MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: 111,655 new photos added in the past week  (Read 33037 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

« on: January 25, 2010, 22:20 »
0
WOW.

Didn't realize that the 100,000 weekly barrier had been broken.


« Reply #1 on: January 25, 2010, 22:33 »
0
This is an astonishingly high number. I remember being with fairly good agents that had collections of less than 100,000 images. And here we are seeing that many added in a week.

« Reply #2 on: January 25, 2010, 23:22 »
0
Absolute insanity.  These guys are digging their own grave.  "Search Fatigue" will eventually send buyers elsewhere.

RacePhoto

« Reply #3 on: January 25, 2010, 23:26 »
0
Glad I could help, 7 are mine.  ;D

« Reply #4 on: January 25, 2010, 23:51 »
0
Absolute insanity.  These guys are digging their own grave.  "Search Fatigue" will eventually send buyers elsewhere.

Totally agree!  This is not good  :(

There are photographers uploading the same image with just slight variations dozens of times, and Shutterstock is accepting them all !

A search using "newest first" is becoming really annoying.  The same image once and again...

« Reply #5 on: January 26, 2010, 00:11 »
0
Glad I could help, 7 are mine.  ;D

And 11 are mine. Yikes! I didn't realize that I was contributing to the downfall of an industry.   ;)

« Reply #6 on: January 26, 2010, 00:19 »
0
...Yikes! I didn't realize that I was contributing to the downfall of an industry.   ;)

Yeah, it's all your fault. LOL  ;D

« Reply #7 on: January 26, 2010, 00:22 »
0
Glad I could help, 7 are mine.  ;D

And 11 are mine. Yikes! I didn't realize that I was contributing to the downfall of an industry.   ;)

110 here .. I'm sorry gang I just couldn't say no. If it makes anyone feel any better I got slapped on the hand for attaching the wrong model release to 39 of them.   ;D

« Reply #8 on: January 26, 2010, 01:05 »
0
185 for me.  Weekend in Yosemite, followed by a couple of studio shoots.

vonkara

« Reply #9 on: January 26, 2010, 01:08 »
0
-280 ...I goes exclusive with IS. Oh well, who cares  :)

« Reply #10 on: January 26, 2010, 08:57 »
0
They'll have ten million images on line next month.  That's a nice marketing hook.  Though, I think they would be wise to weed out the oldest non sellers as they move forward.  If an image hasn't sold in four or five years... it probably never will. 

« Reply #11 on: January 26, 2010, 09:25 »
0
They'll have ten million images on line next month.  That's a nice marketing hook.  Though, I think they would be wise to weed out the oldest non sellers as they move forward.  If an image hasn't sold in four or five years... it probably never will. 

I think the marketing hook is what it's all about, both in total size of library and new images per week  __ otherwise why go to the considerable expense of reviewing, bandwidth and storage? I guess Jon is just letting it run unrestricted and seeing what happens.

If an image is unpopular it quickly disappears into the depths where it will only ever be seen again if it occupies a niche so I don't see 'too many images' actually becoming a problem. Everything about SS is so simple and uncluttered and yet it works so well for both buyers and contributors. If you're a designer it must be an incredible resource to have access to for such a small amount of money.

Anybody else finding it a real struggle for their new images to get noticed though? I've uploaded about 80 so far this month, with several that I had high hopes for, but it seems like they're all just disappearing into the ether! I get the impression that there may not be as many long-term subscribers nowadays (who I assume would have trawled for the new images) but mainly short-term subscribers who just hoover up the popular stuff that already been sorted for them.

« Reply #12 on: January 26, 2010, 09:28 »
0
Anybody else finding it a real struggle for their new images to get noticed though? I've uploaded about 80 so far this month, with several that I had high hopes for, but it seems like they're all just disappearing into the ether! I get the impression that there may not be as many long-term subscribers nowadays (who I assume would have trawled for the new images) but mainly short-term subscribers who just hoover up the popular stuff that already been sorted for them.

Ditto. And being a pretty new submitter without a noticeable port my dls kind of went down.

« Reply #13 on: January 26, 2010, 10:18 »
0
Unsustainable business practices

donding

  • Think before you speak
« Reply #14 on: January 26, 2010, 10:26 »
0
Most of my sales have been coming from the more popular images that are on the old side. Haven't really sold the new stuff much lately.

lisafx

« Reply #15 on: January 26, 2010, 11:47 »
0
This might explain why my sales the last week have been absolutely dismal there.  Seems like all of us that are uploading moderate amounts are just having our images swept away in the flood of others.

This reduced sales volume coupled with apparently the second year in a row without a raise is doing nothing to keep me interested in continuing to submit there. 

I think Ichiro is right.  This is unsustainable in the long term. 

« Reply #16 on: January 26, 2010, 11:58 »
0
Gotta love those factories, just pumping it out and flooding the market.  Oh, all those guys with their "make money from micro" blogs.  It all comes together, eh?


donding

  • Think before you speak
« Reply #17 on: January 26, 2010, 12:04 »
0
Gotta love those factories, just pumping it out and flooding the market.  Oh, all those guys with their "make money from micro" blogs.  It all comes together, eh?
Poor people think their going to become millionaires over night then when nothing happens there pictures just sit there gathering lots of dust with no sales.

« Reply #18 on: January 26, 2010, 12:16 »
0
This might explain why my sales the last week have been absolutely dismal there.  Seems like all of us that are uploading moderate amounts are just having our images swept away in the flood of others.

This reduced sales volume coupled with apparently the second year in a row without a raise is doing nothing to keep me interested in continuing to submit there. 

I think Ichiro is right.  This is unsustainable in the long term. 

Ditto!

Well, I think Shutterstock has helped me to take a difficult decision this week...  Going IS exclusive seems to be the best I can do.

« Reply #19 on: January 26, 2010, 12:34 »
0
Gotta love those factories, just pumping it out and flooding the market.  Oh, all those guys with their "make money from micro" blogs.  It all comes together, eh?

To be honest it's not all that different to Istock's weekly image intake, especially considering that SS is a high volume, low cost business model. There are currently 66K new images sitting in Istock's in-tray, most of which will be inspected within the week, and exclusive images much faster. IS must be adding new content at something like 50k per week.

WarrenPrice

« Reply #20 on: January 26, 2010, 13:21 »
0
Gotta love those factories, just pumping it out and flooding the market.  Oh, all those guys with their "make money from micro" blogs.  It all comes together, eh?

To be honest it's not all that different to Istock's weekly image intake, especially considering that SS is a high volume, low cost business model. There are currently 66K new images sitting in Istock's in-tray, most of which will be inspected within the week, and exclusive images much faster. IS must be adding new content at something like 50k per week.

That is sort of what I thought.  Isn't it the same EVERYWHERE?  "make money from micro" blogs aren't specific to SS, are they?

« Reply #21 on: January 26, 2010, 13:36 »
0
I'm glad people still find my images although I didn't upload in a while.


donding

  • Think before you speak
« Reply #22 on: January 26, 2010, 14:15 »
0
I'm glad people still find my images although I didn't upload in a while.


I haven't uploaded anything substantial for the last couple of months because of camera problems...but they keep selling. Not as many as say you uploaded constantly but they do sell

« Reply #23 on: January 26, 2010, 14:40 »
0
I didn't mean to say this was an issue limited to SS...

« Reply #24 on: January 26, 2010, 16:40 »
0
100,000+ images in one week eh? I wonder how may of them....

- are NOT isolations

- are NOT isolations of OBJECTS

- have decent metadata and can actually be found by buyers who want the image

- involved subject matter people actually buy

- well executed (lighting, wardrobe, location, etc...)

- the list goes on and on......

« Reply #25 on: January 26, 2010, 16:48 »
0
100,000+ images in one week eh? I wonder how may of them....

- involved subject matter people actually buy



To me, that's the big question.  Why people spend so much time and effort uploading subject matter that either doesn't sell or is so oversaturated that it won't get a chance to sell, is beyond me.  Everyone should check their IS and DT gauges right in this forum as an indicator of whether you're uploading subjects that sell or don't sell.  If your Sales score is higher than your Uploads score, you're probably on the right track.  If not, you may be contributing to the oversupply problem.

« Reply #26 on: January 26, 2010, 16:49 »
0
If your Sales score is higher than your Uploads score, you're probably on the right track.
Clarification... iIf your Sales score is higher (a lower number) than your Uploads score, you're probably on the right track.
« Last Edit: January 26, 2010, 16:53 by PowerDroid »


« Reply #27 on: January 26, 2010, 16:54 »
0
100,000+ images in one week eh? I wonder how may of them....

- involved subject matter people actually buy



To me, that's the big question.  Why people spend so much time and effort uploading subject matter that either doesn't sell or is so oversaturated that it won't get a chance to sell, is beyond me.  Everyone should check their IS and DT gauges right in this forum as an indicator of whether you're uploading subjects that sell or don't sell.  If your Sales score is higher than your Uploads score, you're probably on the right track.  If not, you may be contributing to the oversupply problem.

It's about SS not DT or IS. If there was SS gauge it would show how pathetic are my IS results :-) Also I got 4x more from SS than DT :-)

« Reply #28 on: January 26, 2010, 16:58 »
0

It's about SS not DT or IS.


True, but I'm betting that most if not everyone is submitting the same content (general subject matter) to SS as they do to DT or IS.  
« Last Edit: January 26, 2010, 17:04 by PowerDroid »

RT


« Reply #29 on: January 26, 2010, 18:22 »
0
100,000+ images in one week eh? I wonder how may of them....

or

- dogs dressed up as humans doing things

- portraits that have been put through portrait editing software at the highest level so that they come out looking like a wax doll

- vastly overly saturated landscapes

- b+w conversion of the contributors whole portfolio

- young inexperienced models for whom wearing a suit or dress (of the wrong size)  is a novelty

- clones of the 'most popular images'

or any number of other things that would appear to be encouraged by the 'mentors' on the forum.

« Reply #30 on: January 26, 2010, 18:49 »
0
Once you look at the newest images, if your like me at least, you stop worrying about the "competition" it creates. I'm not gonna get myself tied up in a knot over it :P

« Reply #31 on: January 26, 2010, 20:01 »
0
The basic problem is that the current search technology on these sites isn't nearly sophisticated enough to handle 10 million images in any sensible way.   

We all know how bad keywording can be, and how keyword spamming is still rampant, and how unable the micros are to clean that up, in millions of images.

A common problem is the submission (and approval) of numerous mind-numblingly similar versions of the same shot.   The buyer hitting those keywords sees them all, right in a row, filling a page - talk about search fatigue.   But what if, in a case like that, you saw just one image (maybe the most popular one, or one selected by the reviewer) with some sort of "more like this" button beneath it in case you actually wanted to see some variations?

 

« Reply #32 on: January 26, 2010, 21:36 »
0
The basic problem is that the current search technology on these sites isn't nearly sophisticated enough to handle 10 million images in any sensible way.   

We all know how bad keywording can be, and how keyword spamming is still rampant, and how unable the micros are to clean that up, in millions of images.

A common problem is the submission (and approval) of numerous mind-numblingly similar versions of the same shot.   The buyer hitting those keywords sees them all, right in a row, filling a page - talk about search fatigue.   But what if, in a case like that, you saw just one image (maybe the most popular one, or one selected by the reviewer) with some sort of "more like this" button beneath it in case you actually wanted to see some variations?

 

I've been wanting that for a LONG time (especially on Shutterstock), in fact, the last time I was on Alamy, I noticed they have begun doing this. Smart move.

« Reply #33 on: January 26, 2010, 22:10 »
0
The basic problem is that the current search technology on these sites isn't nearly sophisticated enough to handle 10 million images in any sensible way.   

We all know how bad keywording can be, and how keyword spamming is still rampant, and how unable the micros are to clean that up, in millions of images.

A common problem is the submission (and approval) of numerous mind-numblingly similar versions of the same shot.   The buyer hitting those keywords sees them all, right in a row, filling a page - talk about search fatigue.   But what if, in a case like that, you saw just one image (maybe the most popular one, or one selected by the reviewer) with some sort of "more like this" button beneath it in case you actually wanted to see some variations?

 

I've been wanting that for a LONG time (especially on Shutterstock), in fact, the last time I was on Alamy, I noticed they have begun doing this. Smart move.

Getty does this.  I can't tell whether I like it or not, because they try to shove all images from the series underneath one of them.  So you basically get one spot in the return.

« Reply #34 on: January 26, 2010, 23:12 »
0
The basic problem is that the current search technology on these sites isn't nearly sophisticated enough to handle 10 million images in any sensible way.   

We all know how bad keywording can be, and how keyword spamming is still rampant, and how unable the micros are to clean that up, in millions of images.

A common problem is the submission (and approval) of numerous mind-numblingly similar versions of the same shot.   The buyer hitting those keywords sees them all, right in a row, filling a page - talk about search fatigue.   But what if, in a case like that, you saw just one image (maybe the most popular one, or one selected by the reviewer) with some sort of "more like this" button beneath it in case you actually wanted to see some variations?

 

I've been wanting that for a LONG time (especially on Shutterstock), in fact, the last time I was on Alamy, I noticed they have begun doing this. Smart move.

Getty does this.  I can't tell whether I like it or not, because they try to shove all images from the series underneath one of them.  So you basically get one spot in the return.

They could easily solve this with animated thumbnails showing a series of changing images, or they could just randomly select a new shot for each search, but yes I understand what you mean. Perhaps the option could be toggled on and off at user will. Ultimately I think they need to develop more advanced search options that places like iStock have, and even iStock could improve their own search options.

« Reply #35 on: January 27, 2010, 00:34 »
0
100,000+ images in one week eh? I wonder how may of them....
...
- dogs dressed up as humans doing things

Working with dogs doing things is NOT EASY!   Getting good results require lots of time, preparation, and patience. 

The real problem is contributors sending images which are too close to snapshots.

« Reply #36 on: January 27, 2010, 01:38 »
0
100,000+ images in one week eh? I wonder how may of them....
...
- dogs dressed up as humans doing things

Working with dogs doing things is NOT EASY!   Getting good results require lots of time, preparation, and patience. 

The real problem is contributors sending images which are too close to snapshots.



^^^ but they are getting approved. They'd stop submitting them in bulk if they were rejected.


« Reply #37 on: January 27, 2010, 02:04 »
0
100,000+ images in one week eh? I wonder how may of them....
...
- dogs dressed up as humans doing things

Working with dogs doing things is NOT EASY!   Getting good results require lots of time, preparation, and patience. 

The real problem is contributors sending images which are too close to snapshots.



^^^ but they are getting approved. They'd stop submitting them in bulk if they were rejected.


Yes,  unfortunately, SS is approving them! 

« Reply #38 on: January 27, 2010, 02:25 »
0
more than 100 000 .....  my God... I'm drowning...

« Reply #39 on: January 27, 2010, 02:37 »
0
Oh yeah and I agree keywords at Shutterstock are really bad.
Time and time again I see terrible keyword spamming. Nothing seems to happen.

« Reply #40 on: January 27, 2010, 08:15 »
0
They'll have ten million images on line next month.  That's a nice marketing hook.  Though, I think they would be wise to weed out the oldest non sellers as they move forward.  If an image hasn't sold in four or five years... it probably never will. 

I think we're gonna see a new marketing strategy from them touting the "freshness" of their images and video given the huge delay in review times at iStock, particularly for non-exclusives.

"If you want fresh images today, you're only going to get them here" kind of deal...  I've talked to some marketing people at a couple of footage agencies that are planning to attack iStock with the same type of strategy.

« Reply #41 on: January 27, 2010, 08:25 »
0
I think we're gonna see a new marketing strategy from them touting the "freshness" of their images and video given the huge delay in review times at iStock, particularly for non-exclusives.
"If you want fresh images today, you're only going to get them here" kind of deal...  I've talked to some marketing people at a couple of footage agencies that are planning to attack iStock with the same type of strategy.

Yeah, because 2 days for exclusives, 3-5 for independents really makes images less "fresh" at iStock.

« Reply #42 on: January 27, 2010, 08:38 »
0
Yeah, because 2 days for exclusives, 3-5 for independents really makes images less "fresh" at iStock.

Exactly. Do Dnavarrojr's marketing people consider a stock image to be 'so last week' once it's been on-line more than a few days?

sc

« Reply #43 on: January 27, 2010, 09:15 »
0
Yeah, because 2 days for exclusives, 3-5 for independents really makes images less "fresh" at iStock.

I'd be happy with 3-5 days - it's closer to  7-9 days lately

« Reply #44 on: January 27, 2010, 09:32 »
0
Yeah, because 2 days for exclusives, 3-5 for independents really makes images less "fresh" at iStock.

Exactly. Do Dnavarrojr's marketing people consider a stock image to be 'so last week' once it's been on-line more than a few days?

Ha!

"Isolated apples are 'so last week'.  Studies show bananas are hot right now.  Thank god for SS's fast approvals!"

donding

  • Think before you speak
« Reply #45 on: January 27, 2010, 09:49 »
0
Yeah, because 2 days for exclusives, 3-5 for independents really makes images less "fresh" at iStock.

Exactly. Do Dnavarrojr's marketing people consider a stock image to be 'so last week' once it's been on-line more than a few days?

Ha!

"Isolated apples are 'so last week'.  Studies show bananas are hot right now.  Thank god for SS's fast approvals!"
Now everyone is going to be flooding the market with banana shots!

« Reply #46 on: January 27, 2010, 09:56 »
0
Now everyone is going to be flooding the market with banana shots!

Dude, bananas are so last hour.  Unfortunately, I can't take advantage of the new market study that shows kiwifruits coming in out of nowhere, since my inspections can take a few days.


« Reply #47 on: January 27, 2010, 10:39 »
0
Dude, bananas are so last hour.  Unfortunately, I can't take advantage of the new market study that shows kiwifruits coming in out of nowhere, since my inspections can take a few days.

Latest ticker news from the market ... interest in 'pepperoni pizza' is is strengthening whilst 'business team' has been over-bought and looking shaky.

donding

  • Think before you speak
« Reply #48 on: January 27, 2010, 10:46 »
0
Dude, bananas are so last hour.  Unfortunately, I can't take advantage of the new market study that shows kiwifruits coming in out of nowhere, since my inspections can take a few days.

Latest ticker news from the market ... interest in 'pepperoni pizza' is is strengthening whilst 'business team' has been over-bought and looking shaky.
Any one interested in a Pizza?...I'll split the slices with you in case they lose their interest before we get them posted and eaten.....LOL ::)

« Reply #49 on: January 27, 2010, 16:42 »
0
Sorry, 9 from me, they just approved my application to join. Good news* is, I don't have a further 500 to upload on them.

* not so good news for me
« Last Edit: January 27, 2010, 16:44 by Red Dove »

RacePhoto

« Reply #50 on: January 27, 2010, 21:21 »
0
I think we're gonna see a new marketing strategy from them touting the "freshness" of their images and video given the huge delay in review times at iStock, particularly for non-exclusives.
"If you want fresh images today, you're only going to get them here" kind of deal...  I've talked to some marketing people at a couple of footage agencies that are planning to attack iStock with the same type of strategy.

Yeah, because 2 days for exclusives, 3-5 for independents really makes images less "fresh" at iStock.

Sorry to be disagreeable but mine run seven days like clockwork on IS. About the time something gets reviewed, I can upload something new and wait a week. I don't mind, but it's positively not 2-3 days. Could be my acceptance ratio or something, I don't know. It's been that way since Nov.

StockXpert has wild variations from overnight to some right now waiting since Jan. 18th. BigStock about 5 days. SS lately has been running 2-3 days.

I don't know about the freshness theory, all the sites have review time variations.

RacePhoto

« Reply #51 on: January 28, 2010, 01:33 »
0
I didn't mean to say this was an issue limited to SS...

I didn't think you did.  ???

Here's what BigStock said to my Pepperoni Pizza. (Nov-Dec)      
Low interest subject: Probably little demand/selling potential for this image. Try for more marketable shots. thanks.

IS We found the overall composition of this file's lighting could be improved. Technical aspects that can affect the overall quality of lighting are: flat/dull colors, blown-out highlights, harsh reflection, shadows or lens flares. It does have a flash reflection on one of the green peppers, no argument.

StockXpert took it and the shot sold twice.

SS accepted the shot, no sales.
 
I'd say this fits the overshot category, yet someone wanted it? Maybe people do want fresh images and newer material from better cameras? As usual, it was a throw-away shot that I did, because it was there. ;) What I'm getting at is two sites refused, two accepted, two sales. I'd say that's a fairly mixed response. I'm more surprised that it sold twice in the first month it was for sale on StockXpert?

9,761,351 royalty-free stock photos
106,724 new stock photos added this week
212,414 photographers

10 Million by Valentine's Day?
« Last Edit: January 28, 2010, 17:57 by RacePhoto »

RacePhoto

« Reply #52 on: February 11, 2010, 18:07 »
0
My prediction last month (see above) Was Valentine's day.

Count Down: (or up?) to 10 Million

Thursday PM
9,974,012 royalty-free stock photos

Friday PM
9,984,939 royalty-free stock photos

Saturday?
« Last Edit: February 12, 2010, 16:57 by RacePhoto »

« Reply #53 on: February 11, 2010, 18:11 »
0
Tommorow!

Prediction!

11th February 2011. will start new topic, "300.000 images approved last week!"  :o :o :o :o

« Reply #54 on: February 12, 2010, 16:22 »
0
I'd hate to be a buyer, SS just accepted an image of mine with keyword "brainstorm" - so I searched newest first and page after page is filled with models gathered around laptops or standing in random groups doing nothing but flashing too white teeth - also loads drawing meaningless flow charts on transparency boards.

Having worked in the corporate arena for 20+ years I know we don't work in offices cleaner and brighter than operating theatres and everyone walks around with faces like smacked arses (apart from Friday afternoons).

I keep hearing that buyers want realistic images of serious people doing serious work in non-studio locations, but don't see much of that being uploaded.....is this a gap to be exploited or not?

« Reply #55 on: February 12, 2010, 16:35 »
0
Keyword spamming at SS is just off the chart.  I've ranted about the frustrations and limitations of the IS 'controlled vocabulary' but really, something like that has to be the future I think.  You supply a few keywords stating basically what is in the picture, in physical terms, and the microstock can build its own catolog of concept-to-object mappings.  You could also suggest a concept line for the image, but they'd have to approve it.  What's the alternative? SS is becoming a cloud of white noise as big as the Milky Way.

« Reply #56 on: February 12, 2010, 16:41 »
0
I keep hearing that buyers want realistic images of serious people doing serious work in non-studio locations, but don't see much of that being uploaded.....is this a gap to be exploited or not?

I think they're lying. I don't do people shots, so I don't know what would actually be approved. But I never see stock images in use, anywhere, that don't contain model-ish looking people with perfect hair and teeth and radiant smiles. 



« Reply #57 on: February 13, 2010, 03:04 »
0
I'd hate to be a buyer, SS just accepted an image of mine with keyword "brainstorm" - so I searched newest first and page after page is filled with models gathered around laptops or standing in random groups doing nothing but flashing too white teeth - also loads drawing meaningless flow charts on transparency boards.

Having worked in the corporate arena for 20+ years I know we don't work in offices cleaner and brighter than operating theatres and everyone walks around with faces like smacked arses (apart from Friday afternoons).

I keep hearing that buyers want realistic images of serious people doing serious work in non-studio locations, but don't see much of that being uploaded.....is this a gap to be exploited or not?
Hahaha, good stereotyping. But when it comes to buying, those designers always choose the Colgate perfect girl on her PC that looks like it just came out of the box. Maybe because advertising shows the world bigger than life?

« Reply #58 on: February 13, 2010, 05:29 »
0
All flashy smiling, very unnatural looking, plastic people. If designers really want those, why not using 3d-renders in the first place?

« Reply #59 on: February 13, 2010, 07:25 »
0
All flashy smiling, very unnatural looking, plastic people. If designers really want those, why not using 3d-renders in the first place?

Production cost, I'd say. It still costs too much to produce realistic renders with people. But it's seriously getting there: wait few more years (5 or 10).

« Reply #60 on: February 13, 2010, 14:07 »
0
To be honest, I'd never do stock 'people' shots because... they gag me.  Especially business shots, and happy seniors wearing bike helmets. No offense to you people who do these things so skillfully and so profitably. 

« Reply #61 on: January 08, 2011, 20:42 »
0
What a difference a year makes. They are now down to 65K new images added in the last week.

When I started with SS they were proud to announce 4K new images added in the last week and that figure rose steadily over the years. All of a sudden it is now going in the other direction __ and even faster.

Thoughts?

vonkara

« Reply #62 on: January 08, 2011, 20:52 »
0
Some photographers stopped shooting everything they see. Others adding thousand and more images a year found out quality and low production cost were more sustainable. Everything is perfect in my opinion

« Reply #63 on: January 08, 2011, 21:19 »
0
It looks like they're tightened their standards quite a bit too (illustrators complaining about many 'too simple' rejections, abstract backgrounds got tougher to get in, they became extremely strict about sharpness etc etc,) .
Maybe they felt they're in a comfortable no1 position concerning database size and decided its time to start lift the quality.

rubyroo

« Reply #64 on: January 08, 2011, 21:27 »
0
My vote would go to the increase in standards too.  They seem to go through phases of ratcheting the standards up, and those who aren't committed simply won't take up the challenge of meeting those new standards.

« Reply #65 on: January 09, 2011, 03:20 »
0
My rejection rate has shot up.  It's a shame because I only want to increase my standards if I am going to earn more money.  Where's my incentive?  If they raised prices and commissions, I would work harder to improve my quality but with my earnings not improving last year, I really can't get enthusiastic about microstock any more.

« Reply #66 on: January 09, 2011, 03:59 »
0
Possibly trying to cope with a flood of images from ex-exclusives at iStock?


molka

    This user is banned.
« Reply #67 on: January 09, 2011, 06:28 »
0
They already have more images then buyers need, they need to do something. As for increasing quality in favor of sales that's nonsense. Microstock has bad taste written all over it, at least half of the bestsellers (if not most) are the most distastefull rubbish you would ever see.

rubyroo

« Reply #68 on: January 09, 2011, 07:03 »
0
They already have more images then buyers need, they need to do something. As for increasing quality in favor of sales that's nonsense. Microstock has bad taste written all over it, at least half of the bestsellers (if not most) are the most distastefull rubbish you would ever see.

Not sure if you're referring to me here, but just in case... I was actually referring to technical standards, not aesthetic ones.

« Reply #69 on: January 09, 2011, 07:24 »
0
I hope that this number of new photos is caused by Christmas and new year holidays. I had new images to upload in the end of December but waited with uploading for first week after holidays and I think that many contributors did same.

molka

    This user is banned.
« Reply #70 on: January 09, 2011, 07:25 »
0
They already have more images then buyers need, they need to do something. As for increasing quality in favor of sales that's nonsense. Microstock has bad taste written all over it, at least half of the bestsellers (if not most) are the most distastefull rubbish you would ever see.

Not sure if you're referring to me here, but just in case... I was actually referring to technical standards, not aesthetic ones.

Technical standrads are already unreasonably high, pushing them is useless.

« Reply #71 on: January 09, 2011, 07:31 »
0
I agree they have to do something. But I think instead of just increasing the standards way too much now, they should start in the other end - remove the old stuff that is not selling! If they let the old pictures with lower quality stay on their site, and not take in some of the new pictures with much higher standards -the all around quality on Shutter is not going to increase.

Microbius

« Reply #72 on: January 09, 2011, 07:52 »
0
The reason is that SS buyers are hoarders and the company knows it. They think the only way to keep people paying subscriptions is to fling as much new content at the site as they can. Otherwise people would only stay for a few months and hoard enough to last them the year.
It's not like SS is going to follow up and slap their wrists if they are using stuff 6 months after their sub expires.

« Reply #73 on: January 09, 2011, 08:02 »
0
I agree they have to do something. But I think instead of just increasing the standards way too much now, they should start in the other end - remove the old stuff that is not selling! If they let the old pictures with lower quality stay on their site, and not take in some of the new pictures with much higher standards -the all around quality on Shutter is not going to increase.

totally agree

« Reply #74 on: January 09, 2011, 08:10 »
0
The reason is that SS buyers are hoarders and the company knows it. They think the only way to keep people paying subscriptions is to fling as much new content at the site as they can. Otherwise people would only stay for a few months and hoard enough to last them the year.
It's not like SS is going to follow up and slap their wrists if they are using stuff 6 months after their sub expires.
I doubt that this is true or the business model simply wouldn't work. Someone intent on 'hoarding' would join for the minimum time and then download the maximum of their allowance. SS would lose money on every sub sold in that situation.

For a business that uses a large amount of images (and wants fresh stuff too) an annual sub is a minor cost and fantastic value for the facility. Cuppacoffee gave a great explanation of the business in which she works where they basically use SS "as an external server". When they have a project they just search for images for it and will often download an image that they have downloaded before (and still have) because it's just much quicker to do so. It would be time consuming to hoard and then try & re-find a suitable image without the ability to search via keywords which you wouldn't have on an HD.

« Reply #75 on: January 09, 2011, 08:21 »
0
I agree they have to do something. But I think instead of just increasing the standards way too much now, they should start in the other end - remove the old stuff that is not selling! If they let the old pictures with lower quality stay on their site, and not take in some of the new pictures with much higher standards -the all around quality on Shutter is not going to increase.

I agree with this. This is microstock...standards are up to trad agency quality, but commissions have remained micro.

« Reply #76 on: January 09, 2011, 08:49 »
0
Unsustainable business practices


You're right.  On a related note, I've stopped buying merchandise on Amazon because I realized they have too much stuff.  You can buy anything you could possibly want on Amazon!  Why would anyone shop there? 

Oh wait, I take that back, I actually buy just about everything on Amazon, BECAUSE they have so much stuff (and the prices can't be beat, but that's another topic.) 

The key here isn't how much stuff a site offers, it's "can the buyer find it."  So far, I'd say the proof is that Shutterstock buyers CAN easily find what they are looking for?  All you doomsayers who think that every additional image accepted by Shutterstock is another nail in its coffin, do you have proof that suggests their business is suffering because of it?  Are you a buyer?  Just because you do a search hoping to see your own images and they don't come up, it doesn't mean that the buyer is having a bad experience.  I DO buy images for my day job and I can tell you that I enjoy Shutterstock's search much more than iStock's, so from my perspective, the site offers a good experience and I have never thought "There's simply too much here, I won't come back!"  As long as SS continues to provide an Amazon-like experience, offering a wealth of options for every conceivable need but delivering what the buyer wants most near the top of the search results, it will continue to prosper.  And if you're uploading marketable images that buyers actually want, you will prosper along with SS.


« Reply #77 on: January 09, 2011, 09:04 »
0
The key here isn't how much stuff a site offers, it's "can the buyer find it."  So far, I'd say the proof is that Shutterstock buyers CAN easily find what they are looking for?  All you doomsayers who think that every additional image accepted by Shutterstock is another nail in its coffin, do you have proof that suggests their business is suffering because of it?  Are you a buyer?  Just because you do a search hoping to see your own images and they don't come up, it doesn't mean that the buyer is having a bad experience.  I DO buy images for my day job and I can tell you that I enjoy Shutterstock's search much more than iStock's, so from my perspective, the site offers a good experience and I have never thought "There's simply too much here, I won't come back!"  As long as SS continues to provide an Amazon-like experience, offering a wealth of options for every conceivable need but delivering what the buyer wants most near the top of the search results, it will continue to prosper.  And if you're uploading marketable images that buyers actually want, you will prosper along with SS.

Agree 100%. The speed and accuracy of the search engine is the key to SS's success IMHO. It may be much simpler than IS's absurdly over-complicated CV system but it works much better and you can actually search on the words you want to (rather than what IS's CV thinks you should). If I were a buyer then SS would be my agency of choice.

« Reply #78 on: January 09, 2011, 09:29 »
0
*snip*
All you doomsayers who think that every additional image accepted by Shutterstock is another nail in its coffin, do you have proof that suggests their business is suffering because of it?  Are you a buyer?  Just because you do a search hoping to see your own images and they don't come up, it doesn't mean that the buyer is having a bad experience.  I DO buy images for my day job and I can tell you that I enjoy Shutterstock's search much more than iStock's, so from my perspective, the site offers a good experience and I have never thought "There's simply too much here, I won't come back!"  As long as SS continues to provide an Amazon-like experience, offering a wealth of options for every conceivable need but delivering what the buyer wants most near the top of the search results, it will continue to prosper.  And if you're uploading marketable images that buyers actually want, you will prosper along with SS.
I've heard from more than one stockbuyer in person (one of them working on the publicity department of a pretty big company here that easily spends over $1000/month on stock) that they ditched SS because they didnt have the time to wade through all the junk out there (so yes, im convinced it hurts their business). Their database is just totally clogged...
I agree they're in dire need of a big spring cleaning, as someone said on the SS forums: its not about deleting niche-pics that dont sell so often but have their value, its about the gazillion staplers, strawberries, etc. isolated on gray(ish).

« Reply #79 on: January 09, 2011, 09:48 »
0
I've heard from more than one stockbuyer in person (one of them working on the publicity department of a pretty big company here that easily spends over $1000/month on stock) that they ditched SS because they didnt have the time to wade through all the junk out there (so yes, im convinced it hurts their business). Their database is just totally clogged...
Someone from SS headquarters phoned me a couple of days ago so I had a chat about a few things. SS and BigStock have separate staff but they are both housed in the same New York office. Apparently they now have 'about 150 people' working there but exact numbers were difficult because they seemed to have new people being employed 'almost every day'. When I joined SS it was just Jon and a girl called Andrea if I remember correctly.

You don't grow a business like that unless you are doing far more right than you are doing wrong. Quite clearly they must have hundreds of thousands of happy customers providing repeat business to support an operation of that size.

« Reply #80 on: January 09, 2011, 10:19 »
0
Of course they have many thousands and thousands of happy customers, (its always a miracle to me how buyers can find my pics in the millions of others, there really must be sh*tloads of customers); never claimed they dont have, i also agree all in all they seem to run their business pretty darn well. Still, there's always room for improvement and for SS the database would be a good start.
« Last Edit: January 09, 2011, 10:21 by Artemis »

molka

    This user is banned.
« Reply #81 on: January 09, 2011, 11:56 »
0
... remove the old stuff that is not selling! ...

How would that help contributors? It might help the company a bit, with some really minro cut in strage expanses, but that's not a big deal anyway. Actually going around weeding out stuff might just cost more then leting them lay around.

« Reply #82 on: January 09, 2011, 13:22 »
0
getting rid of content isn't that critical - but making search work is.  The problem with SS is that the keywords are a mess and since they split multi-word keywords a lot of what appears to be spam really isn't. (and there is an immense amount of spam too). Also the way search works on SS is roughly sales over time - so say a good selling business image will show up high in niche search if it has those keywords. (as opposed to some of the keyword relevance search engines). I think they tried to address some of this by using the description in the search too.

I'm guessing that any automatic weeding program would have to be very cleverly written to not cause more trouble than it was worth, and it probably would not be cost effective to actually pay people to choose which images to delete.

« Reply #83 on: July 20, 2011, 09:55 »
0
Amazing what can happen in 18 months or so. We are now down to just 59K 'new stock photos added this week' __ that's nearly half what it was before. Fewer contributors finding it worth their time against all the competition?

« Reply #84 on: July 20, 2011, 09:57 »
0
Amazing what can happen in 18 months or so. We are now down to just 59K 'new stock photos added this week' __ that's nearly half what it was before. Fewer contributors finding it worth their time against all the competition?

maybe more rejections but sure some have given up

rubyroo

« Reply #85 on: July 20, 2011, 10:25 »
0
Well at least it explains why review times have speeded up.  :)

RacePhoto

« Reply #86 on: September 27, 2011, 02:17 »
0
Amazing what can happen in 18 months or so. We are now down to just 59K 'new stock photos added this week' __ that's nearly half what it was before. Fewer contributors finding it worth their time against all the competition?

I wish I had started saving these a few years ago:

SHUTTERSTOCK STATS:
   16,333,183 royalty-free stock photos / 73,424 new stock photos added this week / 320,570 photographers


Somewhere years ago I remember one person would do a weekly update. Anyway, 73,000 this week.

Good accurate keywords make sales. Incorrect or irrelevant words, just detract. But smart buyers know how to use the search, it's to their benefit and saves them time.


« Reply #87 on: September 27, 2011, 04:05 »
0
^^^ Well the number of 'new images this week' may have largely stabilised but it is getting incredibly difficult for new images to make an impact. I guess the upside is that existing images, which have already earned a decent sort-order placement, are more likely to enjoy longevity in their earnings. Not easy though.

« Reply #88 on: September 27, 2011, 06:07 »
0
Absolute insanity.  These guys are digging their own grave.  "Search Fatigue" will eventually send buyers elsewhere.

Don't forget that SS have two aces aces up his sleeve that are kept there for ''bad times''...

1. some sort of exclusivity program.
2. implementation of a credit based system.

those measures will enhance their popularity significantly if their are somehow threatened.

« Reply #89 on: September 27, 2011, 08:05 »
0
Don't forget that SS have two aces aces up his sleeve that are kept there for ''bad times''...

1. some sort of exclusivity program.
2. implementation of a credit based system.

I have no idea why they don't already have the "2.". They have Bigstockphoto and On Demands, but no "regular" credit download possibility

« Reply #90 on: September 27, 2011, 08:43 »
0
Don't forget that SS have two aces aces up his sleeve that are kept there for ''bad times''...

1. some sort of exclusivity program.
2. implementation of a credit based system.

I have no idea why they don't already have the "2.". They have Bigstockphoto and On Demands, but no "regular" credit download possibility

SS is the top agency, probably they are not so greedy like other agencies...... they must have an ''insurance policy'' for the future in case one of the top 4 threaten their 1st place.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
18 Replies
6854 Views
Last post June 04, 2009, 18:27
by luceluceluce
14 Replies
6422 Views
Last post January 31, 2010, 10:19
by yuliang11
4 Replies
4248 Views
Last post March 30, 2015, 05:52
by Shelma1
104 Replies
24439 Views
Last post February 15, 2016, 23:14
by PixelBytes
39 Replies
5714 Views
Last post September 15, 2022, 14:05
by stoker2014

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors