Almost a month with a sale, after my best first quarter in years. Anyone else seeing similar?

[The Nature Guy]

So, I honestly had pretty much given up on selling stock because the return on time investment was laughable. But all of a sudden in January I started seeing some consistent sales star coming in. The same for February, and things got even better in March. So, I went through my existing library of stored up content and uploaded a hundred new top quality stuff. I got several immediate sales of my new content and then SLAM, like a knife, the sales died, and it has been almost a month now without a single sale. Even on my worst months, I have seen sales, but never a complete drought like this.  I have seen some others posting, saying they had a similar experience. What happened?  Did Adobe change something?

[ZALEZPHOTO]

I feel you!

-how many photos have you uploaded in total (accepted)

I started 5 months ago, have almost 1500 so far, sales had been increasing steadily to about 2-3 per day... then suddenly halted, I could be wrong, but when I post or replay to messages in this forums, I seem to get one or two sales... IDK, it could be coincidence and just frustration for the lack of overall conssistency 

[Jill_C]

1,500 is not a very large portfolio so some sales variability can be expected. In the past 5 months, nearly 200 million assets have been added to the database, so there is increased competition as well. Earning sales afte posting here is purely coincidental !

[The Nature Guy]

I do 4K wildlife videos, and when I say wildlife, I don't mean animals in a nature preserver or zoo, I mean true wild animals that are afraid of humans. My portfolio on Adobe is around 600.  That may not seem like a lot compared to people who have tens of thousands of images, but you have to understand that getting top quality footage of truly wild animals is not easy and 600 is an amazing feat.  It is a lot different from a creator who, say, stacks up some quarters and shoots it from a hundred different angles.  Not saying that does not take work to get right, but only saying that it is Controllable and Predictable. Wild animals are not predictable and are certainly not controllable. I know all this does not make a difference on the stock end, I am just saying it because, it has taken me a decade of work to get the great shots I have, so I would appreciate it if it not be looked down on as a "Too Little Effort".

[Abambo]

so I would appreciate it if it not be looked down on as a "Too Little Effort".

By @The Nature Guy

Sure, where did you read something like "too little effort"?

Sales are erratic as you have learned, and if Adobe changes something it is to get more sales, not less. But competition is rude and as you are submitting specific stuff, it may not all times be high in demand. That has nothing to do with the effort you put into this.

[The Nature Guy]

One only has to read through the comments on this forum to see that the general consensus is that if you don't have at least 10k assets, you are not really trying.  I don't actually disagree with this, but in my style of photography/videography, that is simply not possible. Again, as I said, I understand that how much effort I put into getting a shot makes zero difference on the sales end.  Buyers couldn't care less if the footage was a true wild animal or an animal in a cage. I mean, they should, but they don't. To me, people that shoot photos of tame animals in a zoo are no different from hunters who pay game ranches to let them shoot pet trophy animals that were raised and fed a special diet from birth, versus, a real hunter who bags a wise old trophy animal stalking it in the barren wilderness.  Both trophies may look the same to the casual observer, but one was a great feat and the other was accomplished with zero effort.  For me to get close enough to a true wild animal to capture it in it natural habitat actually takes far more effort than any hunter.  A hunter only needs to see the animal for a few seconds to get a shot, and the animal can be hundreds of yards away.  However, I need to be with in 10 to 20 yards of that same animal, and remain undetected while I try to capture the shots.  I have to worry about lighting, camera settings and a whole host of other things to get the perfect shot. When I land that perfect shot on a true wild animal, it means more to me than any hunter bagging a lifetime trophy.  The difference is, my animal gets to walk away and live a full life.  I know it does not matter to the people buying the stock, but it maters to me. 

[Jill_C]

I don't think there's any consensus that having a portfolio of less than 10,000 images means that your efforts are somehow substandard. I've been a Contributor for 8-1/2 years and still have only ~3,500 travel images, including some wild animals captured while on safari in Africa. Some of my wildlife images have been licensed, but they're far from my most frequent sellers. I think there's a limited commercial demand for such images, which could explain the slow sales. I'm not trying to make a living from stock images. I regard it as hobby income and a way to get some of my travel images off of the hard drives and out into the world. I'm sure your wildlife images are stunning, and you get great satisfaction from having captured them. As a stock provider, you get to decide what constitutes success for you.

[The Nature Guy]

Absolutely, I agree with you.  I never even considered stock as a living.  I do what I do because I enjoy doing it.  That is my reward.  If I make some money on stock to help buy a new piece of equipment, that is fine.  It is luxury money to me, not bread and butter.   My original question was just about finding out if something had happened, because I have never gone a month without a single sale before.  On a different forum, I read today, that, last month, Adobe enabled contributors to use ChatGPT to automatically generate images for their account each day.  I have no idea whether that is true or not, but several people, like me, have seen a dramatic reduction in sales in the past month. 

[daniellei4510]

GPT and Imagen as well. But these were available before Adobe included them as an option. Has or will it affect sales? Maybe. But people taking advantage of these (or Firefly) will still be required to edit the results, and many may not be willing or able to do so.

[Nancy OShea]

I think there's a limited commercial demand for [wildlife] images, which could explain the slow sales.

By @Jill_C

===========

I agree. 

Customers vote with their wallets. When you offer customers what they need, they buy it.

[Abambo]

One only has to read through the comments on this forum to see that the general consensus is that if you don't have at least 10k assets, you are not really trying.

By @The Nature Guy

No, not exactly. But stock is a lot about masses. Buyers (me included) want to have a huge collection of the best quality assets at a very low price. The times when we did spend $2000 on a couple of images are long gone, to my greatest regret as a contributor.

You can produce the best asset in the world, done with the greatest efforts, if they are not high in demand, you won't sell.

Do what you like, as long as you don't do stock for a living. If you do stock for a living, do what the buyer likes.

[Jill_C]

Sales are always going to be variable depending on whether your assets are seasonal and how much competition you face. I don't think Adobe has changed the manner in which Buyers find images or license them, although I suppose it's possible that they tinker with the search algorithm from time to time.

[Nancy OShea]

Post the URL to your Portfolio.