Author Topic: 723,027 new images added this week! (Read 28593 times)

Steveball · « **Reply #50 on:** January 21, 2016, 13:03 »

No wonder new images get so little traction....

6 months for new images = $1.44 (that's one dollar!). Not a huge port (1400) but the plummeting graph says it all. SS have shot us in the foot by opening the floodgates!

Ides · « **Reply #51 on:** January 21, 2016, 14:55 »

Quote from: Benozaur on December 09, 2015, 06:59

I wouldn't worry about it too much, remember our friend here:

http://www.shutterstock.com/portfolio/search.mhtml?gallery_id=1256674&gallery_landing=1&page=1&safesearch=1&sort_method=newest

I try to keep my portfolio fresh and diversify as much as I can. Seems to work.

El Chapo, are you?
The world's largest dealer of marijuana photos.

YadaYadaYada · « **Reply #52 on:** January 22, 2016, 21:48 »

723,000 is nothing 825,763 new stock images added this week. 10 million new photos every 12 weeks. Carry on.

Microstockphoto · « **Reply #53 on:** January 22, 2016, 22:08 »

i have to say, didnt add much images the past 6 months but my earnings sustained

PZF · « **Reply #54 on:** January 23, 2016, 03:52 »

((((

SS is WAY down on this time last year and with dilution like it is, I see little chance of gret improvement. Other generaly slightly up but nothing to sing/dance about.

So bad, in fact, I'm even thinking of restarting uploads to DP and BS despite feeble returns and other issues. Just to get the most out of microstock while it lasts.......sigh......

dpimborough · « **Reply #55 on:** January 23, 2016, 04:54 »

SS allowing more images is an exercise in BS; search the keyword "food" as of right now I get 9,094,385 hits
check undiscovered (never sold) I get 4,711,579 hits

By that little estimate 51% of those images never sold. I bet the same goes for lots of other categories.

Red Dove · « **Reply #56 on:** January 23, 2016, 07:00 »

Vectors:

Megaphone Icon - 27,000
Envelope Icon - 94,000
House Icon - 255,000

Madness!

LesPalenik · « **Reply #57 on:** January 24, 2016, 13:34 »

Quote from: YadaYadaYada on January 22, 2016, 21:48

723,000 is nothing 825,763 new stock images added this week. 10 million new photos every 12 weeks. Carry on.

At this rate, soon it will be a million new images per week (over 50 millions a year). And that' s just one agency.
If this trend continues, it won't be too long before the collection expands by 100 millions per year.

Quote

By that little estimate 51% of those images never sold.

and only 20-25% will be ever sold.

stock-will-eat-itself · « **Reply #58 on:** January 24, 2016, 14:40 »

They're an oddly conservative company. The same business model as when they started, sell it cheap stack it high.

If there's no innovation there can only be one outcome.

etudiante_rapide · « **Reply #59 on:** January 24, 2016, 16:01 »

Quote from: Teddy the Cat on January 23, 2016, 04:54

SS allowing more images is an exercise in BS; search the keyword "food" as of right now I get 9,094,385 hits
check undiscovered (never sold) I get 4,711,579 hits

By that little estimate 51% of those images never sold. I bet the same goes for lots of other categories.

yes, may be so... but what %-age is earning the bucks for ss?
if we say like your estimate... 51% never sold a penny,
59% earns xxx millions of $ for ss.

that makes it even more impressive to the shareholders than the xxx millions of new images per month,year,etc..

Pauws99 · « **Reply #60 on:** January 24, 2016, 17:19 »

Quote from: stock-will-eat-itself on January 24, 2016, 14:40

They're an oddly conservative company. The same business model as when they started, sell it cheap stack it high.

If there's no innovation there can only be one outcome.

Because up till now its worked for them and the competition has been very poor. If someone cracks Quality Control and better ability to identify customer needs through better search/ customer insight technology they could be in trouble but lets wait for the next set of results before we start digging their grave they were still growing pretty fast last time they reported. And actually that model still works in retail after at least 100 years ....in the UK at least the big players forgot it and we now have European discounters snapping at their heels.

Svetlana · « **Reply #61 on:** January 25, 2016, 01:57 »

Here's another one... and one more.
I wonder how many such ports have been added recently and how the numbers would change if these were deleted (or not accepted, in the first place).

Justanotherphotographer · « **Reply #62 on:** January 25, 2016, 03:12 »

Quote from: Pauws99 on January 24, 2016, 17:19

Quote from: stock-will-eat-itself on January 24, 2016, 14:40
They're an oddly conservative company. The same business model as when they started, sell it cheap stack it high.

If there's no innovation there can only be one outcome.

Because up till now its worked for them and the competition has been very poor. If someone cracks Quality Control and better ability to identify customer needs through better search/ customer insight technology they could be in trouble but lets wait for the next set of results before we start digging their grave they were still growing pretty fast last time they reported. And actually that model still works in retail after at least 100 years ....in the UK at least the big players forgot it and we now have European discounters snapping at their heels.

I agree poor competition is the problem. Getty has been staying on top for decades by just buying up the competition and shutting it down. When a smaller company starts to innovate e.g. Istock they are used to just chomping it down and destroying it. Things should get interesting now adobe has also entered the fray.

Karen · « **Reply #63 on:** January 25, 2016, 11:18 »

Quote from: YadaYadaYada on January 22, 2016, 21:48

723,000 is nothing 825,763 new stock images added this week. 10 million new photos every 12 weeks. Carry on.

Fotolia has published today they just passed the 50 million milestone.
Next goal is 100 million!!!

The marijuana guy have got a fresh new stuff

jonbull · « **Reply #64 on:** January 28, 2016, 08:40 »

the end will be easy

- nobody will make a good living...
-. stock will be more amateurish with lower quality and difference...wjo is gonna invest in serious shooting? or travel remote country? yes this amateur will always shoot colosseo in rom, bangkok skyline, new york, but those really different shot only a skilled pro can take bye bye

it's clear this industry is gonna make rich the owner of those agency and nobody more. lucky i am going the quality way...old macro agency, printing, show, woking with agent. i did this choice some years ago and now is paying, in addiction i found microstok really was a limit for creativity to the point you lost your spontaneity to create shot really different.
still uploading some garbage , photos i will put in garbage if rejected, to make some 5 600 dollar month who help finance some travel or equipment.

jonbull · « **Reply #65 on:** January 28, 2016, 08:48 »

Another interesting theme it's the spamming and flowing of millions photos in the last year from ukraine and russia. i was in ukraine many times and

-it's cheap production...every girl is beautiful with a good attitude towards camera, you can pay her 20 euro and she's happy with the photos....theme are simple don't cost nothing...you can have assistant and other workers for 200 dollar month...studio run so cheap.
- cost of life is ridiculous,. with 800 dollar you can live a life you can dream in new york with 3000 dollar....

the 2 point make for thousand and thousand of people becoming photographer in a second, pouring zillion of similar concepts saturating everything.

jonbull · « **Reply #66 on:** January 28, 2016, 08:49 »

Quote from: Svetlana on January 25, 2016, 01:57

Here's another one... and one more.
I wonder how many such ports have been added recently and how the numbers would change if these were deleted (or not accepted, in the first place).

as i said the first come from where?= ukraine...again.

Groman · « **Reply #67 on:** January 28, 2016, 12:46 »

98% of new pictures just CRAPS.

Example:
http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-361647683/stock-photo-rice-seedlings-in-the-rice-fields.html?src=Q9qZ0Ey8z6givNnS3-f5FQ-1-10

They are kidding me?

Shutterstock become slowly to landfill.

StanRohrer · « **Reply #68 on:** January 28, 2016, 13:20 »

So will the agencies eventually go the way of us stock shooters? We eventually hit the wall where increased contributions don't make up for the falling sales. Will the agencies hit a wall where the increasing incoming contributions do not make up for the cost of reviewers, storage, backup storage, and billing overhead? At these growth rates, at some point the cost of image management (maybe cheap - but not free) must be approaching sales income when each image has such low sales. Anybody got a guess where is the agency wall and how close are they?

Asthebelltolls · « **Reply #69 on:** January 28, 2016, 13:41 »

Agencies are empowered. Period. They can do anything they want to increase profit.

Until we organize or, for lack of a better word, unionize and setup an agency made by the contributors/for the contributors - AND agree to submit exclusively to that agency, we will all be at the mercy of stock agencies. Period.

jonbull · « **Reply #70 on:** January 28, 2016, 15:59 »

Quote from: Groman on January 28, 2016, 12:46

98% of new pictures just CRAPS.

Example:
http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-361647683/stock-photo-rice-seedlings-in-the-rice-fields.html?src=Q9qZ0Ey8z6givNnS3-f5FQ-1-10

They are kidding me?

Shutterstock become slowly to landfill.

and you know?

all a series of aerial photography like this has been rejected for the most ridiculous thing...these photos are pretty unusual, u find few similar aerial like this, they are made not with go pro like most of the aerial photography u see in micro stock, and clearly shoot at sunset or before you must have a trade off between noise and sharpness...but the reviewer not even realize this.
as i said these are only the photo i not like from my aerial beach series, i send to micro stock because i didn't know what to do. other agency have taken it already so we'll see if they sell. but clearly it will be useless to send images to shutter stock.

jonbull · « **Reply #71 on:** January 28, 2016, 16:02 »

Quote from: Asthebelltolls on January 28, 2016, 13:41

Agencies are empowered. Period. They can do anything they want to increase profit.

Until we organize or, for lack of a better word, unionize and setup an agency made by the contributors/for the contributors - AND agree to submit exclusively to that agency, we will all be at the mercy of stock agencies. Period.

i agree...stocksy is a good experiment but i don't have the portfolio for them. and i don't know if stocks sell good

noodle · « **Reply #72 on:** January 28, 2016, 16:04 »

Quote from: Groman on January 28, 2016, 12:46

98% of new pictures just CRAPS.

Example:
http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-361647683/stock-photo-rice-seedlings-in-the-rice-fields.html?src=Q9qZ0Ey8z6givNnS3-f5FQ-1-10

They are kidding me?

Pretty poor to call someone elses work out as "crap" and link to it
We all have our dissapointments with various agencies, but this is not good form

Shutterstock become slowly to landfill.

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #73 on:** February 04, 2016, 22:42 »

Just now, the counts are 74,808,398 images / 843,151 added this week

Microstockphoto · « **Reply #74 on:** February 05, 2016, 04:27 »

review time is 24 hours or less and also considering they reject 40% or so, reviewing about 1.5 - 2 million images each week, it has to be technology. employees cost money, they are reducing cost, cutting royalties, maximising profit, so they will not hire people to review. welcome to the machine

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: 723,027 new images added this week! (Read 28593 times)

Steveball

Ides

YadaYadaYada

Microstockphoto

PZF

dpimborough

Red Dove

LesPalenik

stock-will-eat-itself

etudiante_rapide

Pauws99

Svetlana

Justanotherphotographer

Karen

jonbull

jonbull

jonbull

Groman

StanRohrer

Asthebelltolls

jonbull

jonbull

noodle

Jo Ann Snover

Microstockphoto

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors