Jump to content
Thomas J. Sebourn

The Cold Hard Truth About Low Sales

Recommended Posts

Quote

I personally don't like to upload too many similars. I don't think buyers like that either

My experience with SS lately (last 18 months or so) seems to hint at otherwise.  The goal now appears to be to "own" category by quantity.  Its the only way to get your head above water.  Im now utterly convinced with the current SS standards, more is better.  Quality really isn't the issue any more - the best image in the world simply wont stand out if its buried amongst 200 not quite as good but adequate images on the same thing.

 

Quote

Lets not insult the buyers by saying that just because something comes up first in a search, they will buy some crap image, that isn't suitable.

 

I know quite a few people in various industries and they say first hand thats EXACTLY what they do.  They've got an article to write and its one of many, they have deadlines, they just need to get it done, they search, they find the first image that matches the criteria and its done, especially when your package allows a large number per day.  They never go to page 2 of search results or further for things like that.  Its a 2 second photo for a 20 minute article.

Sure not all stock buyers do that but a lot do.  Some other sites that allow you to see the exact search term used for your photo also show it - a lot of them can be best described as tenous or sometimes totally inappropriate for the image but they buy it anyway,

Its similar to google now - its all about getting onto that first search page for the given topic as nobody goes to page 2.  And under the current regime is blanket acceptance of all images the only way to do that is with bulk.[/quote]

 

Quote

And back to, how dumb do some people think the buyers are, That they will buy substandard work? If you were a buyer, would you buy something you didn't like or need, just because you saw it?

A lot of buyers are minimum wage office people with a list of things to do.  They'll buy the quickest thing they can find thats vaguely suitable so they can move onto the next thing on their list.  Sometimes they'll buy 3 or 4 as they have a daily quota to use.

I'd venture only a minority of buyers have criteria so precise or a project so big it warrants a lot of time looking for an image.

From my experience on SS of the last 7 years or so and several other people i know of on it for our type of images at least, sales is directly proportional to portfolio size.  There's no "quality" thing in there.  Its a straight line, you can predict the monthly income extremely accurately just from knowing the total number of images in a catalogue.  Quite a few of us have noticed this direct link and its a link thats been there since day 1.  The only thing different these days is the revenue per image figure has decreased 50% or so (due mainly to the massive expansion of SS) but the relationship still holds true.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/7/2017 at 7:14 AM, cpaulfell said:

Criticism is not bitterness. If you ask the question expect to get answers. People have been brought up (especially in North America) with a "good joooob" for mediocre attempts and medals for participation, but that unfortunately has not prepared them very well for life. From my experience, don't expect to get "inspiration" from the forum. You have probably read this before but I like to read it every now and as a reminder to myself...

RULE 1 ... Life is not fair; get used to it.

RULE 2 ... The world won't care about your self-esteem. The world will expect you to accomplish something BEFORE you feel good about yourself.

RULE 3 ... You will NOT make 40 thousand dollars a year right out of high school. You won't be a vice president with a car phone, until you earn both.

RULE 4 ... If you think your teacher is tough, wait till you get a boss. He doesn't have tenure.

RULE 5 .. .Flipping burgers is not beneath your dignity. Your grandparents had a different word for burger flipping; they called it opportunity.

RULE 6 ... If you mess up, it's not your parents' fault, so don't whine about your mistakes, learn from them.

RULE 7 ... Before you were born, your parents weren't as boring as they are now. They got that way from paying your bills, cleaning your clothes and listening to you talk about how cool you are. So before you save the rain forest from the parasites of your parents' generation, try "delousing" the closet in your own room.

RULE 8 ... Your school may have done away with winners and losers, but life has not. In some schools they have abolished failing grades; they'll give you as many times as you want to get the right answer. This doesn't bear the slightest resemblance to ANYTHING in real life.

RULE 9 ... Life is not divided into semesters. You don't get summer off and very few employers are interested in helping you find yourself. Do that on your own time.

RULE 10 ... Television is NOT real life. In real life people actually have to leave the coffee shop and go to jobs.

RULE 11 ... Be nice to nerds. Chances are you'll end up working for one.

RULE 3 kind of gives away how old this list is ;)

On a more serious note, SS have released an app to enable mobile phone uploading. That is depressing because everyone will now be a photographer. With the fast development of Apple's camera technology with every new iphone model they can be too! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well yet again Google produce a camera that beats apples latest release but i take your point.  Modern cell phone cameras are more than capable of getting saleable shots if used correctly.  The problem this combined with the "accept everything" reviewing means the database gets filled with even more average shots from many more people so the slice of the pie goes down for everyone.  SS remains happy as their sales dont drop.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Richard Whitcombe said:

Well yet again Google produce a camera that beats apples latest release but i take your point.  Modern cell phone cameras are more than capable of getting saleable shots if used correctly.  The problem this combined with the "accept everything" reviewing means the database gets filled with even more average shots from many more people so the slice of the pie goes down for everyone.  SS remains happy as their sales dont drop.

 

Rubbish isn't it. This isn't the  career in photography I signed up to way back 30 years ago as a student.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ive got no problem with technology advancing to the point that tiny handheld devices can outperform what would have been multi thousand dollar devices a few short years ago.  Its progress and its good.  The pixel 2 camera is fantastic.  Samsungs new effort isnt far behind.

My main "problem" with SS currently is their corporate goal seems to be purely to be the biggest in terms of images,  size is everything.  That means they're allow things that would never have been accepted not long ago which dilutes the quality and effectively drowns out better quality images.  They've lowered the bar because their main goal is to get more and more images.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

They've lowered the bar because their main goal is to get more and more images.

It's just simple math. The number of buyers isn't growing much, yet the number of images is and substantially...which inevitably means lower earnings per image, on average.

The way things are currently heading, Shutterstock will be the first BILLION IMAGE agency by 2022. Of those 1 billion at least 50 million cat images, I bet. 

Grim times ahead, but as always, there's opportunities...just need to know where to look. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, HodagMedia said:

Accurate keywords are better than the people who think they can spam their way into the eyes of buyers.

Lets not insult the buyers by saying that just because something comes up first in a search, they will buy some crap image, that isn't suitable.

 

Yes, Yes, Yes!   Agreed 1000%

Maybe tendency of newcomers is to spam more;  I don't mean it in a bad way, it is usually lack of knowledge that gets corrected fairly soon with those that play by the rules.

 

There is fairly simple way to fight this;  one agency I contribute to has it implemented.   Each contributor has a rank.  It is determined by variety of things, but one of them is ratio of views :: zooms.   View means when your photo was returned in a search;   Zoom means when customer actually picked your photo and zoomed in (regardless of purchase);  it means he was interested, and it was something he was looking for.   They call this "CTR" (Click Through Rate)

 

So basically if you spam with keywords, your rank will keep dropping -- because nobody will zoom your photos.   Rank directly impacts where (which page) your photo is returned in search results.  So you get punished for spamming in intelligent and fair way (to me at least).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Autumn Sky Photography said:

 

There is fairly simple way to fight this;  one agency I contribute to has it implemented.   Each contributor has a rank.  It is determined by variety of things, but one of them is ratio of views :: zooms.   View means when your photo was returned in a search;   Zoom means when customer actually picked your photo and zoomed in (regardless of purchase);  it means he was interested, and it was something he was looking for.   They call this "CTR" (Click Through Rate)

 

So basically if you spam with keywords, your rank will keep dropping -- because nobody will zoom your photos.   Rank directly impacts where (which page) your photo is returned in search results.  So you get punished for spamming in intelligent and fair way (to me at least).

Some agencies do this but i dont think anyone has shown that SS do this (and to my knowledge they haven't announced it either).

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am new to SS and working on my portfolio.  I just did it mostly to start taking more pictures and challenging myself with different techniques and subjects.

I have to admit, in support of the comments made by the OP, it was very easy to be accepted which really surprised me.  Since joining, I have been blown away by some amazing photos and embarrassed for others.  But I give credit to everyone out there taking pics and putting themselves out there.  I look forward to learning a lot more than earning my 25 cents :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/16/2017 at 8:32 AM, HodagMedia said:

Lets not insult the buyers by saying that just because something comes up first in a search, they will buy some crap image, that isn't suitable. The argument that SS somehow favors some lesser images for some reason, is totally illogical, if the objective is putting the best match and best quality first? And back to, how dumb do some people think the buyers are, That they will buy substandard work? If you were a buyer, would you buy something you didn't like or need, just because you saw it?

I met and spoke with an insider from another stock agency once (one that I used to contribute to). He said that their research had shown most buyers will not look past 4 or at most 5 pages of images before they either settle for something close to what they want, or simply stop searching that site. 

I can certainly attest to this from my own experience as a buyer (actually using the station's account) of stock music clips. That's because anyone working under a deadline simply doesn't have time to browse through 40 pages of _________________. It's not going to happen, and if they can't find what they want in the first few pages at one agency, they will look at another. I used to do that when I had to search for online music cuts.

What's most distressing about this is if those first few pages are loaded up with lots of similars of "snapshots", they are less likely to come back: Once bitten, twice shy.

Nobody is suggesting that buyers are buying "crap" or something that isn't "suitable." But what they may be buying - while acceptable for the spur of the moment - may not be the best they could get had they had more time to dig deeper.

I would think the goal of any customer service-related industry like this would be to make the customer's job as quick and easy as possible to find the best image possible. Somehow, I think presenting a customer with dozens of pages of poorly keyworded and technically subpar images would work against that goal. But maybe that's just me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/6/2017 at 10:40 PM, k_t_graphics said:

Wow talk about arrogant.

Talk about self denying the real issues but that's alright. Lots of competition, crazy uploading because of "gold fever" and lots of cheating via stealing. Not to mention most standards removed by SS thus promoting a flood of images. Lots of factors here.

No reason to be unprofessional about it. <_<

Agree, unbelievable arrogance. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agree 100%.  Nearly every time someone complains about no sales I click their port and see a pile of garbage.  You never click on ports of the whiners and have your jaw drop at the outstanding photography.

 

I joined Shutterstock two years ago, back when getting accepted here wasn't a joke.  It took me 3 or 4 tries to get in, I was super frustrated because I thought I was good.  I wasn't.  Once I got in, most of my new submissions were rejected.  The first month I made $1.50.  Second month I made $1.00.  It was that cold hard dose of reality that drove me to become better, to think outside of the box.  Instead of whining on here and waving the white flag I set out on a different path of determination.  I guess it's just how I'm wired.  Slowly over the months my sales increased from $1 to $7 a month.  It took me seven months to make over $10 a month.  I remember that as if it were a huge accomplishment, at the time it was.  

 

Last month I brought in $549.99 on shutterstock.  Compared to my $1.50 in Sept of 2015 I'd say that's just fine.  I'm still just as driven.  I want to look back on Sept of 2017 earnings and laugh within two more years.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Today I put together a small article with some examples of the types of shots that buyers are looking to purchase, related to the current trends of "millennials using technology" and "modern open plan office". Check it out here: 

http://brutallyhonestmicrostock.com/2017/10/23/whats-trending-millennials-technology/

Hopefully this input will get some contributors thinking more about creating useful types of images, not just snapshots that are accepted by QC but sit there for ages.

Alex

 

raul-2.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/21/2017 at 3:29 AM, Phil Lowe said:


What's most distressing about this is if those first few pages are loaded up with lots of similars of "snapshots", they are less likely to come back: Once bitten, twice shy.

 

Phil, that is excellent point IMHO.  But the situation is similar (if not worse!)  on competitor agencies.  It would be interesting to know the stat -- "most popular" versus "new";  I'd expect  "most popular" gets far more sales.  Also I'd probably expect "most popular" tab to have good, quality shots on first page or two (they would not be downloaded otherwise).   So the real question in my mind is how to prevent your own high-end shot of being buried behind piles of "similars" or "snapshots" just because it did not gather these initial couple of sales to get it going.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Nicholas Courtney said:

Agree 100%.  Nearly every time someone complains about no sales I click their port and see a pile of garbage.  You never click on ports of the whiners and have your jaw drop at the outstanding photography.

 

I joined Shutterstock two years ago, back when getting accepted here wasn't a joke.  It took me 3 or 4 tries to get in, I was super frustrated because I thought I was good.  I wasn't.  Once I got in, most of my new submissions were rejected.  The first month I made $1.50.  Second month I made $1.00.  It was that cold hard dose of reality that drove me to become better, to think outside of the box.  Instead of whining on here and waving the white flag I set out on a different path of determination.  I guess it's just how I'm wired.  Slowly over the months my sales increased from $1 to $7 a month.  It took me seven months to make over $10 a month.  I remember that as if it were a huge accomplishment, at the time it was.  

 

Last month I brought in $549.99 on shutterstock.  Compared to my $1.50 in Sept of 2015 I'd say that's just fine.  I'm still just as driven.  I want to look back on Sept of 2017 earnings and laugh within two more years.

 

 

This is great post Nicholas!  It is actually fascinating watching "smartphone photographer" revolution, and - among other things- expectation "I'll snap few images here and there and withing a year I will be filthy rich and retired".  

 

Fact is, this is hard work, from technical skills, post-processing, following trends to "marketing" (keywording) etc.  But, despite piles and piles of "similars" and "snapshots" as Phil says, I still believe quality eventually sells.  So if you have that good, quality photo and are able to "market" it properly at the end it will be successful. Maybe I'm wrong.

 

Out of curiosity -- is that Costa Rica waterfall really your best seller?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Autumn Sky Photography said:

This is great post Nicholas!  It is actually fascinating watching "smartphone photographer" revolution, and - among other things- expectation "I'll snap few images here and there and withing a year I will be filthy rich and retired".  

 

Fact is, this is hard work, from technical skills, post-processing, following trends to "marketing" (keywording) etc.  But, despite piles and piles of "similars" and "snapshots" as Phil says, I still believe quality eventually sells.  So if you have that good, quality photo and are able to "market" it properly at the end it will be successful. Maybe I'm wrong.

 

Out of curiosity -- is that Costa Rica waterfall really your best seller?

Thanks!

The Costa Rica Waterfall pic sells very frequently.  My most downloaded pic is the Denver Capital building shot, those are my top two photos for sure.  If you search "Denver Colorado" I think I have 10 or so pics in the top 100.  I'm in the process of uploading 3 weeks worth of Europe photos, and I do have quite a few solid drone shots of castles, cities, etc that I have high hopes for.  I put in hours and hours of hard work.  Setting alarms for sunrise when you are jet lagged is awful, but if you want to make money you have to put in the work.  

By no means am I saying I'm the best or anything like that.  I do watch hours worth of youtube videos of a few great artists doing lightroom edits every month, I sometimes spend over an hour editing one single photo, I just work really hard at this.  I guess that's why it irks me when people are so quick to throw their arms in the air and surrender.  Different mentality I guess.

Like you said, I think an outstanding unique photo will always rise above the pond scum and find its way at the top of the list.  It may take time, but quality will endure.  That waterfall pic went unnoticed for its first month or so and then starting really picking up steam.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Autumn Sky Photography said:

Phil, that is excellent point IMHO.  But the situation is similar (if not worse!)  on competitor agencies.  It would be interesting to know the stat -- "most popular" versus "new";  I'd expect  "most popular" gets far more sales.  Also I'd probably expect "most popular" tab to have good, quality shots on first page or two (they would not be downloaded otherwise).   So the real question in my mind is how to prevent your own high-end shot of being buried behind piles of "similars" or "snapshots" just because it did not gather these initial couple of sales to get it going.

What is most popular is still a mystery? I mean if it was most sales, most downloads, then we'd understand if some photo that's been here since 2005 would always be on the first page, and then people would complain, it's impossible to break through to the front pages. So it appears new files get a real boost, for a short time and become most popular. If they get sales, they stay up in the first pages, until something newer comes in. I'd say the Most Popular has all kinds of values and measures that we don't know and can't guess.

 

On 10/21/2017 at 4:29 AM, Phil Lowe said:

I met and spoke with an insider from another stock agency once (one that I used to contribute to). He said that their research had shown most buyers will not look past 4 or at most 5 pages of images before they either settle for something close to what they want, or simply stop searching that site. 

I can certainly attest to this from my own experience as a buyer (actually using the station's account) of stock music clips. That's because anyone working under a deadline simply doesn't have time to browse through 40 pages of _________________. It's not going to happen, and if they can't find what they want in the first few pages at one agency, they will look at another. I used to do that when I had to search for online music cuts.

What's most distressing about this is if those first few pages are loaded up with lots of similars of "snapshots", they are less likely to come back: Once bitten, twice shy.

Nobody is suggesting that buyers are buying "crap" or something that isn't "suitable." But what they may be buying - while acceptable for the spur of the moment - may not be the best they could get had they had more time to dig deeper.

I would think the goal of any customer service-related industry like this would be to make the customer's job as quick and easy as possible to find the best image possible. Somehow, I think presenting a customer with dozens of pages of poorly keyworded and technically subpar images would work against that goal. But maybe that's just me.

True but if buyers don't buy those first images, they will not stay in front very long. And if buyers down't download an image, the person making it gains nothing. Many times people shout "unfair" and complain how someone is taking away sales, with spam or placement. Which makes me say again, buyers will not buy crap images, just because they see them first! So yes people are suggesting that SS forces low pay new people or some other selected people in front of us, for unfair reasons. I don't think so.

The system may be flawed sometimes, but it's the same for all of us.

Of course I agree with you from the buyers standpoint, look for what they want and if it's not there, go someplace else. I don't doubt that the usual is only looking at the first 5 pages or less, unless it's really important and must have something specific. The better the search and the words or terms entered by a buyer, the better the results. But the search needs to be designed so a buyer can find what they need.

So we have two separate issues getting mixed together. People who play the system for placement vs how the system places the images we submit. Just because something is first or there are similar, doesn't make a sale. On the other side, buyers will be angry or frustrated if they can't find what they want easily. But they won't buy crap, just because they see it first! :)

 

Good quality, useful images, subjects, composition, and concepts that buyers want and need, will always sell. Images with good accurate keywords, not just 50 because we can have 50, will sell better. Junk and spam shouldn't have any advantage and shouldn't make sales? I don't believe there's any market advantage to many similar snapshots, with flawed and false keywords. I don't think those people take anything away from my sales here. I'm competing against other quality images or same subjects, not misguided substandard filler.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 I'd say the Most Popular has all kinds of values and measures that we don't know and can't guess.

Most popular for me is random, its certainly not my most popular images ever or the most popular this year or even the most popular this month.  None of my top and regular selling images are on there yet ones which have sold once seem to head the list.

The word "popular" is misleading - random would be more appropriate.

I'd also argue with buyers wont buy crap.  Most do, especially the subscription ones.  The first image they see "that'll do" will be bought and the article finished quickly.  They dont have the time and inclination in lots of offices to spend more time looking for "better" when it wont gain them anything.  They just need an image to illustrate a point or article and thats as far as it goes.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That other agency that starts with i and is owned by G just released a phone app. Letter A already had that for over a year. Personally I don't have much use for a phone that takes pictures, I like cameras, but that's the way the world is spinning. Facebook, Twitter, phone snaps of everything, selfies, nearly everything right now. I have uploaded phone images recently and not one has sold, but I'll be happy when the first one does?

Most popular, when we look at our own, is not quite random but it's sure hard to tell what makes something go to the top. This changed a few weeks ago. If you haven't looked lately at your own gallery page, popular has more of a resemblance of sales and age than it used to. My best sellers are actually scattered throughout the first page. The one with the most recent sales, is first, but they aren't all in a row. A new file with sold first time yesterday, is before a first time sale file that I uploaded last year. (but sold this morning)

Age on system/sales has some weight, but it's reversed so new images that sell many times, are before older images that have more sales. A new image with one sale, is before and older image with one sale. (one sold Monday, the older one Tuesday) Anything that gets a sale, will appear on the "Popular" first page for a while, then ages off with more sales of other files.

New upload on a search that brings up eight pages, I'm on page one = popular. The one that sold first day, is first line of the search, second image. Three word search. I should watch and see how long the two images take to age down the list. I'd expect that newer of the same and more sales, will pass me. Fine, at least I got placement to start with? If I click NEW I'm on the third line. What's a mystery is, why would the unsold version be placed higher in popular than it is on new?

Yes I only upload two of a subject most of the time. Maybe three if I do square, landscape and another crop for composition. There's no way to know if it helps or hurts or does nothing? ;) But if a buyer looks and sees 20 of the same shot, first reaction is, there's an instant perception that the images are common. That's why I like to have my selected "best" be my versions, and if there's a flood of spam, mine might stand out as different and interesting.

The whole idea that 20 or 50 similar shots, will give a buyer a choice for the "perfect shot" makes no sense to me. If presented with a good composition that covers the idea, a buyer isn't going to worry if the spoon is on the left or right and everything else is identical. Then the next the tomato is in the spoon, not on the table. The next the tomato is speared by a fork, nothing else changed... you get the idea. And this is a real sequence which I won't link to but the photographer, moved one item, snap, move one item, snap, for about 40 shots! My personal opinion is, I'm not doing that, I don't think it matters. If I do a sequence of shots that would be different.

Not saying I have "the answers' or anything special. Like Farbled says, we all have different ideas and ways to make this work. Mine is only upload a few of the best. And before someone goes to look, there are some that I probably uploaded saying "I wonder if this will pass" many years ago, that are a waste of space and time and will never make a sale, ever! Technically they might be fine, but for subject and composition or having some meaning or making a statement for a buyer = FAIL! :o

Would you buy this photo of tortilla chips? Why? I don't know why I took it or why I uploaded it. So don't think I'm all uppity and pretend to be pure and perfect. I'm enjoying what I do and I like the payback from licenses. I'm always learning new ways and trying to come up with new ideas. Some are pretty good, some are misguided, nasty and weak at best.

stock-photo-large-bowl-of-taco-tortilla-

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great discussion;  I'd disagree that "Most Popular" is random, at least on SS.   Because (as someone also pointed out)  my most downloaded images / images that generated most revenue are on 1st page, or on 1st half of first page.   Assuming that same algorithm is used for customer search of course.

 

Re 'customers buying crap':  There is certainly room for discussion for subs, i.e.  "I need something quick for tomorrow paper edition & I have subscription so anything will do because it costs little".  But for extended licenses, on demand images, etc.  IMHO it can not be the case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Autumn Sky Photography said:

Great discussion;  I'd disagree that "Most Popular" is random, at least on SS.   Because (as someone also pointed out)  my most downloaded images / images that generated most revenue are on 1st page, or on 1st half of first page.   Assuming that same algorithm is used for customer search of course.

 

Re 'customers buying crap':  There is certainly room for discussion for subs, i.e.  "I need something quick for tomorrow paper edition & I have subscription so anything will do because it costs little".  But for extended licenses, on demand images, etc.  IMHO it can not be the case.

In the UK most newspapers have sacked their photographers and depend almost entirely on images lifted from social media or submitted by readers (even some big nationals). They would rather publish poorly executed free images than pay for professionally produced ones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello, I’m new to the community and was wondering if I could get some advice towards my portfolio. I’m into modifying photos digitally and turning them into geometric and abstract works. In regards to as which types of uses customers would want to buy these images for I was thinking (gift cards, blankets, posters) those types of purposes. Joined shutterstock since did not want these works to sit and collect dust for eternity. Am not expecting to receive a lot of revenue for these types of works, but was wondering if I had any sort of chance of getting any downloads? Have only been on the site for a week.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/6/2017 at 12:00 PM, Thomas J. Sebourn said:

I’m probably going to catch some flak for this post, but whatever, the truth should be heard: THE REASON YOUR IMAGES AREN'T SELLING IS BECAUSE THEY SUCK. 

 

I’ve been checking out a lot of newer profiles, and I am shocked at how low quality the images are. I wouldn’t even upload most of the images I’m seeing to my Flckr page. In no way, shape, or form am I claiming to be a great photographer; there are some real clunkers in my port that I somehow snuck by the submissions people, BUT WOW, some of these recent images are total trash. I literally can’t understand why SS wastes their bandwidth on this garbage.

 

30% of the posts in this forum are about low sales or how to increase sales. The reason your stuff isn’t selling is because it is a worthless snap shot of some random plant that you poorly keyworded.  You want to increase sales? Make a high quality image that an actual buyer would want to use on their website or in a publication.  You have to take some pride in what you are putting out to the world.

 

I’m sure someone felt this way about my images in 2010, so I guess its come full circle.  

 

Troll away!!!

Of course once you have invested in over the top production values, models, locations, or food, props, styling you get 10 cents for your effort.  At this stage of the game SS is getting a lot more than it is paying for from even the very worst contributor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agree @MSPhotographic this thread is approaching three years old when there were probably more frequent and higher paying returns on sales. It makes no business sense whatsoever to invest in producing the high quality content these agencies might expect with the current pitiful payments. Whether it is Shutterstock or any other platform, surely you jest that your contributors produce such content. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/27/2020 at 3:58 PM, Steven Tritton said:

Agree @MSPhotographic this thread is approaching three years old when there were probably more frequent and higher paying returns on sales. It makes no business sense whatsoever to invest in producing the high quality content these agencies might expect with the current pitiful payments. Whether it is Shutterstock or any other platform, surely you jest that your contributors produce such content. 

I didn't actually realize the thread was so old.  Added to the insult of the 10 cent commissions that have been ushered in SS has rolled out video subscriptions and I'm seeing sale as low as 43 cents.  I just can't do that.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...