Author Topic: Learning from 16 years of stock photos that didn't sell (Read 1854 times)

ribtoks · « **on:** March 10, 2025, 02:09 »

Hi everybody

The smartest thing to do, they say, is to learn from the mistakes of others

Here we are, doing just that in a new blogpost/research.

Also I'm really curious about other people's learnings if you have something interesting to share!

cobalt · « **Reply #1 on:** March 10, 2025, 04:16 »

Interesting article, thank you.

pancaketom · « **Reply #2 on:** March 10, 2025, 11:46 »

Interesting, but so many things that could be missing from the analysis - for example images with no sales at all, or perhaps images that sell very poorly on one site, but because they are being made for another site where they sell well (eg cat pics on SS) - you are learning to make them for SS, but not for other sites. As SS (or any other site) jumps the shark you need to switch which sites you make images for.

What really matters is return per effort. If you can make images that sell half as well but they take 1/4 of the effort it is well worth making those images.

Also image types where you have a chance of a great seller with a lot of low to no sellers too. It might still be worth making images of these types even though most don't hit if the few that do gain traction make a lot of earnings.

Wilm · « **Reply #3 on:** March 10, 2025, 15:16 »

What I have learned in the last 15 years of microstock is that I have learned nothing. With one single exception: the dependence on the starting ranking of the images and the algorithm.

Big Money · « **Reply #4 on:** March 10, 2025, 18:28 »

Good information!

Just that there really isn't a full proof category to ensure sales. The niche is critical for a lot of us. For example, Yuri is a people (Lifestyles) shooter and use to make millions were I shoot people and lucky to have enough money to eat at McDonald's.

So other variables like your skill in taking the pic and processing it plus the administrative work (i.e., descriptions, key wording and uploading) play into the equation. For me I have shot simple backgrounds since 2011 and made some decent money but I wouldn't recommend my type of images to the new contributors today.

Additionally, why does one image where you have many similar out sell them by tenfold? Was it uploaded at the right time? Did it sell immediately? Nobody has ever figured this one that I know and if they did they sure didn't tell us lol!

Just interesting to try to figure out this crazy business we are in.

Andrej.S. · « **Reply #5 on:** March 11, 2025, 03:15 »

Quote from: Wilm on March 10, 2025, 15:16

What I have learned in the last 15 years of microstock is that I have learned nothing. With one single exception: the dependence on the starting ranking of the images and the algorithm.

100% true. I don't think the analysis is worth the effort if you just take one contributor and not the whole agency.

For one single contributor it's just playing lottery. It's then all about image / portfolio rankings and just luck.

uvox4 · « **Reply #6 on:** March 11, 2025, 06:02 »

It's all about the ranking. I had a photo that was top of the ranking for a certain search and I sold it in the hundreds. For some reason, it was no longer number 1 and not even on the front search page and I didn't sell it once for the next few years.

Andrej.S. · « **Reply #7 on:** March 11, 2025, 06:53 »

Quote from: uvox4 on March 11, 2025, 06:02

It's all about the ranking. I had a photo that was top of the ranking for a certain search and I sold it in the hundreds. For some reason, it was no longer number 1 and not even on the front search page and I didn't sell it once for the next few years.

Yes, exactly. That's why analyses only make sense on the overall agency level to visualize trends and, for example, evaluate the coverage of these trends and niches over time.

The agencies have a huge amount of data and statistics that they don't pass on to the contributors as tools. And that's incredibly stupid, because it even leads to lost economic synergies.

If I as a contributor could evaluate how much revenue a keyword or certain category has generated over time and how big the offer/competition is, I could much faster and more efficiently align my own offer with customer wishes instead of aimlessly stabbing in the dark and guessing, and even wasting the agency's capacities senselessly.

The problem is the management of the agencies. They have no strategy. They all just want earn easy money.

pancaketom · « **Reply #8 on:** March 11, 2025, 21:30 »

Quote from: Andrej.S. on March 11, 2025, 06:53

Quote from: uvox4 on March 11, 2025, 06:02
It's all about the ranking. I had a photo that was top of the ranking for a certain search and I sold it in the hundreds. For some reason, it was no longer number 1 and not even on the front search page and I didn't sell it once for the next few years.

Yes, exactly. That's why analyses only make sense on the overall agency level to visualize trends and, for example, evaluate the coverage of these trends and niches over time.

The agencies have a huge amount of data and statistics that they don't pass on to the contributors as tools. And that's incredibly stupid, because it even leads to lost economic synergies.

If I as a contributor could evaluate how much revenue a keyword or certain category has generated over time and how big the offer/competition is, I could much faster and more efficiently align my own offer with customer wishes instead of aimlessly stabbing in the dark and guessing, and even wasting the agency's capacities senselessly.

The problem is the management of the agencies. They have no strategy. They all just want earn easy money.

For a while SS had a tool where you could compare keywords and how often they were searched through the year - I remember looking at "fireworks" and there were big spikes before Dec 31 and July 4 and smaller spikes before things like Chinese New Year and Bastille day. You could see that "christmas" was searched all year, but ramped up through the summer and fall and then started falling off around the end of November.

It was also useful for comparing something like Closeup, close up, macro, etc. Since it was actually useful, they got rid of it fairly quickly.

zeljkok · « **Reply #9 on:** March 11, 2025, 23:32 »

Quote from: pancaketom on March 11, 2025, 21:30

For a while SS had a tool where you could compare keywords and how often they were searched through the year - I remember looking at "fireworks" and there were big spikes before Dec 31 and July 4 and smaller spikes before things like Chinese New Year and Bastille day. You could see that "christmas" was searched all year, but ramped up through the summer and fall and then started falling off around the end of November.

It was also useful for comparing something like Closeup, close up, macro, etc. Since it was actually useful, they got rid of it fairly quickly.

Alamy has Measures tool that works somewhat similar. But problem is data is gathered only from subset of registered Customers. It also breaks fairly often. It is still useful as it shows search terms & helps with keywording.

ShadySue · « **Reply #10 on:** March 12, 2025, 06:59 »

Quote from: zeljkok on March 11, 2025, 23:32

Alamy has Measures tool that works somewhat similar. But problem is data is gathered only from subset of registered Customers. It also breaks fairly often. It is still useful as it shows search terms & helps with keywording.

All of Alamy: "This tool allows you to see all searches from customers who have spent money on Alamy within a specified date range."
Vague: why can't we know the 'specificed date range'?

Pseudonym summary: "This page summarises all the customer views and click activity recorded for your Pseudonym(s) for a given date range. "

In fact, a friend and I clicked on one of each other's files, not logged in and never having been customers, and the view showed. But that was a few years back and might well have changed.

alan b traehern · « **Reply #11 on:** March 13, 2025, 06:18 »

I learn from what sells and make more. I learn from what doesn't sell and don't make more. I don't need some unscientific study of some other person, to figure that out.

Quote from: Wilm on March 10, 2025, 15:16

What I have learned in the last 15 years of microstock is that I have learned nothing. With one single exception: the dependence on the starting ranking of the images and the algorithm.

This isn't a game of chance, buyers decide what sells, which decides the rank and how the algos place your images. You and others imagine this business is like the lottery, not planning or skill. Steve is a success because he's smart and works hard.

Wilm · « **Reply #12 on:** March 13, 2025, 07:35 »

Quote from: alan b traehern on March 13, 2025, 06:18

I learn from what sells and make more. I learn from what doesn't sell and don't make more. I don't need some unscientific study of some other person, to figure that out.

Quote from: Wilm on March 10, 2025, 15:16
What I have learned in the last 15 years of microstock is that I have learned nothing. With one single exception: the dependence on the starting ranking of the images and the algorithm.

This isn't a game of chance, buyers decide what sells, which decides the rank and how the algos place your images. You and others imagine this business is like the lottery, not planning or skill. Steve is a success because he's smart and works hard.

Hmmm,

It's not that simple, Alan.

Sure, once an image has worked its way to the top of the search results, it should sell better and better.

But when you upload an image, it gets a starting ranking. If the image is ranked on pages 1 to 3 for certain search terms, that's great.

If, on the other hand, it lands on page 15 or 20 or even further back, there is a very high probability that it will be "stillborn". Then there is a risk that this image will never be found.

The image (concept, image structure, aesthetics, customer benefit) itself is not so important. What is important is how the selection assesses the value of the image and where the image is initially classified within the mass of other images on the same topic.

Of course, this problem automatically increases the larger an agency's database becomes. It was therefore easier to get a good starting ranking with an image when the database still contained 20 million files. Today, with half a billion, the air automatically becomes thinner.

Or, if things go really badly, the image is even rejected by one agency, while other agencies consider it to be an image with high commercial value.

You can't argue away the "lottery factor". It's part of the game. After 15 years, I can assure every contributor of that. I can also give you countless examples if you like.

Andrej.S. · « **Reply #13 on:** March 13, 2025, 08:48 »

Quote from: Wilm on March 13, 2025, 07:35

Quote from: alan b traehern on March 13, 2025, 06:18
I learn from what sells and make more. I learn from what doesn't sell and don't make more. I don't need some unscientific study of some other person, to figure that out.

Quote from: Wilm on March 10, 2025, 15:16
What I have learned in the last 15 years of microstock is that I have learned nothing. With one single exception: the dependence on the starting ranking of the images and the algorithm.

This isn't a game of chance, buyers decide what sells, which decides the rank and how the algos place your images. You and others imagine this business is like the lottery, not planning or skill. Steve is a success because he's smart and works hard.

Hmmm,

It's not that simple, Alan.

Sure, once an image has worked its way to the top of the search results, it should sell better and better.

But when you upload an image, it gets a starting ranking. If the image is ranked on pages 1 to 3 for certain search terms, that's great.

If, on the other hand, it lands on page 15 or 20 or even further back, there is a very high probability that it will be "stillborn". Then there is a risk that this image will never be found.

The image (concept, image structure, aesthetics, customer benefit) itself is not so important. What is important is how the selection assesses the value of the image and where the image is initially classified within the mass of other images on the same topic.

Of course, this problem automatically increases the larger an agency's database becomes. It was therefore easier to get a good starting ranking with an image when the database still contained 20 million files. Today, with half a billion, the air automatically becomes thinner.

Or, if things go really badly, the image is even rejected by one agency, while other agencies consider it to be an image with high commercial value.

You can't argue away the "lottery factor". It's part of the game. After 15 years, I can assure every contributor of that. I can also give you countless examples if you like.

Yes exactly this. I sell my "bestsellers" about 3 to 5 times a day and there is no quality difference to other images of my series, which are not sold that often or even are not sold.
It's all about image rankings.

I mean Steve's alltime bestsellers were just a plastic bag and a cat on a plain white background. Alan, how you then can even talk about quality and not just the random factor, which is more important.

Wilm · « **Reply #14 on:** March 13, 2025, 08:59 »

Quote from: Andrej.S. on March 13, 2025, 08:48

Quote from: Wilm on March 13, 2025, 07:35
Quote from: alan b traehern on March 13, 2025, 06:18
I learn from what sells and make more. I learn from what doesn't sell and don't make more. I don't need some unscientific study of some other person, to figure that out.

Quote from: Wilm on March 10, 2025, 15:16
What I have learned in the last 15 years of microstock is that I have learned nothing. With one single exception: the dependence on the starting ranking of the images and the algorithm.

This isn't a game of chance, buyers decide what sells, which decides the rank and how the algos place your images. You and others imagine this business is like the lottery, not planning or skill. Steve is a success because he's smart and works hard.

Hmmm,

It's not that simple, Alan.

Sure, once an image has worked its way to the top of the search results, it should sell better and better.

But when you upload an image, it gets a starting ranking. If the image is ranked on pages 1 to 3 for certain search terms, that's great.

If, on the other hand, it lands on page 15 or 20 or even further back, there is a very high probability that it will be "stillborn". Then there is a risk that this image will never be found.

The image (concept, image structure, aesthetics, customer benefit) itself is not so important. What is important is how the selection assesses the value of the image and where the image is initially classified within the mass of other images on the same topic.

Of course, this problem automatically increases the larger an agency's database becomes. It was therefore easier to get a good starting ranking with an image when the database still contained 20 million files. Today, with half a billion, the air automatically becomes thinner.

Or, if things go really badly, the image is even rejected by one agency, while other agencies consider it to be an image with high commercial value.

You can't argue away the "lottery factor". It's part of the game. After 15 years, I can assure every contributor of that. I can also give you countless examples if you like.

I mean Steve's alltime bestsellers were just a plastic bag and a cat on a plain white background. Alan, how you then can even talk about quality and not just the random factor, which is more important.

Where did Steve write about his bestsellers?

Andrej.S. · « **Reply #15 on:** March 13, 2025, 11:56 »

The information about his bestsellers is in one of the last analyses of his portfolio.
"How passive is income from microstock photography".

I mean, yes Steve has a good eye for composition, but so do thousands of new contributors who are much less successful because they don't have the image rankings or portfolio rankings that Steve has built up over the years, partly through lucky bestsellers not only hard work.

Maybe he has also just diversified his portfolio well, but luck has definitely played a significant role. You just can't say it's all hard work only.

Uncle Pete · « **Reply #16 on:** March 13, 2025, 12:12 »

All this time, I thought it was about the subject, composition, colors, keywords, descriptions, and finding areas/ideas that are under supplied, to fill a need. Images that buyers want and need. But apparently (according to some people here) it's all about luck, the search placement and random chance.

Then I'll say, worrying about analyzing what has sold, then making more of what sells, or "Learning from 16 years of stock photos that didn't sell", is a waste of time. It's just all about luck.

ShadySue · « **Reply #17 on:** March 13, 2025, 12:23 »

Quote from: Uncle Pete on March 13, 2025, 12:12

All this time, I thought it was about the subject, composition, colors, keywords, descriptions, and finding areas/ideas that are under supplied, to fill a need. Images that buyers want and need. But apparently (according to some people here) it's all about luck, the search placement and random chance.

Then I'll say, worrying about analyzing what has sold, then making more of what sells, or "Learning from 16 years of stock photos that didn't sell", is a waste of time. It's just all about luck.

It's not all about luck, it is of course selling what customers want, but (and I can only speak for iS) algorithm certainly has its part to play. I've twice had files which were good sellers (by my standards, i.e. sold almost every day) disappear overnight and I discovered that they had dropped in the Best Match algorithm for their 'most likely to be searched' keywords, whereas they were previously near the top of page one. One of these got no sales for a couple of years, and now gets occasional sales, not enough to take it onto the first page: the second hasn't have one sale since it dropped (a common subject, so away down below page 20 on the best match search now).

Uncle Pete · « **Reply #18 on:** March 13, 2025, 12:32 »

Quote from: Wilm on March 13, 2025, 08:59

Where did Steve write about his bestsellers?

Just in case it's not obvious or you didn't already know, or someone else is reading this? https://backyardsilver.com/

I think this is the "Plastic Bag" and a cat, best seller which is a bag of ice, if I see it right?

Quote from: ShadySue on March 13, 2025, 12:23

Quote from: Uncle Pete on March 13, 2025, 12:12
All this time, I thought it was about the subject, composition, colors, keywords, descriptions, and finding areas/ideas that are under supplied, to fill a need. Images that buyers want and need. But apparently (according to some people here) it's all about luck, the search placement and random chance.

Then I'll say, worrying about analyzing what has sold, then making more of what sells, or "Learning from 16 years of stock photos that didn't sell", is a waste of time. It's just all about luck.

It's not all about luck, it is of course selling what customers want, but (and I can only speak for iS) algorithm certainly has its part to play. I've twice had files which were good sellers (by my standards, i.e. sold almost every day) disappear overnight and I discovered that they had dropped in the Best Match algorithm for their 'most likely to be searched' keywords, whereas they were previously near the top of page one. One of these got no sales for a couple of years, and now gets occasional sales, not enough to take it onto the first page: the second hasn't have one sale since it dropped (a common subject, so away down below page 20 on the best match search now).

So is that LUCK or is that the way the agency programs their search?

Luck is random chance. I tend to think that as artists and creators, most of our good fortune is based on how we work and what we make, not some magic, outside forces. And if someone wants to argue that it's luck, then, I hope they also credit their success and sales, to luck, and not their skills and effort.

Oh I see. When things are "the way the ought to be" then it's me. When they aren't and sales are down, it's luck and something the agency did. Of course for my image to move down to page 2 or 3, that means someone else, moved up to page 1!

I will agree that things change and we have no control over how our work is displayed, what page, how the search finds things, or any of that. But that's still not luck, it's just the way it is. Everyone works with the same rules, the same system and the way the agency designed their search to operate.

Wilm · « **Reply #19 on:** March 13, 2025, 13:47 »

Quote from: Andrej.S. on March 13, 2025, 11:56

The information about his bestsellers is in one of the last analyses of his portfolio.
"How passive is income from microstock photography".

Thank you, Andrej. Found it!

Andrej.S. · « **Reply #20 on:** March 13, 2025, 13:55 »

Ok, luck doesn't mean taking 1000 photos of apples and hoping they willl sell well.

Of course, I'm assuming that high-quality, demanded images are being uploaded.

But in my portfolio, I very often see cases where one image becomes a bestseller and another from the same series, with even better composition and identical keywords, doesn't sell at all.

So, it's completely random which image becomes a bestseller and even whether you'll have any bestsellers at all.

You can only increase your chances of earnings by uploading a large number of images, like playing the lottery, but success is not guaranteed by hard work.

I would say you can rather be successfull, or let's better say increasing your chances by analyzing demanded niches, which you can't get from analyzing your own or some one's portfolio. But that's not hard work, rather smart work.

Wilm · « **Reply #21 on:** March 13, 2025, 15:29 »

Okay, let's discuss the "lottery factor".

Using Steve as an example:
His bestseller on shutterstock should, if only the factors "diligence, image composition/composition, aesthetics, keywords, commercial benefit" would count, also be a bestseller on AS or istock or somewhere else. But this is obviously not the case.

There may be 3 reasons for this:
- The agencies' clients have different tastes.
- The image only ranked well on shutterstock.
- Possibly: The image was only accepted by shutterstock.

From my point of view, it is therefore simply luck if shutterstock ranked the image so well after it was uploaded that it achieved sales right at the beginning and then continued to rise in the ranking.

How high the lottery factor is, as far as the assessment of the agencies is concerned, I simply compare just shutterstock with Adobe Stock based on my images. The ratings obviously were similar for a few images. For a few images, the differences are extreme.

SS AS
Image 1: $ 4,400 $ 240
Image 2: $ 1,645 $ 808
Image 3: $ 1,630 $ 1,810
Image 4: $ 1,190 $ 128
Image 5: $ 1,130 $ 0 (was never accepted - despite several attempts)
Image 6: $ 1.000 $ 230
Image 7: $ 880 $ 307
Image 8: $ 870 $ 201
Image 9: $ 850 $ 225
Image 10: $ 760 $ 1.365

I have images that fetched $300 or $500 on AS, but only $3 or $5 on shutterstock - and the other way round. And of course there are images selling quite well on one agency that have no downloads at all on the other agency because of a miserable starting ranking. On istock, lots of my best selling images weren't even accepted (despite several attempts), so I only have about 800 images online there. And I know that the images that weren't accepted would have made thousands of dollars there too. But it's just not meant to be.

Another lottery factor is of course the copy cats.
If you are lucky in the lottery, you will only be copied a little. If you are unlucky, the usually worse copies will overtake the originals in a short time, because the novelty factor naturally also plays a role in the sorting of the images.

Yes - there is a big lottery factor! And it will have more weight because of AI in future.

pancaketom · « **Reply #22 on:** March 14, 2025, 02:26 »

There is certainly a factor for luck in this. My best seller on SS by a wide margin was a fireworks photo - it was a good photo which I spent a fair amount of time cleaning up so the background was pure 000 black but there were plenty of other images available that were just as good - some by me. The thing that made this my #1 seller was the day I uploaded it - a few weeks before July 4th I think (or maybe it was a few weeks before new years) SS had a glitch in their indexing and didn't index any new images for a few days. The luck factor for me was my image was on the first row for "fireworks" sorted by newest first. In those 4 days it got enough sales so that it got onto the first page for a best match search for "fireworks" and it stayed there for 3 years, often in the first line. Then one day SS changed something to favor images that were more pixels or from newer cameras or newer images or whatever and it dropped out of the first few pages of search and went from a few to 10s of sales a week to a few sales a year. The end. This image sold a few times on other sites, but never got the traction it did on SS.

So I had a decent image and I uploaded it at the right time, but I also got lucky.
You can't get lucky if you don't have decent images uploaded at the right time, but you still need some luck. Of course the more tickets you buy the more likely you are to win, and hitting niches or timing things well will help too. Steve certainly does that - for example his covid theater marquee sign. A good idea done well at the right time.

Uncle Pete · « **Reply #23 on:** March 14, 2025, 12:20 »

Quote from: Andrej.S. on March 13, 2025, 13:55

I would say you can rather be successful, or let's better say increasing your chances by analyzing demanded niches, which you can't get from analyzing your own or some one's portfolio. But that's not hard work, rather smart work.

Thank You!

Sometimes, analyzing from what sells on my own, from testing niches, does lead me to making more of the similar kind of content. But still you said the magic answer. Work smarter, not harder. Find not only demand niches but also areas that are not represented with enough good quality or enough variation, that can be fulling a need.

Reading Alamy search results, is like checking a schedule, after after the train already left the station. Go look at recent sales, and see how many are specialty subjects or locations, which someone needed for a project. They won't be searching for those again. Like a dog chasing it's own tail, following what was searched and sold, sometimes, is just running in circles for no good reason.

Uncle Pete · « **Reply #24 on:** March 14, 2025, 12:36 »

Quote from: pancaketom on March 14, 2025, 02:26

There is certainly a factor for luck in this. My best seller on SS by a wide margin was a fireworks photo - it was a good photo which I spent a fair amount of time cleaning up so the background was pure 000 black but there were plenty of other images available that were just as good - some by me. The thing that made this my #1 seller was the day I uploaded it - a few weeks before July 4th I think (or maybe it was a few weeks before new years) SS had a glitch in their indexing and didn't index any new images for a few days. The luck factor for me was my image was on the first row for "fireworks" sorted by newest first. In those 4 days it got enough sales so that it got onto the first page for a best match search for "fireworks" and it stayed there for 3 years, often in the first line. Then one day SS changed something to favor images that were more pixels or from newer cameras or newer images or whatever and it dropped out of the first few pages of search and went from a few to 10s of sales a week to a few sales a year. The end. This image sold a few times on other sites, but never got the traction it did on SS.

So I had a decent image and I uploaded it at the right time, but I also got lucky.
You can't get lucky if you don't have decent images uploaded at the right time, but you still need some luck. Of course the more tickets you buy the more likely you are to win, and hitting niches or timing things well will help too. Steve certainly does that - for example his covid theater marquee sign. A good idea done well at the right time.

Oh you're the one, and that's why my fireworks images didn't sell.

I think you are bringing up another good point. I've had images, on page one or two, where they stayed there for a good long time, maybe years. Some searches, I still have a couple. The agencies don't mix up the search and move "top images" or "best sellers" down, just because they are mean or random, they don't want the first page, to be showing the same old images, for years. They want to mix up the content and show buyers something new, not the same old crap, for year after year.

For some of us, that will mean losing placement and for others, it will mean moving up and a chance. I don't mean, just new images, that get their boost while they get some exposure, to see if they catch on. I mean, just for age, and the reason, that mixing up the SOS in a search, makes a better experience for buyers. This isn't just about us. I have always felt it never was. First the company and the profit, which comes from the buyers. We're just some expense and nuisance at this point.

436,599 fireworks at night Some are mine and I probably couldn't find them if I tried, because the images all look so much alike. But for some searching for a specific pattern, or colors, or composite design, I'm on page one.

The more from this artist might help some day. These are not my best selling images. But I took them and maybe someone needs one?

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Learning from 16 years of stock photos that didn't sell (Read 1854 times)

ribtoks

cobalt

pancaketom

Wilm

Big Money

Andrej.S.

uvox4

Andrej.S.

pancaketom

zeljkok

ShadySue

alan b traehern

Wilm

Andrej.S.

Wilm

Andrej.S.

Uncle Pete

ShadySue

Uncle Pete

Wilm

Andrej.S.

Wilm

pancaketom

Uncle Pete

Uncle Pete

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors