pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: SS continues to deteriorate  (Read 58348 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

U11


« Reply #425 on: January 23, 2023, 10:22 »
0
got enhanced license sold by SS today for below $2

What???


« Reply #426 on: January 23, 2023, 15:22 »
+2
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.

« Reply #427 on: January 23, 2023, 16:11 »
0
Im getting adjustments from 2021 now.

Surely so long ago if there was fraud its over and done with now.  Can't help thinking they're just taking whatever they feel as opposed to a system.
I can understand adjustments on a current billing cycle but 2 years ago is taking it too far.

« Reply #428 on: January 23, 2023, 19:22 »
+1
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.

And just like that, Shutterstock back in the lead again with a couple of good video sales.

« Reply #429 on: January 24, 2023, 03:33 »
0
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.

« Reply #430 on: January 24, 2023, 07:50 »
+2
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.

« Reply #431 on: January 24, 2023, 13:30 »
+1
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.

that's why RPI & RPD are irrelevant - adding or subtracting images changes the stats but actual income remains the same

« Reply #432 on: January 24, 2023, 17:36 »
0
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.

Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #433 on: January 25, 2023, 11:52 »
0

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

« Reply #434 on: January 25, 2023, 13:49 »
0

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.

Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #435 on: January 26, 2023, 12:25 »
0

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.

$100 is still a nice number.

I forgot that I could look at all images that way. 39% have one download or more.

No lifetime income by image. I don't know how much I care, but it's always interesting. DLs doesn't = Dollars, but in round numbers, if I assume that images will get about the same, that's a close way of seeing what they are worth, just knowing DL numbers.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
4 Replies
4398 Views
Last post February 15, 2012, 09:29
by imlumina
11 Replies
4305 Views
Last post November 09, 2012, 16:06
by stockastic
13 Replies
4911 Views
Last post June 24, 2013, 15:35
by Roberto
1 Replies
2679 Views
Last post July 28, 2016, 16:51
by CJH Photography
0 Replies
2999 Views
Last post July 11, 2019, 17:54
by zorba

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle