost. The days of recouping the cost of a holiday in exotic places is long gone I fear. Bus Fare maybe ;-).That said, the extra effort required to get new techniques, locations, topics may not be worth it if you sell an image for $0.20 or a video for $0.6.+100
Especially as most things not well covered or oversaturated have limited buyer interest, so pointless in Micro.
I'm sure there are some desirable niches to find, but not many, and I suspect most of them would be very difficult and/or expensive to get pemission to shoot.
I definitely disagree. From my personal experience, there are plenty of niches that are definitely worth exploiting, some of them being huge.
For obvious reasons, I won't say too much, but I'd say that the key is "local", to take some pictures that are country, or even region specific.
From my experience, I only got two failures: France and Ukraine. The French failure is probably due to the fact that there are strong local actors, mainly the huge databases of the local press and the AFP giant, that go, very often, past the simple news material. The Ukrainian failure is probably due to the fact there are proportionally way more contributors than the local market demand.
The only issue with this comes from the keywording. You need to be able to use general keywords and very specific keywords, and it takes research. As a result, it's pretty hard for me to caption more than 10 files per hour. Calculating the revenue, it's however worth it. To summarize, I have noticed that even the "duck in pond" pictures can work if they are keyworded with precision. One of the first pictures I got on microstock back in the time gave me an RPI that is probably 10 times higher than my average, mainly because of the precise keywording. There are, furthermore, plenty of other topics that are usually extremely ordinary, but that are giving a good return on investment as long as you have a clean shot and good keywords.
When the agencies talk about "authenticity", they are kind of right. It takes however a bit more than just doing less processed snapshots or integrating "diversity people" in a picture. In the end, the buyers are getting pretty sensitive to this.
To summarize, to indentify a niche, just explore the local market potentials and the situation of the local competition.
I'd certainly go along with "local" its an area you know better than your competitors and one where you can get images at far less cost. The days of recouping the cost of a holiday in exotic places is long gone I fear. Bus Fare maybe ;-).That said, the extra effort required to get new techniques, locations, topics may not be worth it if you sell an image for $0.20 or a video for $0.6.+100
Especially as most things not well covered or oversaturated have limited buyer interest, so pointless in Micro.
I'm sure there are some desirable niches to find, but not many, and I suspect most of them would be very difficult and/or expensive to get pemission to shoot.
I definitely disagree. From my personal experience, there are plenty of niches that are definitely worth exploiting, some of them being huge.
For obvious reasons, I won't say too much, but I'd say that the key is "local", to take some pictures that are country, or even region specific.
From my experience, I only got two failures: France and Ukraine. The French failure is probably due to the fact that there are strong local actors, mainly the huge databases of the local press and the AFP giant, that go, very often, past the simple news material. The Ukrainian failure is probably due to the fact there are proportionally way more contributors than the local market demand.
The only issue with this comes from the keywording. You need to be able to use general keywords and very specific keywords, and it takes research. As a result, it's pretty hard for me to caption more than 10 files per hour. Calculating the revenue, it's however worth it. To summarize, I have noticed that even the "duck in pond" pictures can work if they are keyworded with precision. One of the first pictures I got on microstock back in the time gave me an RPI that is probably 10 times higher than my average, mainly because of the precise keywording. There are, furthermore, plenty of other topics that are usually extremely ordinary, but that are giving a good return on investment as long as you have a clean shot and good keywords.
When the agencies talk about "authenticity", they are kind of right. It takes however a bit more than just doing less processed snapshots or integrating "diversity people" in a picture. In the end, the buyers are getting pretty sensitive to this.
To summarize, to indentify a niche, just explore the local market potentials and the situation of the local competition.
I don't care about the money, its just about the fun.
SS growth for me.
Video sales almost every day, also on weekend.
Seems that buyers love (high quality) motion graphics :)
I don't like the money either. What I really like is to be an slave and to get tons of stupid rejections.
I don't care about the money, its just about the fun.
I fiddle about a workflow to shoot and upload 300 food images a month with less than 1 hour work a day.
To shoot quick and good food photos with minimal effort. This is a competition. Maybe i should say its about the completion. Like it was in earlier days at photo competitions. Finding a way that works - after work one hour jogging and one hour shooting.
I don't care about the money, its just about the fun.
I fiddle about a workflow to shoot and upload 300 food images a month with less than 1 hour work a day.
To shoot quick and good food photos with minimal effort. This is a competition. Maybe i should say its about the completion. Like it was in earlier days at photo competitions. Finding a way that works - after work one hour jogging and one hour shooting.
always the same stuff always the same old files...nothing new sells....unbielevable.
always the same stuff always the same old files...nothing new sells....unbielevable.
Just to see, I looked at recent stuff for landscape : https://www.shutterstock.com/fr/search/landscape?sort=newest&image_type=photo (https://www.shutterstock.com/fr/search/landscape?sort=newest&image_type=photo)
UNBELIEVABLE, I was not conscient about all the crap coming in. Nothing surprising that recent stuff, even if the best keeps unseen and unsold, buyers don't come through all these snapshots to find professionnal photo... How serious contributors can feel proud by participating on such a platform? personnaly, I feel ashamed to put my best pictures there.
But, I am sure that one day things will change, and they will have to clean up the base.
always the same stuff always the same old files...nothing new sells....unbielevable.
Just to see, I looked at recent stuff for landscape : https://www.shutterstock.com/fr/search/landscape?sort=newest&image_type=photo (https://www.shutterstock.com/fr/search/landscape?sort=newest&image_type=photo)
UNBELIEVABLE, I was not conscient about all the crap coming in. Nothing surprising that recent stuff, even if the best keeps unseen and unsold, buyers don't come through all these snapshots to find professionnal photo... How serious contributors can feel proud by participating on such a platform? personnaly, I feel ashamed to put my best pictures there.
But, I am sure that one day things will change, and they will have to clean up the base.
always the same stuff always the same old files...nothing new sells....unbielevable.
Perfect example of proof by using a terrible example. One word search for Landscape? Are you joking?
What buyer would do that? Landscape ::)
always the same stuff always the same old files...nothing new sells....unbielevable.
Just to see, I looked at recent stuff for landscape : https://www.shutterstock.com/fr/search/landscape?sort=newest&image_type=photo (https://www.shutterstock.com/fr/search/landscape?sort=newest&image_type=photo)
UNBELIEVABLE, I was not conscient about all the crap coming in. Nothing surprising that recent stuff, even if the best keeps unseen and unsold, buyers don't come through all these snapshots to find professionnal photo... How serious contributors can feel proud by participating on such a platform? personnaly, I feel ashamed to put my best pictures there.
But, I am sure that one day things will change, and they will have to clean up the base.
Perfect example of proof by using a terrible example. One word search for Landscape? Are you joking?
What buyer would do that? Landscape ::)always the same stuff always the same old files...nothing new sells....unbielevable.
You say you stopped uploading and when you did it was rejects. What did you expect?
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 (https://www.shutterstock.com/fr/search?sort=newest&image_type=photo)
Better for you?
On the subject of titles and keywords I wonder with the AI software getting better and better is soon it will be better for that to be automated and done by the agency.
Right now you have people who are new at this and just learning and might get thousands of video or photo files tagged wrong or you have the spammers doing it on purpose and at the end of the day no one can find anything. Not everyone is an expert at thi but this is a library and if stuff is not filed properly it won't be found.
The way forward is quality sold on your own site.
On the subject of titles and keywords I wonder with the AI software getting better and better is soon it will be better for that to be automated and done by the agency.
Right now you have people who are new at this and just learning and might get thousands of video or photo files tagged wrong or you have the spammers doing it on purpose and at the end of the day no one can find anything. Not everyone is an expert at thi but this is a library and if stuff is not filed properly it won't be found.
AI is still rubbish. See Adobe thread above.
For now at keywording stock photos. Though it already beats the best human players on chess, checkers, go, etc.
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 (https://www.shutterstock.com/fr/search?sort=newest&image_type=photo)
Better for you?
Your perspective may be different considering you entered here late 2017, I started microstock mid 2004. Maybe I'm not that stupid regarding query and search engine.
My pov is that high quality content = sales!
I don't know about photos or real footage, but for illustrations and motion graphics this is the key. No search algorithm or voodoo rituals...simply creative high quality content.
But i'm happy to listen to other motion designers inputs.
...Maybe i'm wrong but i suspect that the same rule apply to others types of content.
Sorry for my terrible english :)
My pov is that high quality content = sales!
I don't know about photos or real footage, but for illustrations and motion graphics this is the key. No search algorithm or voodoo rituals...simply creative high quality content.
But i'm happy to listen to other motion designers inputs.
...Maybe i'm wrong but i suspect that the same rule apply to others types of content.
Sorry for my terrible english :)
Your English is fine. :)
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 (https://www.shutterstock.com/fr/search?sort=newest&image_type=photo)
Better for you?
Your perspective may be different considering you entered here late 2017, I started microstock mid 2004. Maybe I'm not that stupid regarding query and search engine.
LOL another invalid conclusion. Because I joined here in what? That's my third time, I closed my account because of being frustrated with how the forum had gone down hill. Better now. Would you care that I started in Microstock in 2007 or so? I mean would that mean my opinion would be more valid to you? :)
A one word search doesn't represent what any intelligent buyer is going to search and the word landscape is even worse because it's so vague. Just pointing out that one word search to prove something, does not prove anything.
I did click the link, what was I supposed to see? Recent submissions, I get that, what's your point? If you mean SS is accepting junk, yeah I'd agree. The whole review process seem to fall apart in about 2012 when they went for "we have the most photos". But just in case, can you be specific what I should be looking at in recent uploads?
Here's a good three word search that should make you wonder what SS is thinking... https://www.shutterstock.com/search/sliced+vegetables+isolated?sort=newest&image_type=photo (https://www.shutterstock.com/search/sliced+vegetables+isolated?sort=newest&image_type=photo)
446,334 sliced vegetables isolated stock photos - and it's most recent since you suggested that.
Seems that the limit is around four similar images, although we both know that reviewers are luck, chance and some are more vigilant about enforcing strict rules. (in other words, full of a false sense of power) >:( Some will probably reject twp images as similar, because they are outsourced and many are just making money, without the concept of what their job is. To review and accept suitable images. Instead they see it as, finding things wrong and rejecting images.
So anyway, tell me what I'm supposed to be seeing in recent uploads, I'm unclear what your point was?
always the same stuff always the same old files...nothing new sells....unbielevable.
Just to see, I looked at recent stuff for landscape : https://www.shutterstock.com/fr/search/landscape?sort=newest&image_type=photo (https://www.shutterstock.com/fr/search/landscape?sort=newest&image_type=photo)
UNBELIEVABLE, I was not conscient about all the crap coming in. Nothing surprising that recent stuff, even if the best keeps unseen and unsold, buyers don't come through all these snapshots to find professionnal photo... How serious contributors can feel proud by participating on such a platform? personnaly, I feel ashamed to put my best pictures there.
But, I am sure that one day things will change, and they will have to clean up the base.
Perfect example of proof by using a terrible example. One word search for Landscape? Are you joking?
What buyer would do that? Landscape ::)always the same stuff always the same old files...nothing new sells....unbielevable.
You say you stopped uploading and when you did it was rejects. What did you expect?
my rejects is probably in the 5% for batch. I'm not uploading my best stuff or creative one, simply upload stuff i not consider my best work, that doesn't mean is bad work, probably much better than what you are uploading.
Search SS 'Relevant' Landscape and that brings up far better stuff than the garbage on 'Fresh Content'.
Mind you, go to Unsplash and search 'Landscape'...pretty good for free!
always the same stuff always the same old files...nothing new sells....unbielevable.
Just to see, I looked at recent stuff for landscape : https://www.shutterstock.com/fr/search/landscape?sort=newest&image_type=photo (https://www.shutterstock.com/fr/search/landscape?sort=newest&image_type=photo)
UNBELIEVABLE, I was not conscient about all the crap coming in. Nothing surprising that recent stuff, even if the best keeps unseen and unsold, buyers don't come through all these snapshots to find professionnal photo... How serious contributors can feel proud by participating on such a platform? personnaly, I feel ashamed to put my best pictures there.
But, I am sure that one day things will change, and they will have to clean up the base.
Perfect example of proof by using a terrible example. One word search for Landscape? Are you joking?
What buyer would do that? Landscape ::)always the same stuff always the same old files...nothing new sells....unbielevable.
You say you stopped uploading and when you did it was rejects. What did you expect?
my rejects is probably in the 5% for batch. I'm not uploading my best stuff or creative one, simply upload stuff i not consider my best work, that doesn't mean is bad work, probably much better than what you are uploading.
Having a monster month on SS...
Having a monster month on SS...0.7 rpd is very good!
I'm on pace for BME in September. Quite surprising.Others don't. They change their f*cking algorithm and it works for some people. For me this month, no. But previous months I have seem some crazy changes. SS is a casino.
They changed something on SS at the beginning of the month and some contributors are seeing the positive effects of it.
Having a monster month on SS...
You have some big sales in September, right?
Have you uploaded more content recently than usual? I tend to think they reward people that's constantly uploading.Having a monster month on SS...
You have some big sales in September, right?
6 large ELs (including a $90 sale) and 3 clip sales making a big difference this month. Don't know what they did to change the algos, but more please!
Full report out in a few days on my blog.
Having a monster month on SS...
You have some big sales in September, right?
6 large ELs (including a $90 sale) and 3 clip sales making a big difference this month. Don't know what they did to change the algos, but more please!
Full report out in a few days on my blog.
Have you uploaded more content recently than usual? I tend to think they reward people that's constantly uploading.Having a monster month on SS...
You have some big sales in September, right?
6 large ELs (including a $90 sale) and 3 clip sales making a big difference this month. Don't know what they did to change the algos, but more please!
Full report out in a few days on my blog.
Enviado desde mi LYA-L29 mediante Tapatalk
SS works in mysterious waysHave you uploaded more content recently than usual? I tend to think they reward people that's constantly uploading.Having a monster month on SS...
You have some big sales in September, right?
6 large ELs (including a $90 sale) and 3 clip sales making a big difference this month. Don't know what they did to change the algos, but more please!
Full report out in a few days on my blog.
Enviado desde mi LYA-L29 mediante Tapatalk
I've uploaded very few pics over the past 4 months (only about 350) vs something like 120 clips (been focused on uploading clips since I purchased a gimbal). So I don't think it's a significant factor.
Most of what has sold as ELs are at least a year old, one of them three years old.
Having a monster month on SS...
subberstock...and adobe subs...20 % more download than last year combined 30 % less money.....it's clear that people who need credit or on demand photos are looking elsewhere.
subberstock...and adobe subs...20 % more download than last year combined 30 % less money.....it's clear that people who need credit or on demand photos are looking elsewhere.
My theory is that the big users still buy their subs every month but the smaller independent grahpic designers etc who used to buy an ODDs package as needed per job, now go first to Unsplash and Pixabay etc and only when they're unsuccessful do they return to SS/Adobe.
Probably explains why SS and Adobe advertise on those free sites...and help keep them in business ::) Eejits!
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,
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.
In the end, as long as I'm receiving my share, I actually don't really want to see how the sausage is made.
The only solution I have found up until now to counter these suspected changes is to maintain an upload rate as stable as possible on the long term.
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.
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 (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!
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 (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.
With that name, I'm surprised he's not going for 14,400...nomen est omen! ;)
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.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... ;)
(https://i.postimg.cc/CLxs22Vg/beatdeadhorse.gif)
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... ;)
(https://i.postimg.cc/CLxs22Vg/beatdeadhorse.gif)
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... ;)
(https://i.postimg.cc/CLxs22Vg/beatdeadhorse.gif)
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'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.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... ;)
(https://i.postimg.cc/CLxs22Vg/beatdeadhorse.gif)
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 :)
[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!
^ 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.
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.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.
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.
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.
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.
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 (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..
Uncle Pete, resubmit with notice that specific race track in an up-hill! :D :P
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.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.
No it wasn't Macrostock but a cetain level was required. I failed myself and had to up my game.
I do not remember any agency back in 2006 that did not require a photographer to pass an acceptance test. Sure, some were more stringent than others but all asked a number of candidate images to pass to be approved as a contributor.I guess it might mean unsold...I get quite a lot of old images that never sold getting a sale and some pretty poor ones at that. Which shows its never a good idea to remove your "crappy" content.
A really strange thing is happening with searches on SS on the "Fresh Content" order.
I searched for "palace interior" to take a look at what is being approve nowadays and what was being approved years back. Ordered by the "Fresh Content"option, jumped at page 1000 (out of 1091) and I see images from 2019, 2018 and other recent years in the mix. Even on page 1091 that happens. The same happens with other searches where I have mages from 2007 and on the last page I get recent images and none of mine.
Am I missing something? Isn't "Fresh Content" synonym of newest? Or does it mean unsold or something like that?
I do not remember any agency back in 2006 that did not require a photographer to pass an acceptance test. Sure, some were more stringent than others but all asked a number of candidate images to pass to be approved as a contributor.I guess it might mean unsold...I get quite a lot of old images that never sold getting a sale and some pretty poor ones at that. Which shows its never a good idea to remove your "crappy" content.
A really strange thing is happening with searches on SS on the "Fresh Content" order.
I searched for "palace interior" to take a look at what is being approve nowadays and what was being approved years back. Ordered by the "Fresh Content"option, jumped at page 1000 (out of 1091) and I see images from 2019, 2018 and other recent years in the mix. Even on page 1091 that happens. The same happens with other searches where I have mages from 2007 and on the last page I get recent images and none of mine.
Am I missing something? Isn't "Fresh Content" synonym of newest? Or does it mean unsold or something like that?
Question and there's lots of room below. What microstock agencies required any sort of test to be allowed to upload? Please name all of them. I'll start:
1) Shutterstock
2) iStock
3) Alamy (not microstock but close enough)
I'm pretty sure Fotolia did but maybe I'm wrong..I remember when I started I got lots of rejections and couldn't understand it as my friends all said how great my pictures were ;-).
I do not remember any agency back in 2006 that did not require a photographer to pass an acceptance test. Sure, some were more stringent than others but all asked a number of candidate images to pass to be approved as a contributor.I guess it might mean unsold...I get quite a lot of old images that never sold getting a sale and some pretty poor ones at that. Which shows its never a good idea to remove your "crappy" content.
A really strange thing is happening with searches on SS on the "Fresh Content" order.
I searched for "palace interior" to take a look at what is being approve nowadays and what was being approved years back. Ordered by the "Fresh Content"option, jumped at page 1000 (out of 1091) and I see images from 2019, 2018 and other recent years in the mix. Even on page 1091 that happens. The same happens with other searches where I have mages from 2007 and on the last page I get recent images and none of mine.
Am I missing something? Isn't "Fresh Content" synonym of newest? Or does it mean unsold or something like that?
We have no hint what any of the words mean on SS. Easy example, Top Images, which just like Most Popular, is in no imaginable way, what any of us would call either of those phrases. One of my recent uploads just jumped to the first "top Image, after I uploaded about 100 other new images. Why? No downloads, the new images are a couple lines below, and almost all editorial, filling page 1 and 2, but why would a photo of bread, suddenly be my Top Image.
We can spend forever trying to figure this out, but there's no answer.
Every site in 2006 would be what? iStock, Shutterstock and Alamy? LOL ;)
There are a few things I have images of that I wish I could re-shoot with the gear I have now.
I do not remember any agency back in 2006 that did not require a photographer to pass an acceptance test. Sure, some were more stringent than others but all asked a number of candidate images to pass to be approved as a contributor.I guess it might mean unsold...I get quite a lot of old images that never sold getting a sale and some pretty poor ones at that. Which shows its never a good idea to remove your "crappy" content.
A really strange thing is happening with searches on SS on the "Fresh Content" order.
I searched for "palace interior" to take a look at what is being approve nowadays and what was being approved years back. Ordered by the "Fresh Content"option, jumped at page 1000 (out of 1091) and I see images from 2019, 2018 and other recent years in the mix. Even on page 1091 that happens. The same happens with other searches where I have mages from 2007 and on the last page I get recent images and none of mine.
Am I missing something? Isn't "Fresh Content" synonym of newest? Or does it mean unsold or something like that?
We have no hint what any of the words mean on SS. Easy example, Top Images, which just like Most Popular, is in no imaginable way, what any of us would call either of those phrases. One of my recent uploads just jumped to the first "top Image, after I uploaded about 100 other new images. Why? No downloads, the new images are a couple lines below, and almost all editorial, filling page 1 and 2, but why would a photo of bread, suddenly be my Top Image.
We can spend forever trying to figure this out, but there's no answer.
Every site in 2006 would be what? iStock, Shutterstock and Alamy? LOL ;)
In 2007 I already was in almost all the Microstock agencies I'm today except for a couple I joined later. I do not not remember back then joining an agency without having to be approved unless my memory is betraying me. And this means SS, IS, FL, DT, 123RF, BS and Alamy (was Macro).
Of course, not all had the same level of requirements but none accepted you just by registering.
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 (https://www.shutterstock.com/da/g/Grossinger?sort=newest)
People like you who are totally in love with your self and feed on posting crap about other people are just too common on every forum.
First of all, since you posted the link (Thank you) to my forum I think you are obligated to also post your link, just so I can admire your port and maybe even comment on it.
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..
People like you who are totally in love with your self and feed on posting crap about other people are just too common on every forum.
First of all, since you posted the link (Thank you) to my forum I think you are obligated to also post your link, just so I can admire your port and maybe even comment on it.
^ 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....
looks this guy portfolio i spotted in ss forum...te guy who claims one ann expert uploading more crap and crap to reach 10000
Im thinking overall the quality of what i upload to SS now is lower than several years ago.
Years ago they had proper technical checks, standards and stopped similars. Since they axed that i've been far less selective and uploaded images i previously wouldn't have purely because they made it a numbers game just to be seen.
The stuff is in my view acceptable (technically its fine) but overall the quality on average is lower than previously where i only uploaded a few of the best from a particular shoot.
*Hopefully* they'll go back to stopping similar and applying technical standards consistently then i can do less work uploading!
I think last time anyone from SS commented they said 90% of images on the database have never sold. That was a few years ago, i suspect that is higher now.
I don't post much because I'm way too busy shooting pictures and doing searches.
I don't post much because I'm way too busy shooting pictures and doing searches.
Congratulations on your successes.
Well, you post here constantly, so you seem to have time. May I ask you what medications you are taking? I would like to have the same stuff for a good and colorful world 8) ::)
BUT Shutterstock has the best contributor support of any agency.... Shutterstock is the greatest stock agency in existence. Absolutely!
I miss the SS forum, until today I still can't understand why they took it down
I miss the SS forum, until today I still can't understand why they took it down
Hi brasilnut!
I think it was for too much negative comments when SSTK start with the reset button in January and new levels system. But to be honest i don't miss it.
Um abraço from Portugal
BUT Shutterstock has the best contributor support of any agency.... Shutterstock is the greatest stock agency in existence. Absolutely!
You have no idea how much i laughed. Thank you for your post. ;D
Congratulations i think you're in 0,00001% that probably thinks that.
Please, please, please....
Don't forget to get a big tattoo with SSTK logo and btw upload-upload-uplload it to your portfolio too.
If you're right you probably sell thousands!!! Absolutely! ehehhe :D
BUT Shutterstock has the best contributor support of any agency.... Shutterstock is the greatest stock agency in existence. Absolutely!
You have no idea how much i laughed. Thank you for your post. ;D
Congratulations i think you're in 0,00001% that probably thinks that.
Please, please, please....
Don't forget to get a big tattoo with SSTK logo and btw upload-upload-uplload it to your portfolio too.
If you're right you probably sell thousands!!! Absolutely! ehehhe :D
BUT Shutterstock has the best contributor support of any agency.... Shutterstock is the greatest stock agency in existence. Absolutely!
You have no idea how much i laughed. Thank you for your post. ;D
Congratulations i think you're in 0,00001% that probably thinks that.
Please, please, please....
Don't forget to get a big tattoo with SSTK logo and btw upload-upload-uplload it to your portfolio too.
If you're right you probably sell thousands!!! Absolutely! ehehhe :D
You can laugh as much as you can (laughing is good for your mental health ;))
But even if don't know much about their support, even if I don't like their 10c "earnings" and their January reset, despite all that, at the end of the day, SS is still the best agency there is, by some margin.
To back up my statement, this is the distribution of my revenue for the past month:
(https://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/this-month's-sales/?action=dlattach;attach=18900;image)
So what you consider best agency? the one which pays better right?
And like it or not, SS is leading the pack by a sizeable margin.
And like it or not, SS is leading the pack by a sizeable margin.
Maybe for you, but not according to the poll on the right. For me SS was always by far the leader but over the past few years they have been eclipsed by Canva - last year I made less than a third on SS than I did on Canva. So far this year SS is third after Canva and Adobe. If it holds up it will be the first time ever for Adobe to beat SS but I expect that will continue going forward.
And like it or not, SS is leading the pack by a sizeable margin.
Maybe for you, but not according to the poll on the right. For me SS was always by far the leader but over the past few years they have been eclipsed by Canva - last year I made less than a third on SS than I did on Canva. So far this year SS is third after Canva and Adobe. If it holds up it will be the first time ever for Adobe to beat SS but I expect that will continue going forward.
as has been discussed recently, the poll is based on a small sample - for many of us SS outferforms AS by a factor of 2-3
And like it or not, SS is leading the pack by a sizeable margin.
Maybe for you, but not according to the poll on the right. For me SS was always by far the leader but over the past few years they have been eclipsed by Canva - last year I made less than a third on SS than I did on Canva. So far this year SS is third after Canva and Adobe. If it holds up it will be the first time ever for Adobe to beat SS but I expect that will continue going forward.
as has been discussed recently, the poll is based on a small sample - for many of us SS outferforms AS by a factor of 2-3
Thanks for the short crisp explanation. It looks the same for me.
Lol
I don't post much because I'm way too busy shooting pictures and doing searches.
Congratulations on your successes.
Well, you post here constantly, so you seem to have time. May I ask you what medications you are taking? I would like to have the same stuff for a good and colorful world 8) ::)
Everything you need to know about Shutterstock today
Everything you need to know about Shutterstock today
What makes SS very scary is the huge range of "commissions" for an individual sale. For example, could be 10 cents or $200...that is a factor of 2000:1! My question is "when it is all said and done" does SS also see that huge variability to their bottom line? How would SS be doing if what the contributor sees as "big sales" slacked off quite a bit?
What makes SS very scary is the huge range of "commissions" for an individual sale. For example, could be 10 cents or $200...that is a factor of 2000:1! My question is "when it is all said and done" does SS also see that huge variability to their bottom line? How would SS be doing if what the contributor sees as "big sales" slacked off quite a bit?
What SS will be doing - and what I do - is to look at what the averages are rather than individual sales. So they will be looking at things like total volume, rate per download, margin per download, etc.. When you have a huge volume of sales, as SS does, it all averages out.
What makes SS very scary is the huge range of "commissions" for an individual sale. For example, could be 10 cents or $200...that is a factor of 2000:1! My question is "when it is all said and done" does SS also see that huge variability to their bottom line? How would SS be doing if what the contributor sees as "big sales" slacked off quite a bit?
What SS will be doing - and what I do - is to look at what the averages are rather than individual sales. So they will be looking at things like total volume, rate per download, margin per download, etc.. When you have a huge volume of sales, as SS does, it all averages out.
Yes, but I guess my question is are the "big sales" as important relative to the "small sales" for SS bottom line as they are for the contributor's bottom line.
The first half of September was horrible, but these past few days for me have been promising.
Overall, I do see a significant downtrend in commissions, but I suppose it is what it is. I'm not very motivated to shoot new topics, but I'm glad I have a decent sized portfolio that generates something each month.
What makes SS very scary is the huge range of "commissions" for an individual sale. For example, could be 10 cents or $200...that is a factor of 2000:1! My question is "when it is all said and done" does SS also see that huge variability to their bottom line? How would SS be doing if what the contributor sees as "big sales" slacked off quite a bit?
What SS will be doing - and what I do - is to look at what the averages are rather than individual sales. So they will be looking at things like total volume, rate per download, margin per download, etc.. When you have a huge volume of sales, as SS does, it all averages out.
Yes, but I guess my question is are the "big sales" as important relative to the "small sales" for SS bottom line as they are for the contributor's bottom line.
Obviously not. Otherwise SS wouldn't be pushing the subscription model as hard as they are.
depressing...glad I've got off that sinking ship (or at least devoting much less time there).
depressing...glad I've got off that sinking ship (or at least devoting much less time there).
depressing...glad I've got off that sinking ship (or at least devoting much less time there).
SS desperate to sell? Already several weeks on first load of the contributors page i am redirected to the sales page of SS and only after that step i can access a contributors page. Useless movement as i don't buy there
++Thank you. It was always submit.shutterstock.com so i was surprised with those redirects. They survey? I use the same URL, no redirect today :-)SS desperate to sell? Already several weeks on first load of the contributors page i am redirected to the sales page of SS and only after that step i can access a contributors page. Useless movement as i don't buy there
Not a big defense of them but: https://submit.shutterstock.com/dashboard
Depends on what link you have in your bookmarks? That should take you to the contributors scuffling for pocket change page. ;)
I miss the SS forum, until today I still can't understand why they took it down
I miss the SS forum, until today I still can't understand why they took it down
Hey Alexandre, all you have to do is read all the well known trolls and SS haters posts here on this forum.
Just read all the stupid crap posted about SS and the crying. Except on payday of course.
That is why SS took down the forums. I'm with you, I miss it as well. Lot's of good people were on it but the crying, complaining, trolling just won out.
That's also why I'm not a frequent visitor to this forum despite what some idiots claim.
It's mostly useless, negative crap that's posted.
Crying, crying, crying. Not much on how to increase sales, how to have a happy and good life.
Stay well my friend
I miss the SS forum, until today I still can't understand why they took it down
++Thank you. It was always submit.shutterstock.com so i was surprised with those redirects. They survey? I use the same URL, no redirect today :-)SS desperate to sell? Already several weeks on first load of the contributors page i am redirected to the sales page of SS and only after that step i can access a contributors page. Useless movement as i don't buy there
Not a big defense of them but: https://submit.shutterstock.com/dashboard
Depends on what link you have in your bookmarks? That should take you to the contributors scuffling for pocket change page. ;)
...at this rate I won't make $100 minimum payout for the first time in 7 years.
...at this rate I won't make $100 minimum payout for the first time in 7 years.
Change it to $35!
My October month has been absolutely awful until now...
My October month has been absolutely awful until now...
Got stuff all over the place and October, which is normally pretty good month usually, is terrible so far.
Scratching my head and wondering what's going on.
My October month has been absolutely awful until now...
Got stuff all over the place and October, which is normally pretty good month usually, is terrible so far.
Scratching my head and wondering what's going on.
I've noted a slowdown too. Not just this month but September too. I don't think it's SS, however. Seeing similar with AS. Could be the general economic slowdown as countries slip into recession.
Feels more like january than october. Obvious decline all across the board in what is usually the best selling month of the yearMe too
Feels more like january than october. Obvious decline all across the board in what is usually the best selling month of the year
Thank you very much, Pete for the advises. BTW, they started again these redirects :(++Thank you. It was always submit.shutterstock.com so i was surprised with those redirects. They survey? I use the same URL, no redirect today :-)SS desperate to sell? Already several weeks on first load of the contributors page i am redirected to the sales page of SS and only after that step i can access a contributors page. Useless movement as i don't buy there
Not a big defense of them but: https://submit.shutterstock.com/dashboard
Depends on what link you have in your bookmarks? That should take you to the contributors scuffling for pocket change page. ;)
Here's another link you might like, but you have to bookmark it, or it will change back to 25 https://submit.shutterstock.com/earnings/top-performers?page=1&date_range=0&sort_direction=desc&per_page=100
Top Performers 100 per page by sales $$$
if shutterstock doesn't want them, I don't care. They'll do fine somewhere else - I'm pretty sure!
if shutterstock doesn't want them, I don't care. They'll do fine somewhere else - I'm pretty sure!
It's funny to see the images rejected by SS, but being sold next day on Adobe ...
if shutterstock doesn't want them, I don't care. They'll do fine somewhere else - I'm pretty sure!
It's funny to see the images rejected by SS, but being sold next day on Adobe ...
It happens in both directions. I have images rejected by SS but which sell on Adobe and images rejected by Adobe which sell on SS. I've stopped trying to look for any logic in the decision making.
Pre 2020, SS video sales used to be a year on year great earner, but I suspect that like many other contributors I have been hit with a triple whammy of reduced revenue via the (1.) level based royalty model (2.) reduced overall number of sales per month (3.) subscription model. All combined has resulted in roughly a month on month loss of over 75% in revenue.I do not agree. SS revenue has dropped dramatically since January of that year, when they drastically reduced the income percentage for authors. Yes, during the year this percentage increases, but this did not add income. I think there are 2 reasons:
1. By his actions, SS created a scandalous situation as a result of which buyers left for other stocks.
There was a big scandal on the shutterstock forum, it lasted for a long time until shutterstock closed the forum altogether. I remember the securities (shares) shutterstock because of this began to decline in price on the stock exchange. Authors in Google wrote bad comments, which also lowered the rating of shutterstock. Naturally, buyers saw that shutterstock began to become toxic, and began to leave. Moreover, many major authors withdrew their portfolios from sale, which also gave a signal to buyers to move to other stocks.
1. By his actions, SS created a scandalous situation as a result of which buyers left for other stocks.
As if buyers care or are even aware of how much % the contributor gets....
Yeah, some buyers may have left SS lured by the free stuff dumped on the market by AS & Co.In my experience a lot of buyers even think the agencies own the images or employ the artists.
Net gain for contributors = Zero (or less)
PS. It's very likely that 99% of the buyers are oblivious to what happens to contributors or don't care.
Yeah, some buyers may have left SS lured by the free stuff dumped on the market by AS & Co.The same subscription stocks were already long before this moment. But the profits of authors on shutterstock did not decrease. As far as I remember, a sharp decline in profits occurred in January 2021.
PS. It's very likely that 99% of the buyers are oblivious to what happens to contributors or don't care.Then why did they leave, and why don't they buy like before? The answer in this case is only one, the stock steals money from the authors.
Then why did they leave, and why don't they buy like before?
Her Ugliness, here in the subject everyone complains about the drop in income, except for you. 8)
Her Ugliness, here in the subject everyone complains about the drop in income, except for you. 8)
With October now officially over, I can report that the number of downloads continues to disappoint. I'm down 18% compared to October 2021.And compared to October 2020, what is the fall?
It's increased by about 25%I watch with interest people who haven't noticed the collapse in shutterstock revenue. I spoke with many stockers, incl. those who have an income of 10-15 thousand dollars a month. And everyone I spoke to confirmed a very strong decline in shutterstock revenue.
With October now officially over, I can report that the number of downloads continues to disappoint. I'm down 18% compared to October 2021.And compared to October 2020, what is the fall?
It is very hard to make comparisons. If someone has a small portfolio they can double or triple the size in a year, far outstripping any fall in income someone with a bigger portfolio will notice. That is why there is a wall people hit; when they can’t upload enough images as a percentage of total portfolio in a given period to offset drops in RPI.It's increased by about 25%I watch with interest people who haven't noticed the collapse in shutterstock revenue. I spoke with many stockers, incl. those who have an income of 10-15 thousand dollars a month. And everyone I spoke to confirmed a very strong decline in shutterstock revenue.
...everyone I spoke to confirmed a very strong decline in shutterstock revenue.
...everyone I spoke to confirmed a very strong decline in shutterstock revenue.
I didn't.
And Zero Talent didn't, Her Ugliness possibly didn't, and if we're going with your original 2020 to 2022 comparison, then Jaggy didn't. So if everyone you spoke to 'confirmed a very strong decline', then you obviously have some form of selective hearing.
Sure, I've noticed the collapse in some people's revenue. I've also noticed the increase in some people's revenue... and while the former is more common than the latter, not everybody is experience a strong decline in earnings.
So shutterstock has dramatically changed its search algorithms since January 1, 2021. Or manually promotes only certain authors, assigns them a higher rating. You are lucky, you are among the lucky ones....everyone I spoke to confirmed a very strong decline in shutterstock revenue.
I didn't.
And Zero Talent didn't, Her Ugliness possibly didn't, and if we're going with your original 2020 to 2022 comparison, then Jaggy didn't. So if everyone you spoke to 'confirmed a very strong decline', then you obviously have some form of selective hearing.
Sure, I've noticed the collapse in some people's revenue. I've also noticed the increase in some people's revenue... and while the former is more common than the latter, not everybody is experience a strong decline in earnings.
You are lucky, you are among the lucky ones.
So shutterstock has dramatically changed its search algorithms since January 1, 2021. Or manually promotes only certain authors, assigns them a higher rating. You are lucky, you are among the lucky ones....everyone I spoke to confirmed a very strong decline in shutterstock revenue.
I didn't.
And Zero Talent didn't, Her Ugliness possibly didn't, and if we're going with your original 2020 to 2022 comparison, then Jaggy didn't. So if everyone you spoke to 'confirmed a very strong decline', then you obviously have some form of selective hearing.
Sure, I've noticed the collapse in some people's revenue. I've also noticed the increase in some people's revenue... and while the former is more common than the latter, not everybody is experience a strong decline in earnings.
SpaceStockFootage, you said the same thing as me just in other words.So shutterstock has dramatically changed its search algorithms since January 1, 2021. Or manually promotes only certain authors, assigns them a higher rating. You are lucky, you are among the lucky ones....everyone I spoke to confirmed a very strong decline in shutterstock revenue.
I didn't.
And Zero Talent didn't, Her Ugliness possibly didn't, and if we're going with your original 2020 to 2022 comparison, then Jaggy didn't. So if everyone you spoke to 'confirmed a very strong decline', then you obviously have some form of selective hearing.
Sure, I've noticed the collapse in some people's revenue. I've also noticed the increase in some people's revenue... and while the former is more common than the latter, not everybody is experience a strong decline in earnings.
You're once again making assumptions, and also changing the subject because you were proven wrong, but that's fine. My SS income for the first three months of 2021 was over 75% less than the last three months of 2020, so if anything I was unlucky as a result of the algorithm change. I was 'among the unlucky ones'. Why the earnings improved later in the year... I have no idea, I barely uploaded any new content... maybe they changed the algorithm again. I wouldn't be surprised if they're tweaking and tinkering with it on a monthly basis. I would if it results in more sales.
You are lucky, you are among the lucky ones.
Right, it's only about luck! ::)
Yeah, and Mars has been moving from west to east for the last two years and now it's suddenly changed direction... as a result, the gods must be angry. I mean, what else could it be?!Your sarcasm is inappropriate. Especially in light of the fact that you are no longer loading anything new, as you yourself wrote. Yes, I am the one who shoots and constantly uploads videos. I don't grab stars from the sky, unlike you.
I'm not sure if you've been living in a bubble for the last 10 years, but those 10 years of experience don't seem to have given you the wealth of knowledge that you think they have!
'Rare', 'few people dare to upload it'... I wish! 'Very often, such stock agencies get banned for such space'. Perfect example of what I'm talking about... no they don't. You're wrong.
I admit that shutterstock may promote authors from certain countries, or is afraid that they will sue it. In general, I think that either the algorithms have changed, or the buyers have left, or shutterstock is hiding my money from me.
So sarcasm is appropriate if people are uploading new content?! Sure, that makes perfect sense! And I'm still constantly uploading videos, just not to Shutterstock.Why don't you upload to Shutterstock?
Uncle Pete, I have the right to know something, but not to know something, to forget something, but to remember something. What are your claims to me? I see you are satisfied that they began to pay you less, I am happy for you. ;D
I admit that shutterstock may promote authors from certain countries, or is afraid that they will sue it. In general, I think that either the algorithms have changed, or the buyers have left, or shutterstock is hiding my money from me.
People from countries will sue SSTK? :o And you say, SSTK is "hiding money" from you?
Her Ugliness, here in the subject everyone complains about the drop in income, except for you. 8)
In general, I think that either the algorithms have changed, or the buyers have left, or shutterstock is hiding my money from me.
another possibility is you're not as good as you think you are and fail to compete in an always changing market.
And secondly, the fact that newer images don't seem to really get traction.Same here on SSTK my photos keep selling from at least a year ago. New uploaded images still sell but not as much. There was a huge gap in my sales for 3 wks from Oct 4 to 24th. but it's now back to normal
My better selling images are nearly all dating back from two years ago, and I'm a far better photographer now then I was two years ago. (to my own personal taste)
This year for Oct
SS - 47% down
AS - 60% up
SS continue to under perform, AS continue to push ahead. I’d swear down that SS are losing customers to AS.
Context, SS= several hundred, AS = several thousand p/month. The gap between the two is massive
For me, AS is pretty constant - apart from small high and low deviations. Let's see if the pngs can possibly bring in a little boost. But SS is gradually going down the drain. I don't even want to think about the coming beginning of the year....
cascoly, read my posts in this thread, and not just one post, I described in detail why shutterstock went down, gave my personal examples, statistics. If you continue to make accusations against me, I will put you on ignore. I don't owe you anything. And I'm not a parrot to repeat and copy my posts. Who wanted to hear me, he heard. And I don't owe you anything.
But when I search for this file within my portfolio, it is on the last page as the last image.
But when I search for this file within my portfolio, it is on the last page as the last image.
That's usually the case, unless you sort by "Fresh image". Then it should be the first image.
And if it also ends up on the last page in the general search, it is absolutely worthless.
But when I search for this file within my portfolio, it is on the last page as the last image.
That's usually the case, unless you sort by "Fresh image". Then it should be the first image.
Until now, the new images within the portfolio appeared on page 1 or 2, but never on the last page.
And if it also ends up on the last page in the general search, it is absolutely worthless. Then I might as well delete it again.
And if it also ends up on the last page in the general search, it is absolutely worthless.
You can probably find that out by simply seraching for your image in the general search, but from my experience the sorting in your portfolio and the general search have absolutely no connection.
I have images that are on the last pages of my port, but on the first page for relevant keywords in the general search.
But when I search for this file within my portfolio, it is on the last page as the last image.
That's usually the case, unless you sort by "Fresh image". Then it should be the first image.
Until now, the new images within the portfolio appeared on page 1 or 2, but never on the last page.
And if it also ends up on the last page in the general search, it is absolutely worthless. Then I might as well delete it again.
Wilm, after your posting here I checked my new submissions of the last days and searched Shutterstock sorted by popular. The result was completely inconsistent. With an average of 10.000 - 15.000 hits I found some of my new images on pages 1 - 3, with others I gave up with the search after 10 pages.
But when I search for this file within my portfolio, it is on the last page as the last image.
That's usually the case, unless you sort by "Fresh image". Then it should be the first image.
Until now, the new images within the portfolio appeared on page 1 or 2, but never on the last page.
And if it also ends up on the last page in the general search, it is absolutely worthless. Then I might as well delete it again.
Wilm, after your posting here I checked my new submissions of the last days and searched Shutterstock sorted by popular. The result was completely inconsistent. With an average of 10.000 - 15.000 hits I found some of my new images on pages 1 - 3, with others I gave up with the search after 10 pages.
Ralf, the last image I uploaded before this is shown as number 1 in my portfolio. And the new one now ranks 1319 out of 1319 images.
That makes no sense to me.
Ralf, the last image I uploaded before this is shown as number 1 in my portfolio. And the new one now ranks 1319 out of 1319 images.
That makes no sense to me.
Wilm, I actually have an idea what the problem is. Does your new image by any chance happen to have a keyword related to Christmas? I looked at your port and noticed it is having the same weird behavior regarding Christmas images than mine: They are all glued to the back of your port.
To me this suddenly happened maybe 2 years ago. Suddenly all my Christmas images went to the back of my port. I never bothered reporting the problem to Shutterstock, because I didn't expect any of their "expert contributors" to understand my problem anyways. They would probably have replied something like that how images a sorted in my port are a secret or something like this. But the other reason why I didn't bother reporting it is that it didn't seem to have an effect of the overal sorting in the whole Shutterstock database or my sales. My all time best seller on Shutterstock is a Christmas images, but it kept selling.
And then, sometime in December all my Christmas images suddenly were sorted back to were they belong - and then after Christmas they all went back to the last pages of my port. So maybe it's not even a glitch, but an intended feature where Shutterstrock sorts Christmas images different out of season. But I never noticed anything similar with for example easter or Halloween images.
Either way, seeing as in your port all your Christmas images seem to be sorted on the last page, I suspect it's the same with your port as with mine. I don't know whether it's specificially the keyword "Christmas". Might just as well be something like "december" or "winter" or any other of the keywords one would commonly use for Christmas images.
Wilm, I actually have an idea what the problem is. Does your new image by any chance happen to have a keyword related to Christmas? I looked at your port and noticed it is having the same weird behavior regarding Christmas images than mine: They are all glued to the back of your port.
To me this suddenly happened maybe 2 years ago. Suddenly all my Christmas images went to the back of my port. I never bothered reporting the problem to Shutterstock, because I didn't expect any of their "expert contributors" to understand my problem anyways. They would probably have replied something like that how images a sorted in my port are a secret or something like this. But the other reason why I didn't bother reporting it is that it didn't seem to have an effect of the overal sorting in the whole Shutterstock database or my sales. My all time best seller on Shutterstock is a Christmas images, but it kept selling.
And then, sometime in December all my Christmas images suddenly were sorted back to were they belong - and then after Christmas they all went back to the last pages of my port. So maybe it's not even a glitch, but an intended feature where Shutterstrock sorts Christmas images different out of season. But I never noticed anything similar with for example easter or Halloween images.
Either way, seeing as in your port all your Christmas images seem to be sorted on the last page, I suspect it's the same with your port as with mine. I don't know whether it's specificially the keyword "Christmas". Might just as well be something like "december" or "winter" or any other of the keywords one would commonly use for Christmas images.
Wilm, no wonder, SS has long broken search algorithms and promotes authors in manual mode. Obviously you are not in favor. The SS has sunk to the bottom, worse than ever, the income is meager, the authors are being fooled.
Wilm, no wonder, SS has long broken search algorithms and promotes authors in manual mode. Obviously you are not in favor. The SS has sunk to the bottom, worse than ever, the income is meager, the authors are being fooled.
I assume that you will be penalized if you simply upload anything for the sole purpose of increasing your portfolio.If the SS accepts the job, then the job suits him. The CC bears the cost of storing the work.
Wilm, no wonder, SS has long broken search algorithms and promotes authors in manual mode. Obviously you are not in favor. The SS has sunk to the bottom, worse than ever, the income is meager, the authors are being fooled.
Is not that simple. SS is not just manually promoting any random pleb.
There is a secret society with its own rules, rituals, obligations, hierarchy and a very strict admission.
The higher you are on that hierarchy, the more sales you get. I am only level 7, "provost" (see the yellow highlight) so I have plenty of room to grow.
I share this secret in confidence, please keep this for yourself. :-X
I assume that you will be penalized if you simply upload anything for the sole purpose of increasing your portfolio.If the SS accepts the job, then the job suits him. The CC bears the cost of storing the work.
Yes, good works should sell better than bad ones. But I would say that stock works should sell better. But when the SS is in such a mess as the last 2 years, the authors of good works also have poor incomes. These are at least those authors whom I personally have known for a long time.
I assume that you will be penalized if you simply upload anything for the sole purpose of increasing your portfolio.If the SS accepts the job, then the job suits him. The CC bears the cost of storing the work.
Yes, good works should sell better than bad ones. But I would say that stock works should sell better. But when the SS is in such a mess as the last 2 years, the authors of good works also have poor incomes. These are at least those authors whom I personally have known for a long time.
Yes, I also know some formerly very successful contributors who have gone very steeply downhill.
But many of them - like me - have not uploaded anything because they are frustrated with the way shutterstock has dealt with the contributors. And for that they are currently being punished.
This is also understandable for me from the agency's point of view.
But accepting an image and letting it disappear into nirvana immediately afterwards makes no sense. Then they should reject it right away if they think it's bad.
I assume that you will be penalized if you simply upload anything for the sole purpose of increasing your portfolio.If the SS accepts the job, then the job suits him. The CC bears the cost of storing the work.
Yes, good works should sell better than bad ones. But I would say that stock works should sell better. But when the SS is in such a mess as the last 2 years, the authors of good works also have poor incomes. These are at least those authors whom I personally have known for a long time.
Yes, I also know some formerly very successful contributors who have gone very steeply downhill.
But many of them - like me - have not uploaded anything because they are frustrated with the way shutterstock has dealt with the contributors. And for that they are currently being punished.
This is also understandable for me from the agency's point of view.
But accepting an image and letting it disappear into nirvana immediately afterwards makes no sense. Then they should reject it right away if they think it's bad.
Wilm, I had 2 photos accepted yesterday. I checked their position and I found them on my first page @ #18 and #19.
Photos approved last week are #22, #25, #26.
Photos approved 2 weeks ago are #31, #32, #33 and #40.
None of them are particulary good to deserve a high ranking.
This shows that new stuff is artificially promoted, being given the chance to break through. This artificial boost is fading over time, if no sales happen (or maybe enough views, or other metrics).
So it matters if you upload regulaly, not because the contributor is penalised otherwise, but because new photos, which are artificially ranked higher, may trigger additional sales for older photos, since older photos are presented as an alternative. The buyer will chose the best photo for him, which may be older.
So new photos (especially if they are good enough to get enough attention, while on top of the ranks) may give a boost to old photos, and may trigger a viral second wind to the whole portfolio.
But many of them - like me - have not uploaded anything because they are frustrated with the way shutterstock has dealt with the contributors. And for that they are currently being punished.The more I upload videos to SS, the less my income. Probably the SS is punishing me for not loading only masterpieces. ;D
or the search algorithms there work in such a way that the SS manually decides which authors to promote and which ones to push.
or the search algorithms there work in such a way that the SS manually decides which authors to promote and which ones to push.It's completely nonsense.
And what reason would SS have to do this?
SS couldn't care less whether a video is bought from contributor A or contributor B.
Uncle Pete, I have the right to know something, but not to know something, to forget something, but to remember something. What are your claims to me? I see you are satisfied that they began to pay you less, I am happy for you. ;D
Thanks for being happy for me. ;)
Speaking of remembering, I seem to remember someone else who's been banned from here, who used to make all kinds of claims and draw conclusions and ignored logic and reasoning. When they were asked a direct question, the answer would turn into no answer and twisted evasion. Can I try again?I admit that shutterstock may promote authors from certain countries, or is afraid that they will sue it. In general, I think that either the algorithms have changed, or the buyers have left, or shutterstock is hiding my money from me.
People from countries will sue SSTK? :o And you say, SSTK is "hiding money" from you?
What countries? How is SSTK hiding money from you?
No I'm not happy or satisfied, making less on any agency, where did you find anything to come to that wrong conclusion?
It's completely nonsense.I've been experimenting. I wrote in support of the SS that I was not satisfied with the sales, and after a few days I received sales in my account, and in a month the SS reached at least the minimum that was two years ago. Hence the conclusion that certain authors are manually promoted on the SS. Yes, it is obvious that they somehow manually set a temporary rating, after which their works are the first in the search, for example.
You really think that SS should PAY a group of well skilled people that works looking and MANUALLY adjust the search position :o ;D ;D ;D
I would love to work in that department.
SS, like any other agency, has a business: they have to sell images and clips. Nothing elseI have no complaints about other agencies, I, like most in this thread, only have complaints about the SS. In other agencies, I received and receive a good income. And that means that my work is not crap.
Let me remind you in what topic you write here: "SS continues to deteriorate." If you are satisfied with the income from the SS, then what are you doing in this thread? Create your own theme, like what a cool SS, how well he sells.Oh come on please, stop your personal show ;D You're a master in confusion, I've never said I'm happy with SS, this year I'm down 30% in earnings. But it's not a disaster, and I follow the thread to listen real opinion, not your conspiracy nonsense claim, or absurde suggestions like "write email, and the day after you will see big sales" ;D
I have no complaints about other agencies
You started with first posts in the forum crying against Adobe cause they didn't appreciate so much your great clips and nominate only few for the free section.And this is what it's for. What does it have to do with a separate program for a stable monthly income. I must have had more videos nominated than you, so you're jealous.
I follow the thread to listen real opinion, not your conspiracy nonsense claim, or absurde suggestions like "write email, and the day after you will see big sales" ;D1. Unlike you, I write here about my experience and my experiments. You are accusing me of lying.
You started with first posts in the forum crying against Adobe cause they didn't appreciate so much your great clips and nominate only few for the free section.And this is what it's for. What does it have to do with a separate program for a stable monthly income. I must have had more videos nominated than you, so you're jealous.
From you in the subject only flood.
Saying that your sales increased after you emailed SS regarding low sales isn't lying. I mean, assuming you haven't made that up, but we'll assume you haven't. But anyway... then interpreting that to mean that SS flicked some kind of switch for you and that they manually decide on the placement or sales performance of individuals isn't far off from a lie. I mean, I can't prove that's not the case, but you also can't prove it is the case.I can prove my words. I have correspondence, there are dates, there are sales statistics on SS. Naturally, I will not attach screenshots, because i am not in court and my privacy is also important to me.
Feel free to share your facts, feel free to present your opinions (however misguided they may be), but don't present your opinions as facts. And maybe dig a bit deeper into the possibilities for why something is why it is. There's plenty of reasons considerably more likely for your sales increase other than SS feeling sorry for you and deciding to send some more sales your way to make you feel better. I'm guessing they didn't call an emergency board meeting upon receipt of your email.
I can prove my words. I have correspondence, there are dates, there are sales statistics on SS. Naturally, I will not attach screenshots, because i am not in court and my privacy is also important to me.
But my conclusions about not correctly or manually working algorithms, as well as about theft, remain with me.
And if the income of the SS from the sale of videos has not decreased, but the income of the authors has decreased, then the SS is stealing money.
Did you miss the whole royalty rate reduction and subsequent reset in January every year?! That's basically the very definition of 'the income of the SS from the sale of videos has not decreased, but the income of the authors has decreased'. I mean, I guess that feels a bit like theft, but it's their website and they can do what they want unfortunately.I didn't miss anything. Usually the authors by March-June (someone like) already reach the normal percentage of deductions.
Usually the authors by March-June (someone like) already reach the normal percentage of deductions.
So, somewhere there was statistics on the income of the SS from the video, and here it is necessary to cite and analyze it here.
A normal honest site cannot give a consistently good profit, and then from 2021 it will collapse sharply.
Where did you get this information?From my experience. Is this not enough?
Here you go... content.shutterstock.com/investor-report/index.html analyze away!OK.
What?! Well you've said you're not getting a consistently good profit, so by your logic doesn't that make SS a normal honest site? And as for it collapsing sharply in 2021, that may be true for you, and some of the people you've spoken to... but where is your info for this happening to everyone?This forum does not allow editing the post, so if I wrote the text with an error, I can’t fix it. I'm saying that a normal honest site can't drastically collapse income.
From your experience? No, that's not enough! Please tell me you're not basing "Usually the authors by March-June (someone like) already reach the normal percentage of deductions" purely based on when you 'reach the normal percentage of reductions'?I do not respond to flood. Therefore, I will not dignify you with an answer.
Surely you're getting the point by now... opinions and personal experiences are fine but don't present them as facts unless they are facts. 'I reach the normal percentage of reductions by around March to June'... fine. 'Usually the authors by March-June (someone like) already reach the normal percentage of deductions'... not fine, unless you have some stats that are not available to the rest of us.
...
This forum does not allow editing the post, so if I wrote the text with an error, I can’t fix it. ...
From your experience? No, that's not enough! Please tell me you're not basing "Usually the authors by March-June (someone like) already reach the normal percentage of deductions" purely based on when you 'reach the normal percentage of reductions'?I do not respond to flood. Therefore, I will not dignify you with an answer.
Surely you're getting the point by now... opinions and personal experiences are fine but don't present them as facts unless they are facts. 'I reach the normal percentage of reductions by around March to June'... fine. 'Usually the authors by March-June (someone like) already reach the normal percentage of deductions'... not fine, unless you have some stats that are not available to the rest of us.
But many of them - like me - have not uploaded anything because they are frustrated with the way shutterstock has dealt with the contributors. And for that they are currently being punished.The more I upload videos to SS, the less my income. Probably the SS is punishing me for not loading only masterpieces. ;D
I think everything is simpler, or the SS is stealing my money, or the search algorithms there work in such a way that the SS manually decides which authors to promote and which ones to push.
It happened again.
Again I uploaded an image that contains the keyword Christmas. Again it was accepted and again it was pushed to the last place of my portfolio - position 1322 out of 1322 images.
It is because of the keyword Christmas. I deleted the image where this happened before, removed the keyword Christmas and uploaded it again. After that it was sorted normally.
I have no idea if this is a bug, but I suspect it is.
Also, earlier this year, Roscoe started a thread (which unfortunately was taken down because of some unrelated fighting) that demonstrated how Indivstock openly shows how photos rank on searches with a plus/minus system. Things like how editorials lose considerable ranking points as they age, or how holidays and seasonal files have additional points to increase ranking, or if an item gets lots of views but doesn't sell, it loses ranking points. I can't remember them all, but it was very revealing.
I have no idea, Annie. Only the suspicion that the AI or the selection team suspects keyword spamming behind it because it doesn't associate the image with Christmas.
Or I'm listed as a contributor incapable of providing saleable Christmas images.
I will delete it again, remove the word christmas and upload it again.
Wilm, I actually have an idea what the problem is. Does your new image by any chance happen to have a keyword related to Christmas? I looked at your port and noticed it is having the same weird behavior regarding Christmas images than mine: They are all glued to the back of your port.
To me this suddenly happened maybe 2 years ago. Suddenly all my Christmas images went to the back of my port.
...
And then, sometime in December all my Christmas images suddenly were sorted back to were they belong - and then after Christmas they all went back to the last pages of my port. So maybe it's not even a glitch, but an intended feature where Shutterstrock sorts Christmas images different out of season. But I never noticed anything similar with for example easter or Halloween images.
Either way, seeing as in your port all your Christmas images seem to be sorted on the last page, I suspect it's the same with your port as with mine.
I have no idea, Annie. Only the suspicion that the AI or the selection team suspects keyword spamming behind it because it doesn't associate the image with Christmas.
Or I'm listed as a contributor incapable of providing saleable Christmas images.
I will delete it again, remove the word christmas and upload it again.
Did you see this answer?Wilm, I actually have an idea what the problem is. Does your new image by any chance happen to have a keyword related to Christmas? I looked at your port and noticed it is having the same weird behavior regarding Christmas images than mine: They are all glued to the back of your port.
To me this suddenly happened maybe 2 years ago. Suddenly all my Christmas images went to the back of my port.
...
And then, sometime in December all my Christmas images suddenly were sorted back to were they belong - and then after Christmas they all went back to the last pages of my port. So maybe it's not even a glitch, but an intended feature where Shutterstrock sorts Christmas images different out of season. But I never noticed anything similar with for example easter or Halloween images.
Either way, seeing as in your port all your Christmas images seem to be sorted on the last page, I suspect it's the same with your port as with mine.
And that would make it, nothing personal and at the same time, the same for everyone, which means, out of our control and not worth the worrying. Of course, yes, you can leave out the work Christmas and there you are.
I have no idea, Annie. Only the suspicion that the AI or the selection team suspects keyword spamming behind it because it doesn't associate the image with Christmas.
Or I'm listed as a contributor incapable of providing saleable Christmas images.
I will delete it again, remove the word christmas and upload it again.
Did you see this answer?Wilm, I actually have an idea what the problem is. Does your new image by any chance happen to have a keyword related to Christmas? I looked at your port and noticed it is having the same weird behavior regarding Christmas images than mine: They are all glued to the back of your port.
To me this suddenly happened maybe 2 years ago. Suddenly all my Christmas images went to the back of my port.
...
And then, sometime in December all my Christmas images suddenly were sorted back to were they belong - and then after Christmas they all went back to the last pages of my port. So maybe it's not even a glitch, but an intended feature where Shutterstrock sorts Christmas images different out of season. But I never noticed anything similar with for example easter or Halloween images.
Either way, seeing as in your port all your Christmas images seem to be sorted on the last page, I suspect it's the same with your port as with mine.
And that would make it, nothing personal and at the same time, the same for everyone, which means, out of our control and not worth the worrying. Of course, yes, you can leave out the work Christmas and there you are.
Maybe more important is not where the pictures end up in your port but where they end up in the search of a customer using keywords you have added.
Wilm, you might be shooting in your own foot if you leave out Christmas just because it ends up in the back of your port but at the same time clients will not find your picture anymore when they look for Christmas pictures. So maybe, don't focus that much on your port view?
I have no idea, Annie. Only the suspicion that the AI or the selection team suspects keyword spamming behind it because it doesn't associate the image with Christmas.
Or I'm listed as a contributor incapable of providing saleable Christmas images.
I will delete it again, remove the word christmas and upload it again.
Did you see this answer?Wilm, I actually have an idea what the problem is. Does your new image by any chance happen to have a keyword related to Christmas? I looked at your port and noticed it is having the same weird behavior regarding Christmas images than mine: They are all glued to the back of your port.
To me this suddenly happened maybe 2 years ago. Suddenly all my Christmas images went to the back of my port.
...
And then, sometime in December all my Christmas images suddenly were sorted back to were they belong - and then after Christmas they all went back to the last pages of my port. So maybe it's not even a glitch, but an intended feature where Shutterstrock sorts Christmas images different out of season. But I never noticed anything similar with for example easter or Halloween images.
Either way, seeing as in your port all your Christmas images seem to be sorted on the last page, I suspect it's the same with your port as with mine.
And that would make it, nothing personal and at the same time, the same for everyone, which means, out of our control and not worth the worrying. Of course, yes, you can leave out the work Christmas and there you are.
Do remember, when checking, that search results are cached and might give you the same listing, even if the picture is actually somewhere else in the current search results. So clean your cache or check someone else's computer to do a proper search. This might prevent you from drawing incorrect conclusions.I have no idea, Annie. Only the suspicion that the AI or the selection team suspects keyword spamming behind it because it doesn't associate the image with Christmas.
Or I'm listed as a contributor incapable of providing saleable Christmas images.
I will delete it again, remove the word christmas and upload it again.
Did you see this answer?Wilm, I actually have an idea what the problem is. Does your new image by any chance happen to have a keyword related to Christmas? I looked at your port and noticed it is having the same weird behavior regarding Christmas images than mine: They are all glued to the back of your port.
To me this suddenly happened maybe 2 years ago. Suddenly all my Christmas images went to the back of my port.
...
And then, sometime in December all my Christmas images suddenly were sorted back to were they belong - and then after Christmas they all went back to the last pages of my port. So maybe it's not even a glitch, but an intended feature where Shutterstrock sorts Christmas images different out of season. But I never noticed anything similar with for example easter or Halloween images.
Either way, seeing as in your port all your Christmas images seem to be sorted on the last page, I suspect it's the same with your port as with mine.
And that would make it, nothing personal and at the same time, the same for everyone, which means, out of our control and not worth the worrying. Of course, yes, you can leave out the work Christmas and there you are.
Maybe more important is not where the pictures end up in your port but where they end up in the search of a customer using keywords you have added.
Wilm, you might be shooting in your own foot if you leave out Christmas just because it ends up in the back of your port but at the same time clients will not find your picture anymore when they look for Christmas pictures. So maybe, don't focus that much on your port view?
The problem is that at least the first image I wrote about also showed up on the last page when I searched the database - not just in my portfolio. I haven't checked that with the new image, but assume it's the same.
Do remember, when checking, that search results are cached and might give you the same listing, even if the picture is actually somewhere else in the current search results. So clean your cache or check someone else's computer to do a proper search. This might prevent you from drawing incorrect conclusions.I have no idea, Annie. Only the suspicion that the AI or the selection team suspects keyword spamming behind it because it doesn't associate the image with Christmas.
Or I'm listed as a contributor incapable of providing saleable Christmas images.
I will delete it again, remove the word christmas and upload it again.
Did you see this answer?Wilm, I actually have an idea what the problem is. Does your new image by any chance happen to have a keyword related to Christmas? I looked at your port and noticed it is having the same weird behavior regarding Christmas images than mine: They are all glued to the back of your port.
To me this suddenly happened maybe 2 years ago. Suddenly all my Christmas images went to the back of my port.
...
And then, sometime in December all my Christmas images suddenly were sorted back to were they belong - and then after Christmas they all went back to the last pages of my port. So maybe it's not even a glitch, but an intended feature where Shutterstrock sorts Christmas images different out of season. But I never noticed anything similar with for example easter or Halloween images.
Either way, seeing as in your port all your Christmas images seem to be sorted on the last page, I suspect it's the same with your port as with mine.
And that would make it, nothing personal and at the same time, the same for everyone, which means, out of our control and not worth the worrying. Of course, yes, you can leave out the work Christmas and there you are.
Maybe more important is not where the pictures end up in your port but where they end up in the search of a customer using keywords you have added.
Wilm, you might be shooting in your own foot if you leave out Christmas just because it ends up in the back of your port but at the same time clients will not find your picture anymore when they look for Christmas pictures. So maybe, don't focus that much on your port view?
The problem is that at least the first image I wrote about also showed up on the last page when I searched the database - not just in my portfolio. I haven't checked that with the new image, but assume it's the same.
Well, then I guess they just have it in for you :)Do remember, when checking, that search results are cached and might give you the same listing, even if the picture is actually somewhere else in the current search results. So clean your cache or check someone else's computer to do a proper search. This might prevent you from drawing incorrect conclusions.I have no idea, Annie. Only the suspicion that the AI or the selection team suspects keyword spamming behind it because it doesn't associate the image with Christmas.
Or I'm listed as a contributor incapable of providing saleable Christmas images.
I will delete it again, remove the word christmas and upload it again.
Did you see this answer?Wilm, I actually have an idea what the problem is. Does your new image by any chance happen to have a keyword related to Christmas? I looked at your port and noticed it is having the same weird behavior regarding Christmas images than mine: They are all glued to the back of your port.
To me this suddenly happened maybe 2 years ago. Suddenly all my Christmas images went to the back of my port.
...
And then, sometime in December all my Christmas images suddenly were sorted back to were they belong - and then after Christmas they all went back to the last pages of my port. So maybe it's not even a glitch, but an intended feature where Shutterstrock sorts Christmas images different out of season. But I never noticed anything similar with for example easter or Halloween images.
Either way, seeing as in your port all your Christmas images seem to be sorted on the last page, I suspect it's the same with your port as with mine.
And that would make it, nothing personal and at the same time, the same for everyone, which means, out of our control and not worth the worrying. Of course, yes, you can leave out the work Christmas and there you are.
Maybe more important is not where the pictures end up in your port but where they end up in the search of a customer using keywords you have added.
Wilm, you might be shooting in your own foot if you leave out Christmas just because it ends up in the back of your port but at the same time clients will not find your picture anymore when they look for Christmas pictures. So maybe, don't focus that much on your port view?
The problem is that at least the first image I wrote about also showed up on the last page when I searched the database - not just in my portfolio. I haven't checked that with the new image, but assume it's the same.
I did that and checked it over several days before deleting the image. The result was always the same: last page.
Well, then I guess they just have it in for you :)Do remember, when checking, that search results are cached and might give you the same listing, even if the picture is actually somewhere else in the current search results. So clean your cache or check someone else's computer to do a proper search. This might prevent you from drawing incorrect conclusions.I have no idea, Annie. Only the suspicion that the AI or the selection team suspects keyword spamming behind it because it doesn't associate the image with Christmas.
Or I'm listed as a contributor incapable of providing saleable Christmas images.
I will delete it again, remove the word christmas and upload it again.
Did you see this answer?Wilm, I actually have an idea what the problem is. Does your new image by any chance happen to have a keyword related to Christmas? I looked at your port and noticed it is having the same weird behavior regarding Christmas images than mine: They are all glued to the back of your port.
To me this suddenly happened maybe 2 years ago. Suddenly all my Christmas images went to the back of my port.
...
And then, sometime in December all my Christmas images suddenly were sorted back to were they belong - and then after Christmas they all went back to the last pages of my port. So maybe it's not even a glitch, but an intended feature where Shutterstrock sorts Christmas images different out of season. But I never noticed anything similar with for example easter or Halloween images.
Either way, seeing as in your port all your Christmas images seem to be sorted on the last page, I suspect it's the same with your port as with mine.
And that would make it, nothing personal and at the same time, the same for everyone, which means, out of our control and not worth the worrying. Of course, yes, you can leave out the work Christmas and there you are.
Maybe more important is not where the pictures end up in your port but where they end up in the search of a customer using keywords you have added.
Wilm, you might be shooting in your own foot if you leave out Christmas just because it ends up in the back of your port but at the same time clients will not find your picture anymore when they look for Christmas pictures. So maybe, don't focus that much on your port view?
The problem is that at least the first image I wrote about also showed up on the last page when I searched the database - not just in my portfolio. I haven't checked that with the new image, but assume it's the same.
I did that and checked it over several days before deleting the image. The result was always the same: last page.
Yes Pete, I had read the answer from Firn. But I don't know if that is the case with others - except Firn and me. Two people are not representative and can be a pure coincidence.
Yes Pete, I had read the answer from Firn. But I don't know if that is the case with others - except Firn and me. Two people are not representative and can be a pure coincidence.
I guess you didn't recall that mine were also doing the same, old or new, everything with the keyword Christmas is at the end of Most Popular. How many people will it take, in different countries before you say it's not just some pure "coincidence"?
We need to ask more people to look at Catalog Manager > Most Poplar and see what's last on the last page. For me it's all my Christmas images.
So far the count on that is 3 for 3. ;D
Yes Pete, I had read the answer from Firn. But I don't know if that is the case with others - except Firn and me. Two people are not representative and can be a pure coincidence.
I guess you didn't recall that mine were also doing the same, old or new, everything with the keyword Christmas is at the end of Most Popular. How many people will it take, in different countries before you say it's not just some pure "coincidence"?
We need to ask more people to look at Catalog Manager > Most Poplar and see what's last on the last page. For me it's all my Christmas images.
So far the count on that is 3 for 3. ;D
Wilm, I actually have an idea what the problem is. Does your new image by any chance happen to have a keyword related to Christmas? I looked at your port and noticed it is having the same weird behavior regarding Christmas images than mine: They are all glued to the back of your port.
To me this suddenly happened maybe 2 years ago. Suddenly all my Christmas images went to the back of my port. I never bothered reporting the problem to Shutterstock, because I didn't expect any of their "expert contributors" to understand my problem anyways. They would probably have replied something like that how images a sorted in my port are a secret or something like this. But the other reason why I didn't bother reporting it is that it didn't seem to have an effect of the overal sorting in the whole Shutterstock database or my sales. My all time best seller on Shutterstock is a Christmas images, but it kept selling.
And then, sometime in December all my Christmas images suddenly were sorted back to were they belong - and then after Christmas they all went back to the last pages of my port. So maybe it's not even a glitch, but an intended feature where Shutterstrock sorts Christmas images different out of season. But I never noticed anything similar with for example easter or Halloween images.
Either way, seeing as in your port all your Christmas images seem to be sorted on the last page, I suspect it's the same with your port as with mine. I don't know whether it's specificially the keyword "Christmas". Might just as well be something like "december" or "winter" or any other of the keywords one would commonly use for Christmas images.
Firn, are these your puppies??
Found in an Australian supermarket (pics are from their website) selling Christmas Cards.
Yes Pete, I had read the answer from Firn. But I don't know if that is the case with others - except Firn and me. Two people are not representative and can be a pure coincidence.
I guess you didn't recall that mine were also doing the same, old or new, everything with the keyword Christmas is at the end of Most Popular. How many people will it take, in different countries before you say it's not just some pure "coincidence"?
We need to ask more people to look at Catalog Manager > Most Poplar and see what's last on the last page. For me it's all my Christmas images.
So far the count on that is 3 for 3. ;D
I wondered if the images were intentionally pushed back and would then be brought forward at an appropriate tine, but it seems somewhat late for that to happen.
I wondered if the images were intentionally pushed back and would then be brought forward at an appropriate tine, but it seems somewhat late for that to happen.
At least that's what happened last year, so I expect the same to happen again. I do not remember the exat date, but they were pushed forward sometime in December, and pushed back again in January.
I agree it's late. I have been selling lots of Christmas images through the whole month, so the demand is there much earlier than December.
I wondered if the images were intentionally pushed back and would then be brought forward at an appropriate tine, but it seems somewhat late for that to happen.
At least that's what happened last year, so I expect the same to happen again. I do not remember the exat date, but they were pushed forward sometime in December, and pushed back again in January.
I agree it's late. I have been selling lots of Christmas images through the whole month, so the demand is there much earlier than December.
none of my xmas images are on the last 5 pages of my 'most popular'
in addition, advertisers buy xmas images in sep or earlier to meet deadlines
...
Another question: I can only filter for "fresh images" and "top images" within my own portfolio. Do you actually get the possibility to filter by "most popular" within your own portfolio?
...
Another question: I can only filter for "fresh images" and "top images" within my own portfolio. Do you actually get the possibility to filter by "most popular" within your own portfolio?
that's for image portfolio
for portfolio/catalog manager you get the other choices
...
Another question: I can only filter for "fresh images" and "top images" within my own portfolio. Do you actually get the possibility to filter by "most popular" within your own portfolio?
that's for image portfolio
for portfolio/catalog manager you get the other choices
Ah, okay, thanks - found that in the catalog manager now. I just hadn't looked there at all.
I have no idea, Annie. Only the suspicion that the AI or the selection team suspects keyword spamming behind it because it doesn't associate the image with Christmas.
Or I'm listed as a contributor incapable of providing saleable Christmas images.
I will delete it again, remove the word christmas and upload it again.
(https://www.microstockgroup.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=34858.0;attach=19139;image)
I have no idea, Annie. Only the suspicion that the AI or the selection team suspects keyword spamming behind it because it doesn't associate the image with Christmas.
Or I'm listed as a contributor incapable of providing saleable Christmas images.
I will delete it again, remove the word christmas and upload it again.
(https://www.microstockgroup.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=34858.0;attach=19139;image)
How is that a Christmas image?
...
Another question: I can only filter for "fresh images" and "top images" within my own portfolio. Do you actually get the possibility to filter by "most popular" within your own portfolio?
that's for image portfolio
for portfolio/catalog manager you get the other choices
Ah, okay, thanks - found that in the catalog manager now. I just hadn't looked there at all.
As far as I see it, the difference between Top Images (Portfolio view) sort and Most Popular (Catalog Manager) is just the name. A small test, beyond the obvious first page, Page 4 is identical to page four on either view.
Mine are identical, in the same order. Only thing different is, catalog manager offers Newest or Oldest as a choice. Portfolio calls it Fresh Images and picking the last page takes you to the oldest.
Catalog manager you have to click through for each page, portfolio you can just select a page number and ENTER. Catalog manager the filter by keywords is really nice on portfolio it's just search.
But the important part is, the order for Top Images is Identical to Most Popular.
...
Another question: I can only filter for "fresh images" and "top images" within my own portfolio. Do you actually get the possibility to filter by "most popular" within your own portfolio?
that's for image portfolio
for portfolio/catalog manager you get the other choices
Ah, okay, thanks - found that in the catalog manager now. I just hadn't looked there at all.
As far as I see it, the difference between Top Images (Portfolio view) sort and Most Popular (Catalog Manager) is just the name. A small test, beyond the obvious first page, Page 4 is identical to page four on either view.
Mine are identical, in the same order. Only thing different is, catalog manager offers Newest or Oldest as a choice. Portfolio calls it Fresh Images and picking the last page takes you to the oldest.
Catalog manager you have to click through for each page, portfolio you can just select a page number and ENTER. Catalog manager the filter by keywords is really nice on portfolio it's just search.
But the important part is, the order for Top Images is Identical to Most Popular.
Yes, Pete, by now I also realized that there is no difference between "top images" and "most popular".
I have no idea, Annie. Only the suspicion that the AI or the selection team suspects keyword spamming behind it because it doesn't associate the image with Christmas.
Or I'm listed as a contributor incapable of providing saleable Christmas images.
I will delete it again, remove the word christmas and upload it again.
(https://www.microstockgroup.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=34858.0;attach=19139;image)
How is that a Christmas image?
Well, I could definitely see these embellishments being used for Christmas wrapping, Christmas cards, invitation cards, gift certificates, decorations and the like.
Christmas photos have now been "released" from being glued to the back of our ports, so the deadline apparently is December 1st.
Still not ranking anywhere as high as they should according to my sales.
Correct, the image has moved from the last to the first position in my portfolio today. In my opinion December 1st is extremely late to push christmas images!
so now, those who previously had top placements can complain their images are being pushed back! throughout this period hundreds of xmas images were getting 1st page placement, so your gain is their loss
Correct, the image has moved from the last to the first position in my portfolio today. In my opinion December 1st is extremely late to push christmas images!
so now, those who previously had top placements can complain their images are being pushed back! throughout this period hundreds of xmas images were getting 1st page placement, so your gain is their loss
For me, volume of sales at SS remains largely unchanged compared to the previous years. What has changed is the near total disappearance of larger value sales over the last 2 months. These are mostly footage sales and occasional SODs. Footage especially at SS has crashed with most sales now less than $1.What other places are you talking about?
However, not all bad as the this drop in SS $ is dwarfed by the uplift elsewhere. I now just focus on work for them and SS receives what ever time I have left at the end of the month... if there is any.
I have no idea, Annie. Only the suspicion that the AI or the selection team suspects keyword spamming behind it because it doesn't associate the image with Christmas.
Or I'm listed as a contributor incapable of providing saleable Christmas images.
I will delete it again, remove the word christmas and upload it again.
Did you see this answer?Wilm, I actually have an idea what the problem is. Does your new image by any chance happen to have a keyword related to Christmas? I looked at your port and noticed it is having the same weird behavior regarding Christmas images than mine: They are all glued to the back of your port.
To me this suddenly happened maybe 2 years ago. Suddenly all my Christmas images went to the back of my port.
...
And then, sometime in December all my Christmas images suddenly were sorted back to were they belong - and then after Christmas they all went back to the last pages of my port. So maybe it's not even a glitch, but an intended feature where Shutterstrock sorts Christmas images different out of season. But I never noticed anything similar with for example easter or Halloween images.
Either way, seeing as in your port all your Christmas images seem to be sorted on the last page, I suspect it's the same with your port as with mine.
And that would make it, nothing personal and at the same time, the same for everyone, which means, out of our control and not worth the worrying. Of course, yes, you can leave out the work Christmas and there you are.
Maybe more important is not where the pictures end up in your port but where they end up in the search of a customer using keywords you have added.
Wilm, you might be shooting in your own foot if you leave out Christmas just because it ends up in the back of your port but at the same time clients will not find your picture anymore when they look for Christmas pictures. So maybe, don't focus that much on your port view?
The problem is that at least the first image I wrote about also showed up on the last page when I searched the database - not just in my portfolio. I haven't checked that with the new image, but assume it's the same.
I have no idea, Annie. Only the suspicion that the AI or the selection team suspects keyword spamming behind it because it doesn't associate the image with Christmas.
Or I'm listed as a contributor incapable of providing saleable Christmas images.
I will delete it again, remove the word christmas and upload it again.
Did you see this answer?Wilm, I actually have an idea what the problem is. Does your new image by any chance happen to have a keyword related to Christmas? I looked at your port and noticed it is having the same weird behavior regarding Christmas images than mine: They are all glued to the back of your port.
To me this suddenly happened maybe 2 years ago. Suddenly all my Christmas images went to the back of my port.
...
And then, sometime in December all my Christmas images suddenly were sorted back to were they belong - and then after Christmas they all went back to the last pages of my port. So maybe it's not even a glitch, but an intended feature where Shutterstrock sorts Christmas images different out of season. But I never noticed anything similar with for example easter or Halloween images.
Either way, seeing as in your port all your Christmas images seem to be sorted on the last page, I suspect it's the same with your port as with mine.
And that would make it, nothing personal and at the same time, the same for everyone, which means, out of our control and not worth the worrying. Of course, yes, you can leave out the work Christmas and there you are.
Maybe more important is not where the pictures end up in your port but where they end up in the search of a customer using keywords you have added.
Wilm, you might be shooting in your own foot if you leave out Christmas just because it ends up in the back of your port but at the same time clients will not find your picture anymore when they look for Christmas pictures. So maybe, don't focus that much on your port view?
The problem is that at least the first image I wrote about also showed up on the last page when I searched the database - not just in my portfolio. I haven't checked that with the new image, but assume it's the same.
Did that image move up now?
With 11335 Photos - 31,91 $ in November.OMG, that's a lot of work for $30. Have you considered another hobby!
Meanwhile the others: https://www.anadolustok.com/konu-kas%C4%B1m-2022-sat%C4%B1%C5%9Flar%C4%B1 (https://www.anadolustok.com/konu-kas%C4%B1m-2022-sat%C4%B1%C5%9Flar%C4%B1)
With 11335 Photos - 31,91 $ in November.OMG, that's a lot of work for $30. Have you considered another hobby!
Meanwhile the others: https://www.anadolustok.com/konu-kas%C4%B1m-2022-sat%C4%B1%C5%9Flar%C4%B1 (https://www.anadolustok.com/konu-kas%C4%B1m-2022-sat%C4%B1%C5%9Flar%C4%B1)
With 11335 Photos - 31,91 $ in November.
Meanwhile the others: https://www.anadolustok.com/konu-kas%C4%B1m-2022-sat%C4%B1%C5%9Flar%C4%B1 (https://www.anadolustok.com/konu-kas%C4%B1m-2022-sat%C4%B1%C5%9Flar%C4%B1)
Hello friends.
I stopped uploading images for 2 years because I protested Shutterstock, but I still had a monthly income of over $50. Since I stopped uploading photos and winter came, my sales also dropped.
In general, sales decrease in winter.
I've earned a little, but I'll still share it to give friends an idea.
My November 2022 sales:
Adobe Stock = 7071 photos = $33.16
Shutterstock = 11335 photos = $31.91
Istock / Getty = 3305 photos = $12.44 (October sales actually)
Depositphotos = 12873 photos = $3.69
Dreamstime = 12873 = $1.05
I'll start uploading photos again. Will sales increase?
What is the situation with you?
What Pete said - except fix the math. More like .28 cents and 1 cent per image.
If it was linear (and it isn't) that means if you can get 3 more images accepted you will make less than one more cent in a month.
What Pete said - except fix the math. More like .28 cents and 1 cent per image.
If it was linear (and it isn't) that means if you can get 3 more images accepted you will make less than one more cent in a month.
yet another example of why RPI is of little use - RPI may be small, but RPD ignores the size of the portfolio and shows actual income. my RPI for SS is tiny, but RPD has been between .4 & .7 over last year, with average of .5
however, RPD can also be deceiving - my RPD for AS averages .7 but is steaduly only 50% of SS actual income
I suppose it's good news if I don't see any payments on the contributor's fund.
No AI competition for my images?
Shutterstock needs to improve in accepting photos
Look at this
https://www.shutterstock.com/g/oki+septiani (https://www.shutterstock.com/g/oki+septiani)
I promise, I'm not that good and here are my payouts. All higher than 42 cents. 8)I suppose it's good news if I don't see any payments on the contributor's fund.
No AI competition for my images?
And at the same time should I be worried about the fact that my 0,42 cents seems to be one of the higher amount registered by forum users? :o
I can pretty much gaurantee that January will probably be one of the best months, if not the best month, in almost a year*.
I was referring to Shutterstock having the best month in January, without specifically stating so, in an effort to demonstrate to Stroker that it's important to make it clear who exactly is having their 'best month'. If you say you are having your best month, that's fine... if you just say it's the best month in general, that implies you have some kind of behind the scenes knowledge that's not available to the rest of us.
Not finished shoving all the details into my spreadsheets yet but for me on SS, 2022 was 10% fewer total downloads and roughly 30% less income than 2021.
The hit is entirely due to the low commissions being paid (and for the first few months, levels). Similar amounts of stuff is being sold but for a much cheaper price.
Meanwhile on the crash down from level 5 to 1 combined with holidays im on a massive $26 this month instead of $150+.
2022 became the year AS reliably out performed SS and won comfortably by year end.
Strange (though it was only 10 cents so no big deal by any means) but one of my 10-cent sales just disappeared along with the sales count dropping by one. Anyone have this happen?Check your adjustment tabs in your earning summary, the sale might have been refunded. Shutterstock is by now the agency with the most refunds per month for me. :(
Strange (though it was only 10 cents so no big deal by any means) but one of my 10-cent sales just disappeared along with the sales count dropping by one. Anyone have this happen?Check your adjustment tabs in your earning summary, the sale might have been refunded. Shutterstock is by now the agency with the most refunds per month for me. :(
What kind of a * mess is this now from Shutterstock? >:(
I am not a newbie, have over 12,000 images online there. This is the first time I get this message.
What the h*** is the submission limit now ::)
What kind of a * mess is this now from Shutterstock? >:(
I am not a newbie, have over 12,000 images online there. This is the first time I get this message.
What the h*** is the submission limit now ::)
This is not new. I don't know whether it has always been there as it never affected me, but I heard people mentioning it the old SS forum the first time around 3 years ago.
Contributors can submit up to 500 images and up to 100 video clips during a 7 day period.
RPI and RPD doesn't make much sense.With 11335 Photos - 31,91 $ in November.
Meanwhile the others: https://www.anadolustok.com/konu-kas%C4%B1m-2022-sat%C4%B1%C5%9Flar%C4%B1 (https://www.anadolustok.com/konu-kas%C4%B1m-2022-sat%C4%B1%C5%9Flar%C4%B1)
Hello friends.
I stopped uploading images for 2 years because I protested Shutterstock, but I still had a monthly income of over $50. Since I stopped uploading photos and winter came, my sales also dropped.
In general, sales decrease in winter.
I've earned a little, but I'll still share it to give friends an idea.
My November 2022 sales:
Adobe Stock = 7071 photos = $33.16
Shutterstock = 11335 photos = $31.91
Istock / Getty = 3305 photos = $12.44 (October sales actually)
Depositphotos = 12873 photos = $3.69
Dreamstime = 12873 = $1.05
I'll start uploading photos again. Will sales increase?
What is the situation with you?
Helpful English Translation.
The only thing that uploading more photos helps is, new photo and the new photo boost, and maybe (a distant maybe?) if someone looks at your portfolio because of the new photo, they might see an old photo.
You might consider the complaints that old photos sell better than new? And there have been people who left, much like you, and came back to find they are still selling images, like they did twp years ago. There are also people who keep uploading new and work, and their sales are dropping.
Uploading or not, seems to have the same effect as posting messages on this forum. What I mean is, neither one is connected to more or less sales. I don't think there are any tricks that will make a difference.
My situation? I think I make better images now and upload at a steady pace and I make less now than in 2012. But one thing is for sure, those are my images and yours are yours, so what happens to mine is only relevant to mine.
Shutterstock = 11335 photos = $31.91 Your RPI = .28 cents While mine for 5282 images is 1 cent, $53.56 in Nov, which is not that great. I don't mean this to be snooty or mean, but maybe you should try to create more images that sell instead of just, more images? Too many of mine are just filler or, I made it, so I'll upload it, and they will never get a download in their lifetime. (math corrected = thanks)
Only 1400 of my images have ever made a sale. Just over 25%. You can look at https://submit.shutterstock.com/earnings/top-performers?page=1&date_range=0&sort_direction=desc&per_page=100 (https://submit.shutterstock.com/earnings/top-performers?page=1&date_range=0&sort_direction=desc&per_page=100) that's 100 per page, and just count the pages times 100. That's your sold images.
What's your percentage? That will tell you if the problem isn't how many images, but what are they?
Good Luck finding what you are looking for and Happy Sales(https://i.postimg.cc/GpCBGNFp/happy-sales-200.gif)
RPI and RPD doesn't make much sense.
Microstock is a more of about the same image game nowadays.
You can upload 2 top images of an shooting or 200 average images.
Maybe RPI of the shooting will be the same, but not for the image.
So is RDP. At macrostock RPD is probably higher than at microstock.
But all that counts is income per hour. So lets assume that you spend X hours a month for stockphotography.
If your income per hour at stockphostography is higher than at your day job - its OK.
If not - it makes more sense to work overtime at your day job to increase your income.
Two weeks into the year I'm getting 2015 dejavu when my port was 6x smaller. :'(
Getting out of micros asap and trying to squeeze the last little bit of juice before this fruit goes completely rotten.
It also depends on how long you've had the images in your port. The percentage of photos sold should in theary go up over the years
Only 1400 of my images have ever made a sale. Just over 25%. You can look at https://submit.shutterstock.com/earnings/top-performers?page=1&date_range=0&sort_direction=desc&per_page=100 (https://submit.shutterstock.com/earnings/top-performers?page=1&date_range=0&sort_direction=desc&per_page=100) that's 100 per page, and just count the pages times 100. That's your sold images.
What's your percentage? That will tell you if the problem isn't how many images, but what are they?
Good Luck finding what you are looking for and Happy Sales(https://i.postimg.cc/GpCBGNFp/happy-sales-200.gif)
If microstock continues to pay peanuts, it will eventually cease to exist with fewer and fewer people wanting to replace their worn-out cameras and instead use smartphones. The agencies will have to lower their standards, especially adobe & SS
It also depends on how long you've had the images in your port. The percentage of photos sold should in theary go up over the years
Neither one of those ever made any sense to me. I was just pointing out that for people who do watch that, having 17,000 images isn't going to make them very happy and if they only had their best 1,700 images, the return income, could very possibly be the same. That's many hours of work for volume, but not much payback per hour or per image....
Bottom line? You're right.
its not easy to replace best sellers with new uploads.If microstock continues to pay peanuts, it will eventually cease to exist with fewer and fewer people wanting to replace their worn-out cameras and instead use smartphones. The agencies will have to lower their standards, especially adobe & SS
HA Ha, how could SS lower their standards? Actually Adobe has been the only one to uphold image requirements and standards. I mean of the Microstock majors, like IS, DT, DP, 123, Alamy and even P5, which have all become easier reviews and seem to take almost anything. There are other places that upheld their standards and quality.It also depends on how long you've had the images in your port. The percentage of photos sold should in theary go up over the years
Not really, my Crapstock and old images are just that, and most of them will probably never have a download because there are new and better images being made and uploaded. The problem isn't how many images, but what are they?
Just for reference, as you mentioned time, I started in 2008. Some pretty nasty snapshots. I mean I tried, but they aren't what buyers want and need. Then I started to get the idea and added more of what I thought might be better STOCK images, not just things I found around the office or taking a walk in park, making pretty photos.
In 2012 I decided it was time to make a push and add 1,000 new images, different from what I already had. That also improved things. Then I had new ideas and worked on various sets of different areas, planned on being more useful stock, and less creative "art".
Dates for the top 12 earning images. I picked 12 because they are so close in value for the last few.
2/29/12
2/13/12
3/7/16
4/11/14
10/10/11
11/12/11
9/20/18
11/12/11
1/21/10
5/21/11
2/20/12
1/18/08
I think that means, I make about one good photo a year? ::) :) To be fair, newer images take longer to climb up as the old ones have the advantage of being sold for longer.
But the point is, I don't really think that images age well and I do think that things that haven't sold are more likely to never sell, the older they get. Looking at last years sales, first time downloads are about 3% from 2011 or before, the rest are mostly 2015 and newer.
Maybe it's just me, but old images that have no downloads are just filler in my portfolio. New images seem to have a chance at growth and more downloads in the future.
its not easy to replace best sellers with new uploads.
But there is one important parameter to be considered. Downloads per month/images online.
Downloads per images are decreasing with time. In my experience this number will halve in about 4 years.
This is an exponential factor against income of microstock contributors.
For some time you can compensate this factor with better images, more uploads.
At some time you will reach an level of getting better, more uploads, etc,.. then its going downwards.
It also depends on how long you've had the images in your port. The percentage of photos sold should in theary go up over the years
What i wanted to say is that that there is an exponential declining trend.
its not easy to replace best sellers with new uploads.
But there is one important parameter to be considered. Downloads per month/images online.
Downloads per images are decreasing with time. In my experience this number will halve in about 4 years.
This is an exponential factor against income of microstock contributors.
For some time you can compensate this factor with better images, more uploads.
At some time you will reach an level of getting better, more uploads, etc,.. then its going downwards.
I was addressing this, (below) from my personal point of view. Yes, to you and anyone else, more images should make more money. :) RPI, RPD and all that stat stuff, is personal for our own review of our own images.It also depends on how long you've had the images in your port. The percentage of photos sold should in theary go up over the years
I don't think the percentage of images licensed goes up with age, I think even someone like myself with minimal new images, I've found that the percentage of photos sold has gone down each year.
Old photos are old, they don't age well and they tend to become filler and if no downloads in each additional year, less chance that they will have a download ever.
If I uploaded better new images, then the percentage could go up, but the percentage of old images that have sold, doesn't really improve much with age.
I understand what TonyD is saying, that if I have 5 more images that have never sold, get one sale, and they are online for 10 years, then logically, the percentage of old images sold should go up. But I'm adding new images, so more unsold images are added every year, which offsets the gains from old images that finally got their single first download.
If I hypothetically have only 25% of my images that got a sale (and that's about right) and I add 100 new in 2023, I'll have 75 new images, that have never sold and probably will not.
I expect that for what I do and what I upload, I should hover around 25% = forever, unless I get some amazing event or series that gives a big boost to change the average. Good news is that for people who have 50%, they will probably stay around that 50% for a long time.
It's easier to do down in average than it is to go up.
What i wanted to say is that that there is an exponential declining trend.
If you start microstock photography you will see an increase in DL. On average for about the first 40 +/- months.
The next 40 +/- months you probably will see your DL stagnate. Even if you still uploading the same amount of images every month. After another 40 +/- months you will see a decrease of DL with a much larger portfolio.
So there is an exponential function against you.
Your uploads are linear, your DL per image / month are declining exponential.
After your first 40 months at microstock your DL per image / Month are X, after 80 months your DL per image/month are X/2, after 120 months your DL per image/month are X/4 - on average.
You can't win against an exponential declining trend.
Would you say you've been evenly adding to your portfolio during the 5 years?
What i wanted to say is that that there is an exponential declining trend.
If you start microstock photography you will see an increase in DL. On average for about the first 40 +/- months.
The next 40 +/- months you probably will see your DL stagnate. Even if you still uploading the same amount of images every month. After another 40 +/- months you will see a decrease of DL with a much larger portfolio.
So there is an exponential function against you.
Your uploads are linear, your DL per image / month are declining exponential.
After your first 40 months at microstock your DL per image / Month are X, after 80 months your DL per image/month are X/2, after 120 months your DL per image/month are X/4 - on average.
You can't win against an exponential declining trend.
I don't see such a trend. It's now my 5/6th year with Shutterstock and I still see a increase in DLs. It's a small increase, but so far there is no stagnation and no decline yet.
Of course an increase in downloads doesn't necessarily come along with an increase in earnings.
How is it possible that UNPAID EARNINGS show one amount and YEAR TO DATE EARNINGS show different one ?????? :o :o :o
Would you say you've been evenly adding to your portfolio during the 5 years?
What i wanted to say is that that there is an exponential declining trend.
If you start microstock photography you will see an increase in DL. On average for about the first 40 +/- months.
The next 40 +/- months you probably will see your DL stagnate. Even if you still uploading the same amount of images every month. After another 40 +/- months you will see a decrease of DL with a much larger portfolio.
So there is an exponential function against you.
Your uploads are linear, your DL per image / month are declining exponential.
After your first 40 months at microstock your DL per image / Month are X, after 80 months your DL per image/month are X/2, after 120 months your DL per image/month are X/4 - on average.
You can't win against an exponential declining trend.
I don't see such a trend. It's now my 5/6th year with Shutterstock and I still see a increase in DLs. It's a small increase, but so far there is no stagnation and no decline yet.
Of course an increase in downloads doesn't necessarily come along with an increase in earnings.
What i wanted to say is that that there is an exponential declining trend.
If you start microstock photography you will see an increase in DL. On average for about the first 40 +/- months.
The next 40 +/- months you probably will see your DL stagnate. Even if you still uploading the same amount of images every month. After another 40 +/- months you will see a decrease of DL with a much larger portfolio.
So there is an exponential function against you.
Your uploads are linear, your DL per image / month are declining exponential.
After your first 40 months at microstock your DL per image / Month are X, after 80 months your DL per image/month are X/2, after 120 months your DL per image/month are X/4 - on average.
You can't win against an exponential declining trend.
And back to the part I was commenting on, percentage of sold images from anyone's portfolio, will also go down the harder we work and the longer we add new images.
And back to the part I was commenting on, percentage of sold images from anyone's portfolio, will also go down the harder we work and the longer we add new images.
That too, for me, is going up, not down. But I think that's mainly because my old photos were crap and I did not have a good understanding what sells well when I started out. But the more data from my own port I had, the more conclusion on what sells and what doesn't I could draw and the better I got at photography, the more I could produce content that sells and therefore the percentage of sold images is going up and not down.
How is it possible that UNPAID EARNINGS show one amount and YEAR TO DATE EARNINGS show different one ?????? :o :o :o
Perhaps because some of the unpaid earnings are from 2022?
first, $/image is useless - what's important is $ earned. some strategies emphaszie volume, others 'quality', others different metrics so they can't be compared.
What i wanted to say is that that there is an exponential declining trend.
If you start microstock photography you will see an increase in DL. On average for about the first 40 +/- months.
The next 40 +/- months you probably will see your DL stagnate. Even if you still uploading the same amount of images every month. After another 40 +/- months you will see a decrease of DL with a much larger portfolio.
So there is an exponential function against you.
Your uploads are linear, your DL per image / month are declining exponential.
After your first 40 months at microstock your DL per image / Month are X, after 80 months your DL per image/month are X/2, after 120 months your DL per image/month are X/4 - on average.
You can't win against an exponential declining trend.
...
Of course if the agencies decide to pay us 50% less, our income will go down 50%.
first, $/image is useless - what's important is $ earned.
What i wanted to say is that that there is an exponential declining trend.
If you start microstock photography you will see an increase in DL. On average for about the first 40 +/- months.
The next 40 +/- months you probably will see your DL stagnate. Even if you still uploading the same amount of images every month. After another 40 +/- months you will see a decrease of DL with a much larger portfolio.
So there is an exponential function against you.
Your uploads are linear, your DL per image / month are declining exponential.
After your first 40 months at microstock your DL per image / Month are X, after 80 months your DL per image/month are X/2, after 120 months your DL per image/month are X/4 - on average.
You can't win against an exponential declining trend.
first, $/image is useless - what's important is $ earned.
What i wanted to say is that that there is an exponential declining trend.
If you start microstock photography you will see an increase in DL. On average for about the first 40 +/- months.
The next 40 +/- months you probably will see your DL stagnate. Even if you still uploading the same amount of images every month. After another 40 +/- months you will see a decrease of DL with a much larger portfolio.
So there is an exponential function against you.
Your uploads are linear, your DL per image / month are declining exponential.
After your first 40 months at microstock your DL per image / Month are X, after 80 months your DL per image/month are X/2, after 120 months your DL per image/month are X/4 - on average.
You can't win against an exponential declining trend.
What is important is the earnings in relation to the time invested. That is something quite different from the dollars earned!
There has been a pretty long history of discussion of "the wall" or whatever you want to call the point where downloads no longer go up or even start to fall despite continuous uploading. Unless you can continue to create more images than before or better sellers or the agencies sell more images it will catch up to everyone eventually. The question is how long before it catches up to you and if your income at that point is satisfactory compared to the amount of work you are putting in.
true, but still not what OP claimed and they didnt make any reference to time invested - i was just pointing out their errorfirst, $/image is useless - what's important is $ earned.
What i wanted to say is that that there is an exponential declining trend.
If you start microstock photography you will see an increase in DL. On average for about the first 40 +/- months.
The next 40 +/- months you probably will see your DL stagnate. Even if you still uploading the same amount of images every month. After another 40 +/- months you will see a decrease of DL with a much larger portfolio.
So there is an exponential function against you.
Your uploads are linear, your DL per image / month are declining exponential.
After your first 40 months at microstock your DL per image / Month are X, after 80 months your DL per image/month are X/2, after 120 months your DL per image/month are X/4 - on average.
You can't win against an exponential declining trend.
What is important is the earnings in relation to the time invested. That is something quite different from the dollars earned!
first, $/image is useless - what's important is $ earned. some strategies emphaszie volume, others 'quality', others different metrics so they can't be compared.
What i wanted to say is that that there is an exponential declining trend.
If you start microstock photography you will see an increase in DL. On average for about the first 40 +/- months.
The next 40 +/- months you probably will see your DL stagnate. Even if you still uploading the same amount of images every month. After another 40 +/- months you will see a decrease of DL with a much larger portfolio.
So there is an exponential function against you.
Your uploads are linear, your DL per image / month are declining exponential.
After your first 40 months at microstock your DL per image / Month are X, after 80 months your DL per image/month are X/2, after 120 months your DL per image/month are X/4 - on average.
You can't win against an exponential declining trend.
your data for an exponential decline? do you understand the meaning of exponential? the numbers you cite are linear - a 50% drop in each case (50% of 1/2 is 1/4!) For such a long period, where have you observed such results?
. declines may be steep, linear or minimal, exponential is unwarranted. if fact, in my case I had a 30% INCREASE in income during the second period, followed by a 20% decline from second to third trances.
And back to the part I was commenting on, percentage of sold images from anyone's portfolio, will also go down the harder we work and the longer we add new images.
That too, for me, is going up, not down. But I think that's mainly because my old photos were crap and I did not have a good understanding what sells well when I started out. But the more data from my own port I had, the more conclusion on what sells and what doesn't I could draw and the better I got at photography, the more I could produce content that sells and therefore the percentage of sold images is going up and not down.
And back to the part I was commenting on, percentage of sold images from anyone's portfolio, will also go down the harder we work and the longer we add new images.
That too, for me, is going up, not down. But I think that's mainly because my old photos were crap and I did not have a good understanding what sells well when I started out. But the more data from my own port I had, the more conclusion on what sells and what doesn't I could draw and the better I got at photography, the more I could produce content that sells and therefore the percentage of sold images is going up and not down.
Impossible unless your % of new images sold is 100% and I doubt that. % of all images, sold from your entire collection will always go down if you upload new images. If somebody stops uploading your % of images that have sold at least one time, could go up.
And back to the part I was commenting on, percentage of sold images from anyone's portfolio, will also go down the harder we work and the longer we add new images.
That too, for me, is going up, not down. But I think that's mainly because my old photos were crap and I did not have a good understanding what sells well when I started out. But the more data from my own port I had, the more conclusion on what sells and what doesn't I could draw and the better I got at photography, the more I could produce content that sells and therefore the percentage of sold images is going up and not down.
Impossible unless your % of new images sold is 100% and I doubt that. % of all images, sold from your entire collection will always go down if you upload new images. If somebody stops uploading your % of images that have sold at least one time, could go up.
The poll results seem indicate a decline in SS and a rise in AS.
And back to the part I was commenting on, percentage of sold images from anyone's portfolio, will also go down the harder we work and the longer we add new images.
That too, for me, is going up, not down. But I think that's mainly because my old photos were crap and I did not have a good understanding what sells well when I started out. But the more data from my own port I had, the more conclusion on what sells and what doesn't I could draw and the better I got at photography, the more I could produce content that sells and therefore the percentage of sold images is going up and not down.
Impossible unless your % of new images sold is 100% and I doubt that. % of all images, sold from your entire collection will always go down if you upload new images. If somebody stops uploading your % of images that have sold at least one time, could go up.
I think you might have an error in reasoning here, of course it is possible.
Imagine I have a port of 1000 photos and 100 images of that ever sold - That's 10% of images sold.
Over time I add 9000 photos, so I have 10.000 in total. Of these new 9000 photos 5000 sell. Adding the 100 from the 1000 that sold that's a total of 5100 images sold out of 10.000 images.
5100 images sold from 10.000 is 51% sold.
51%$ is higher than 10%, so, no, % of all images sold from your entire collection will not always go down. It will go up if a higher % of your newer images sells than of you old images, which is the case for me, because my old photos were crap.
So your math assumption is based on selling 10% now and for the last few years, and suddenly you are going to upload 900% more images and have a 50% download rate? ;D
My specific way of download rate, just in case I'm not clear isn't anything more than, has an image been downloaded one time. So for example, I have 5,000 images, 1,200 have at least one download. The real numbers are, 5,318 and just under 1,400 different images have one DL. 26%
What's your download percentage right now?
Portfolio Size of Shutterstock Q4 2013 - about 32 million assets.
Portfolio Size of Shutterstock Q3 2015 - about 64 million assets. - growth about 100%
Portfolio Size of Shutterstock Q1 2017 - about 132 million assets. - growth about 100%
Portfolio Size of Shutterstock Q2 2019 - about 260 million assets. - growth about 100%
This is an exponential trend.
Portfolio Size of Shutterstock has risen about 650% from Q4 2013 to Q4 2018
Downloads Shutterstock Q4 2013 - about 28 millions.
Downloads Shutterstock Q4 2018 - about 46,8 million,
There is an increase of portfolio Size at Shutterstock from about 650% - Q4 2013 to Q4 2018
There is an increase of downloads at Shutterstock from about 67,2% - Q4 2013 to Q4 2018
This is a clear stagnation of DL per assets online.
And things do not get better since then. The curve is slight flatten at a high level.
The poll results seem indicate a decline in SS and a rise in AS.
So your math assumption is based on selling 10% now and for the last few years, and suddenly you are going to upload 900% more images and have a 50% download rate? ;D
My specific way of download rate, just in case I'm not clear isn't anything more than, has an image been downloaded one time. So for example, I have 5,000 images, 1,200 have at least one download. The real numbers are, 5,318 and just under 1,400 different images have one DL. 26%
What's your download percentage right now?
What? No? :o I think we are all getting a bit confused here.
My assuption - which by the way is not an assumption, but close to my real situation - is selling around 10% for the first 2-3 years after joining microstock, then gradually uploading more images over time - not "suddenly" 900% more images. I never said anything about that and and do not really understand how it could have been interpreted that way. Who uploades 9000 images of decent quality at once? It takes time to build a portfolio.
As I uploaded more and better images over time, my % sales rate has gone up as more of my newer images were sold than of my older images.
Yes, I understand that we are tralking about images that having been downloaded one time.
My download percentage right now is 43%.
That's really good and it shows you learned what sells. Your total images in your portfolio on SS, 43% have at least one Download? Stunning and a good success rate.
How many total images now? And no that's not about how big is your collection. You could have 200 and make more than people who have been uploading. Not how many but what are they. (seems I'm repeating that a lot? ;D )
That's really good and it shows you learned what sells. Your total images in your portfolio on SS, 43% have at least one Download? Stunning and a good success rate.
How many total images now? And no that's not about how big is your collection. You could have 200 and make more than people who have been uploading. Not how many but what are they. (seems I'm repeating that a lot? ;D )
Yes, 43% have at least one download.
I am not sure I understand the "how many total images. Not how many, but what are they?" question. I have 11.119 images in my port, but I am not sure I understand what you mean by "what" are they. Do you want to know which images specifically sold? That would be hard to explain with thousands of images.
My port is not a secret, I use the same username: https://www.shutterstock.com/g/Firn?sort=newest (https://www.shutterstock.com/g/Firn?sort=newest)
That's really good and it shows you learned what sells. Your total images in your portfolio on SS, 43% have at least one Download? Stunning and a good success rate.
How many total images now? And no that's not about how big is your collection. You could have 200 and make more than people who have been uploading. Not how many but what are they. (seems I'm repeating that a lot? ;D )
Yes, 43% have at least one download.
I am not sure I understand the "how many total images. Not how many, but what are they?" question. I have 11.119 images in my port, but I am not sure I understand what you mean by "what" are they. Do you want to know which images specifically sold? That would be hard to explain with thousands of images.
My port is not a secret, I use the same username: https://www.shutterstock.com/g/Firn?sort=newest (https://www.shutterstock.com/g/Firn?sort=newest)
That's really good and it shows you learned what sells. Your total images in your portfolio on SS, 43% have at least one Download? Stunning and a good success rate.
How many total images now? And no that's not about how big is your collection. You could have 200 and make more than people who have been uploading. Not how many but what are they. (seems I'm repeating that a lot? ;D )
Yes, 43% have at least one download.
I am not sure I understand the "how many total images. Not how many, but what are they?" question. I have 11.119 images in my port, but I am not sure I understand what you mean by "what" are they. Do you want to know which images specifically sold? That would be hard to explain with thousands of images.
My port is not a secret, I use the same username: https://www.shutterstock.com/g/Firn?sort=newest (https://www.shutterstock.com/g/Firn?sort=newest)
you've found a lucrative niche - that's the 'what are they' factor - as opposed to landscapes & travel images which need volume and have a smaller % sold at least once
got enhanced license sold by SS today for below $2
got enhanced license sold by SS today for below $2
got enhanced license sold by SS today for below $2
What???
For my four major sites thus far:
Leading the way this month is Adobe Stock - with the help of a decent video sale
Next is iStock - with earnings brought forward from December.
Then Pond5 - which is having a reasonably good month considering it's January.
Finally, in last place is Shutterstock.
In my case, it looks like this:
I have 1322 images. Of these, 1198 images have at least 2 downloads. That is 90.6%. On average, each of my images has 59.2 downloads - including the unsold ones.
I had at some point deleted every image without a download that had been online for a while, because I was sure that these images would never achieve a download again, because I assumed that they would no longer be found in searches. Otherwise, I would have at least about 1500 images online - probably a few more. I left a few relatively newly uploaded images without download online. So now I also have 18 images with exactly one download.
Whether this "cleaning" of the portfolio was useful or beneficial for the portfolio ranking, I don't know. That be's only the algorithm of shutterstock.
I know that the lack of uploading hurts my performance, because I know or suspect how it develops for example with Firn or Ralf, namely positively in contrast to me. But for shutterstock I lack the motivation and therefore I accept declining numbers.
However, with all the whining I must also say: For the fact that I no longer feed the beast, I have to be satisfied with my income. As Doug Jensen would have said: Currently, I'm still harvesting from the seeds I sowed years ago. How long that will work without sowing new seeds, I don't know.
In my case, it looks like this:
I have 1322 images. Of these, 1198 images have at least 2 downloads. That is 90.6%. On average, each of my images has 59.2 downloads - including the unsold ones.
I had at some point deleted every image without a download that had been online for a while, because I was sure that these images would never achieve a download again, because I assumed that they would no longer be found in searches. Otherwise, I would have at least about 1500 images online - probably a few more. I left a few relatively newly uploaded images without download online. So now I also have 18 images with exactly one download.
Whether this "cleaning" of the portfolio was useful or beneficial for the portfolio ranking, I don't know. That be's only the algorithm of shutterstock.
I know that the lack of uploading hurts my performance, because I know or suspect how it develops for example with Firn or Ralf, namely positively in contrast to me. But for shutterstock I lack the motivation and therefore I accept declining numbers.
However, with all the whining I must also say: For the fact that I no longer feed the beast, I have to be satisfied with my income. As Doug Jensen would have said: Currently, I'm still harvesting from the seeds I sowed years ago. How long that will work without sowing new seeds, I don't know.
What I have written here is wrong!
I have now looked at my "Top performers" again. But they are not sorted by downloads, but by revenue. On the last page, I had seen pictures with 2 downloads and had therefore wrongly assumed that on the penultimate page and the other pages before that, no more pictures with less than 2 downloads would appear. But that was wrong. For example, on the last page there are 2 images with 2 downloads each for a total of $0.20 and on the second to last page there are images with 1 download for $0.38.
The correct way is like this:
Of 1322 images, exactly 1200 have at least one download. And there are exactly 133 images with only one download. So 1067 images have 2 or more downloads.
In my case, it looks like this:
I have 1322 images. Of these, 1198 images have at least 2 downloads. That is 90.6%. On average, each of my images has 59.2 downloads - including the unsold ones.
I had at some point deleted every image without a download that had been online for a while, because I was sure that these images would never achieve a download again, because I assumed that they would no longer be found in searches. Otherwise, I would have at least about 1500 images online - probably a few more. I left a few relatively newly uploaded images without download online. So now I also have 18 images with exactly one download.
Whether this "cleaning" of the portfolio was useful or beneficial for the portfolio ranking, I don't know. That be's only the algorithm of shutterstock.
I know that the lack of uploading hurts my performance, because I know or suspect how it develops for example with Firn or Ralf, namely positively in contrast to me. But for shutterstock I lack the motivation and therefore I accept declining numbers.
However, with all the whining I must also say: For the fact that I no longer feed the beast, I have to be satisfied with my income. As Doug Jensen would have said: Currently, I'm still harvesting from the seeds I sowed years ago. How long that will work without sowing new seeds, I don't know.
What I have written here is wrong!
I have now looked at my "Top performers" again. But they are not sorted by downloads, but by revenue. On the last page, I had seen pictures with 2 downloads and had therefore wrongly assumed that on the penultimate page and the other pages before that, no more pictures with less than 2 downloads would appear. But that was wrong. For example, on the last page there are 2 images with 2 downloads each for a total of $0.20 and on the second to last page there are images with 1 download for $0.38.
The correct way is like this:
Of 1322 images, exactly 1200 have at least one download. And there are exactly 133 images with only one download. So 1067 images have 2 or more downloads.
None of your stats matter, you deleted images.
In my case, it looks like this:
I have 1322 images. Of these, 1198 images have at least 2 downloads. That is 90.6%. On average, each of my images has 59.2 downloads - including the unsold ones.
I had at some point deleted every image without a download that had been online for a while, because I was sure that these images would never achieve a download again, because I assumed that they would no longer be found in searches. Otherwise, I would have at least about 1500 images online - probably a few more. I left a few relatively newly uploaded images without download online. So now I also have 18 images with exactly one download.
Whether this "cleaning" of the portfolio was useful or beneficial for the portfolio ranking, I don't know. That be's only the algorithm of shutterstock.
I know that the lack of uploading hurts my performance, because I know or suspect how it develops for example with Firn or Ralf, namely positively in contrast to me. But for shutterstock I lack the motivation and therefore I accept declining numbers.
However, with all the whining I must also say: For the fact that I no longer feed the beast, I have to be satisfied with my income. As Doug Jensen would have said: Currently, I'm still harvesting from the seeds I sowed years ago. How long that will work without sowing new seeds, I don't know.
What I have written here is wrong!
I have now looked at my "Top performers" again. But they are not sorted by downloads, but by revenue. On the last page, I had seen pictures with 2 downloads and had therefore wrongly assumed that on the penultimate page and the other pages before that, no more pictures with less than 2 downloads would appear. But that was wrong. For example, on the last page there are 2 images with 2 downloads each for a total of $0.20 and on the second to last page there are images with 1 download for $0.38.
The correct way is like this:
Of 1322 images, exactly 1200 have at least one download. And there are exactly 133 images with only one download. So 1067 images have 2 or more downloads.
None of your stats matter, you deleted images.
What you write is correct.
However, my numbers at AS and SS are pretty much identical in terms of images sold. At AS I never deleted an image, so I have 1517 files there. Of those, 320 have no download. 79% have at least 1 download. And at shutterstock, that would be pretty much identical if I hadn't deleted an image there.
Each of my images has brought me more than $100 on average - over a long period of time. I am satisfied with that.
But especially with shutterstock, that's pretty much impossible now with new images. And that was it once. Which brings me back to the title of this thread.
What you write is correct.
However, my numbers at AS and SS are pretty much identical in terms of images sold. At AS I never deleted an image, so I have 1517 files there. Of those, 320 have no download. 79% have at least 1 download. And at shutterstock, that would be pretty much identical if I hadn't deleted an image there.
Each of my images has brought me more than $100 on average - over a long period of time. I am satisfied with that.
But especially with shutterstock, that's pretty much impossible now with new images. And that was it once. Which brings me back to the title of this thread.
How do you tell what has and hasn't got a DL on Adobe. In fact how would I tell, lifetime DLs and earnings for any image? Say I wanted that data, I don't see how to view it, without some long copy and save on Adobe.
$100 an image is very good, no make that, exceptional, for the number of images and success.
Which brings us back to the title of this thread. Shelma1 / Ms P. would be proud of her continuing thread, that she started. I think this one could be the record for the longest active and most popular. It's never going to be old. ;D
What you write is correct.
However, my numbers at AS and SS are pretty much identical in terms of images sold. At AS I never deleted an image, so I have 1517 files there. Of those, 320 have no download. 79% have at least 1 download. And at shutterstock, that would be pretty much identical if I hadn't deleted an image there.
Each of my images has brought me more than $100 on average - over a long period of time. I am satisfied with that.
But especially with shutterstock, that's pretty much impossible now with new images. And that was it once. Which brings me back to the title of this thread.
How do you tell what has and hasn't got a DL on Adobe. In fact how would I tell, lifetime DLs and earnings for any image? Say I wanted that data, I don't see how to view it, without some long copy and save on Adobe.
$100 an image is very good, no make that, exceptional, for the number of images and success.
Which brings us back to the title of this thread. Shelma1 / Ms P. would be proud of her continuing thread, that she started. I think this one could be the record for the longest active and most popular. It's never going to be old. ;D
Pete, you can see your files under your dashboard at AS. For me, there are 16 pages - 100 images per page, whereby the last one is of course not full. There you can sort by downloads. And on the last pages there is no more number, but a dash for 0 downloads.
I can't see the revenue per image with AS either. I have an Excel table where I record my monthly downloads and revenues for the 6 agencies. So I know how many downloads and what revenue I have. And my portfolio is about the same size for all agencies and contains the same images with a few exceptions. Only at istock my portfolio is much smaller - about half as big as at AS. And a bit smaller at shutterstock.
The +$100 was not related to AS, but to all 6 agencies together. I hope that I have not formulated this in a misleading way.
Looking like the worst month at S/S in many many years. :(
Yet Adobe Stock just keeps rising and rising. Wondering if I bother sending to S/S?
Looking like the worst month at S/S in many many years. :(
Yet Adobe Stock just keeps rising and rising. Wondering if I bother sending to S/S?
I strongly feel that bothering to send new material to SS is nothing but a waste of time.
Considering effort / income ratio.
What's going on there? 5 minutes later + nearly 2 million files???
What's going on there? 5 minutes later + nearly 2 million files???
haven't you heard? SS is now using chatGPT to generate their reports
Watch your videos on SS. SS has completely changed the sorting of videos by popularity (top). Now in the top one nonsense.
Watch your videos on SS. SS has completely changed the sorting of videos by popularity (top). Now in the top one nonsense.
Notice the top images right now? Also nonsense.
(https://i.postimg.cc/x8JnNBZ7/SS-snafu-april-2023.jpg)
I wonder why buyers suddenly go for a pink X? Because it's a bestseller? I can't imagine that. ;)
If the bestsellers are arranged here the way they are in my own portfolio, then that doesn't correspond to reality. But it's certainly strange. ::)
I wonder why buyers suddenly go for a pink X? Because it's a bestseller? I can't imagine that. ;)
If the bestsellers are arranged here the way they are in my own portfolio, then that doesn't correspond to reality. But it's certainly strange. ::)
Well this is currently the most popular in the photo search, and has been for a while:
https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/yellow-color-banana-sri-lanka-2093921068 (https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/yellow-color-banana-sri-lanka-2093921068)
High Usage and customers 'love this asset'.
What is going on at Shutterstock these days?
Watch your videos on SS. SS has completely changed the sorting of videos by popularity (top). Now in the top one nonsense.
Notice the top images right now? Also nonsense.
(https://i.postimg.cc/x8JnNBZ7/SS-snafu-april-2023.jpg)
Pink letters come from this portfolio:
https://www.shutterstock.com/g/SanMirza (https://www.shutterstock.com/g/SanMirza)
They are the same pink letters that were being discussed in this thread:
https://www.microstockgroup.com/shutterstock-com/portfolios-of-100-almost-identical-vectors-from-bangladesh/msg585928/?topicseen#new (https://www.microstockgroup.com/shutterstock-com/portfolios-of-100-almost-identical-vectors-from-bangladesh/msg585928/?topicseen#new)
And they are also in in a different portfolio:
https://www.shutterstock.com/de/g/ZainKhalid09 (https://www.shutterstock.com/de/g/ZainKhalid09)
I see a lot of the portfolio that were listed have now been closed down, but how are these identical images getting through review and, once approved, how on earth are they reaching the top of the popular search, beating nearly 185million into lower places? How are they getting Superstar status??
This is currently in the images 3rd spot:
https://www.shutterstock.com/image-vector/extra-22-off-all-sale-styles-2055398933 (https://www.shutterstock.com/image-vector/extra-22-off-all-sale-styles-2055398933)
22% off is rather random to generate lots of sales, but how does this guy have 999 images that are simple colour changes, which should be rejected under Shutterstock's policy regarding similar content. If I submit 2 images of the same subject in the same batch, one gets rejected.
This is all very fishy, and totally disheartening.
Shutterstock is but a shadow of its former self.
This has been discussed here before. There was a contributor who had obviously managed to crack the shutterstock algorithm, because his images were on the 1st to 3rd place in all search results.
This also seems to be the case with these pink ones. Otherwise it can not be explained why someone with such a tiny portfolio and content that there are also two other tiny portfolios almost identical, can be found so far in front in the search.
I wonder why buyers suddenly go for a pink X? Because it's a bestseller? I can't imagine that. ;)
If the bestsellers are arranged here the way they are in my own portfolio, then that doesn't correspond to reality. But it's certainly strange. ::)
Well this is currently the most popular in the photo search, and has been for a while:
https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/yellow-color-banana-sri-lanka-2093921068 (https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/yellow-color-banana-sri-lanka-2093921068)
High Usage and customers 'love this asset'.
What is going on at Shutterstock these days?
Ok, but I can understand that.
I worked in Sri Lanka some time and can only remember ripe bananas.
Otherwise, there's really not much to see in this country. ;)
I wonder why buyers suddenly go for a pink X? Because it's a bestseller? I can't imagine that. ;)
If the bestsellers are arranged here the way they are in my own portfolio, then that doesn't correspond to reality. But it's certainly strange. ::)
Well this is currently the most popular in the photo search, and has been for a while:
https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/yellow-color-banana-sri-lanka-2093921068 (https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/yellow-color-banana-sri-lanka-2093921068)
High Usage and customers 'love this asset'.
What is going on at Shutterstock these days?
Ok, but I can understand that.
I worked in Sri Lanka some time and can only remember ripe bananas.
Otherwise, there's really not much to see in this country. ;)
I can understand the subject matter being popular, but the execution should also be up to scratch to be the most popular photo on Shutterstock. It's held that position for several weeks or more.
EDIT: I see it has gone from the top spot today, and isn't visible in the first few pages. I assume Shutterstock are reading and acting upon information shared here?
I wonder why buyers suddenly go for a pink X? Because it's a bestseller? I can't imagine that. ;)
If the bestsellers are arranged here the way they are in my own portfolio, then that doesn't correspond to reality. But it's certainly strange. ::)
Well this is currently the most popular in the photo search, and has been for a while:
https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/yellow-color-banana-sri-lanka-2093921068 (https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/yellow-color-banana-sri-lanka-2093921068)
High Usage and customers 'love this asset'.
What is going on at Shutterstock these days?
Ok, but I can understand that.
I worked in Sri Lanka some time and can only remember ripe bananas.
Otherwise, there's really not much to see in this country. ;)
I can understand the subject matter being popular, but the execution should also be up to scratch to be the most popular photo on Shutterstock. It's held that position for several weeks or more.
EDIT: I see it has gone from the top spot today, and isn't visible in the first few pages. I assume Shutterstock are reading and acting upon information shared here?
My posting was meant rather ironically.
But I have to realize again and again that this sometimes goes wrong in English. ;)
Sorry no time to answer, I'm busy making a pink letter X, within a circle with some floral accents.