...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.

Quote from: stoker2014 on November 01, 2022, 06:52

...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.

Quote from: SpaceStockFootage on November 01, 2022, 11:41

Quote from: stoker2014 on November 01, 2022, 06:52

...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.

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.

Quote from: stoker2014 on November 01, 2022, 17:37

You are lucky, you are among the lucky ones.

Right, it's only about luck! 

I'm sure happy that they like me.  If they didn't, I'm sure everything would be even worse. Lucky me, I'm so popular. 

Once again Microstock myths, superstition and blame will help some people feel better when they ignore plain old business sense or economics. There's always room for some kind of conspiracy theory as well, that "they" adjust the algorithm to help or punish specific artists. The theories why and how are plain imagination, wild and easy, if something doesn't fit, make up another new one.

Let me help? Sales go up and down, because of the seasons, the buyers needs and the demand for different images. The agencies don't care about us as individuals, they just want to sell licenses and make money. Anything that favors one artist over another, is contrary to making the collections as attractive as possible, for a buyer, to make as many downloads as possible, for the agency.

Does anyone here claim that they always buy the same things at the grocery store, every week, even if they don't need them? Or do we buy what we need, as we need it? When you are making dinner, do you buy ingredients that you don't need or use? Or do you buy for your current needs?

Stock images are a commodity, over supplied and under valued, but also buyers download as they need them images or video, for the current work and projects.

As for SpaceStockFootage, this author has very specific content, rare, few people dare to upload it, very often stock agencies get banned for such space. His result is not indicative at all.

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?!

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.

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?!

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.

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 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?  And you say, SSTK is "hiding money" from you?

Of course the algorithms change, they can change as often as every 15 minutes. That's not the point. Sales go up and down for logical business reasons, not because someone is playing with the artists commissions. Yes, income has dropped, since the new scheme, the Jan. reset and lower commissions. People who continue to earn, do that because of the personal effort, creativity and new materials that are in trend or in demand.

You seem to mix truths that are self evident, with your personal conspiracy suppositions, like they are hiding your money or some countries are favored.

This isn't luck or chance or manipulated, the fact is, buyers download and license what they need, that changes all the time. There's no bias against you for some secret system or dishonest reason. The best answer I can give is, we make our own luck by what we produce and how good it is, in the eyes of the buyers.

But if you have been doing this for ten years, it seems you just discovered the forum, IS exclusive and some other obvious well known parts of Microstock? What about your high profile, high earning friends who tell you about things? Don't they advise you about how Microstock works?

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. 

A lot of us here seem to have the same experience, more or less. Some more dramatic than others, but the trend seems to be clear.
I see a downfall too. It's not really the 10 cents that bother me so much. Well, sometimes they do, when they come in long seemingly everlasting series.
It's more the lack of bigger sales that bother me. That really declined compared to last year.
And secondly, the fact that newer images don't seem to really get traction.
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)

As far as microstock concerns, I look at the bigger picture, and Adobe more or less compensates for the losses at Shutterstock.
Shutterstock accounted for 45% of my microstock income last year. This year: down to 32%
Adobe: 15% last year. This year 27%. And Adobe doesn't accept the majority of my editorials.
Microstock income is more or less on par with last year, but I kept on uploading, so the relative trend is downwards indeed.

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. 

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?

Quote from: stoker2014 on November 02, 2022, 12:47

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?  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?

another possibility is you're not as good as you think you are and fail to compete in an always changing market.

No, he is very good. He is just unlucky and oppressed by SS, who has a preference for other contributors!