I also have an iceberg that sells nicely, but the best sellers are all boring everyday stuff isolated on white.

My best selling images are either ultra-specific (with just a couple of contributors having access to places where they could takes photos of that subject) or totally generic isolated on white things which can be used in a multitude of contexts.

Edit: Oh, yeah, forgot to mention. I do photography, but I started as a web designer, so I'm pretty ok with photoshop. Most of the bestsellers have nothing to do with photography whatsoever.

(also, I'm talking about shutterstock, but as SS earnings comprise around 75% of my total earnings, I didn't feel the need to take the effort and check the other sites)

As I do vectors, my best seller is a technology abstract background that gathered several thousands dls (and $$) at Shutterstock. It also sell ok at Bigstock, but not at other agencies.

are your SS sales back on track?

Quote from: adigrosu on February 03, 2014, 19:05

As I do vectors, my best seller is a technology abstract background that gathered several thousands dls (and $$) at Shutterstock. It also sell ok at Bigstock, but not at other agencies.

are your SS sales back on track?

They are far from being back. I'm not even stationary, the downtrend continues.

Quote from: adigrosu on February 03, 2014, 19:12

Quote from: Toopy on February 03, 2014, 08:39

My thought behind this topic was assumption that if you have here linked portfolio to SS, you can always go check for popular. So it is not that big secret. Even though mine is just simple coffee, it can help someone produce similar image but not the same. And I dont mind to share it.

Actually, checking someone's most popular files at Shutterstock you will get anything but really popular results. My "most popular" files displayed are new files that have 3-4 sales or less (or none). My real popular files that generated thousand dls over the year are not even on the first page, due to their "improved" and "complex" search algorithm.

Some of shutterstocks other comments are also priceless.  Quote: " Anecdotal claims in the forums are very hard to track down - to understand what's going on, you would need to isolate all of the attributes of the image, the keyword that was searched, whether the image was in a test, etc..."

The claims are not anecdotal when we have direct evidence for individual files that long term received 15 to 30 downloads every day; and then in the matter of one day our best files are given the permanent axe. You do not need image attributes to see that they no longer receive downloads or show up in searches. When it happens to most of them in one day, it is clear they purposely killed our best earning files.

Contrary to SS smoke and mirror claims we know full well what they have done.

Snip
scott wrote:   
It would be very difficult to answer something like this, because the algorithms are very complex; we run many different tests; and we see millions of searches. Anecdotal claims in the forums are very hard to track down - to understand what's going on, you would need to isolate all of the attributes of the image, the keyword that was searched, whether the image was in a test, etc...

As mentioned, the goal of all of this is to drive customer success, which ultimately delivers more downloads across the board and more royalties. It's easy (and understandable!) to worry about one image's specific search placement for a popular keyword search, but across all images and all searches, the net result is continuous improvement.

Best,

Scott

This is exactly what I mean. That's interesting that earlier today in a Shutterstock forum somebody quoted the same post of Scott and I quoted him, highlighting with bold pretty much the same that you did.
Claiming "the net result is continuous improvement" is pure sarcasm. I would very much like to see them on this side, being a full time microstocker. I assume they would be glad when  80% of their income would be taken away from them. At least they would know that "the net result is continuous improvement".

Their absence from SS forums says it all.

What about if the vast majority of old contributors who made you what you are today are collateral damage. Wouldn't be a bit of morality in the * business?
I know it is just business, but as the things going, their aim is to maximise their overall profit taking away ALL from us. It is not only me or a few guys. I wish it was like that, because it would mean that I did something wrong that it can be improved.

What about if the vast majority of old contributors who made you what you are today are collateral damage. Wouldn't be a bit of morality in the * business?
I know it is just business, but as the things going, their aim is to maximise their overall profit taking away ALL from us.

It is not only me or a few guys. I wish it was like that, because it would mean that I did something wrong that it can be improved.

I am at a point I almost wish they would pay everyone the same royalty and then promote images based on true merit.

I get sick to my stomach as more and more contributors that I know well are telling me that they have just been hit and month after month they see their sales drop.  We all think that we are immune and that we have control over sales through planning and hard work, until it happens to us.

As ShadySue mentions IS did it first and then Fotolia. They all do it to some degree. What they do not count on it the collateral effect of stiffing contributors who also work in the design industry.  We are tighter than they think and have direct influence even in very large companies over who we buy images, graphics and videos from. When you screw us we do not take it lightly.

A few of us have come out and talked about it here. Many more of us are talking about it in private to avoid repercussions with various sites. Over the last few months there is no doubt that perceptions have changed significantly and many people are not at all happy at the business changes SS has made and how those changes have affected our livelihoods. While the folks at SS are jetting around in helicopters, buying homes in Aspen, working in Aeron chairs, receiving massages and enjoying numerous job benefits. We are worrying about things like simply putting food on the table, paying house payments and paying for health insurance.

It is becoming clear that we can no longer depend on Shutterstock for a living, however we do have control over which sites we do buy images from in the future and it will not be from a company with low level ethics.

Quote from: adigrosu on February 03, 2014, 22:38

What about if the vast majority of old contributors who made you what you are today are collateral damage. Wouldn't be a bit of morality in the * business?
I know it is just business, but as the things going, their aim is to maximise their overall profit taking away ALL from us. It is not only me or a few guys. I wish it was like that, because it would mean that I did something wrong that it can be improved.

What morality?

The exact reason I adore microstock is that it is NEUTRAL. It doesn't matter if you joined 6 weeks or 6 years ago. Make a good image and it will sell. If anything, there is a slight disbalance skewed in favor of older contributors, only because their files already gathered some downloads and have priority in the search algorithm. It seems that SS is working on that imbalance and that's ok with me, since it makes the playing field even more neutral.

And also, if the algorithm changes one day so it moves away from neutrality, but impacts SS's earnings in a positive way (and mine in negative), I would understand. They are trying to maximize profits. They have no obligation towards me nor do they owe me anything. If I think I'm treated unfair, I will quit the agency. But talking about morals and business ethics in this contexts is a bit, you know, unnecessary.

Any company that expects its contributors to bear 100% of the expense of producing the content that they sell; does have the obligation to manage those assets as a whole fairly and responsibly. They can and do not produce any of the assets they sell themselves and they could not have become successful or continue to be successful with out our assets.

Quote from: gbalex on February 04, 2014, 15:58

They can and do not produce any of the assets they sell themselves and they could not have become successful or continue to be successful with out our assets.

Ummm... Jon Oringer founded Shutterstock to sell his own images. 

Anyway, what does it mean to manage assets fairly and responsibly? For me, it's whatever works for them (but I like contributor-neutrality), and for some, it's preferential treatment for older microstockers.

I would be happy with the flat pay scale and a buyer centric search.

As for Jon's port he knew it would not pull sales, that is why he came begging to various photography sites to ask us to submit images. He knew that his content would not be sufficient to bring in the sales he was seeking. Even in 2004.

http://www.shutterstock.com/portfolio/search.mhtml?gallery_username=shutterstock&page=27

Exactly. As Jon has said repeatedly, the SS algorithm is largely driven by data harvested from buyers' actions. They are simply trying to provide the best service they can to the buying public.

The contributors' levels of royalty payments are there to provide an incentive, not to save SS money on payments. I'm quite sure that vast majority of downloads are paid at the highest rate.

+ <3

Today my second best seller has become my best seller.
The sad consequence is, (try to guess), that today my best seller has become my second best seller.
But they both still are the two most stupid photos that I have done��

My best selling photos are ones that I hate to even look at. They sell - I cringe. Fortunately, I don't sell that many photos!

You live this so you have a good idea what's gonna happen when and where!

Same with NASCAR.

In dollars this one, but it's not up on Microstock. 

Sure go ahead and make a similar concept, feel free. (ps News Editorial, that's why I didn't edit the fence intrusion on the right side. Honest photo)



I know no one is going to believe that I planned to get this shot in advance. But being in the right place and guessing where something might happen is as good as I can claim.