I think we can all agree that luck plays a big role in the images life on shutterstock. Depending on the first sales, it either populates the "relevant" search order or it sinks in the "newest" search order.

For example, a week ago I submitted an illustration and a very similar one with a 3 day interval between them. They were also approved with a 3 day interval. One of the images has had 20 sales since then, the other zero. And they're so similar they would surely be rejected due to similarity if they were a part of the same batch. So, I can safely assume that the life of the image that sells well now will be pretty good. The other one, however, not so good.

Based on things like these, I'm contemplating the following. About a month ago I submitted around 60 images of a pretty female (and I know a lot of folks keywords their images with females as "pretty", when in reality the models are far from it, this is a really pretty girl) isolated on white doing various things like photographing in one outfit, standing confidently as a businesswoman and so on. The whole set was submitted in three batches. I have almost no sales on those files. And don't get me wrong, they're technically correct, they're not cheesy, there are no hard shadows (used an 120cm octobox as main).. still they just don't sell. And I'm thinking it must be luck. Why would my quality images sink in the mass of images without any downloads? Would it be unfair of me to delete all the images and just resubmit them, giving luck another try. I'm confident the images are good and I know how much luck has to do with everything on subscription-based sites like shutterstock, so I'm looking for your input on this. Thanks.

A few months ago I submitted 1 image that immediately started selling well on all sites (especially FT) except Shutterstock.  It was one of my favorites.  A few weeks later I submitted the portrait version of the same file, only this time, it was picked up by SS too, though the landscape version is much better.

Though this is a typical case of "bad luck" in microstock, I would not even dream of deleting and resubmitting it, because (as click-click said), that would be a reason for SS to terminate my account.  Better 5000 images minus 1 than none at all ...

Can't understand why some try to game the system for loose change. Big waste of time.

Yeah; but... The two illustrations are almost identical. Doesn't that prove the point that luck is such a huge factor in determining the lifetime sales of a file? Not the only one (I don't want to be misunderstood; great images will always sell pretty good if they don't get burried in the "newest" search order), but a really big one.

Agreed luck plays a big part, that's life, forget it and move on. If you start trying to game the system you will get your account closed.

Years ago, I remember Shutterstock addressing this very issue in their forums.  Their answer: No, you may not delete and resubmit images just because they aren't selling or to give them better placement.  They only allow resubmission of approved images if you found something wrong with the image after approval, and you must submit a note detailing the issue.  If they catch you resubmitting non-selling images, they will issue a warning against your account.

The trick to getting sales on similar images is to submit them at different times far apart.  I'm in the habit of dividing up photos from a large batch into smaller batches that stretch over the course of a year.

Yes, I also spread my batches.  If they're seasonal, like Easter photos, I even spread them over 2 or 3 years. 

So, sometimes sending pictures with difference of 1 year. Do so as. At first it is slow, but when you have multiple work items will be normal. And sales will rise.

I might suggest improving your photography skills so you don't have to "heavily retouch." I'm not saying that to be mean or be a smarta$$, I just remember when I first started out, I couldn't shoot isolated objects correctly. I had to do clipping paths in PS to get it. In the early days, that worked out OK. As time went on and standards at the agencies improved, I had to learn how to do it with lighting. It really cut down on post-production. Same with any object or subject and any lighting.

Ranting is good!  Resubmitting is bad. 

Lol. I do beauty and fashion retouching which takes a while if you want it to be done correctly, so it has nothing to do with my photography, but thanks for the comment.

Oh plenty of those around in micro mate, including myself, those who create composites, 3D, etc....
We all put a tremendous amount of PP in our work just to come up with something new/different.

Even if YOU think your images are good, it doesn't mean the customers find the suitable for their projects.
You may have photographed the prettiest girl and retouched your images masterfully, but if no customer need an image like yours, it doesn't sell.

Can you provide us a link to the images so we can find reasons for the poor sales? Otherwise we can only speculate...

This propably doesn't apply to the original question, but... :

I propably retouch 90% less than I did five years ago. Especially when I'm shooting a series of images, I rather tinker with my lights and props for 10 more minutes in the beginning than retouch 12 hours. I'm not kidding.
It's almost always a stupid thing to think "I will fix it in Photoshop" instead of fixing the problem right away.

Of course I make some images that are heavily photoshopped, but I still try to shoot the raw material in a way that will make it as easy as possible to make the final image in Photoshop.

That's fine, but I'm not talking about the type of stuff that you can solve with lights and props.

Cclapper, thanks, I'll try uploading those to Alamy.