Author Topic: future microstock (Read 26403 times)

RacePhoto · « **Reply #50 on:** July 23, 2012, 10:59 »

Quote from: louoates on July 23, 2012, 10:03

I'll side with sharpshot on this one. One man's trash...etc. But I would certainly vote to delete any image that hasn't sold after one year on a top tier site, and two years on a middle or low earner site.

Here's a flaw in that plan. Agency removes my perfectly good shot of sliced vegetables on a wood cutting board. (which has never sold in two years) I upload the same photo again, it gets approved again and it sits again for two years. Treading water and making more work, it accomplishes nothing. Lots of bandwidth and wasted energy.

This will make all reviews twice as slow, while they get to re-review old photos that are returning. Same with the people who game SS by sending in images which they think, didn't take off right as a new image, or went live on the wrong day of the week. And they wonder why reviews are slow.

(and write nasty messages saying, it's not gaming the system... it's necessary)

People say it's too big of a problem to review and edit keywords for spam, but then say, there's enough time and power to review nearly every image over again as a new upload? I don't think so.

That's my stab at why agencies don't remove the dead wood from the collection. Also the bragging rights for # million images to choose from.

pancaketom · « **Reply #51 on:** July 23, 2012, 11:05 »

I think they need to fix the search and the spam issues and not accept images that have clear technical flaws.

It would be a rather large task to fix the spam issues, but I bet if they were serious and disabled serial spammer's ports that would get some attention.

ShadySue · « **Reply #52 on:** July 23, 2012, 11:09 »

Quote from: louoates on July 23, 2012, 10:03

I'll side with sharpshot on this one. One man's trash...etc. But I would certainly vote to delete any image that hasn't sold after one year on a top tier site, and two years on a middle or low earner site.

Disagree: I have low-supply, low demand images that only sell a few times ever - but sometimes they're the very ones that get ELs.
Surprisingly, some higher-demand subject pictures get their first sale after several years, then sell more.
I have one very strange photo which was slow to start and now sells for a while, then stops, then starts again - it's not even a seasonal pattern, and now a very high-supply area.
Some files just get buried in the best match, but it doesn't mean they're trash. When iS exclusives could nominate files to go into the DB, it was quite shocking to see some of the super files that had never sold (not mine) and it could only have been the best match that sank them, e.g. low priority to new files when they were uploaded, then never recovering.

sharpshot · « **Reply #53 on:** July 23, 2012, 11:15 »

Quote from: Lagereek on July 23, 2012, 10:43

Quote from: sharpshot on July 23, 2012, 03:33
^^^No, the search sinks images that don't appeal to buyers, so they don't have to wade through them every time they search. The sites that only accept what reviewers think is great quality, like Image Vortex, sell very little.

So buddy, what you are saying is that all our reviewers are doing a fantastic job? oh well, thats great, didnt know that until now.

No, you seem to think reviewers are great because you want them to reject more. So reviewers will have even more say over what buyers are allowed to look at. I think that's a recipe for disaster, as has been demonstrated by the few sites that have tried it.

If there was a way to only have good new saleable images on a site, I would be all for it but using reviewers to make that decision isn't going to work. Microstock sites don't pay enough to attract reviewers with those skills and if they did, it would cost much more. Who would end up paying for that? I'm not even sure it's possible for an expert to define what images are going to make money and what wont with a high degree of accuracy. It's a subjective decision.

Just look at the DT silmilars mess. Every reviewer seems to have a different idea of what a similar is. There's no consistency. It's demoralising for contributors and I don't see how it helps buyers at all.

Lagereek · « **Reply #54 on:** July 23, 2012, 11:57 »

Quote from: sharpshot on July 23, 2012, 11:15

Quote from: Lagereek on July 23, 2012, 10:43
Quote from: sharpshot on July 23, 2012, 03:33
^^^No, the search sinks images that don't appeal to buyers, so they don't have to wade through them every time they search. The sites that only accept what reviewers think is great quality, like Image Vortex, sell very little.

So buddy, what you are saying is that all our reviewers are doing a fantastic job? oh well, thats great, didnt know that until now.
No, you seem to think reviewers are great because you want them to reject more. So reviewers will have even more say over what buyers are allowed to look at. I think that's a recipe for disaster, as has been demonstrated by the few sites that have tried it.

If there was a way to only have good new saleable images on a site, I would be all for it but using reviewers to make that decision isn't going to work. Microstock sites don't pay enough to attract reviewers with those skills and if they did, it would cost much more. Who would end up paying for that? I'm not even sure it's possible for an expert to define what images are going to make money and what wont with a high degree of accuracy. It's a subjective decision.

Just look at the DT silmilars mess. Every reviewer seems to have a different idea of what a similar is. There's no consistency. It's demoralising for contributors and I don't see how it helps buyers at all.

I want the rewievers to do like professional reviewers, single out the rubbish from relevant material. I do not want to see any diletants in stock, its derrogative to the entire business. The reason why reviewers have accepted crap, is because, we, the suppliers have put preassures on them and they feel obliged to accept any old files.
If micro is going to survive, they have to show quality before quantity and thats at the first pages in any search, or else its doomed.

sharpshot · « **Reply #55 on:** July 23, 2012, 14:29 »

Quote from: Lagereek on July 23, 2012, 11:57

I want the rewievers to do like professional reviewers....

I still don't see how that's possible.
How much are professional reviewers paid compared to the tiny amount that microstock reviewers are paid?
How many years experience do they have compared to microstock reviewers?
Wont the cost be too much for microstock?
If the current reviewers are asked to do this, do you really think they would do a good job? I don't.
I also can't agree that sites accept any old images because we put pressure on them. We put pressure on them to pay us a decent commission but they generally take no notice of that.
Perhaps for every buyer that insists on only seeing high quality images, there's one that wants as much choice as possible?

Lagereek · « **Reply #56 on:** July 23, 2012, 14:35 »

Quote from: sharpshot on July 23, 2012, 14:29

Quote from: Lagereek on July 23, 2012, 11:57
I want the rewievers to do like professional reviewers....
I still don't see how that's possible.
How much are professional reviewers paid compared to the tiny amount that microstock reviewers are paid?
How many years experience do they have compared to microstock reviewers?
Wont the cost be too much for microstock?
If the current reviewers are asked to do this, do you really think they would do a good job? I don't.
I also can't agree that sites accept any old images because we put pressure on them. We put pressure on them to pay us a decent commission but they generally take no notice of that.
Perhaps for every buyer that insists on only seeing high quality images, there's one that wants as much choice as possible?

A pro reviewer, picture-editor, is paid in the region of, 5K / month. they are mostly graphically orientated, can spot a commercial image, etc, etc, etc. One of my pals is working for the National-Geographics and thats his payout.

ShadySue · « **Reply #57 on:** July 23, 2012, 14:53 »

Quote from: Lagereek on July 23, 2012, 14:35

Quote from: sharpshot on July 23, 2012, 14:29
Quote from: Lagereek on July 23, 2012, 11:57
I want the rewievers to do like professional reviewers....
I still don't see how that's possible.
How much are professional reviewers paid compared to the tiny amount that microstock reviewers are paid?
How many years experience do they have compared to microstock reviewers?
Wont the cost be too much for microstock?
If the current reviewers are asked to do this, do you really think they would do a good job? I don't.
I also can't agree that sites accept any old images because we put pressure on them. We put pressure on them to pay us a decent commission but they generally take no notice of that.
Perhaps for every buyer that insists on only seeing high quality images, there's one that wants as much choice as possible?

A pro reviewer, picture-editor, is paid in the region of, 5K / month. they are mostly graphically orientated, can spot a commercial image, etc, etc, etc. One of my pals is working for the National-Geographics and thats his payout.

And some buyers will buy from NG exclusively, or almost so.
Horses for courses.

Wim · « **Reply #58 on:** July 23, 2012, 14:53 »

That was exactly my idea of a reviewer King Lagereek, boy was I wrong.
Now it's letting 5 year olds pointing out an image that they like, payouts received at the candy store, yippee!

cthoman · « **Reply #59 on:** July 23, 2012, 15:05 »

Quote from: sharpshot on July 23, 2012, 14:29

Quote from: Lagereek on July 23, 2012, 11:57
I want the rewievers to do like professional reviewers....
I still don't see how that's possible.
How much are professional reviewers paid compared to the tiny amount that microstock reviewers are paid?
How many years experience do they have compared to microstock reviewers?
Wont the cost be too much for microstock?
If the current reviewers are asked to do this, do you really think they would do a good job? I don't.
I also can't agree that sites accept any old images because we put pressure on them. We put pressure on them to pay us a decent commission but they generally take no notice of that.
Perhaps for every buyer that insists on only seeing high quality images, there's one that wants as much choice as possible?

I don't think better reviewers are needed. I guess I always felt like image reviews should function more like a spell check. They are just used to determine whether the file has any obvious mistakes. Any quality or aesthetic concerns should be made in an initial contributor review. If you raise that bar, you don't have to clean as much up on the back end.

cathyslife · « **Reply #60 on:** July 23, 2012, 17:36 »

This is microstock, people! If you want professional reviewers, professional images, professional everything, GO TO MACROSTOCK. Stop trying to change Walmart or JCPenney into Dillards or Robinsons (or whatever upscale, expensive department store you have in your area).

Micro started out as amateur photogs submitting photos to get paid little, but make money based on quantity. Those same amateurs, over time, improved to produce better quality images but it's still microstock. Suppliers get paid cheap so the images can sell cheap and satisfy the lower-budgeted markets.

If there's a market for higher priced images and you are a professional, sell on the macro agencies so you can get the higher prices. Leave the micros for what they were originally intended to do. Seems like people want to change the micros into something they are not, and never should be. That's why they're called microstock.

(done in my best Andy Rooney impersonation)

cthoman · « **Reply #61 on:** July 23, 2012, 18:09 »

Quote from: cclapper on July 23, 2012, 17:36

This is microstock, people! If you want professional reviewers, professional images, professional everything, GO TO MACROSTOCK. Stop trying to change Walmart or JCPenney into Dillards or Robinsons (or whatever upscale, expensive department store you have in your area).

Micro started out as amateur photogs submitting photos to get paid little, but make money based on quantity. Those same amateurs, over time, improved to produce better quality images but it's still microstock. Suppliers get paid cheap so the images can sell cheap and satisfy the lower-budgeted markets.

If there's a market for higher priced images and you are a professional, sell on the macro agencies so you can get the higher prices. Leave the micros for what they were originally intended to do. Seems like people want to change the micros into something they are not, and never should be. That's why they're called microstock.

(done in my best Andy Rooney impersonation)

I agree and disagree with you. I guess I've thought that there will be a split at some point in micro, and two models will emerge. A crowd sourced type model and a more high quality midstock model. It just seems like you have these two groups of contributors in micro, but they don't necessarily want the same things. iStock seems to be trying to foster both of them at once which I'm not sure is going to work. I think you may have to separate them to make it work long term.

cathyslife · « **Reply #62 on:** July 23, 2012, 18:30 »

Quote from: cthoman on July 23, 2012, 18:09

I agree and disagree with you. I guess I've thought that there will be a split at some point in micro, and two models will emerge. A crowd sourced type model and a more high quality midstock model. It just seems like you have these two groups of contributors in micro, but they don't necessarily want the same things. iStock seems to be trying to foster both of them at once which I'm not sure is going to work. I think you may have to separate them to make it work long term.

I agree with that.

Lagereek · « **Reply #63 on:** July 23, 2012, 22:57 »

Quote from: cclapper on July 23, 2012, 17:36

This is microstock, people! If you want professional reviewers, professional images, professional everything, GO TO MACROSTOCK. Stop trying to change Walmart or JCPenney into Dillards or Robinsons (or whatever upscale, expensive department store you have in your area).

Micro started out as amateur photogs submitting photos to get paid little, but make money based on quantity. Those same amateurs, over time, improved to produce better quality images but it's still microstock. Suppliers get paid cheap so the images can sell cheap and satisfy the lower-budgeted markets.

If there's a market for higher priced images and you are a professional, sell on the macro agencies so you can get the higher prices. Leave the micros for what they were originally intended to do. Seems like people want to change the micros into something they are not, and never should be. That's why they're called microstock.

(done in my best Andy Rooney impersonation)

Yes its microstock but so what, God knows the big four have got enough revenue to employ professional people? there are many full-time, professional photographers in micro, so why shouldnt their material be judged professionally?

Well I tell you what I think. If pro editors were reviewing, some 50% of the entire, global micro files would go straight into the dustbin. Thats probably what most admins are afraid of.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: future microstock (Read 26403 times)

RacePhoto

pancaketom

ShadySue

sharpshot

Lagereek

sharpshot

Lagereek

ShadySue

Wim

cthoman

cathyslife

cthoman

cathyslife

Lagereek

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors