Part one, I don't know if I'll keep this data, so I wanted to post it maybe a last time.

SS Members by registration year rounded
2004 - 2000
2005 - 4300
2006 - 3900 = 9000
2007 - 3800 = 13,000
2008 - 5500 = 19,000
2009 - 7200 = 27,000
2010 - 6000 = 33,000
2011 - 6000 = 39,000
2012 - 10000 = 49,000
2013 - 11000 = 60,000
2014 - 14000 = 74,000
2015 - 26000 = 100,000
2016 - 64000 = 165,000

-=-=-

Year   Cont YR   < 0 Img      Cont % < 0   Cont T      < 0      Cont % < 0

2004    1,950       1,030       52.82%    1,950       1,030       52.82%
2005    15,426       4,725       30.63%    17,376       5,755       33.12%
2006    26,349       3,676       13.95%    43,725       9,431       21.57%
2007    36,631       3,939       10.75%    80,356       13,370       16.64%
2008    48,267       5,767       11.95%    128,623    19,137       14.88%
2009    70,125       7,866       11.22%    198,748    27,003       13.59%
2010    58,454       6,324       10.82%    257,202    33,327       12.96%
2011    66,479       6,026       9.06%       323,681    39,353       12.16%
2012    154,082    9,661       6.27%       477,763    49,014       10.26%
2013    205,951    10,990       5.34%       683,714    60,004       8.78%
2014    228,906    14,050       6.14%       912,620    74,053       8.11%
2015    343,461    26,455       7.7%       1,256,081    100,508    8.00%
2016    422,950    64,440       15.24%    1,679,031    164,949    9.82%

I'm not sure the number of contributors makes a difference any longer. The number is so large, people come and go. I'll try to stick with images from now on.

By my figures I think increase in images was slowing by percentage from the site opening until 2011 (the lowest increase/ year being something like 26-27%)
It has been increasing since then (up until 2016 anyway, the last time I ran the figures). 2016 saw a 75% increase in library size.

Most importantly % increase in payouts has been increasing at a slower rate than number of images since 2012ish, meaning RPI on average is way down. The difference in rates has also been getting worse.

I mapped my personal RPI against their payout per image and the graphs mirrored each other exactly (I make more per image than their average but the shape was the same when the figures are mapped on separate y axis). It was eerie actually how close the fit was.

Just for the record, April 17th 2017 - 190,062,118 royalty-free stock images / 1,441,895 new this week, clicking over to 180 million didn't even make me look. That's how many are added and burying individuals like us.

Shutterstock Milestones:

September 21, 2006 - Shutterstock surpasses one million stock photos
February 20, 2009 -Shutterstock reaches 6 million photos, (5 million 2.5 years)
February 14, 2010 - Shutterstock reaches 10 million Photos (4 million 12 months)
June 19, 2012 - Shutterstock reaches 20 million stock Images (10 Million 28 months)
October 30, 2013 - Shutterstock reaches 30 million images (10 million 15 months)
August 4, 2014 - Shutterstock celebrates 40 million images in it's collection. (10 million 10 months)
December 31, 2014 - 46.8 million images in the collection. (1 million new files per month)
March 3, 2015 - 50 Million Image mark is reached (10 million in 7 months for those watching)
August 12, 2015 - 60 Million Images (10 million in 160 days. 62,500 new files a day)
December 15, 2015 - 70 Million Images (four months)
March 26, 2016 - 80 Million
June 16, 2016 - 90 Million (10 million under three months)
Sept 8, 2016 - 100 Million
February 2017 - 110 Million
October 28, 2017 � 160 Million
December 29, 2017 - 170 Million (10 million new two months)
April 16, 2018 - 190 Million (20 million new in 3.5 months)

Look back at 2012, that was the total on the site = 20 million, now we have competition adding that many in under four months! Doesn't matter that standards are down, or popular isn't anything that resembles what we'd think meant popular. The numbers are enough to kill any solid returns like we used to have.

...and yet you all keep posting that Shutterstock is where it's at, bringing in 100 million more images. Oh, how ironic. 

SS is where it's at for my Microstock income, making the best money for me, (others may have different results) just that some wonder why their sales have dropped. Also it's just a matter of record not a personal anything. "Hey look, 200,000 new photos a day" and people wonder why the servers are slow, especially for video uploads. And wonder why it takes 72 hours for something to get populated across all the servers in the world. The numbers are the answer to many of the questions and also the frivolous claims.

Maybe I'm pointing out the obvious? But like I've said before, it's just a record. Anyone can make anything they want for all these numbers. My take is, the new files are burying all of us. I'm not going into why my sales have been flat, or maybe I could call that steady as a more positive way to say the same? I know people personally that have much better photos, video, illustrations and materials than I do, more than I do, and they have dropped in half.

Yes of course I like ShutterStock, I earn the most from them in spite of the adverse growth and increased competition. Everyone else needs to decide for themselves. I think many have different and better answers than what I do. Fine with me... Do your own thing.

Nothing at all is ironic about noting milestones or warning new people that they need to find something else to do. Microstock is not easy money like some others seem to claim. It's hard work for the small number that succeed, and it's difficult, no make that harder than ever, at this point to make any sustainable returns for ones work. Nothing is ironic about the fact that SS is my best earning site. How about you?

Quote from: derek on April 16, 2018, 09:44

Adobe and DT completely gone, dead as doornails.... Its basically all about SS.
Weather good or bad todays micro is all about SS.

Quote from: derek on December 28, 2017, 13:34

to upload any further there must be the biggest waste of time in the game!

Makes you think. 

Makes me think what? Derek waffles and waves as much as a leaf in a thunderstorm. One day he hates SS, they ruined stock, the next it's "all about SS". 

I think it's up to anyone involved in this business to make their own decisions. A fairly good number have left, or at best stopped adding new but left files in place earning.  Others have found better outlets for their work, that bring in better returns and income. Some work Alamy and detest Microstock, while others are IS exclusives. It's all individual and any answer here becomes lost and irrelevant, because there are no easy, universal answers. That would make it all so easy, wouldn't it?  The future of Microstock is bleak at best for the individual artist. Nearly insurmountable odds against success for anyone new.

Send me a link, I'd like to see what you do? My "stuff" is public and without any difficulty you can find me on Google Images, Shutterstock, Getty, Adobe, Alamy, or all kinds of easy to find resources. Honestly asking, what do you shoot and where do you concentrate your efforts? What's your plan or advise for the future? Mine is unchanged after the last five years.

Adapt, adjust, measure the needs of the people who pay for photos, and produce things they can use. Find subjects and styles that are needed and not available in sufficient quality and quantity. This will work for Microstock for someone who wants to fight the river of new competition and swim upstream. There is no easy in Microstock.

If you want the don't side, don't give away anything, don't work for exposure, don't waste time on social media being discovered, don't shoot what's already been done, avoid "most popular" and over produced everywhere ideas or subjects.

Quote from: increasingdifficulty on April 17, 2018, 08:31

...and yet you all keep posting that Shutterstock is where it's at, bringing in 100 million more images. Oh, how ironic. 

Well, despite all of this, there are plenty of cases where we are 5 or 6 having a picture on the same subject. It's usually pretty specific topics, but it still works in terms of income.

SS, and microstock in general, are no different from other internet businesses. It is a huge world, so you have the choice between two strategies: either producing huge to flood the market, but with the impossibility to work correctly (like for instance on keywording), or to be on niche markets where there is little offer and a reasonnable demand, but where you gonna have to get the most appropriate offer possible (not necessarily about quality, but in terms of accurateness).

That's actually a big part of the long tail strategy. Once you find the niche you can fill, a big part of the strategy is done. The most difficult remains, being able to develop your business and to innovate once you saturate this little market, but that's another story...

In the meantime, regarding precisely SS, they are far from being my friends, but I just check three indicators: the overall income, the RPI, and, less important, the RPD. In any case, all of the three are the highest of all the platforms (even though sometimes competing with IS). So, in the end, I don't care if there are 200 million or 200 pictures on SS, it still works and gives me time and finance to think to other strategies.

Good answer....;-).

Quote from: increasingdifficulty on April 17, 2018, 08:31

...and yet you all keep posting that Shutterstock is where it's at, bringing in 100 million more images. Oh, how ironic. 

Well, despite all of this, there are plenty of cases where we are 5 or 6 having a picture on the same subject. It's usually pretty specific topics, but it still works in terms of income.

SS, and microstock in general, are no different from other internet businesses. It is a huge world, so you have the choice between two strategies: either producing huge to flood the market, but with the impossibility to work correctly (like for instance on keywording), or to be on niche markets where there is little offer and a reasonnable demand, but where you gonna have to get the most appropriate offer possible (not necessarily about quality, but in terms of accurateness).

That's actually a big part of the long tail strategy. Once you find the niche you can fill, a big part of the strategy is done. The most difficult remains, being able to develop your business and to innovate once you saturate this little market, but that's another story...

In the meantime, regarding precisely SS, they are far from being my friends, but I just check three indicators: the overall income, the RPI, and, less important, the RPD. In any case, all of the three are the highest of all the platforms (even though sometimes competing with IS). So, in the end, I don't care if there are 200 million or 200 pictures on SS, it still works and gives me time and finance to think to other strategies.

Long Tail Strategy, didn't work for these guys?


But yes that's what I've been trying to point out, adapt, adjust, go for something other than the mass of similar to what's already been done. Find a specialty and hammer it! Find subjects that aren't well covered. Any one of us will get more downloads with one of 100 photos than one of 40,000 of any subject. Having one best photo in the 100 will make more than the lost best 10 in the 40,000 slices of common over produced images.

There are 62 pages of jelly donut images. Even if someone had the best darn jelly doughnut ever photographed, 42 pages, and uploaded it today, if your photo isn't on the first few pages, or doesn't get placement and downloads from the new image boost, it's going to move back into the pack and say good-bye to the work and time spent on taking the photo.

If you shot an Alexandertorte you would be one of one. Extreme, sure, but what about Apple Strudel? 10,379 Apple Strudel = really don't bother! How about Danish Kringles, there are only 13 on all of ShutterStock. Just on a whim I picked pastry, because of the cheesecake idea, and in probably 5 minutes found two that someone could procure and photograph and make more money, than being buried on page 30 of any group.

It doesn't take hours or genius to find areas that have a need to be filled. Personally I think it's much smarter than repeating the same shots that are already made and over shot and expecting that somehow, the new versions, of an old subject, will magically get better downloads.

ps don't bother with triple cheeseburger, it's an interesting idea, I've had some shots for years, no market. I think one download and when I found the use it was some article about Big Mac's. Someone brilliant uploaded about 300 of the same illustration with a flag from every country in the world. Oh wow, spam, triple cheeseburger illustrations, the torture has no bounds. 

I'm happy that Most Popular on SS isn't best selling. The lazy people who just copy ideas and make more of anything that ever had hope, will just make more copies and kill the entire subject, concept or specific item.

Hey, uncle Pete, With all due respect, how sure are you to say that "Most Popular on SS isn't best selling"?

Noted there are quite a number of contributors who copied not just the ideas but to simply imitate the popular images like a total copycat and spam them on SS. My images had been copied every now and then but they don't get to be popular.

I like to point out that the reason why images get to be the cream of the crop is not happened by pure luck. Truth is, the more popular your image is, the more it sells. When an image is listed on the 1st page, it will sell better than the one which is listed on the 10 page. why? It's a simple logic. Plus I have my images listed from the first page to the tenth page so i can compare the number each image brings.

"Get a slimmer body without doing exercise nor no diet in just 3 days by taking xxx supplement" Will anyone buy into the idea? You'd be surprised or shouldn't be too surprise that there are people who will and still buy into that. If they believe that's the solution to their problem, they will also believe that success in microstock is to be the copycat as they are and to spam SS with their mediocre counterfeit images. Just be lazy and reaping rewards? Thanks...but no thanks!

My personal view of Most Popular or whatever it's called this week  is the first in the search are "selected suggestions". Things have been that way for quite some time. Old most popular, hypothetically in 2011, was most downloads over time the image was on the system. Reality is more complicated, but that's a nice basic viewpoint of the way it was. So if someone uploaded a picture of a kitten in 2004 and it's sold, over and over, for years, it would have been on the first pages, based on # of downloads.

Second, old days and still now, a new image got featured presentation, because if they didn't, it's no use uploading something new, with no views, no sales and it would just, at best, start in the middle, languish without any change, and slowly slide backwards into oblivion. There was always a "honeymoon" for new and there still is. If you know a particular subject, of your own, that has good sales, and you check from week to week, you'll find your page one images will sometimes be down the page or second page?  Because new images have been uploaded and they are featured. Look a week later or maybe two and if those new images (by keywords) haven't been selling, they will be sliding down the pages. Your best materials will be back on top again.

Not that viewing my own collection is a critical observation, but when I look at my "Most Popular" (not logged in and sometimes on the road, so IP address doesn't say - Hey Pete's looking at his own stuff) I see new images on the first page, I see unsold images on the first page, I see some of my best sellers on the first two pages. If it was what any kid in grade school would say is Most Popular, it would be best selling at the very least?

So that's why my opinion is, that Most Popular since about 2011 has been, Suggested Images that SS wants buyers to see or buy, mixed with best selling, most viewed, newest, and who knows what else?

As far as copying, yeah, what's the difference, anyone can go to any site that isn't manipulating the results and see best selling images, right on top. IS used to show how many sales! Most of us know by now what kind of materials sell best. My only suggestion is, expanding from best selling subjects to best selling ideas and concepts. Or best selling lighting and composition. But if shooting sliced vegetable, or the same two burgers from 50 angles, is the answer to making money for someone who just copies what's most produced, they are going to fail and then blame the system or some conspiracy.

This isn't art, but there is a need for being different and creative, otherwise, why would any buyer think my photos standout? I mean anyone can bake a cheesecake or pick one up and style it, and have a slew of great cheesecake shots. Are they going to sell vs the existing 13,877 Cherry Cheesecake stock photos? Even if they are spectacular and the best darn photo on ShutterStock, first page, most sold? What's the demand and how many different versions can how many buyers need.

That's where our slice of the pie keeps getting smaller and smaller, because there are more and more of every best selling item and a limited number of buyers for those same items. Adding more of something common, is like throwing a pebble into the ocean.

Here's an all time favorite and I'd bet the number, if you check next month, will be ever growing. 308,390 Sliced Vegetables Isolated On White But heck, why fight the masses and the trends, I shouldn't care if the competition keeps shooting stillborn images or wastes their time, day after day, making photos that will rarely get any traction or sales. I should just shut up and say, "yeah that's the answer, keep repeating the same subjects that are dead and hope for better results". 

Nope I don't see that Popular is actually popular, I think it's just Shutterstock Suggests...

Interesting read, thanks Uncle Pete. Unfortunately, it's a pure speculation, so not of any value.

Yes it is speculation, no argument. However, the speculation is based on observations that my best sellers are not first and new files, plus some that have never sold are also on the first page of popular. That leads me to some self evident, simple conclusions.

I'd like the alternative views to what I wrote if you have something to add. That would be interesting. Or point out where my reasoning is wrong? Look at your own collection and most popular, what do you see that's not as I wrote?

Quote from: Uncle Pete on April 20, 2018, 15:39

Quote from: pics2 on April 20, 2018, 14:49

Interesting read, thanks Uncle Pete. Unfortunately, it's a pure speculation, so not of any value.

Yes it is speculation, no argument. However, the speculation is based on observations that my best sellers are not first and new files, plus some that have never sold are also on the first page of popular. That leads me to some self evident, simple conclusions.

I'd like the alternative views to what I wrote if you have something to add. That would be interesting. Or point out where my reasoning is wrong? Look at your own collection and most popular, what do you see that's not as I wrote?

I have almost the same experiences and conclusions based on my portfolio (more than 10 years of microstock work). What I'm optimistic about is that they will be giving up on favoring the bestsellers that are too old, because it's just a nonsense that 10-15 years old pictures are kept on the front page, when there is a flood of new images everyday. Maybe when shareholders hear about that or something. It will change for better, I'm sure.
What I wanted to say earlier is that I would prefer to hear opinions of some insiders that work on these algorithms.

Ah yes, now I understand and I agree. I have never heard anything from anyone at any agency about the secret algorithms they use to make "popular". I'm sure there's some top secret NDA connected.

April 26th before the market opens, SSTK will release the first quarter reports.

[/quote]

I'd agree with pauws that there's an end, especially to 50% growth. It's like a Ponzi scheme. Eventually it starts to collapse and the pyramid only has a few at the peak, supported by the many people on the bottom.
[/quote]


This makes perfect sense to me.

About the algorithm, the attitude of SS isn't completely stupid.

If we take the issue from their point of view, they need to give incentives to everybody. Buyers want good content, if possible various, in order not to look too ridiculous.

To satisfy this demand, SS will need suppliers: experimented ones whose pictures are solid values, that have been generating good revenues for a lot of time. But these photographers need incentives to publish new content, and new challengers need as well to get their chances, in order to motivate them to increase their supply.

Therefore, SS needs to constantly adjust two parameters, that we could call interestingness and freshness, that are very often contradictory. If you favour interestingness, new contents won't have their chance to generate revenue, as old pictures with proven records will take it all. If you favour freshness, you are not sure of the quality.

From what I have observed over the past months, SS has constantly played on this, and I'm not sure they will stop, as they constantly need to incentive both the old and new content.

I have to admit it's a pretty unpleasant feeling when I see my daily revenue decreasing by 60% in less than a week, but it's still a situation that is preferable to many other platforms. IS, in comparison, is overly focusing on interestingness. If you get lucky, one or two photos will get a few sales after their upload, and these few pictures, basically, will make most of the revenue. It's cool when it's working, but it's definitely less stable than SS.

About the algorithm, the attitude of SS isn't completely stupid.

If we take the issue from their point of view, they need to give incentives to everybody. Buyers want good content, if possible various, in order not to look too ridiculous.

To satisfy this demand, SS will need suppliers: experimented ones whose pictures are solid values, that have been generating good revenues for a lot of time. But these photographers need incentives to publish new content, and new challengers need as well to get their chances, in order to motivate them to increase their supply.

Therefore, SS needs to constantly adjust two parameters, that we could call interestingness and freshness, that are very often contradictory. If you favour interestingness, new contents won't have their chance to generate revenue, as old pictures with proven records will take it all. If you favour freshness, you are not sure of the quality.

From what I have observed over the past months, SS has constantly played on this, and I'm not sure they will stop, as they constantly need to incentive both the old and new content.

I have to admit it's a pretty unpleasant feeling when I see my daily revenue decreasing by 60% in less than a week, but it's still a situation that is preferable to many other platforms. IS, in comparison, is overly focusing on interestingness. If you get lucky, one or two photos will get a few sales after their upload, and these few pictures, basically, will make most of the revenue. It's cool when it's working, but it's definitely less stable than SS.

ss need to clean database of poor shots and bad keyword. is not possible keep on like this.